Agenda packet — Pacific Grove City Council, February 19, 2025 (part 1 of 2)

CITY COUNCIL

AMENDED REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
Wednesday, February 19, 2025, 6:00 P.M.

Council Chamber – City Hall – 300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA The Council will not begin consideration of any item on this agenda later than 10:00 p.m. unless such consideration is approved. Any items on this agenda not considered this evening will be continued to a future meeting.

Copies of the agenda packet are available for review at the Pacific Grove Library, in the Finance Department, and electronically at www.cityofpacificgrove.org/agendas. The most effective method of communication with the City Council is by sending an email to [email protected]. In order to allow the City Council adequate time to review communication related to an agenda item, it is recommended that the communication be sent no later than 9:00 AM on the day prior to the City Council meeting.

Under the Brown Act, public comment for matters on the agenda must relate to that agenda item and public comments for matters not on the agenda must relate to the subject matter jurisdiction of this legislative body. This is a warning that if a member of the public attending this meeting remotely or in-person violates the Brown Act by failing to comply with these requirements of the Brown Act, then the Mayor or Chair may request that speaker be muted. If a member of the public attending this meeting in-person engages in disruptive behavior that disturbs the orderly conduct of the meeting, they may be removed from the meeting after a warning, pursuant to Council Policy 000-17.

PACIFIC GROVE COUNCIL MEETINGS ARE CONDUCTED IN PERSON AT CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBER AND VIRTUALLY.

PLEASE NOTE THE MEETING WILL PROCEED AS NORMAL EVEN IF THERE ARE TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES ACCESSING ZOOM.

THE CITY WILL DO ITS BEST TO RESOLVE ANY TECHNICAL ISSUES AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE.

THE PUBLIC MAY ALSO VIEW THE MEETING ON PENINSULA CHANNEL 25.

JOIN THE ZOOM WEBINAR TO PARTICIPATE LIVE AT:
https://www.cityofpacificgrove.org/Zoom_CC
Please click here for directions to dial into the meeting audio.

AGENDA

CALL TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Councilmember Garfield
PGCC 2-19-25

Page 1 ends

1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA

2. PRESENTATIONS

3. COUNCIL AND STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS (City-Related Items Only) A. Other

4. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT
General Public Comment must deal with matters subject to the jurisdiction of the City and the Council that are not on the Regular Agenda. This is the appropriate place to comment as to items on the Consent Agenda, only if you do not wish to have the item pulled for individual consideration by the Council.

Comments from the public will be limited to three minutes and will not receive Council action. Comments regarding items on the Regular Agenda shall be heard prior to Council’s consideration of such items at the time such items are called. Whenever possible, written correspondence should be submitted to the Council in advance of the meeting, to provide adequate time for its consideration.

A. Written General Public Comment

CONSENT AGENDA
The Consent Agenda deals with routine and non-controversial matters, and may include action on resolutions, ordinances, or other public hearings for which testimony is not anticipated. The vote on the Consent Agenda shall apply to each item that has not been removed. Any member of Council, staff, or the public may remove an item from the Consent Agenda for individual consideration. When items are pulled for discussion, they will be automatically placed at the end of their respective section within the Regular Agenda. One motion shall be made to adopt all non-removed items on the Consent Agenda.

5. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
Items pulled from this section will be placed under 12. Unfinished and Ongoing Business A. Minutes of the February 5, 2025 Regular Meeting PG 8 Reference: Sandra Kandell, City Clerk
Recommended Action: Approve minutes.

CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

6. RESOLUTIONS
Items pulled from this section will be placed under 12. Unfinished and Ongoing Business or 13. New Business

7. ORDINANCES
PGCC 2-19-25

Page 2 ends

7. ORDINANCES
Items pulled from this section will be placed under 11. Public Hearings A. Second Reading of Ordinance Amending Municipal Code Section 15.16 “Sidewalks” to Allow for Issuance of Sidewalk Dining Permits PG 12
Reference: Matthew Mogensen, City Manager
Recommended Action: Hold second reading and adopted an Ordinance Amending Municipal Code Section 15.16 “Sidewalks” to Allow for Issuance of Sidewalk Dining Permits.

CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

8. REPORTS – INFORMATION ONLY
Items pulled from this section will be placed under 12. Unfinished and Ongoing Business or 13. New Business
A. Check Register for January 2025 PG 58
Reference: Nicholas Cina, Finance Management Analyst
Recommended Action:

1. Receive the Check Register.

2. Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item.

CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
B. Second Quarter FY 24/25 Capital Project Report & Update Reference: Jazelle Johnson, Accountant PG 67
Recommended Action:

1. Receive the report.

2. Alternatively, discuss and take action related to this item.

CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
C. Second Quarter Treasurer’s Quarterly Report PG 72
Reference: Jazelle Johnson, Accountant
Recommended Action:

1. Receive the report.

2. Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item.

CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
D. Housing Element Monthly Status Update PG 76
Reference: Joseph Sidor, Contract Planner
PGCC 2-19-25

Page 3 ends

Recommended Action: 1. Receive the report.

2. Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item.

CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
E. Community Human Services Highlights for January 2025 PG 78 Reference: Lori McDonnell, Councilmember
Recommended Action: Receive highlights.

CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

9. REPORTS – REQUIRING ACTION
Items pulled from this section will be placed under 12. Unfinished and Ongoing Business or 13. New Business
A. PGUSD & City of Pacific Grove ELOP MOU 2025 PG 82
Reference: Katie Clark, Recreation Manager
Recommended Action:

Approve the City of Pacific Grove to enter a Memorandum of Understanding with Pacific Grove Unified School District allowing Pacific Grove Recreation to operate the Expanded Learning Opportunities (ELOP) Summer Camp Program.

1. 2. Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item.

CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
B. Appointments to Museum Board PG 90
Reference: Nick Smith, Mayor
Recommended Action: Approve appointments to Museum Board listed below.

CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
C. Proposed Amended Schedule of City Council Meetings for 2025 and 2026 PG 101 Reference: Matthew Mogensen, City Manager
Recommended Action:

Motion to Adopt Proposed Amended Schedule of City Council Meetings for 2025 and 2026.

1. D.

2. In the alternative, approve a different regular City Council meeting schedule.

CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
Pacific Grove Cares Projects Newly added item. PG 107
Reference: Daniel Gho, Public Works Director/Deputy City Manager PGCC 2-19-25

Page 4 ends

Recommended Action: Authorize Pacific Grove Cares to commence work on two landscape project sites, Caledonia Park by the Tommy Stillwell sign, and Chase Park West, and authorize staff to assist Pacific Grove Cares with the two projects.

CEQA: Categorical Exemption, CEQA Guidelines Section 15304, Class 4, Minor Alterations to Land
E. Parking Permits for Volunteers for City Events Moved from regular agenda. PG 118 Reference: Joe Amelio, Mayor Pro Tempore
Recommended Action:

Approve the recommendation from the Traffic Safety Commission to issue parking permits to volunteers for city events.

1. Direct the City Attorney to return to Council with an ordinance to add PG Municipal Code Section 16.40.605 Parking permits for volunteers on city business.

2. 3. Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item.

CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

10. MEETING MINUTES OF COMMISSIONS, BOARDS, AND COMMITTEES Items pulled from this section will be placed under 13. New Business A. Recreation Board Minutes: November 25, 2024 PG 121
Reference: Ashley Gamble, Recreation Board Member
Recommended Action: Receive minutes.

CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

REGULAR AGENDA

11. PUBLIC HEARINGS
For public hearings involving a quasi-judicial determination by the Council, the proponent of an item may be given 10 minutes to speak and others in support of the proponent’s position may be given three minutes each. A designated spokesperson for opposition to the item may be given 10 minutes to speak and all others in opposition may be given three minutes each. Very brief rebuttal and surrebuttal may be allowed in the sole discretion of the Council. In public hearings not involving a quasi-judicial determination by the Council, all persons may be given three minutes to speak on the matter.

A. First reading of an ordinance to amend the City Salary Classification Schedule Reference: Leticia Livian, Human Resources Director PG 125 Recommended Action:

1. Request the City Attorney read the title of the ordinance.

2. Motion to waive further reading of the ordinance.

Introduce and hold first reading of an ordinance to amend the salary classification schedule to establish a salary range for new classifications of Urban Forester and Principal Civil Engineer, and approve the amendment.

3. PGCC 2-19-25

Page 5 ends

Direct that publication of the ordinance will be satisfied by publication of a summary approved by the City Attorney.

4. CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
B. Amending the Master Fee Resolution Regarding RZRR & Other Fees This item will be continued to the City Council's March 5, 2025 Regular Meeting.

12. UNFINISHED AND ONGOING BUSINESS
A. Presentation on Fire Preparedness in Pacific Grove
Reference: Andrew Miller, Fire Chief
Recommended Action: Receive report.

B. George Washington Park (GWP) Biological Assessment, Direction to Proceed with Developing an Updated GWP Management Plan & Direction to proceed with short-term Maintenance Activities in GWP Moved ahead of Pine Avenue & Fountain agenda item. PG 129 Reference: Daniel Gho, Public Works Director/Deputy City Manager Recommended Action: 1. Receive the George Washington Park (GWP) Biological Resources Report

2. Direct staff to return with an updated long-term GWP Management Plan

3. Direct staff to proceed with short-term fuel reduction tasks in GWP in accordance with the 1999 GWP Master Plan and 2024 Community Wildfire Protection Plan

4. Alternatively, discuss and take other action
CEQA: Categorical Exemption, CEQA Guidelines Section 15304, Class 4, Minor Alterations to Land
C. Pine Ave & Fountain Ave – Traffic Engineering Study & All-Way Stop at Fountain/Pine Moved behind George Washington Park agenda item.

Reference: Daniel Gho, Public Works Director/Deputy City Manager Recommended Action: 1. Approve engineered plans for installation of all-way stop control at Fountain and Pine

2. Receive the attached presentation prepared by Kimley Horn PG 265

3. Alternatively, discuss and take other action
CEQA: Categorical Exemption, CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, Class I, Existing Facilities

13. NEW BUSINESS
A. Goal Setting Process for the FY 25-26 and the FY 26-27 Budget Years PG 292 Reference: Robert Perrault, Consultant
Recommended Action: Review and Approve the Goal Setting Workplan Development Process as this report outlines.

PGCC 2-19-25

Page 6 ends

CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

14. FULL PRESENTATIONS

15. CLOSED SESSION

ADJOURNMENT
NOTICE OF ADA COMPLIANCE: Pursuant to Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (Codified At 42 United States Code Section 12101 and 28 Code of Federal Regulations Part 35), and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the City of Pacific Grove does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, sex, disability, age or sexual orientation in the provision of any services, programs, or activities. The City of Pacific Grove does not discriminate against persons with disabilities. City Hall is an accessible facility. A limited number of assisted listening devices will be available at this meeting. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting or provide the requested agenda format.

PGCC 2-19-25

Page 7 ends

Agenda No. 5 A

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Sandra Kandell, City Clerk/DEI Coordinator
MEETING DATE: February 19, 2025
SUBJECT: Minutes of the February 5, 2025 Regular Meeting CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

RECOMMENDATION
Approve minutes.

Attachments
Draft Minutes 2-5-25
PGCC 2-19-25

Page 8 ends

1 DRAFT MEETING MINUTES

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE

CITY COUNCIL

REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
Wednesday, February 5, 2025, 6:00 P.M.

Council Chamber – City Hall – 300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA JOIN THE ZOOM WEBINAR TO PARTICIPATE LIVE AT:
https://www.cityofpacificgrove.org/Zoom_CC

CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Smith called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Present in Chamber: Mayor Smith, Mayor Pro Tem Amelio, Councilmembers Garfield, McDonnell, Poduri, Rau, and Walkingstick.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Councilmember Rau led the pledge of allegiance.

1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Action: Upon motion by Mayor Pro Tem Amelio and seconded by Councilmember Poduri, Council voted 7-0, to approve the agenda.

2. PRESENTATIONS

3. COUNCIL AND STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS (City-Related Items Only) A. Council and staff made general announcements.

4. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT
General public comment received from Jane Haines, Mike Gibbs, Lisa Ciani, Inge Lorentzen Daumer, Nina Beety, and Colleen Goldsmith.

A. Written General Public Comment

CONSENT AGENDA
Action: Upon motion by Councilmember Poduri and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Amelio, Council voted 7-0, to approve the Consent Agenda (as modified).

5. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
A. Minutes of the January 15, 2025 Regular Meeting
Action: Approved minutes.

CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

6. RESOLUTIONS
A. Temporary Employment of Retired Annuitant
DRAFT PGCC 2-19-25

Page 9 ends

2 Action: Approved Resolution No. 25-002 appointing Jon Biggs as a Retired Annuitant to temporarily fill the Community Development Director vacancy.

CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

7. ORDINANCES

8. REPORTS – INFORMATION ONLY

9. REPORTS – REQUIRING ACTION
A. Task Force on Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Recommendation to City Council – Value Statements
Action:

1. Approved the Core Value Statements on Diversity and Equity.

2. Directed staff to include them on the Values, Vision, Mission, Focused Priority Areas web page.

CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
B. Designation of Council Liaison to Museum Board
Action: Endorsed designation of Councilmember Cynthia Garfield as liaison to Museum Board effective immediately.

CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

10. MEETING MINUTES OF COMMISSIONS, BOARDS, AND COMMITTEES A. Library Board Minutes: November 5, 2024.

Action: Received the minutes.

CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

REGULAR AGENDA

11. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Third Public Hearing to Establish District Boundaries to Transition from the City of Pacific Grove City Council At-Large Election System to a District-Based City Council Election System This item to commence at 6:15 p.m.

Public comment received from Don Murphy, Jane Haines, Mike Gibbs, Mirabee, Esther Malkin, Sharon Miller, Inge Lorentzen Daumer, and Lisa Ciani.

Action: Council held a Public Hearing to Receive Input from the Community Regarding the Establishment of District Boundaries to Transition from an At-Large City Council Election System to a District-Based City Council Election System in accordance with California Elections Code §10010.

CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
B. Proposed Ordinance Amending Municipal Code Section 15.16 “Sidewalks” to Allow for Issuance of Sidewalk Dining Permits
DRAFT PGCC 2-19-25

Page 10 ends

3 No public comment received.

Action: Upon motion by Councilmember Poduri and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Amelio, Council voted 7-0, to find that adoption of the Proposed Ordinance is not a “project” subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) or, assuming that adoption of the Proposed Ordinance is a project subject to CEQA, that the project is categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to the categorical exemptions found in CEQA Guidelines Sections 15301 (Class 1 re Existing Facilities), 15303 (Class 3 re New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures), 15304 (Class 4 re Minor Alterations to Land) and 15311 (Class 11 re Accessory Structures).

Action: The City Attorney to read the title of the Proposed Ordinance Amending Municipal Code Section 15.16 “Sidewalks” to Allow for Issuance of Sidewalk Dining Permits.

Action: Upon motion by Councilmember McDonnell and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Amelio, Council voted 7-0, to waive further reading of the ordinance, introduce and hold first reading of the Proposed Ordinance Amending Municipal Code Section 15.16 “Sidewalks” to Allow for Issuance of Sidewalk Dining Permits, direct a summary of a proposed Ordinance be published as approved by the City Attorney, and change the reference of Outdoor Dining Guidelines to Sidewalk Dining Guidelines.

CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

12. UNFINISHED AND ONGOING BUSINESS

13. NEW BUSINESS

14. FULL PRESENTATIONS

15. CLOSED SESSION

ADJOURNMENT
Council adjourned the regular meeting at 7:56 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted,
Sandra Kandell
City Clerk
Approved by Mayor: _______________________________Date________________ Attest by City Manager: ____________________________Date_________________ DRAFT PGCC 2-19-25

Page 11 ends

Agenda No. 7 A

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Matthew Mogensen, City Manager
MEETING DATE: February 19, 2025
SUBJECT: Second Reading of Ordinance Amending Municipal Code Section 15.16 “Sidewalks” to Allow for Issuance of Sidewalk Dining Permits CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

RECOMMENDATION
Hold second reading and adopted an Ordinance Amending Municipal Code Section 15.16 “Sidewalks” to Allow for Issuance of Sidewalk Dining Permits.

DISCUSSION
There were no changes between the first and second readings of this Ordinance. The City Clerk caused a summary of the ordinance to be published on September 13, 2024.

Outdoor Dining Guidelines
On June 19, 2024, the City Council directed the City Manager to retain a consultant to draft Outdoor Dining Guidelines (“Guidelines”) that will be used to regulate restaurant outdoor dining use of the sidewalk immediately in front of their business.

The Guidelines initially focused on the southwest corner of Lighthouse Avenue and Fountain Avenue where the City Council approved a sidewalk expansion project that will extend the sidewalk in front of three existing restaurants from approximately 16 feet wide to approximately 25 feet wide. This wider sidewalk configuration is referred to as a bulb out. This sidewalk expansion project was substantially completed on January 10, 2025.

The Guidelines are specific to the bulb out configuration that has been constructed at Lighthouse Avenue and Fountain Avenue. However, the Guidelines will also be used to inform staff in approving current outdoor dining requests by restaurants on existing sidewalks and to act as a template for a larger Outdoor Dining Guidelines that will be created to extend to all future bulb out corners on downtown Lighthouse Avenue.

The goal of the Guidelines will be to lay out standards, criteria and design parameters for businesses to utilize sidewalk areas for outside dining. The design guidelines for Outdoor Dining in bulb out conditions are intended to guide property and dining establishment owners to efficiently develop a plan specific to their own needs, and in keeping with the aesthetic character that the City of Pacific Grove would like to see in such facilities. In addition to the guidelines, all proposed outside dining amenities will be subject to all relevant City, County, State and Federal codes and guidelines.

City Council Action on November 20, 2024
On November 20, 2024, the City Council considered the Outdoor Dining Guidelines (“Guidelines”) as discussed PGCC 2-19-25

Page 12 ends

On November 20, 2024, the City Council considered the Outdoor Dining Guidelines (“Guidelines”) as discussed in the Agenda Report for that meeting (Attachment 1) and by Motion approved on a 7-0 vote the Guidelines, adding language that allows propane tanks to be used in accordance with fire and safety protocol, and allowing the City Manager discretion with respect to extension times when Outside Dining Areas are not in use pursuant to the required time.

The Guidelines, with the Council revisions on November 20, 2024 are Attachment 2 to this Agenda Report.

Prior to the City Council receiving a presentation of the Draft Outdoor Dining Guidelines at its meeting, staff presented them to the Business Improvement District Board, Economic Development Commission and Planning Commission. Input was provided to the City which was attached to the Agenda Report of November 20, 2024.

As noted in the November 20, 2024 Agenda Report, in order for a clear permitting path to be established within Title 15 for outdoor dining on the sidewalk, staff stated it would return to the City Council with a proposed draft Ordinance that will provide for an Outdoor Sidewalk Dining Permit that will utilize the proposed Outdoor Dining Guidelines to facilitate the permit.

Since the Guidelines are intended to apply to sidewalk dining and not to all outdoor dining, staff is recommending that the City Council approve a name change so instead of Outdoor Dining Guidelines that the Guidelines will be referred to a Sidewalk Dining Guidelines.

At the time of the second reading of the Proposed Ordinance, staff will return to the City Council with a proposed Resolution to adopt the Sidewalk Dining Guidelines consistent with Section 15.16.010 (e) of the Proposed Ordinance which provides: (e) “Sidewalk Dining Guidelines” means the Sidewalk Dining Guidelines approved by Resolution of the City Council.

The Sidewalk Dining Guidelines will be applicable to dining areas that are located on the sidewalk and not be used to approve Parklets, as defined in PCMC 15.01.010 (h).

Applications for Sidewalk Dining Permits will be required to be submitted by the Building Owner in conjunction with the restaurant owner. A site layout plan, details and descriptions of all elements, detailed drawings of proposed structures, electrical plans, and other plans and information deemed necessary by the Building Official will be required with the application. The sidewalk dining permits may be reviewed and renewed annually upon a successful inspection to ensure all standards and conditions of approval continue to be met.

Any building façade improvements or other proposals beyond the request to utilize the sidewalk for outside dining must be reviewed by the Community Development Department to determine whether additional permits may be required per the City’s Municipal Code.

CEQA
The first step in the CEQA review process is to assess whether the activity at issue is a project subject to CEQA.

If so, the second step is to assess whether the project qualifies for any exemptions. If the activity is either not a project subject to CEQA or exempt from CEQA, the CEQA review process ends and no further review is required. If an activity is a project subject to CEQA and no exemptions apply, the third step is to prepare an Initial Study to help assess the project’s potential environmental impacts and determine what level of environmental review documentation is required (e.g., Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration, or Environmental Impact Report).

Here, staff has conducted analyses under both the first and second steps and determined that the proposed PGCC 2-19-25

Page 13 ends

Ordinance to amend Chapter 15.16 Sidewalks is not a project subject to CEQA and that even if it was a CEQA project the project is exempt from CEQA as it falls under one or more categorical exemptions.

CEQA defines the term “project” as an activity carried out, supported by, or authorized by a public agency, “which may cause either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.” (Public Resources Code § 21065; CEQA Guidelines § 15378(a).) Adoption of the Proposed Ordinance is not a project because it does not require or authorize anyone to do anything and thus no direct or indirect physical changes in the environment will result from adoption of the adoption of the Proposed Ordinance. Indeed, as noted above, restaurant owners wishing to utilize the sidewalk in front of their business for outside dining must at a minimum apply for and obtain a Sidewalk Dining Permit .If and when an application for a Sidewalk Dining Permit is submitted, then and only then would City staff and decision makers apply the Ordinance and the Guidelines’ criteria and standards to ensure any project granted a permit and authorized to use the sidewalk right of way for outside dining is consistent with the aesthetic character of the City.

Alternatively, and assuming arguendo that the Proposed Ordinance does qualify as a project subject to CEQA, the project falls under one or more of the following categorical exemptions and as such no further CEQA review or impact analysis is required:

Class 1 Categorical Exemption for Existing Facilities (CEQA Guidelines § 15301): City staff believe most if not all applications to use the sidewalk right-of-way for outdoor dining will come from existing/established restaurants and would typically be limited to the construction and use of temporary structures like tables, chairs, benches, umbrellas, waiter stands, barriers, planters, trash receptacles, and other furniture normally associated with dining. The Guidelines make clear that any such structures must be temporary, meaning portable and movable or fixed in place and attached to the building or paving with post-installed bolts that are easily removable. As such, the Guidelines are exempt under this categorical exemption because they would be limited to the minor, temporary exterior alteration of existing sidewalks with structures/furniture to support outside dining that will result in no or negligible expansion of the use of those sidewalks as contemplated in the examples concerning exterior alterations and existing sidewalks in CEQA Guideline Section 15301(a) and (c).

Class 3 Categorical Exemption for New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures (CEQA Guidelines § 15303): Class 3 exempts projects that consist of the construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures. As noted above, the Guidelines would be used to regulate the construction and use of temporary structures like tables, chairs, benches, umbrellas, waiter stands, barriers, planters, trash receptacles, and other furniture normally associated with dining by restaurants who secure permits to allow sidewalk dining adjacent to their establishments. As such, the Guidelines are exempt under this categorical exemption because they are related to the regulation of the construction and use of limited numbers of new small temporary structures as contemplated in the example concerning accessory appurtenant structures including patios in CEQA Guidelines Section 15303(e).

Class 4 Categorical Exemption for Minor Alterations to Land (CEQA Guidelines § 15304): Class 4 exempts projects that consist of minor public or private alterations in the condition of land which do not involve removal of healthy, mature, scenic trees. As noted above, the Guidelines would be used to regulate the construction and use of temporary structures like tables, chairs, benches, umbrellas, waiter stands, barriers, planters, trash receptacles, and other furniture normally associated with dining by restaurants who secure permits to allow sidewalk dining adjacent to their establishments. Further, nothing in the Guidelines requires let alone authorizes the removal of healthy, mature, scenic trees and in fact the primary goal of the Guidelines is to ensure the development of quality outdoor seating areas, the appropriate use of the public realm for outdoor dining while preserving and enhancing the character and history of Pacific Grove and the Guidelines are replete with graphic examples of compliant sidewalk dining that include the preservation of existing or addition of new trees and other planters and landscaping. Accordingly, the Guidelines are exempt under this categorical exemption as contemplated in the example concerning minor temporary use of land having negligible or no permanent effects on the environment in CEQA Guidelines Section 15304(e).

Class 11 Categorical Exemption for Accessory Structures (CEQA Guidelines § 15311): Class 11 exempts PGCC 2-19-25

Page 14 ends

projects that consist of construction of minor structures accessory/appurtenant to existing commercial facilities. The Guidelines clearly fall under this categorical exemption as they would be used to regulate the construction and use of temporary structures like tables, chairs, benches, umbrellas, waiter stands, barriers, planters, trash receptacles, and other furniture normally associated with dining by restaurants who secure permits to allow sidewalk dining adjacent to their establishments. Indeed, the Guidelines entail activities as contemplated in the example concerning the placement of seasonal or temporary use items such as lifeguard towers, mobile food units, portable restrooms, or similar items in generally the same locations from time to time in publicly owned parks, stadiums, or other facilities designed for public use in CEQA Guidelines Section 15311(c).

OPTIONS
Direct staff to take alternative action.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

There is no financial impact resulting as a result of this action.

FOCUSED PRIORITY AREA: Not Applicable.

Attachments

1. Agenda Report for CC Meeting on November 20, 2024

2. Draft Sidewalk Dining Guidelines - CC Approved November 20, 2024

3. Proposed Ordinance
PGCC 2-19-25

Page 15 ends

Agenda No. 12 A

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Matthew Mogensen, City Manager
MEETING DATE: November 20, 2024
SUBJECT: Presentation of Draft Outdoor Dining Guidelines CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

RECOMMENDATION

1. Receive a presentation of the Draft Outdoor Dining Guidelines, consider comments from the public, Business Improvement District Board, Economic Development Commission, and Planning Commission, discuss and make final changes to the Draft Outdoor Dining Guidelines.

2. Motion finding that adoption of the Outdoor Dining Guidelines is not a “project” subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) or, assuming that the Guidelines are a project subject to CEQA, that the project is categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to the categorical exemptions found in CEQA Guidelines Sections 15301 (Class 1 re Existing Facilities), 15303 (Class 3 re New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures), 15304 (Class 4 re Minor Alterations to Land) and 15311 (Class 11 re Accessory Structures)

3. Motion to approve Outdoor Dining Guidelines

DISCUSSION
On June 19, 2024, the City Council directed the City Manager to retain a consultant to draft Outdoor Dining Guidelines that will be used to regulate restaurant outdoor dining use of the sidewalk immediately in front of their business. These Guidelines will initially focus on the southwest corner of Lighthouse Avenue and Fountain Avenue where the City Council has approved a sidewalk expansion project that will extend the sidewalk in front of three existing restaurants from approximately 16 feet wide to approximately 25 feet wide.

This wider sidewalk configuration is referred to as a bulb out. These Guidelines are specific to the bulb out configuration that is being constructed at Lighthouse Avenue and Fountain Avenue, but will also be used to inform staff in approving current outdoor dining requests by restaurants on existing sidewalks and to act as a template for a larger Outdoor Dining Guidelines that will be created to extend to all future bulb out corners on downtown Lighthouse Avenue.

Outdoor Dining Guidelines
The goal of the Guidelines will be to lay out standards, criteria and design parameters for businesses to utilize sidewalk areas for outside dining. The design guidelines for Outdoor Dining in bulb out conditions are intended to guide property and dining establishment owners to efficiently develop a plan specific to their own needs, and in keeping with the aesthetic character that the City of Pacific Grove would like to see in such facilities. In addition to the guidelines, all proposed outside dining amenities will be subject to all relevant City, County, State and Federal codes and guidelines. Restaurants wanting to expand seating/dining area into the sidewalk will at a minimum need to apply for and secure an encroachment permit and perhaps other permits or 1/20/25, 1:39 PM Print Agenda Report
https://destinyhosted.com/print_ag_memo.cfm?seq=5366&rev_num=0&mode=External&reloaded=true&id=72243 1/5 PGCC 2-19-25

Page 16 ends

entitlements depending on what is proposed. For example, a restaurant that wants to expand onto a sidewalk and construct new permanent awnings to the front of restaurant building that exceed those allowed currently in the Code, would require an encroachment permit and perhaps an Architectural Review Board approval and building permit.

The draft Outdoor Dining Guidelines for review and comment are included as Attachment No. 1. These guidelines provide the minimum standards for features installed in the approved outdoor dining area for a restaurant, and include:

Dining Layout
Outdoor Dining Elements
Overhead Structures
Umbrellas, awnings, shade structures
Windbreak panels
Perimeter fencing
Planters
Heating units
Lighting
Temporary decorations
Signage
In addition to the minimum standards for the installation of outdoor dining elements and features in approved outside dining areas, the guidelines also contain standards for operations and maintenance to ensure the public realm is used in a safe and aesthetically pleasing manner by the business owner at their expense. These operations and maintenance standards include:

Requirements that dining areas be used continuously or all elements, features and structures must be removed
Cleanliness requirements
Plant health
Replacement of discolored materials and/or rusted, cracked or chipped finishes Removal and/or replacement of broken or damaged materials Non-business hour storage of furniture, features and elements Preparation for unusual weather conditions
Temporary decoration display durations.

It is important to point out that the Outdoor Dining Guidelines are minimum standards for those businesses that wish to utilize approved outdoor dining areas in front of their business and wish to invest in features for their patrons’ dining experience. While minimum standards for dining layout and all City, County, State and Federal codes and guidelines will apply, a restaurant may use an approved outdoor dining area with only tables and chairs if they wish.

Comments and Recommendations from the Public and Boards and Commissions Prior to the City Council receiving a presentation of the Draft Outdoor Dining Guidelines, staff presented them to the Business Improvement District Board, Economic Development Commission and Planning Commission.

A full list of these comments and questions are included as Attachment No. 2. In addition, staff has received a letter from Steven Lilley with comments (see Attachment 3).

Permitting Procedures
Restaurants owners wishing to utilize the sidewalk in front of their business for outside dining must apply for and obtain a permit. Currently, Title 15 PGMC discusses the approval of an Encroachment Permit for "Parklet" applications. The Outdoor Dining Guidelines will be applicable to dining areas that are located on the sidewalk 1/20/25, 1:39 PM Print Agenda Report
https://destinyhosted.com/print_ag_memo.cfm?seq=5366&rev_num=0&mode=External&reloaded=true&id=72243 2/5 PGCC 2-19-25

Page 17 ends

and not be used to approve Parklets, as defined in PCMC 15.01.010 (h). In order for a clear permitting path to be established within Title 15 for outdoor dining on the sidewalk, staff will be returning as the soonest possible City Council Meeting with a proposed draft Ordinance that will provide for an Outdoor Sidewalk Dining Permit that will utilize the proposed Outdoor Dining Guidelines to facilitate the permit.

Applications for outdoor sidewalk dining will be required to be submitted by the Building Owner in conjunction with the restaurant owner. A site layout plan, details and descriptions of all elements, detailed drawings of proposed structures, electrical plans, and other plans and information deemed necessary by the Building Official will be required with the application. The outdoor sidewalk dining permits may be reviewed and renewed annually upon a successful inspection to ensure all standards and conditions of approval continue to be met.

CEQA
The first step in the CEQA review process is to assess whether the activity at issue is a project subject to CEQA. If so, the second step is to assess whether the project qualifies for any exemptions. If the activity is either not a project subject to CEQA or exempt from CEQA, the CEQA review process ends and no further review is required. If an activity is a project subject to CEQA and no exemptions apply, the third step is to prepare an Initial Study to help assess the project’s potential environmental impacts and determine what level of environmental review documentation is required (e.g., Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration, or Environmental Impact Report).

Here, staff has conducted analyses under both the first and second steps and determined that the activity in question – adoption of the Outside Dining Guidelines – is not a project subject to CEQA and that even if it was a CEQA project the project is exempt from CEQA as it falls under one or more categorical exemptions.

CEQA defines the term “project” as an activity carried out, supported by, or authorized by a public agency, “which may cause either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.” (Public Resources Code § 21065; CEQA Guidelines § 15378(a).) Adoption of the Outdoor Dining Guidelines is not a project because it does not require or authorize anyone to do anything and thus no direct or indirect physical changes in the environment will result from adoption of the Guidelines. Indeed, as noted above, restaurant owners wishing to utilize the sidewalk in front of their business for outside dining must at a minimum apply for and obtain an Encroachment Permit. If and when an application for an Encroachment Permit is submitted, then and only then would City staff and decisionmakers apply the Guidelines and the Guidelines’ criteria and standards to ensure any project granted a permit and authorized to use the sidewalk right of way for outside dining is consistent with the aesthetic character of the City. In sum, it is the Encroachment Permit that authorizes physical changes to the sidewalk right-of-way area, not the Outdoor Dining Guidelines, and as such adoption of the Guidelines is not a project that is subject to CEQA.

Alternatively, and assuming arguendo that the Outside Dining Guidelines do qualify as a project subject to CEQA, the project falls under one or more of the following categorical exemptions and as such no further CEQA review or impact analysis is required:

Class 1 Categorical Exemption for Existing Facilities (CEQA Guidelines § 15301): City staff believe most if not all applications to use the sidewalk right-of-way for outdoor dining will come from existing/established restaurants and would typically be limited to the construction and use of temporary structures like tables, chairs, benches, umbrellas, waiter stands, barriers, planters, trash receptacles, and other furniture normally associated with dining. The Guidelines make clear that any such structures must be temporary, meaning portable and movable or fixed in place and attached to the building or paving with post-installed bolts that are easily removable. As such, the Guidelines are exempt under this categorical 1/20/25, 1:39 PM Print Agenda Report
https://destinyhosted.com/print_ag_memo.cfm?seq=5366&rev_num=0&mode=External&reloaded=true&id=72243 3/5 PGCC 2-19-25

Page 18 ends

exemption because they would be limited to the minor, temporary exterior alteration of existing sidewalks with structures/furniture to support outside dining that will result in no or negligible expansion of the use of those sidewalks as contemplated in the examples concerning exterior alterations and existing sidewalks in CEQA Guideline Section 15301(a) and (c).

Class 11 Categorical Exemption for Accessory Structures (CEQA Guidelines § 15311): Class 11 exempts projects that consist of construction of minor structures accessory/appurtenant to existing commercial facilities. The Guidelines clearly fall under this categorical exemption as they would be used to regulate the construction and use of temporary structures like tables, chairs, benches, umbrellas, waiter stands, barriers, planters, trash receptacles, and other furniture normally associated with dining by restaurants who secure permits to allow sidewalk dining adjacent to their establishments. Indeed, the Guidelines entail activities as contemplated in the example concerning the placement of seasonal or temporary use items such as lifeguard towers, mobile food units, portable restrooms, or similar items in generally the same locations from time to time in publicly owned parks, stadiums, or other facilities designed for public use in CEQA Guidelines Section 15311(c).

OPTIONS
Discuss Draft Outdoor Dining Guidelines and direct staff to take alternative action.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

There is no financial impact resulting as a result of this action.

FOCUSED PRIORITY AREA:Not Applicable.

Attachments
Written public comment
PPT
Draft Outdoor Dining Guidelines
Comments and Questions from BCCs for City Council Consideration November 11, 2024 Comment Letter from Steven Lilly
1/20/25, 1:39 PM Print Agenda Report
https://destinyhosted.com/print_ag_memo.cfm?seq=5366&rev_num=0&mode=External&reloaded=true&id=72243 4/5 PGCC 2-19-25

Page 19 ends

Draft Outdoor Dining Guidelines Presentation
1/20/25, 1:39 PM Print Agenda Report
https://destinyhosted.com/print_ag_memo.cfm?seq=5366&rev_num=0&mode=External&reloaded=true&id=72243 5/5 PGCC 2-19-25

Page 20 ends

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE

SIDEWALK DINING GUIDELINES

FINAL DRAFT REPORT
December 2024
BFS Landscape Architects, Monterey CA
PGCC 2-19-25

Page 21 ends

INDEX
PURPOSE AND GOALS 1.1
DEFINITIONS 1.4
EXISTING CONDITIONS 1.6
PROPOSED CONDITIONS 1.7
LOCATION & ELIGIBILITY 2.1
A. Sidewalk Bulb Out ConstrucƟon 2.1
B. ConsideraƟons for Bulb-Out Design and ConstrucƟon 2.2 C. Wide Sidewalk CondiƟon 2.3
D. Eligibility for Dining Improvements 2.3
DESIGN GUIDELINES 2.4
A. General 2.4
B. Sidewalk Dining Layout 2.5
Limits 2.5
Horizontal Clearances 2.5
Accessibility 2.5
C. Sidewalk Dining Elements 2.6
Overhead Structures 2.6
Umbrellas 2.6
Awnings, Shade Structures, and Trellises 2.7
Windbreak Panels 2.8
Perimeter Fences 2.8
Planters 2.9
HeaƟng Units 2.9
LighƟng 2.11
OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE GUIDELINES 2.13
EXAMPLE DIAGRAMS 2.14
PGCC 2-19-25

Page 22 ends

PURPOSE & GOALS
A. Project DescripƟon
This document is an overview of the policies, procedures, and design guidelines associated with the creaƟon of sidewalk dining areas within the public right-of-way, specifically in the form of bulb outs for the Lighthouse Avenue Sidewalk Widening project (LASW) within the Lighthouse Business District in the City of Pacific Grove (PG). Refer to plan in Figure 1.1.

Overall goals and objecƟve for sidewalk dining guidelines are below.

Goals

1. To ensure the development of quality sidewalk seaƟng areas, the appropriate use of the public realm for sidewalk dining while preserving and enhancing the character and history of Pacific Grove.

2. Increase pedestrian safety.

ObjecƟves

1. AcƟvaƟng the streetscape by maintaining visibility to the sidewalk dining areas.

2. Provide a conƟnuous and unified design aestheƟc along the streetscape that is in character with Lighthouse Avenue.

3. Use materials that don’t obstruct but preserve the views to the architectural character of the building façade, entry, and storefront.

4. Require commercial grade furnishings and materials for the durability and safety of pedestrians.

5. Adhering to all local regulaƟons and code requirements.

6. Installing clear maintenance guidelines so sidewalk dining spaces remain clean, safe, and funcƟonal.

PGCC 2-19-25

Page 23 ends

PACIFI C GROVE OUTDOOR D ININ G GUIDELINES Page 1 .2 of 1.7 Figure 1.1: Site Plan - LASW project
The LASW project includes the removal of three exisƟng parklets: in front of Alioƫ’s Victorian Corner, Rudolfo’s Café, and Wild Fish, and redeveloping the intersecƟon with bulb out condiƟons on the southern side of Lighthouse Ave. The project was acƟvated as Alioƫ’s Victorian Corner parklet impeded the intersecƟon and the legislaƟon of the DaylighƟng Bill, State Assembly Bill (AB) 413. The DaylighƟng Bill is the “pracƟce of removing parking spaces near crosswalks and intersecƟons to improve public safety by increasing the visibility of pedestrians and bicyclists for drivers.” The exisƟng parklets are in violaƟon of this new state law.

Bulb outs were the chosen design soluƟon for this intersecƟon for the two-fold purpose of: 1) Giving the restaurant establishments sidewalk dining space that would be missing due to parklet removal; and 2) Increasing pedestrian safety. Bulb outs slow down traffic, provide increased visibility for pedestrians on sidewalks; decrease crossing distances for pedestrians; and provide more public space on corners which can turn into a variety of opportuniƟes for the community. Refer to Figures

1.2 to 1.7.

PGCC 2-19-25

Page 24 ends

PACIFI C GROVE OUTDOOR D ININ G GUIDELINES Page 1 .3 of 1.7

Figures 1.2 & 1.3: Bulb outs create shorter walking distances at intersecƟons.

Figures 1.4 & 1.5: Bulb outs create more public realm space at corners that can be uƟlized for a variety of purposes, i.e. transit stop, planƟng, seaƟng areas, street trees.

Figures 1.6 & 1.7: Bulb outs increase visibility for pedestrians and vehicles alike. *(Diagram by NaƟonal AssociaƟon of City TransportaƟon Official (NACTO) PGCC 2-19-25

Page 25 ends

PACIFI C GROVE OUTDOOR D ININ G GUIDELINES Page 1 .4 of 1.7 Applicants and designers in the City of Pacific Grove are strongly encouraged to read these guidelines in their enƟrety when they are thinking about proposing future sidewalk dining in bulb out areas. AcƟvaƟng exterior spaces within the public right of way falls under a separate approval and permiƫng process. Any applicant aƩempƟng to acƟvate these public areas should first contact the Community Development Department.

Understanding the design guidelines will help the applicant achieve a successful sidewalk dining proposal for bulb out areas. It may reduce the Ɵme it takes to receive a permit and will likely result in a superior design that is cohesive for the Lighthouse Business District and other areas of the City of Pacific Grove.

B. DefiniƟons
A. “Outdoor Dining”: Dining spaces located outdoors adjacent to the food establishment for the same eaƟng acƟviƟes that occur within the establishment, weather permiƫng. The outdoor area may be located on sidewalks, plazas, in parking spaces as temporary “parklets”, or other open areas.

B. “Sidewalk Dining”: Tables, chairs, benches, umbrellas, waiter stands, barriers, tray stands, planters, trash receptacles, and other furniture normally associated with dining placed temporarily outdoors in a way so as not obstruct the minimum unobstructed “Through Zone” of the sidewalk.

C. “Parklets”: Temporary, non-structural plaƞorm, constructed for the purpose of “Outdoor Dining”, within the traveled porƟon of right-of-way that replaces one or more parallel, perpendicular, or diagonal parking space(s). A plaƞorm may be built to bring the elevaƟon of the sidewalk out into the street. Once the plaƞorm is installed, furnishings for “Sidewalk Dining” may be placed on the plaƞorm.

D. “Bulb outs”: Also known as a curb extension, is a permanent traffic calming measure that extends the sidewalk into the parking lane to create more space for pedestrians and improve visibility. Bulb outs can be placed at corners or midblock and can also be used to create small public spaces, landscaped areas, or transit waiƟng zones.

E. “Shared Space” means underuƟlized areas of public streets or areas of the public right-of-way not specific to parking uses or defined as pedestrian or vehicular travel ways.

F. “Through Zone” refers to the unobstructed area of sidewalk where primary pedestrian circulaƟon occurs. The Through Zone shall always remain free and clear of physical obstrucƟons.

G. “Frontage Zone” refers to the sidewalk area between the Through Zone and the front of the adjacent property/building which may accommodate pedestrian oriented acƟviƟes or “Sidewalk Dining”.

H. “Furnishing Zone” refers to the area between the Through Zone and the Curb Zone where streetscape ameniƟes such as planter boxes, streetlights and tree wells are typically located.

I. “Curb Zone” refers to the area located between the Furnishing Zone and the vehicular or bicycle travel lane and defines the boundary between the pedestrian realm and the roadway.

The Curb Zone only exists in areas that contain parallel, perpendicular, or diagonal public parking along the curb line.

PGCC 2-19-25

Page 26 ends

PACIFI C GROVE OUTDOOR D ININ G GUIDELINES Page 1 .5 of 1.7 J. “Public Realm” refers to any publicly owned street, streetscape, pathway, right-of-way, park, publicly accessible open space, and any public and civic building and faciliƟes, freely accessible to everyone regardless of their economic or social condiƟons. Refer to Figure 1.8 for elements of a public realm.

Figure 1.8: Diagram of elements of a Public Realm.
(Diagram by NaƟonal AssociaƟon of City TransportaƟon Official (NACTO) PGCC 2-19-25

Page 27 ends

PACIFI C GROVE OUTDOOR D ININ G GUIDELINES Page 1 .6 of 1.7

EXISTING CONDITIONS
Pacific Grove is home to an iconic historic downtown on Lighthouse Avenue full of unique personality and vitality with a wide variety of restaurants, shops, and other services focused on serving the local community. Lighthouse Avenue includes historic architectural styles and a wide diversity of building forms. With the rapid rise of the Covid pandemic in 2020 and the resulƟng push for open air dining, restaurants constructed parklets in an ad hoc manner which reduced the visual impact and importance of the exisƟng historic buildings in this street. The parklets in focus, as part of the LASW project, ended up as heavy structures with dark wood fencing and thick roofs, creaƟng a visual barrier between the street, the public realm, and the buildings behind. Refer to Figure 1.9.

Viewing these parklets from across the street or driving on the street, people are obstructed from seeing building signage, entryways, and storefronts. This creates a visual disconnect between the person and space and detracts from the architectural character and charm of Lighthouse Avenue.

The speed limit along Lighthouse Avenue in the downtown secƟon is currently 15 MPH.

Figure 1.9: ExisƟng CondiƟons
PGCC 2-19-25

Page 28 ends

PACIFI C GROVE OUTDOOR D ININ G GUIDELINES Page 1 .7 of 1.7

PROPOSED CONDITIONS
The bulb out reconfiguraƟon, as part of the LASW project, provides a new curb alignment. It extends the sidewalk into the parking lane and removes five parking spaces. This extra space enables the development of new sidewalk dining areas at the face of the buildings for the three restaurants. The sidewalk will move around the area towards the street with a 7.5-foot distance between the sidewalk dining delineaƟon to the back of curb. With the intersecƟon narrowed, the crosswalk length is shortened and there is increased visibility of the pedestrian, creaƟng a safer crossing condiƟon.

The LASW project aims to provide visible sidewalk dining to acƟvate the street. Seeing sidewalk dining on the street creates a feeling of excitement and helps draw visitors to the area, thus benefiƟng all businesses along Lighthouse Avenue. Seeing people on the street also creates a feeling of safety. There are “eyes on the street” and acƟvity helps to slow traffic. Refer to Figures 1.10 and

1.11. Figure 1.10: SecƟon of Lighthouse Avenue demonstraƟng the new bulb out and sidewalk eaƟng area Figure 1.11: ElevaƟon of Fountain Avenue demonstraƟng the new bulb outs sidewalk seaƟng area.

Sidewalk dining will be treated as a weather-permiƫng opƟon for restaurants. There are some ameniƟes that can be provided to ease unfavorable weather condiƟons. The design guidelines in this document will help restaurant establishments understand what design opƟons are available to them for the creaƟon of an sidewalk dining space. The design of the elements is intended to be safe, sensiƟve to the historic character of Pacific Grove, and variable in material, funcƟon, and form to meet the needs of the establishment.

PGCC 2-19-25

Page 29 ends

PACIFI C GROVE OUTDOOR D ININ G GUIDELINES Page 2.1 of 2 .16

LOCATION AND ELIGIBILITY
A. Sidewalk Bulb-Out CondiƟon
These Sidewalk Dining guidelines were iniƟally created to serve restaurant owners located at The Lighthouse Avenue Sidewalk Widening Project (LASW), within the Lighthouse Business District in the City of Pacific Grove. The LASW is located at the western corner of Lighthouse Avenue and Fountain Avenue.

The LASW locaƟon will be the first implemented bulb out project, and project work is limited to one corner of the intersecƟon. Fig 2.1 shows other intersecƟons that are eligible for bulb out improvements along Lighthouse Avenue. There may be other locaƟons/intersecƟons in the city that are suitable, which will be determined at a future date. Applicants are requested to contact the City with suggesƟons and/or requests about other such locaƟons for consideraƟon as bulb-outs where Sidewalk Dining would be appropriate.

Figure 2.1: Pacific Grove Lighthouse Avenue Development Plan PGCC 2-19-25

Page 30 ends

PACIFI C GROVE OUTDOOR D ININ G GUIDELINES Page 2.2 of 2 .16 Figure 2.2: Graphic rendering of proposed layout condiƟons for the LASW project.

B. ConsideraƟons for Bulb-Out Design and ConstrucƟon
The LASW configuraƟon is specific to that corner of the intersecƟon. Other future bulb-out condiƟons may be of different configuraƟons than the LASW project based on their site-specific condiƟons, and the intenƟon of the City for each intersecƟon and future bulb-out. They will offer varying levels of opportunity for Sidewalk Dining. ConsideraƟons will include:
 Available space (curbside parking that can be taken up for bulb out)  Slope consideraƟons
 Public features
 ExisƟng signage
 Stormwater faciliƟes
 Traffic and parking consideraƟons
 Sidewalk treatments
 IntersecƟon treatments
 Crosswalk treatments
The final configuraƟon of other intersecƟons and corners will also be determined by:
 California Department of TransportaƟon Roadway Design Standards  City of Pacific Grove Standards
PGCC 2-19-25

Page 31 ends

PACIFI C GROVE OUTDOOR D ININ G GUIDELINES Page 2.3 of 2 .16  Federal and State Accessibility Codes
 Engineering design of the bulb-outs
C. Wide Sidewalk CondiƟon
 The design guidelines in this document are also broadly applicable to wide-sidewalk condiƟons, in locaƟons approved by the City.
 A wide-sidewalk is one which provides enough space for the restaurant owner to introduce Sidewalk Dining, while maintaining the Through-Zone as described elsewhere in this document.

CI. Eligibility for Sidewalk Dining Improvements
 The proposed locaƟon for Sidewalk Dining will be in an exisƟng bulb-out or widesidewalk condiƟon, or a future bulb-out condiƟon proposed by the City.  ApplicaƟons for an Encroachment Permit, as provided for in Title 15 PGMC (Pacific Grove Municipal Code), for sidewalk dining use must be approved by the Building Owner in conjuncƟon with the Restaurant owner.

PGCC 2-19-25

Page 32 ends

PACIFI C GROVE OUTDOOR D ININ G GUIDELINES Page 2.4 of 2 .16

DESIGN GUIDELINES
A. General
Please review the Goals and ObjecƟves for Sidewalk Dining before reviewing these design guidelines, and the secƟon on OperaƟons & Maintenance in conjuncƟon with these design guidelines.

The design guidelines for Sidewalk Dining in bulb out condiƟons are intended to guide property and dining establishment owners to efficiently develop a plan specific to their own needs, and in keeping with the aestheƟc character that the City of Pacific Grove would like to see in such faciliƟes. These guidelines are subject to all relevant City, County, State and Federal codes and guidelines.  None of the Sidewalk Dining elements noted below are a requirement for the encroachment permit. The restaurant owner may choose to have only tables and chairs as needed.
 All privately owned features and ameniƟes including furniture are to be all contained within the limits of the Sidewalk Dining area.
 All products and materials used are to be commercial grade/outdoor rated.  All Sidewalk Dining elements must be temporary in nature; permanent structures and/ or elements are not permiƩed. Temporary items include:
o Portable and movable
o Fixed in place and aƩached to the building or paving with post-installed bolts that are removable. FoundaƟons, fooƟngs or poured-in-place anchors of any kind are not permiƩed.
 All Sidewalk Dining elements must be free of product adverƟsements.  Any building façade improvements must be reviewed by the Community Development Department to determine whether addiƟonal permits may be required per the City’s Municipal Code. Elements and materials selected must have non-toxic finishes and present safe corners, edges, and surfaces without risk of entrapment.  Colors of Sidewalk Dining elements are required to complement the exisƟng or proposed building color are required. Community Development staff will review for color consistency when issuing the EnƟtlement Permit for the outside dining space.

Preferred materials are indicated for the various elements that make up an Sidewalk Dining area, except for tables and chairs / benches which are leŌ to the proprietor’s choice. Flexibility is given to the element design and material, so restaurant establishments can provide individuality to their Sidewalk Dining areas.
 The applicaƟon process of the encroachment permit will require the proposal to be reviewed by the Community Development Dept., which reserves the right to reject the scheme and/or request modificaƟons if seen as incompaƟble with the aestheƟcs of the building.

PGCC 2-19-25

Page 33 ends

PACIFI C GROVE OUTDOOR D ININ G GUIDELINES Page 2.5 of 2 .16 B. Sidewalk Dining Layout
Limits
 A 5-foot minimum Through Zone with no obstrucƟons on the sidewalk is required. The Public Works Director or Building Official may provide alternaƟve direcƟon on a case-by-case basis.  The Sidewalk Dining area for a property starts at the face of the building unƟl the edge of the Through Zone as measured perpendicular to the building face and ends at the property line on either side as measured parallel to the building face, unless otherwise specified by the Public Works Director.

Horizontal Clearances
 Entry point(s) into Sidewalk Dining areas of 4-foot minimum width are to be provided if elements to define the perimeter are installed. Wider entry points are preferred. Gates in any form are not permiƩed.
 All paths of movement inside the Sidewalk Dining area are to be 4-foot minimum clear width.  Any addiƟonal building entry points, not related to the restaurant entry, are to remain clean and visible for entry with a minimum width of 4-feet.
 Each side of seaƟng at a table is to be accessed by a path of the minimum width noted above. o A table located along the edge of an Sidewalk Dining area without a perimeter defining structure must ensure that when patrons are seated, all chairs including wheelchairs do not obstruct the Through Zone or overlap on an adjacent property. o A table located along the edge of an Sidewalk Dining area with a perimeter defining structure may have seats placed along the outside edge that are accessed through other seaƟng spaces. For example, the middle chair in a row of three chairs with the outer two at the corners of a table.
o If a perimeter structure(s) is provided, then adequate clearance is to be provided between the edge of the seaƟng and the edge structure for the seat to be moved back and the patrons to exit the table comfortably.

Accessibility
 Sidewalk Dining areas are to comply with the 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design, Department of JusƟce; Public AccommodaƟons and Commercial FaciliƟes  Sidewalk Dining areas are to comply with accessibility provisions of the latest ediƟon of the California Building Codes (CBC): Part 2 of California Code Of RegulaƟons, Title 24.  The California Building Code (CBC) requires that at least 5% of seaƟng spaces of any one type must be accessible. This applies to fixed or built-in seaƟng, and in Sidewalk Dining it is assumed that the restaurant staff will move chairs around to create wheelchair spaces as needed by guests.
 Paths of movement to these spaces from the entrance(s) of the Sidewalk Dining area need to be clear of obstrucƟons and abrupt changes in verƟcal elevaƟon. Floor cable covers / cable protectors for electrical wires are discussed elsewhere and must comply with this requirement.

PGCC 2-19-25

Page 34 ends

PACIFI C GROVE OUTDOOR D ININ G GUIDELINES Page 2.6 of 2 .16 C. Sidewalk Dining Elements
Overhead Structures
 Overhead structures such as umbrellas, awnings, shade structures, and trellises may be provided for shade.
 Overhead structures of a size that require roof trusses are not permiƩed. Overhead roof elements, including trellises and support elements, shall be minimal to obtain the maximum fabric covered structure area.
 Overhead structures, along with rigid side panels that fully enclose the Sidewalk Dining space are not permiƩed. Windbreak elements shall be used in conformance with the criteria provided below.
 Overhead structures must not obstruct the view of building signage or the building entry.

Structural frames and supports should be as slim as possible while keeping all safety consideraƟons in mind.
 Lights, speakers, and heaƟng elements integrated into the overhead structure are preferred.

Refer to the requirements for those added features addressed in this secƟon.  All electrical fiƫngs, conduits and cables will be UL rated. Electrical fiƫngs shall not compromise the safety of the overhead structures in any way. Conduits and cables shall be concealed and internal to any structure to the maximum extent feasible.  All materials shall be fire rated as required by the Fire Marshal and Building Official.

Umbrellas
General
 Center-post type: An umbrella with a single center post that is free-standing and movable. o The umbrella base is to be provided by the manufacturer and the umbrella design including the base counterweight is to be able to withstand wind gusts of up to 25 mph with the canopy open.
o Center-post type umbrellas do not require building permit review.  Offset-post type: An umbrella that is canƟlevered out from a steel post aƩached to a steel base that is bolted down to the paving with removable fasteners as recommended by the manufacturer or a licensed structural engineer. These systems are available in modules of two or more umbrellas.
o The umbrella design is to be able to withstand wind gusts of up to 25 mph with the canopy(s) open.
o The aƩachment method of the offset-post type umbrella base to the paving requires building permit review.
 A valance is the loose fabric that hangs down from the sides of the umbrella canopy frame.

Valances may be provided at the restaurant owner’s discreƟon.

PGCC 2-19-25

Page 35 ends

PACIFI C GROVE OUTDOOR D ININ G GUIDELINES Page 2.7 of 2 .16 Sizes and Clearances
 The umbrella should be large enough to cover the table and all the guests in their chairs when pulled up to the table for dining.
 Umbrella canopies or supporƟng structures shall not project outside the Sidewalk Dining area.  Height - clearance of 84-inches minimum is required from the lowest edge, 96-inches is preferred. Excludes valances.
 12-inch minimum distance between umbrellas with the canopies open.

Materials
 The canopy of any umbrella must be made of fabric and be of a folding type  Fabric on umbrellas is to be taut when opened. No loose fabric is permiƩed except for valances.

Awnings, Shade Structures, and Trellises
General
 The City Sign Code permits fixed awnings aƩached to buildings that project between 36-inches to 72-inches from the façade of a building, at a minimum clear height of 84-inches above paving.
o Awnings may be prefabricated or custom-designed.
o Awnings are to have non-rigid, fabric coverings on retractable frames if they project more than 72-inches from the façade of the building. These are subject to staff and board approval.
o AƩachment details are to be designed by a licensed structural engineer and require building permit review.
 Shade structures and trellises may be aƩached to the paving but are required to be removable. o Shade structures that stand separately from the building on rigid frames may be prefabricated or custom-designed and are to have non-rigid, fabric coverings with roll-up or folding mechanisms.
o Shade structures and trellises including their coverings must be located 60-inches away from the building or awning.
o Shade structures including aƩachment details are to be designed by a CA licensed structural engineer and require building permit review. o Trellis elements spacing shall be a minimum of 24-inches. ConstrucƟon and aƩachment details require building permit review.
 A valance is the loose fabric that hangs down from the sides of the awning / shade structure frame. Valances may be provided at the restaurant owner’s discreƟon.

Sizes and Clearances
 Shade structures or trellises including their coverings shall not project outside the Sidewalk Dining area.
 A minimum clearance of 84-inches above the paving is required to the lowest edge of the shade structure or trellis, 96-inches is preferred. Excludes valances.

PGCC 2-19-25

Page 36 ends

PACIFI C GROVE OUTDOOR D ININ G GUIDELINES Page 2.8 of 2 .16 Materials
 Fabric on awnings and shade structures is to be taut when opened. No loose fabric is permiƩed except for valances.
o Fabric on awnings must be rated as specified by the Fire Marshal.

Windbreak Panels
General
 VerƟcal panels to block the wind may be provided to define the sides of the Sidewalk Dining area and may be combined with fences and/or planters.
 Windbreak panels may be prefabricated or custom designed.  Windbreak panels shall be of a freestanding rigid type. Flexible roll-down type panels from an overhead frame are not permiƩed.
o Freestanding panels shall be movable or bolted down on to the paving. o Movable panels shall have bases that provide stability for windspeeds of 25 mph. o Fixed panels are required to be aƩached to the paving with removable fasteners, as recommended by the manufacturer or fabricator. Concrete fooƟngs are not permiƩed.

The aƩachment method of the base to the paving will require building permit review.

Sizes and Clearances
 Windbreak panels including their bases whether movable or fixed, shall not project outside the Sidewalk Dining area.
 The maximum height of a freestanding panel including its frame is 60-inches off the paving.

Materials
 Panel materials must be transparent above the height of a dining table which is approximately 30-inches off the floor, to allow views into and out of the Sidewalk Dining area.  For the lower porƟon of the panel the use of smooth / textured metal, wood, or wood composite is suggested. The use of corrugated metal, chain-link, chicken-wire is not permiƩed.  The upper porƟon of the panel shall be constructed of tempered glass or UV-resistant acrylic.  Panels and/or their frames shall have no sharp corners / edges for safety.

Perimeter Fences
General
 Perimeter fences may be provided to define the Sidewalk Dining area and may be combined with windbreak panels and/or planters.
 Fences may be prefabricated or custom designed.
 Fences are required to be aƩached to the paving with removable fasteners, as recommended by the manufacturer or fabricator. Concrete fooƟngs are not permiƩed. The aƩachment method of the base to the paving will require building permit review.

Sizes and Clearances
 Fences including their bases shall not project outside the Sidewalk Dining area.

PGCC 2-19-25

Page 37 ends

PACIFI C GROVE OUTDOOR D ININ G GUIDELINES Page 2.9 of 2 .16  The minimum height of a fence is 30-inches, and the maximum height is 36-inches.  Picket fences are to have picket spacing that prevents entrapment.

Materials
 Fences may have panels, pickets, or a combinaƟon of the two.  For fences with panels, the use of smooth / textured metal, wood, or wood composite is suggested. The use of corrugated metal, chain-link, chicken-wire is not permiƩed.  Posts and pickets are to have rounded or smooth tops with no sharp corners for safety. Panels and/or their frames shall have no sharp corners / edges for safety.

Planters
General
 Planters may be provided to define the Sidewalk Dining area and may be combined with windbreak panels and/or fences.
 Pots and planters may be used to define or accent spaces inside the dining area if they do not reduce the specified minimum clear path widths inside the Sidewalk Dining area.  Pots and planters shall be movable. They are not permiƩed to be fixed to the paving.  Flower boxes and window boxes are permiƩed subject to the same guidelines for pots and planters.

Sizes and Clearances
 Pots and planters including their drain trays and the plants themselves shall not project outside the Sidewalk Dining area.
 Drain trays larger than the size of the pot/planter must not reduce the specified minimum clear path widths inside the Sidewalk Dining area.
 The maximum height of the planter should be the height of a dining table which is approximately 30-inches off the floor. The top of the plants should generally not exceed 60- inches off the floor.

Materials
 Planters shall be constructed of wood, metal, lightweight concrete (GFRC) or fiberglass.  Plants selected should not have thorns, rigid and/or sharp branches protruding into the specified minimum clear path widths inside the Sidewalk Dining area or have any part that is known to be toxic if ingested.
 ArƟficial / syntheƟc plants will not be permiƩed.
 Pots and planters are to be provided with drain/watering trays so that the pavement remains clean of water draining out the boƩom.

HeaƟng Units
General
 Heaters may be provided inside the Sidewalk Dining area for visitor comfort.  The provision of heaters is subject to Building Permit and Fire Marshall approval.

PGCC 2-19-25

Page 38 ends

PACIFI C GROVE OUTDOOR D ININ G GUIDELINES Page 2.1 0 of 2.16  Heaters may be aƩached to the building or structures, or freestanding and movable, or a combinaƟon of the two. Tabletop heaters are not permiƩed.  Heaters that are aƩached to the building under an awning, or to the structure of an overhead canopy are preferred as they are the least visually obtrusive. o Overhead heaters must be electrically powered, and UL listed. o Overhead heaters will require installaƟon by a licensed electrical contractor and will require building permit review.
 Heaters that are freestanding must not block visibility to the front entrance of the restaurant from the sidewalk.
o One freestanding heater for every 4 tables is suggested. o Freestanding heaters with wheels are suggested.
o Electrically powered freestanding heaters are recommended; wiring to these heaters if located away from the building must uƟlize floor cable covers / cable protectors to prevent a tripping hazard. Cable covers / protectors must be firmly aƩached to the paving and be removable.
o Propane powered freestanding heaters shall be of the Quartz or Glass Tube type, in a pyramid shaped or verƟcal cylinder-shaped enclosure that hides the propane gas cylinder at the boƩom and has a upper mesh that prevents anyone from touching the clear verƟcal tube with the flame inside it. Mushroom-style paƟo heaters which radiate heat downwards from an overhead reflector are not permiƩed for safety reasons.
o Wood burning units, fireplaces, chimeneas, and fire torches are not permiƩed.

Sizes and Clearances
 Heaters including their base and reflectors shall not project outside the Sidewalk Dining area.  Overhead heaters must be installed a minimum of 84-inches above the paving.  Heaters must have a minimum of 24-inches of clearance or the manufacturers’ recommendaƟon, whichever is greater, to any overhead surface.  Floor standing heaters must have a minimum of 24-inches of clearance or the manufacturers’ recommendaƟon, whichever is greater, to any adjacent surface.  Floor standing heaters must not reduce the specified minimum clear path widths inside the Sidewalk Dining area, as measured at the base of the unit.

Materials
 The same make / model of heater for fixed types and for movable types is required for aestheƟc consistency.
 Stainless steel is preferred for durability, specifically for surfaces that get hot. Other surfaces should be powder coated metal.

PGCC 2-19-25

Page 39 ends

PACIFI C GROVE OUTDOOR D ININ G GUIDELINES Page 2.1 1 of 2.16 LighƟng
General
 LighƟng may be added to the Sidewalk dining area; the intent should be to supplement any building lighƟng - inside lighƟng shining through windows, or lighƟng that is exterior and fixed to the building.
 LighƟng in the form of string lights hung securely across the dining area or integrated into overhead canopies or umbrellas or rigid wooden frames is suggested. DirecƟonal spot/track lights may be permiƩed if they are directed downwards and do not shine outside the Sidewalk Dining area or at the structures themselves
o Hanging sconces and fixtures that detract from the building frontage and complete with the overall lighƟng of the streetscape are not permiƩed.  Wiring to lights if located away from the building may uƟlize permiƩed overhead structures or be installed across the floor with floor cable covers / cable protectors to prevent a tripping hazard. Cable covers / protectors must be firmly aƩached to the paving and be removable.  String lights placed around the main tree trunk and the first set of main branches of a street tree adjacent to the Sidewalk Dining area may be approved by the City. o Wiring to string lights cannot cross the sidewalk, even with cable protectors. o All outdoor lighƟng and wiring must comply with the California Electrical Code and are subject to building permit approval.

Sizes and Clearances
 Overhead lights and their wiring must be a minimum of 84-inches above the paving, 96-inches is preferred.

Materials
 LighƟng fixtures must be UL-listed and designed for wet locaƟons.  Warm white (2700k-3000K) is the recommended color temperature for light fixtures as providing the best ambience for dining. Neutral white (3500K-4100K) may be proposed if integral to the proposed aestheƟc scheme. Cool white (5000K-6000K) is not permiƩed as this provides a cold, unwelcoming light. Fluorescent or neon fixtures are not permiƩed.

Temporary DecoraƟons
General
 Event, holiday, and/or seasonal decoraƟons may be installed on an as-needed basis. They are required to be firmly aƩached so as not to fly away or topple over at any wind speed. o Holiday decoraƟons are related to a single day public holiday, for example St. Patrick’s Day, Easter, Independence Day, etc.
o Seasonal decoraƟons are related to a mulƟ-day public celebraƟon, for example Thanksgiving, and Christmas.
 Review the secƟon on OperaƟons & Maintenance for guidelines as to when to put up and take down temporary decoraƟons.

PGCC 2-19-25

Page 40 ends

PACIFI C GROVE OUTDOOR D ININ G GUIDELINES Page 2.1 2 of 2.16 Signage
General
 Signs may be installed and movable menu stands located to adverƟse the restaurant, it’s menu, and special events.
 Signs must comply with Title 20 of the City of Pacific Grove Municipal Code.  A limit of one sign and one movable menu stand per Sidewalk Dining area is required.  Signs and movable menu stands including their bases must be placed inside the Sidewalk Dining areas.

PGCC 2-19-25

Page 41 ends

PACIFI C GROVE OUTDOOR D ININ G GUIDELINES Page 2.1 3 of 2.16

OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE GUIDELINES
A. General
Please review the Goals and ObjecƟves for Sidewalk Dining before reviewing these operaƟons and maintenance (O&M) guidelines, and the secƟon on Design Guidelines in conjuncƟon with these O&M guidelines.
 Outside Dining area structures that are unfurnished with tables and chairs and not used for more that 60-days shall be required to be removed at the expense of the business or property owner unless otherwise approved to remain by the City.
 Failure to maintain an Outside Dining to the standards providing in this secƟon, may result in the loss of encroachment permit and use of the Outside Dining area.  ViolaƟons of this Outside Dining manual standards and guidelines are a violaƟon of the encroachment permit and subject to code enforcement.
 All maintenance of the Sidewalk Dining areas, including repairs and replacement of privately owned items, to be provided at the expense of the restaurant establishment.  Retractable, removable, and/or foldable overhead structures provided for shade and side structures provided for wind abatement are to be retracted, removed, and/or folded when not in use and during non-business hours of the business  Cooking is prohibited in the Sidewalk Dining area.

Smoking
 Smoking is not permiƩed in any public area in the City of Pacific Grove. Refer to Chapter 11.24 of the Municipal Code for further details.

Alcohol
 With a valid Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) license, Alcohol is only allowed inside the restaurant and inside Sidewalk Dining area.
 Signage at the entrance(s) to the Sidewalk Dining area to say NO ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES BEYOND THIS POINT. White text on black background. Minimum 7-inch x 5-inch horizontal or verƟcal; prefabricated sign plates are available and acceptable.  Applicants shall comply with all applicable ABC regulaƟons regarding alcohol use for their establishment within the Sidewalk Dining Area. The issuance of an Encroachment Permit for Sidewalk dining use does not consƟtute any ABC or Zoning approvals for alcohol use by the City.

Applicants are separately responsible for securing a valid ABC license to allow/extend business operaƟons within the Sidewalk Dining area. (12.21.22 PG DraŌ) Cleanliness
 Sidewalk dining areas are to be always maintained free of liƩer and debris.  The paving is to be always kept clean. Food and beverage stains are to be removed immediately.
o Pressure washing of pavement is not permiƩed unless the wash water is captured. NoƟfy the City if there is a requirement to pressure wash if normal cleaning methods are not sufficient.

PGCC 2-19-25

Page 42 ends

PACIFI C GROVE OUTDOOR D ININ G GUIDELINES Page 2.1 4 of 2.16  All materials and items used by the restaurant establishment for Sidewalk Dining are to be kept, clean, dusted, polished as needed.
 Any plants incorporated into the Sidewalk Dining area are to be watered and deadheaded as needed. Dead plants to be removed and replaced.

Repairs and Maintenance
 DiscoloraƟon of materials due to reasons other than natural weathering must be repaired or replaced.
 Rust, cracks, chipped finishes that compromise the overall finish must be repaired or the item replaced.
 Broken or damaged materials or items to be repaired or replaced.

Non-Dining Hours
 Movable elements of the Sidewalk Dining area shall be leŌ in place. Stacking or grouping with locks of movable elements is not allowed to preserve the aestheƟc quality of the streetscape. Items may be placed inside the restaurant during non-business hours as provided in the secƟon.  Electrical heaƟng units shall be moved indoors.
 All movable elements may be required to be removed from the Sidewalk Dining area for extended periods of non-use defined as two weeks or more, subject to discussions with the City. (2014 PG DraŌ Standards)
 The city reserves the right to request removal of all movable elements during special events, etc.

Unusual Weather
 During windy and stormy events, movable elements should be stored inside the premises or securely next to the building.
 Most umbrella manufacturers require the owner to fold down the fabric at wind speeds of 25 mph or more to maintain the product warranty.
 The restaurant owner is responsible for damages to public and other private property due to a failure to properly secure movable elements to safe locaƟon(s) prior to predicted period(s) of high winds.

Temporary DecoraƟons
 Event, holiday, and seasonal decoraƟons are defined earlier in this secƟon.  Event decoraƟons shall be installed the night before the event or the day of the event and must be removed the same day aŌer compleƟon of the event, or the next morning.  Holiday decoraƟons shall be installed during the week of the holiday and must be removed the day aŌer the holiday. Christmas decoraƟons shall be installed in conjuncƟon with the City’s decoraƟons and must be removed the week aŌer New Years.  Seasonal decoraƟons must be removed within one week of the end of the season.

PGCC 2-19-25

Page 43 ends

PACIFI C GROVE OUTDOOR D ININ G GUIDELINES Page 2.1 5 of 2.16

EXAMPLE DIAGRAMS
Figure 2.3: Through Zone & Horizontal Clearances – Typical Plan Figure 2.4: Sidewalk Dining - Example SecƟon
PGCC 2-19-25

Page 44 ends

PACIFI C GROVE OUTDOOR D ININ G GUIDELINES Page 2.1 6 of 2.16 Figure 2.5: Sidewalk Dining - Example SecƟon
Figure 2.6: Sidewalk Dining – Example SecƟon
PGCC 2-19-25

Page 45 ends

Page 1 of 12 ends

ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE AMENDING PACIFIC GROVE MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 15.16 “SIDEWALKS”

TO ALLOW FOR ISSUANCE OF SIDEWALK DINING PERMITS
FACTS

1. On November 20, 2024, the City Council considered a draft Outdoor Dining Guidelines (“Guidelines”) and by Motion approved on a 7-0 vote the Guidelines, adding language that allows propane tanks to be used in accordance with fire and safety protocol, and allowing the City Manager discretion with respect to extension times when Outside Dining Areas are not in use pursuant to the required time.

2. Chapter 15.16 of the City Municipal Code “Sidewalks” does not currently have provisions allowing for the issuance of a Sidewalk Dining Permit.

3. The proposed Ordinance would amend Chapter 15.16 of the City Municipal Code “Sidewalks” to allow for the issuance of a Sidewalk Dining Permit.

4. Businesses which receive a Sidewalk Dining Permit will be required to comply with the conditions of the Permit and also comply with the Sidewalk Dining Guidelines (formerly known as Outdoor Dining Guidelines).

5. The City has determined that it is appropriate to adopt this Ordinance amending Chapter

15.16 ] to protect the health, safety and security of the public, and will ensure that all dining establishments operate fairly and safely.

6. Notice of the public hearing was published or posted [where] on insert date.

7. This Ordinance is in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) f or the following reasons:

Not a Project: Enactment of this ordinance action does not constitute a “project” as defined by California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment.

Even if the adoption of this Ordinance was a CEQA project, the Ordinance is exempt from CEQA as it falls under one or more of the following categorical exemptions:. (1) Class 1 Categorical Exemption for Existing Facilities (CEQA Guidelines § 15301):
(2) Class 3 Categorical Exemption for New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures (CEQA Guidelines § 15303):
(3) Class 4 Categorical Exemption for Minor Alterations to Land (CEQA Guidelines § 15304):

PGCC 2-19-25

Page 46 ends

Page 2 of 12 ends

(4) Class 11 Categorical Exemption for Accessory Structures (CEQA Guidelines § 15311):

NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. The foregoing Facts are adopted as findings of the City Council as though set forth in fully within the body of this ordinance.

SECTION 2. Existing Municipal Code Chapter 15.16 “Sidewalks” is amended and shall read as shown in Exhibit A attached hereto and is hereby incorporated by reference as though set forth in full here. The added text to Chapter 15.16 is shown in underlining in Exhibit A.

SECTION 3. The City Manager is directed to execute all documents and to perform all other necessary City acts to implement this Ordinance.

SECTION 4. Severability. If any provision, section, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance, or any part thereof, or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance, or any part thereof, or its application to other persons or circumstances. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed and adopted each provision, section, paragraph, subparagraph, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, paragraphs, subparagraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases, or the application thereof to any person or circumstance, be declared invalid or unconstitutional.

Section 5. In accord with Article 15 of the City Charter, this ordinance shall become effective on the thirtieth (30th) day following its passage and adoption.

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE this ______ day of ______________, ______, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

APPROVED:
_______________________________
NICK SMITH, Mayor
PGCC 2-19-25

Page 47 ends

Page 3 of 12 ends

ATTEST:

DATED:_______________________
_______________________________
SANDRA KANDELL, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________________
BRIAN A. PIERIK, City Attorney
PGCC 2-19-25

Page 48 ends

Page 4 of 12 ends

EXHIBIT A
Chapter 15.16

SIDEWALKS
Sections:

15.16.010 Definitions.

15.16.020 Sidewalk width, curb lines established.

15.16.030 Repair procedure.

15.16.040 Sidewalk encroachment.

15.16.045 Repealed.

15.16.050 Repealed.

15.16.060 Curbs – Address numbers.

15.16.070 Sidewalk Dining Permit Required for Placement of Sidewalk Dining Furniture

15.16.080 Sidewalk seating and sidewalk dining

15.16.090 Liability and Insurance

15.16.100 Fees

15.16.110 Duration of Encroachment Permits and Sidewalk Dining Permits

15.16.120 Display of Permit

15.16.130 Changes in Permit

15.16.140 Safety Provisions

15.16.150 Appeal of decision on Permit

15.16.160 Findings on Appeal

15.16.170 Suspension or revocation of Permit

15.16.180 Hearing on suspension or revocation of Permit

15.16.190 Administrative Review

15.16.200 Authority of Encroachment Officer

15.16.210 Penalties for Violation

15.16.220 Remedies Cumulative

15.16.010 Definitions.

Except as otherwise provided, the following words shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section:
(a) “Curb line” means the established line to which the edge of curb nearest the center of the street shall be constructed.
(b) “Encroachment” means any of the following:
(1) Any unmovable object that impedes the free flow of pedestrian traffic, and includes but is not limited to such things as walls, fences, hedges, trees, shrubbery or ground cover.

PGCC 2-19-25

Page 49 ends

Page 5 of 12 ends

(2) Gravel, rocks, bark, wood chips or other loosely placed material susceptible to scattering beyond the area of initial placement.
(3) Sidewalk Dining furniture as defined in the Sidewalk Dining Guidelines as approved by the City Council Resolution.
(c) “Encroachment Officer” shall be the person or persons designated by the director of public works to issue permits as provided herein and to enforce the provisions of this Chapter who shall have the same enforcement authority as the enforcement officer referenced in City Municipal Code Section 1.19.020
(d) “Gutters” means the portion of roadway adjacent to the curbs. (e) “Sidewalk Dining Guidelines” means the Sidewalk Dining Guidelines approved by Resolution of the City Council.
(e) Retaining wall” means any structure placed for the purpose of retaining earth. (f) “Roadway” means the portion of street between the curb lines. (g) “Sidewalk” means the graded or paved portion of the sidewalk space, and also includes curbing, retaining walls or other works for the protection of the sidewalk space. (h) “Sidewalk Dining Furniture” means as defined in the Sidewalk Dining Guidelines. (i) “Sidewalk Dining Permit” means the permit issued by the Encroachment Officer pursuant to this Chapter to allow for place of Sidewalk Dining Furniture on the Sidewalk. (h) “Sidewalk space” means the portion of street between the property line and the nearest curb line. [Ord. 23-004 § 2 (Exh. A), 2023; Ord. 1827 N.S. § 1, 1992; Ord. 1697 N.S. § 1, 1989; Ord. 525 N.S., 1965; Ord. 210 N.S. § 5-201, 1952].

15.16.020 Sidewalk width, curb lines established.

The establishment of curb lines and the width of sidewalk space on all public streets shall be fixed by the city through the council. Installation and maintenance of sidewalks shall be in accordance with Council Policy 700-4, “Sidewalk Development.” [Ord. 23-004 § 2 (Exh. A), 2023; Ord. 18-007 § 2, 2018; Ord. 210 N.S. § 5-202, 1952].

15.16.030 Repair procedure.

Owners of property abutting sidewalks, or possessors of sidewalks, shall have the duty of maintaining the same and shall be subject to all of the liabilities and procedures prescribed by Chapter 22, Division 7, Part 3, commencing at Section 5600, of the Streets and Highways Code of the state of California. The Streets and Highways Code, Chapter 22, Maintenance of Sidewalks, provides that the owners of lots or portions of lots fronting any portion of the public street are responsible for maintaining sidewalks in a condition which will not interfere with the public convenience in their use. The city shall have all of the rights therein provided, including the right to lien and collection. No person except city employees, or persons under contract with the city, shall install or repair any curb, gutter, corner ramp, or sidewalk within or along any street in the city without having applied for and received an encroachment permit from the city.

PGCC 2-19-25

Page 50 ends

Page 6 of 12 ends

Utility encroachments shall also be subject to Chapter 15.30 PGMC. Application for any such permit will be made in writing on a form or forms supplied for that purpose by the city. [Ord. 23-004 § 2 (Exh. A), 2023; Ord. 19-002 § 3, 2019; Ord. 18-007 § 2, 2018; Ord. 877 N.S. § 1, 1975; Ord. 285 N.S., 1956; Ord. 210 N.S. § 5-203, 1952].

15.16.040 Sidewalk encroachment.

It is unlawful to construct, plant, or maintain any encroachment in a sidewalk space, except for citysponsored amenities and activities, public utilities, mailboxes, bus shelters and benches and except for Sidewalk Dining Furniture as defined in the Sidewalk Dining Guidelines as approved by the City Council Resolution which shall be allowed subject to the issuance of an encroachment permit as provided in this Chapter. The Sidewalk Dining Guidelines are hereby incorporated by reference as if set forth in full here.

15.16.045 Sidewalk seating and sidewalk dining.

Repealed by Ord. 23-004. [Ord. 17-008 § 3, 2017; Ord. 16-004 § 3, 2016; Ord. 13-003 § 7, 2013].

15.16.050 Retaining wall construction.

Repealed by Ord. 23-004. [Ord. 525 N.S. § 3, 1965].

15.16.060 Curbs – Address numbers.

An owner of property may affix the property’s address number to an abutting curb. [Ord. 23-004 § 2 (Exh. A), 2023; Ord. 96-17 § 1, 1996].

15.16.070 Permit Required for Sidewalk Dining Furniture (a) Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, it is unlawful for any person to encroach or to make or to cause to be made any encroachment by placing Sidewalk Dining Furniture on a sidewalk without first having obtained Sidewalk Dining Permit from the director of public works or the building official or their designee.
(b) Sidewalk Dining Permits shall be issued by the Encroachment Officer upon such conditions the Encroachment Officer deems necessary to protect the public interest, health, safety or welfare. (c) All obligations, responsibilities and other requirements of the permittee as described in this chapter shall be binding on subsequent owners of the encroachment. (d) Any encroachment, including encroachments based upon placement of Sidewalk Dining Furniture on a sidewalk for which a permit is required and for which no permit has been issued pursuant to this chapter shall be deemed a public nuisance under Chapter 1.16 PGMC. [Ord. 23-004 § 2 (Exh. A), 2023].
(e ) A violation of any conditions in an encroachment permit shall be deemed a public nuisance under Chapter 1.16 Pacific Grove Municipal Code
PGCC 2-19-25

Page 51 ends

Page 7 of 12 ends

15.16.080 Sidewalk seating and sidewalk dining
The Encroachment Officer shall have the authority to allow, deny, or condition placement of Sidewalk Dining Furniture subject to the compliance by the eating establishment with the Sidewalk Dining Guidelines and following restrictions and conditions:
(a) Eating establishments, and all others, are prohibited from making any modification to the public sidewalk. Minor patching of holes and cracks, and the elimination of trip and fall hazards, are to be referred to the public works department for modification. (b) Use of sound amplification on the exterior of an eating establishment is prohibited unless a permit therefor has been issued by the City
(c) Sidewalk dining and associated furniture as listed in subsection (a) of this section is prohibited on any public sidewalk that is less than seven feet wide unless the storefront is set back from the back of sidewalk. Further, sidewalk dining and associated furniture shall not occupy more than 45 percent of the gross total width of any public sidewalk.
(d) The eating establishment placing the furniture shall provide proof of public liability insurance, naming the city as an additional insured, in the amount and form as required by Section 15.16.090 (Liability and Insurance) or as otherwise approved by the city attorney. (e) Businesses placing Sidewalk Dining Furniture shall be responsible for keeping the furniture and immediately surrounding area clean and presentable at all times, and to this end shall promptly clean and remove all litter, spillage, and other materials. (f) Approved Sidewalk Dining Permits allowing placement of Sidewalk Dining Furniture may be revoked by the Encroachment Officer at any time for violation of any of this provisions of the City Municipal Code, the Sidewalk Dining Guidelines and/or any conditions contained in the Sidewalk Dining Permit.
(g) Sidewalk Dining Permit are interruptible and terminable licenses for use granted by the city. No property interest shall be conveyed to the eating establishment or to any other person. The city shall have the right and power, acting through the Enforcement Officer , to revoke, prohibit, or limit operation and use of a Sidewalk Dining Permit at any time by reason of anticipated, threatened, or actual problems or conflicts in the use for the sidewalk area. Such circumstances may arise from, but are not limited to, changing patterns of sidewalk use, scheduled festivals or similar events, parades or marches, repairs to the street or sidewalk, or for any other reason. (h) Sidewalk Dining Furniture, equipment, and other amenities must be removed from the public sidewalk dining area for extended periods of eating establishment closure (two weeks or more). The city may require removal of the Sidewalk Dining Furniture during special events or for other reasons as determined appropriate by the Enforcement Officer. The city shall have the right to unilaterally remove unapproved Sidewalk Dining Furniture and/or equipment from the sidewalk dining space, and costs of removal shall be borne by the eating establishment. (i) Sidewalk Dining furniture shall be constructed in the manner designated in the Sidewalk Dining Guidelines unless an alternative material is approved in advance by the Enforcement Officer. (j) Each eating establishment may use umbrellas provided each shall maintain the seven-foot minimum sidewalk clearance for the entire height of the umbrella. The base weight of the umbrella PGCC 2-19-25

Page 52 ends

Page 8 of 12 ends

shall be of appropriate size and design to avoid tipping over in the wind. Freestanding gas heaters shall not be utilized where umbrellas are present, for fire safety. Umbrellas shall not bear commercial logos.
(k) Each Sidewalk Dining Permit shall require payment of two fees: (1) the general encroachment permit fee (a one-time fee for placing Sidewalk Dining Furniture on the public sidewalk); and (2) an annual Sidewalk Dining fee associated with continued use of the public sidewalk. The city council shall set both fees by resolution in its master fee schedule. (l) Applications for each Sidewalk Dining Permit for Sidewalk Dining must include:
(1) Description. A brief written description to include the name and address of the eating establishment, a description of the proposed sidewalk dining space, the number of tables and seats, whether the eating establishments intends to serve alcohol, and whether water credits or water allocations are needed for the proposed permit.
(2) Site Plan. A plan, drawn to scale, showing the proposed sidewalk dining space including all tables, seats, associated furniture, and barrier lines; the plan shall show all sidewalk clearance dimensions and elevations. Specifications shall be provided for any sidewalk heaters.
(3) Photos or Drawings. Color photos, renderings, and/or graphics shall show the setup, type of furniture, and materials to be used for all surfaces, including barrier lines or umbrellas. (4) A certificate of insurance for the applicant in a form satisfactory to the city confirming the insurance requirements of Section 15.16.090 have been satisfied; (5) All other complete and descriptive information, including plans, specifications and analyses the city engineer may require describing the work and its effect on the right-of-way, including the mode of operation, maintenance and use;
(6) The written order or consent to work thereunder, where required by law, issued by any other public agency or body having jurisdiction.
(7) The application for a Sidewalk Dining Permit shall refer to, and incorporate by reference, all of the provisions of this chapter.
(8) A Sidewalk Dining Permit shall not be issued unless and until the order or consent required pursuant to this section is first obtained and filed with the Enforcement Officer . The permittee shall be knowledgeable and comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws, regulations and orders which may in any manner affect the permit. The permittee shall insure that its agents, employees and contractors are at all times in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations and orders.
(m) The Encroachment Officer is authorized to place or modify conditions in the Sidewalk Dining Permit to promote public health and/or safety, or to address unique site factors that apply to a specific location.
(n) Sidewalk Dining Permit issued under this Chapter do not afford an exclusive right for use by the eating establishment or its patrons. The general public may make reasonable temporary use of the area and furniture at that location provided this public use does not interfere with the sidewalk dining use.

PGCC 2-19-25

Page 53 ends

Page 9 of 12 ends

(o) The eating establishment must comply with all of the provisions of this Chapter and the Sidewalk Dining Guidelines. In the event of conflict between any of the provisions of this Chapter and the Sidewalk Dining Guidelines, the provisions of this Chapter shall control.

15.16.090 Liability and Insurance
(a) The permittee shall be responsible for all liability imposed by law for personal injury or property damage proximately caused by: (1) work done by permittee under the permit, including work beyond the scope of the permit; (2) failure on permittee’s part to perform obligations under the permit in respect to maintenance; or (3) the existence of any permitted encroachment. If any claim of such liability is made against the city, its officers or employees, permittee shall defend, indemnify and hold them, and each of them, harmless from such claim and liability insofar as permitted by law. (b) Before a permit is issued, the applicant shall secure, at its expense, a policy of broad form commercial general liability insurance, on an “occurrence” basis issued by an insurer acceptable to the city. The policy shall by endorsement name the city and its officers, employees and agents as additional insureds and shall protect them from claims for personal injury, death or property damage suffered by third persons and arising out of the work performed pursuant to the permit or the manner of installation or construction. The insurance coverage afforded by this policy shall be primary. The policy shall include a cancellation clause requiring the issuing company or its authorized agent to provide a 30-day written notice of cancellation, suspension or modification, to the named certificate holder.
(c) The amount of liability insurance coverage shall be a minimum of $1,000,000 per occurrence and $2,000,000 aggregate or $1,000,000 aggregate if the policy separately applies to the permitted project.
(d) Workers’ compensation shall be maintained to meet minimum state requirements. (e) The city manager may increase, decrease or waive the insurance limits set forth above in those cases in which he/she determines that special circumstances justify such an increase, decrease or waiver.

15.16.100 Fees
(a) All fees required to be paid under the provisions of this chapter shall be established by resolution of the city council and may be subject to adjustment based on the nature, scope and duration of the proposed encroachment.
(b) In addition to any fees required under this chapter, permittee shall be responsible for payment of any other fees that may be required under this code.
(c) Unless waived in writing by the city council, fees will be required of any public agency which is authorized by law to establish or maintain any works or facilities in, under or over any public street or right-of-way.

15.16..110 Duration of Encroachment Permits and Sidewalk Dining Permits The issuance of an encroachment permit or a Sidewalk Dining Permit for a continuing encroachment shall, at the discretion of the Encroachment Officer be contingent upon the execution between the city and the permit applicant of an agreement providing for the use, PGCC 2-19-25

Page 54 ends

Page 10 of 12 ends

operation, and maintenance of the encroachment. The agreement shall contain specific conditions for the use, operation and maintenance of the encroachment and/or Sidewalk Dining, insurance, and appropriate indemnification clauses to the benefit of the city. Any encroachment permit or Sidewalk Dining Permit issued in conjunction with an agreement shall be valid only so long as the permittee is in compliance with the terms and conditions of that agreement.

15.16..120 Display of Permit
(a) A copy of any permit issued pursuant to this chapter shall be kept at the site and shall be shown to any authorized representative of the city on demand. (b) An agreement or permit issued for continued use or maintenance of an encroachment or Sidewalk Dining involving the place of business of the permittee must be kept at the place of business, or otherwise safeguarded during the term of validity, and shall be made available to an authorized representative of the city within a reasonable time after demand therefor is made.

15.16..130 Changes in Permit
No changes may be made in the location, dimension, character or duration of the encroachment or Sidewalk Dining its mode of operation, maintenance, or use as granted by the permit except upon written authorization of the director of public works. All construction and use of materials must adhere to approved plans and specifications. The permittee shall coordinate all construction activities with the director of public works.

15.16..140 Safety Provisions:

Permittee shall at all times obey and enforce all applicable safety orders, rules and recommendations of the State Division of Industrial Safety and shall comply with all applicable state and local laws, ordinances, codes and regulations.

15.16..150 Appeal of decision on Permit
Any person aggrieved by the denial of a permit required by this chapter may appeal to the public works director or designee, by submitting a written appeal within 15 days of the date the application was denied or approved. The public works director or designee shall thereafter give written notice to the applicant and the appellee of a hearing to be held within 30 days of receipt of the appeal. The decision by the public works director or designee on the appeal shall be final.

15.16..160 Findings on appeal
The public works director or designee, or architectural review board where applicable, shall grant or deny the appeal if all of the following findings are made:
(a) Appeal by the Applicant from a denial of an Encroachment Permits or Sidewalk Dining Permits, that:
(1) the applicant has complied with all requirements of this Chapter; (2) That no other reasonable method of obtaining the desired results is available except as proposed by applicant;
PGCC 2-19-25

Page 55 ends

Page 11 of 12 ends

(3) That the granting of the permit will not be materially detrimental to the public interest, safety, health and welfare or injurious to other property; (4) That the granting of the permit will not adversely affect the safety, capacity, or integrity of the city’s right-of-way;
(5) That an additional maintenance cost to the city is not created by the encroachment; (6) That the granting of the permit will not be materially detrimental to the rights, interests or revenues of the city.
(7) That the environmental effects of granting the permit are not significant; (b) Appeal by an aggrieved person or business of the approval of an Encroachment Permit or Sidewalk Dining Permit that:
(1) The applicant has not complied with all requirements of this Chapter; (2) That there is other reasonable method of obtaining the desired results is available except as proposed by applicant;
(3) That the denial of the permit will not be materially detrimental to the public interest, safety, health and welfare or injurious to other property; (4) That the granting of the permit will adversely affect the safety, capacity, or integrity of the city’s right-of-way;
(5) That an additional maintenance cost to the city will be created by the encroachment or Sidewalk Dining;
(6) That the denial of the permit will not be materially detrimental to the rights, interests or revenues of the city.
(7) That the environmental effects of denial of the permit are not significant;

15.16.170 Suspension or revocation of permit
Any permit issued pursuant to this chapter may be suspended or revoked by the Encroachment Officer if any of the following are found to exist:
(a) The permittee has violated any provision of the City Municipal Code or the Sidewalk Dining Guidelines or any permit conditions or of any agreement entered into with the city related to the permit; or
(b) The permittee has failed to pay any required fees, or to post or maintain any bond or insurance required by this chapter; or
(c) The encroachment or Sidewalk Dining for which the permit was granted adversely affects the safety, capacity or integrity of the city’s right-of-way; or PGCC 2-19-25

Page 56 ends

Page 12 of 12 ends

(d) The encroachment or Sidewalk Dining is causing the city to incur substantial additional maintenance costs; or
(e) Material misrepresentations were made in the application for the permit. [Ord. 23-004 § 2 (Exh.

A), 2023].

15.16.180 Hearing on suspension or revocation of permit The director of public works shall give the permittee at least 10 days’ written notice of a hearing before the director of public works on the suspension or revocation of a permit issued pursuant to this chapter, setting forth the grounds for such action. The hearing shall be held within 30 days after service of written notice of the hearing. The decision of the director of public works shall be final.

15.16.190 Administrative review
In addition to any other remedies provided herein, violation of any provision of the City Municipal Code or the Sidewalk Dining Guidelines or any permit conditions shall be subject to an administrative fine or penalty as provided under Chapter 1.19 PGMC

15.16.200 Authority of encroachment officer
The Encroachment Officer and any inspectors acting on his/her behalf shall have authority to enforce any of the provisions set forth herein. In addition, for purposes of the administrative review of ordinance violations as provided in Chapter 1.16 PGMC, the Encroachment Officer and any inspectors acting on his/her behalf shall be included within the definition of “enforcement officer” in City Municipal Code Section 1.19.020 for purposes of issuing an administrative notice and order. 1516.210 Penalties for violation
Any person violating any provision of this chapter, the City Municipal Code, the Sidewalk Dining Guidelines or any permit issued pursuant to this chapter, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction shall be punishable as set forth in Chapter 1.16 PGMC

15.16.220 Remedies cumulative
The remedies provided for in this chapter shall be cumulative and not exclusive and shall be in addition to any and all other remedies available to the city.

PGCC 2-19-25

Page 57 ends

Agenda No. 8 A

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Nicholas Cina, Finance Management Analyst
MEETING DATE: February 19, 2025
SUBJECT: Check Register for January 2025.

CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

RECOMMENDATION

1. Receive the Check Register.

2. Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item.

DISCUSSION
The check register is a detailed account of monthly expenditures. It provides budgetary insight and promotes transparency. The check register is produced from the City’s financial system. The report groups the checks by the respective city fund and vendor. The check register includes the check issue date, the name of the vendor, and a description of the purchase and the amount of the check. Attached is the check register report for January 2025. The monthly total is provided on the last page of the report.

OPTIONS
N/A - This is informational only.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact. This is informational only.

FOCUSED PRIORITY AREA: Not Applicable.

Attachments
Check Register Detailed
Check Register by Fund
PGCC 2-19-25

Page 58 ends

Check Register Report - Detailed View - January 2025
Fund Check Date Name Description Amount
01 - General Fund 01/03/25 4Leaf Building Dept Servi $ 83,030.14 Aaron Campbell A Campbell Ceqa Trn 816.55
Accent Clean & Swee Street Sweeping 18,810.00
Alhambra & Sierra S Fd Bottled Water Sv 124.79
Altius Medical Pd Sharps Pick Up 102.00
Amazon Capital Serv Rec Prgrm Supplies 2,543.25
American Lock & Key City Hall Door Repa 135.00
Arianne Rettinger Rfnd Cancel Class 12.50
At&T Rec Phone 0960 63.14
Bfs Landscape Archi Outdoor Dining Desi 5,050.00
Bound Tree Medical, Fd Medical Supplies 405.27
Burke, Williams & S City Attorney Servi 59,685.60
Caltronics Business Konica Copies Fy 24 758.75
Cape Romain Solutio Watchguard Endpont 10,500.00
Catacutan Consultin Interim Admin Servi 2,880.00
Chicago Title Compa Reimb Recording Fee 180.20
Comcast Pw Internet 4117 436.54
Commercial Service Pt Pinos Repair Fri 630.00
Chomp Pd Hosp Svc 4022686 54.00
Creative Product So Pd Dare Supplies 975.97
Creekside Center Fo Fy25 Monarch Habita 1,000.00
Csc Of Salinas Pw Repairs Unit 26 46.62
Daniel Velasquez Rfnd Cancel Class 10.00
Coast Counties Glas Ch Door Repair 996.00
On Base Leadership Deis / Hoffman Trai 4,400.00
Elizabeth Nicknam Rfnd Req Camp 163.00
Federal Express Cor Pd Shipping 12.90
Ferguson Enterprise Ch Plumbing 546.18
Golden State Truck Repairs For Fire En 38,478.46
Grand Avenue Floori Jewell Hse Bathroom 2,780.00
Hana Gardens Seasid Street Mulch Suppli 238.71
Hinderliter, De Lla Sales Tax, Biz Lic 1,228.80
Home Depot Credit S Finance Late Fees 48.48
Jennifer Lama Rfnd Request Jazz 20.00
Jennifer Marler Rfnd Cancel Class 50.00
Jenny Jacox Rfnd Cancel Class 25.00
Jody Garry Rfnd Cancel Class 12.50
John Pope Reimb Cpr Training 88.00
Julie Tummonds Rfnd Cancel Class 12.50
Kevin Shum K Shum Per Diem Trn 364.20
Kimball Midwest Mech Stock 512.28
Lana Wilson Rfnd Cancel Class 12.50
Main Street Signs Pw Retrmnt St Sign 46.57
Mary Odonnell Rfnd Cancel Class 50.00
Monterey Bay Pest C Fy25 Pest Control S 135.00
County Of Monterey Cjis Access 20,217.66
Monterey County Wee Notice Bcc Vacancie 500.25
Monterey Regional W Fy 24/25 Sb 1383 Im 21,179.00
Monterey Tire Servi B&G Repairs Unit 58 1,201.62
City Of Monterey Fy25 Fire Srvces Ja 272,759.00
Nielsen Merksamer Legal Services 2,808.00
Odp Business Soluti Cmo Office Supplies 79.21
O'Reilly Auto Enter Pd Vehicle Repairs 3,263.95
Overhead Door Of Sa Fire Door Repairs 481.39
Pacific Gas & Elect Rec Electric 4030-4 413.02
PGCC 2-19-25

Page 59 ends

Check Register Report - Detailed View - January 2025
Fund Check Date Name Description Amount
Pacific Products & Paint For Streets $ 7,403.44
People Information Gis Software - Aws 2,140.00
Petty Cash - Lori F Petty Cash Increase 360.00
Ptm Document System End Of Yr 1095-C Fo 124.82
R & S Heating And S B&G Filters 135.00
Sandra Kandell Reimb Per Diem Trai 449.34
Savage Training Gro Fto Training K Shum 309.00
Shayla D Hoffman Hoffman Per Diem 603.00
Sir Speedy Cc Office Supplies 249.34
Allegion Access Tec Pd Building - Front 7,507.85
Staphany Arriola City Council Meals 50.57
Steve Rodolf Rfnd Cancel Class 12.50
Sturdy Oil Company A/R Fuel Dist Nov 7,210.28
Sunna Design Inc Street Light Repair 2,466.43
Toro Petroleum Corp Fire Dept Diesel 1,555.35
Verizon Business Pw Phones 2,051.03
Vestis Services, Ll Linen Services 175.33
Watsonville Ford Pd Repairs Unit 2 5,389.77
Wells Fargo Vendor Fy 24/25 Konica Lea 1,269.07
Brian Whitson Museum Cleaning Fy2 3,240.00
Roxane J Viray Retrmnt Benefits De 150.00
01/09/25 Us Bank F Marsh Memberships 12,982.28
Aflac Ded:5201 Aflac P/T 2,258.75
Calif Law Enforcmen Ded:3200 Ltd Pd 608.00
Calpers Health Ded:122 Health 57,716.33
City Of Pacific Gro Ded:3301 Aflac Med 1,456.86
Eft Ded:*Ft Federal Tx 67,183.41
Pacific Grove City Ded:7000 Assoc Dues 733.50
Mass Mutual (457 Pl Ded:4000 Def Comp 15,151.44
Mtry County Dept Of Ded:0023 Garnish 396.92
Pacific Grove Manag Ded:7203 Assoc Dues 45.00
City Of Pacific Gro Ded:1003 Work Comp 10,716.06
City Of Pacific Gro Ded:7510 Pers Reimb 39.23
City Of Pacific Gro Ded:2103 Dental Fam 3,249.55
City Of Pacific Gro Ded:0005 Suta 134.81
Pers Ded:0020 Pers Er M3 78,659.40
Police Officers Ass Ded:7205 Assoc Dues 868.23
Legal Shield Ded:6100 Legal Svc 31.75
State Disability Ta Ded:0026 Sdi 4,759.19
Standard Insurance Ded:3500 Life Ins 1,386.00
Transamerica Employ Ded:5202 Transameri 311.82
Union Bank Of Calif Ded:4005 Pars-457 971.81
Vision Service Plan Ded:2502 Vision 650.16
Calif Law Enforcmen Jan 2025 Billing 32.00
01/07/25 Pers Pers Ppe 12/07/2024 80,874.02
01/13/25 Pers Admin Fee 200.00
Pers Pers Ppe 12/21/24 74,625.56
01/18/25 Pers Adj Reports 12/7/24 451.83
01/13/25 Eft Ded:*Fm Medicare 0.78
01/17/25 California American 620 Oceanview/Bath 11,768.32 Ca Dept Of Taxes An Lh Sales Tx Oct-Dec 860.00
Leps-Pss, Pllc Pd Backgrounds 900.00
Advanced Towing Pd Towing Unit 6 100.00
Alhambra & Sierra S Rec Bottled Water 90.89
Alissa Malakan Rfnd Cancel Class
PGCC
2-19-25 180.00

Page 60 ends

Check Register Report - Detailed View - January 2025
Fund Check Date Name Description Amount
Allstar Painting & Fire Storage Shed $ 2,175.00
Amazon Capital Serv Rec Office Upgrade 2,855.86
American Supply Com B&G Janitorial Supp 3,688.49
Anette Granberg Rfnd Cancel Class 10.00
Arcpoint Labs Of Mo Pre Emplymt Screen 55.00
At&T Rec Phone 0960 63.14
At&T Lh Internet 1257 112.35
At&T Calnet 3 Admin Internet 3242 3,528.42
Blue To Gold, Llc Pd Training Acevedo 375.00
Bob Murray & Associ Prof Recruitment Hr 9,093.75
Ca Building Standar Cbsc Fees Oct-Dec 2 217.80
Ca Dept Of Conserva Smip Fees Oct-Dec 2 336.17
Calea Pd Accreditation 2,612.85
Caltronics Business Konica Copies Fy 24 547.38
Angela Canales Tuition Reimb Canal 1,000.00
Cengage Learning/Ga Lib Books & Materia 381.80
Centralsquare Techn Finance Software Fy 4,962.96
Chandra Weaver Rfnd Cancel Class 10.00
Chris Darnell Rfnd Cancel Class 10.00
Comcast Pw Internet 0389527 115.13
Commercial Service Refrigerator Repair 415.92
Corie Beer Rfnd Cancel Class 10.00
Daniel M Deis Pd Training D Deis 361.80
Defense Technology Pd Ammunition 1,713.25
Ekaterina Lozhnikov Rfnd Cancel Class 10.00
Engineered Fire Sys Fd Dec Plan Review 687.50
Federal Express Cor Pd Postage 42.17
At&T Mobility Pd Cellphones 5185 1,924.10
Florencia De La Pen Rfnd Cancel Class 10.00
Forest Hill Ace Har Street Storage Tote 52.42
Gachina Landscape M Fy25 Park Mowing Se 1,339.00
Gardaworld Jan Services 92.99
Glynis Barrett Rfnd Cancel Class 10.00
Golnaz Monazamfar Rfnd Cancel Class 180.00
Granite Rock Compan Street Grout 239.26
C.C.O.I. Gate & Fen B&G Yard Gate Repai 180.00
Hayward Lumber Comp B&G Repair Supplies 368.26
James Auburn Rfnd Permit Fees 977.98
Kattie Stong Rfnd Cancel Class 10.00
Kimball Midwest Street Repair Unit 131.70
Laura Ireland Rfnd Cancel Class 10.00
Hometek Memorial Bench Prgm 165.00
Mcdonald Refrigerat Deli Case Repair B& 287.50
Megan Mckenna Rfnd Cancel Class 10.00
Midwest Tape Lib Books & Materia 239.21
Miranda Kanon Rfnd Cancel Class 17.00
Mission Linen Suppl Fd Linen Cleaning F 818.50
Mission Uniform Ser Linen & Uniform Cle 2,139.27
Mk Solutions, Inc. Jan-Dec 25 Software 489.00
Monterey Bay Pest C Fy25 Pest Control S 135.00
Monterey Bay Treewo Arborist Services F 7,000.00
Monterey Tire Servi Pd Repairs Unit 5 1,058.34
Planet Orange Inc Termite Inspectn Ch 995.00
Quadient Finance Us Postage 950.00
Netta Avineri Rfnd Cancel Class
PGCC
2-19-25 10.00

Page 61 ends

Check Register Report - Detailed View - January 2025
Fund Check Date Name Description Amount
Nicole Lucido Rfnd Cancel Class $ 10.00
Noland, Hamerly, Et Enayati Cases #21Cv 1,040.00
Odp Business Soluti Cmo Office Supplies 348.81
Overdrive, Inc. Lib Books & Materia 5.98
Overhead Door Of Sa Pd Weatherseal Rplc 1,120.67
P.G. Museum Of Natu Fy24 Museum Adminis 85,575.00
Pacific Gas & Elect Rec 0956-9 6,590.17
Pacific Grove Hardw B&G Supplies Repair 2,940.83
Pacific West Water Cdd Water System 85.70
Paul Nagamine Pd Training Per Die 260.00
Peak Enterprises Lib Books & Materia 1,382.40
Peninsula Welding & Oxygen Compressed F 186.69
Pure Water Pw Bottled Water 128.40
Quadient Leasing Us Fy24/25 Mail Machin 464.15
Ready Refresh Pd Water Service 436.51
Restoration First R Pd Eap Services 4,907.40
Robb Hill Lib Tuition Reimbur 1,000.00
Sirchie Acquisition Pd Prop/Evidnce Sup 178.75
Sophie Gates Rfnd Cancel Class 10.00
Spca Of Monterey Co Dec Animal Services 735.00
Summit Uniforms Pd Uniforms Vest 1,312.50
Ca Dept Of Taxes An Jan-Dec 2024 Sales 4,062.00
Tina Rau Ca Cities Training 1,792.13
Transunion Risk And 4170441 Tlo Svcs 116.60
Vestis Services, Ll Pd Linen Services 525.99
Watsonville Ford Pd Repairs Unit 5 306.77
Brian Whitson Museum Cleaning Fy2 2,860.00
Swift Car Wash Pd Feb Car Washes 260.00
Xiaoyan Deng Rfnd Cancel Class 10.00
01/21/25 Pacific Gas & Elect Public Library 18,557.12
Baker & Taylor Comp Books & Materials / 3,761.51
Cleargov Digital Budget Book 17,134.13
01/24/25 Aflac Ded:5201 Aflac P/T -
Calpers Health Ded:122 Health 61,200.33
City Of Pacific Gro Ded:3301 Aflac Med 1,456.86
Eft Ded:*Ft Federal Tx 64,291.81
Pacific Grove City Ded:7000 Assoc Dues 707.25
Mass Mutual (457 Pl Ded:4000 Def Comp 39,951.44
Mtry County Dept Of Ded:0023 Garnish 396.92
Pacific Grove Manag Ded:7203 Assoc Dues 45.00
City Of Pacific Gro Ded:1003 Work Comp 10,498.17
City Of Pacific Gro Ded:7510 Pers Reimb 39.23
City Of Pacific Gro Ded:2103 Dental Fam 3,371.25
City Of Pacific Gro Ded:0005 Suta 138.92
Pers Ded:0020 Pers Er M3 74,195.82
Police Officers Ass Ded:7205 Assoc Dues 871.04
State Disability Ta Ded:0026 Sdi 4,905.10
Transamerica Employ Ded:5202 Transameri 311.82
Union Bank Of Calif Ded:4005 Pars-457 789.45
Vision Service Plan Ded:2503 Vision Fam 672.08
Eft Ded:*Fm Medicare 1.34
01/27/25 Pers Pers Ppe 1.4.25 Sup 29.20
Pers Jan 25 Ual 351,013.58
01/29/25 Aflac Jan 2025 Coverage 2,208.83
01/31/25 4Leaf Building Dept Servi
PGCC
2-19-25 69,095.50

Page 62 ends

Check Register Report - Detailed View - January 2025
Fund Check Date Name Description Amount
Accent Clean & Swee Street Sweeping $ 18,810.00
Alhambra & Sierra S Fd Water Services 302.39
Amanda Baltierra Training Baltierra 213.00
Amazon Capital Serv Rec Office Upgrade 4,082.34
Bob Murray & Associ Hr Prof Services 1,972.30
Bound Tree Medical, Pd Ppe / Gloves 1,717.28
Burke, Williams & S City Attorney Servi 49,311.60
Ca Dept Of Justice Hr Doj Livescans 207.00
Catalis Public Work Qalert Software 202 7,950.00
Cengage Learning/Ga Library Books & Mat 61.16
Chicago Title Compa Reimb Permit Fees 129.00
Comcast Rec Internet 021497 226.71
Craft Electric Comp Cvc Ctr Generator 165.00
Audrey C Cray Asd 11/1/24 - 1/22/ 1,247.84
Cummins-Allison Cor Coin Machine Suppli 144.10
Denise Duffy & Asso Carryfroward From P 25,250.10
First Alarm Inc. Alarm Monitoring 149.04
Howard R Burnham Local History 150.00
Gachina Landscape M Fy25 Park Mowing Se 641.00
Gardaworld Dec Excess Fees 32.91
Grove Market Rec Prgrm Supplies 39.60
Harris & Associates Contract Planning S 18,891.25
Innovative Interfac Lib Subscriptn Skyr 2,917.22
Jd Repairs Inc Fd Repair Unit 6414 180.00
Kimball Midwest Mech Supplies 2,562.07
League Of Californi Cty Council Mbrship 6,944.00
Librarica Llc Lib Cassie Support 298.50
Monterey Bay Parent Rec Preschool Ad 725.00
City Of Monterey Fy25 Fire Services 275,999.00
Municipal Resource Econ Dev Prof Svcs 2,905.00
Nielsen Merksamer City Atty Prof Svcs 5,201.00
Odp Business Soluti Asd Office Supplies 372.37
Pacific Gas & Elect Pw Admin 5508-4 2,438.66
Pacific Smog Do Not Pd Smog Unit 8 -
Ptm Document System 2024 Eoy Tax Forms 303.10
Regional Government Payroll Advisory De 1,636.25
Rincon Consultants, Housing Element 126,813.54
Safety-Kleen System Street Oil Collecti 581.02
Sarah Loya Rfnd Damage Deposit 206.00
Republic Elevator, Elevator Inspection 2,118.27
Sentry Alarm System Fy 24/25 Alarm Serv 64.25
Summit Uniforms Uniforms Rico 1,312.50
Tom Cohen Rfnd Damage Deposit 187.00
All Star Elite Spor Basketball Jersey R 1,346.55
Verizon Business Pw Cell Phones 2,029.84
Vestis Services, Ll Linen Services Fy 2 350.66
Roxane J Viray Final Payment Jan 2 150.00
Watsonville Ford Pd Repairs Unit 1 651.32
Wells Fargo Vendor Fy 24/25 Konica Lea 1,269.07
Pacific Smog Pd Smog Unit 8 41.75
07 - Library Bldg & Equip Fund 01/03/25 Baker & Taylor Comp Lib Past Balance 367.52 09 - Downtown Business Distric01/31/25 Pacific Grove Chamb Bid Payout 19,415.08 10 - Hospitality Imprvmt Dist. 01/17/25 See Monterey Fy24/25 Q2 Tot Oct- 40,375.00 12 - Fire Emerg Equip Fund 01/31/25 Amazon Capital Serv Ems Supplies 54.61 15 - Housing Fund 01/27/25 Pers Jan 25 Ual
PGCC
2-19-25 1,833.33

Page 63 ends

Check Register Report - Detailed View - January 2025
Fund Check Date Name Description Amount
17 - Local Streets And Roads 01/03/25 Vss International, Carry Forward From $ 17,474.11 01/31/25 Kimley Horn Pine Ave Traffic St 11,609.67
Neill Engineers Cor Fy25 Cip Engineerin 38,070.61
18 - Gas Tax Fund 01/03/25 4Leaf Fy24/25 On-Call Tra 3,977.00 Bear Electrical Sol Trffc Signal Respon 2,710.00
Pacific Gas & Elect Pw Electric 4482-4 8,949.99
Sturdy Oil Company Gas Tax Fuel Dist N 587.77
01/17/25 California American St Fund 50% 249.94
Bear Electrical Sol Traffic Signal Main 4,304.00
01/21/25 Pacific Gas & Elect Forest Av & Sunset 190.62
Pacific Gas & Elect Pw Electric 4482-4 8,930.86
01/27/25 Pers Jan 25 Ual 2,333.33
01/31/25 4Leaf Fy24/25 On-Call Tra 1,188.00
20 - Rstp-(Tamc) 01/03/25 Ghd Inc. Cedar, Sunset, Cong 10,175.25 24 - Stillwell Children'S Pool 01/17/25 American Supply Com Chlorine Pool Spply 853.46 27 - Lighthouse Maint.& Impv. 01/03/25 Amazon Capital Serv Lighthse Giftshop 69.91 At&T Calnet 3 Lighthse Phone 3247 32.50
01/17/25 California American 90 Asilomar 84.08
Katherine Healey Lh Gift Shop Merch -
Pacific Grove Hardw Lh Supplies / Repai 279.14
01/21/25 Pacific Gas & Elect Asilomar Blvd Pg Lh 227.01 01/31/25 At&T Calnet 3 Lh Phone 3247 31.53
Escarraga'S Luxury Lighthouse Cleaning 480.00
Katherine Healey Lighthouse Gift Sho 73.80
40 - Poetry Promotion Fund 01/31/25 Amazon Capital Serv Poetry Promotion 65.40 Elbina Rafizadeh Poetry Promo Librar 100.00
Sacred Poets Poetry Promotion 100.00
43 - Slesf Fund 01/17/25 Enterprise Fm Trust Pd Leased Vehicles 2,167.39 63 - Capital Improv Proj Fund 01/31/25 Neill Engineers Cor Fy25 Cip Engineerin 41,584.50 Silcon Constructors Sidewalk Extension 214,689.13
70 - Emp Benefit Fund 01/06/25 Calpers Health Jan 25 Ret & Change 23,799.97 01/17/25 Pars Ars Pars Fees Nov 2 706.81
01/29/25 Standard Insurance Feb 2025 Premiums 2,635.65
Standard Insurance Jan 2025 Dental 6,962.52
71 - Workers Comp Fund 01/17/25 Ca Dept Of Industri Work Comp Fy 24/25 31,524.50 72 - Liability Ins Fund 01/27/25 Pers Jan 25 Ual 1,416.67 74 - Local Water Project 01/03/25 Motor Controls Inc. Lwp Modem For Pumps 650.00 Perc Water Corporat Fy 24/25 Lwp O&M 35,551.61
01/17/25 California American 1313 Ocean View Blv 1,028.90 Pacific Gas & Elect Lwp 0792-1 4,182.24
01/21/25 State Water Resourc Principal Pmt 206,448.28
01/31/25 Perc Water Corporat Fy 24/25 Lwp O&M 35,257.02 75 - Cemetery Fund 01/03/25 Sturdy Oil Company Cem Fuel Dist Nov 273.78 01/17/25 California American 1254 Delmontecem70% 276.16 Forest Hill Ace Har Cemetery Tools 44.77
Hayward Lumber Comp Cemetery Supplies 239.21
Lina Dasilva Sell Back Cem Site 3,366.30
Llorin-Velasquez Co Fy24/25 Cemetery De 5,300.00
Mission Uniform Ser Linen & Uniform Cle 540.33
Quadient Leasing Us Fy24/25 Mail Machin 36.00
01/21/25 Pacific Gas & Elect Cemetery 137.13
01/27/25 Pers Jan 25 Ual 3,750.00
01/31/25 Ca Association Of P Annual Conference 1,144.00 Llorin-Velasquez Co Fy24/25 Cemetery Ja 2,650.00
Turf Star Inc. Cem Repair Unit 71D
PGCC
2-19-25 251.86

Page 64 ends

Check Register Report - Detailed View - January 2025
Fund Check Date Name Description Amount
76 - Sewer Fund 01/03/25 At&T Pw Sewer Phone 0576 $ 126.28 Kyle Robert Molina Pw Reimb Dot Phy Ex 150.00
O'Reilly Auto Enter Sewer Vehicle Repai 98.53
Rincon Consultants, Amendment #3 - Arch 7,526.00
Sturdy Oil Company Sewer Fuel Dist Nov 374.42
01/17/25 California American 1273 Crespi Pond 50 145.79 At&T Pw Sewer Phone 2931 126.28
Forest Hill Ace Har Sewer Small Hardwar 64.09
Don Chapin Co., Inc Sewer Cctv Video 19,119.18
Mission Uniform Ser Linen & Uniform Cle 540.33
Pacific Gas & Elect Pw Sewer 5126-5 1,300.87
Pure Water Sewer Bottled Water 32.10
Wallace Group Scsmp 1, 6, 9 Cip24 2,055.00
01/21/25 Pacific Gas & Elect O V 9Th Pump #2 2,337.30
01/27/25 Pers Jan 25 Ual 11,750.00
01/31/25 Albion Environnment Archaeological Moni 1,627.89 Don Chapin Co., Inc Sewer Line Maintena 18,307.15
Neill Engineers Cor Admin Engineering S 1,972.00
77 - Golf Fund 01/17/25 California American 77 Asilomar Golf Hs 1,951.30 Umpqua Bank Principal 136,048.45
01/21/25 Pacific Gas & Elect 1313 Ocean View Blv 125.41 Pacific Grove Capit July-Sep 2024 Cpg 61,968.04
84 - American Rescue Plan-Arpa01/03/25 Jms Cement Contract David Avenue Sidewa 18,680.00 01/09/25 Shellco General Con Cip 23-12 Fire Dept 39,424.53 01/17/25 Neill Engineers Cor Cip23-21 11,481.00
Shellco General Con Cip 23-12 Fire Dept 23,963.32
$ 3,668,549.01
PGCC 2-19-25

Page 65 ends

Check Register Report - Summary by Fund - January 2025
Fund Amount
01 - General Fund Total $2,505,445.50
07 - Library Bldg & Equip Fund Total 367.52
09 - Downtown Business Distric Total 19,415.08
10 - Hospitality Imprvmt Dist. Total 40,375.00
12 - Fire Emerg Equip Fund Total 54.61
15 - Housing Fund Total 1,833.33
17 - Local Streets And Roads Total 67,154.39
18 - Gas Tax Fund Total 33,421.51
20 - Rstp-(Tamc) Total 10,175.25
24 - Stillwell Children'S Pool Total 853.46
27 - Lighthouse Maint.& Impv. Total 1,277.97
40 - Poetry Promotion Fund Total 265.40
43 - Slesf Fund Total 2,167.39
63 - Capital Improv Proj Fund Total 256,273.63
70 - Emp Benefit Fund Total 34,104.95
71 - Workers Comp Fund Total 32,274.50
72 - Liability Ins Fund Total 666.67
74 - Local Water Project Total 283,118.05
75 - Cemetery Fund Total 18,009.54
76 - Sewer Fund Total 67,653.21
77 - Golf Fund Total 200,093.20
84 - American Rescue Plan-Arpa Total 93,548.85
Grand Total $3,668,549.01
PGCC 2-19-25

Page 66 ends

Agenda No. 8 B

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Jazelle Johnson, Accountant
MEETING DATE: February 19, 2025
SUBJECT: Second Quarter FY 24/25 Capital Project Report & Update CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

RECOMMENDATION

1. Receive the report.

2. Alternatively, discuss and take action related to this item.

DISCUSSION
The attached file provides information on the Adopted and Amended Budgets for each capital improvement project, as well as expenditures. The Amended Budget column references projects that were approved in the last fiscal year but were not completed by June 30, 2024, as well as project budget adjustments that have been approved by the City Council. The status column references the current phase of the project, as of December 31, 2024.

Out of the 38 Capital Improvement Plan projects, 16 have been successfully completed. An additional 9 projects are currently in the "Construction/Work in Progress Phase" and are showing significant progress.

As of December 31, 2024, approximately 37% of the General CIP Fund Projects are expensed through the end of the Second Quarter FY 24/25.

While the financial report shows that 38% of the total collective CIP budgeted funds have been expended, this figure does not fully reflect the true progress of the CIP program or the individual projects. This expenditure figure is influenced by a few large-scale multi-year projects. Despite significant progress, these multi-year projects are more complex due to their scale, with expenditures expected to ramp up over time as engineering and design phases advance and construction commences.

OPTIONS
N/A - This is informational only.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

There is no financial impact associated with receiving this report.

PGCC 2-19-25

Page 67 ends

FOCUSED PRIORITY AREA: Not Applicable.

Attachments
Q2 CIP Report FY24/25
PGCC 2-19-25

Page 68 ends

Capital Improvement Project Budget Report
2nd Quarter - Fiscal Year 2024-25
Project Project Name Status of Project Estimated Completion Fund No. Fund Name Amended Budget YTD Expenses PO Balances % of Budget Street, Sidewalk Improvements (Object 6041)
CIP23-03 Cedar, Sunset, & Congress Intersection Work in Progress FY 24-25 20 RSTP (TAMC) 1,000,000 $ 416,675 $ 387,082 $ 80% CIP23-04 David Ave Street Rehabilitation Project Development FY 24-25 17 Local Streets and Roads 266,157 14,667 - 6% 76 Sewer 156,000 - - 0%
422,157 14,667 - 3%
CIP23-16 Safety Lighting at Robert Down Elementary Complete FY 24-25 84 ARPA 4,710 4,710 100% - CIP23-21 David Ave Sidewalk Complete FY 24-25 84 ARPA 625,080 590,070 99% 29,357CIP24-01 FY23/24 Street Rehabilitation Project Complete FY 24-25 17 Local Streets and Roads 536,088 469,787 100% 66,301 47 RMRA SB1 505,049 371,761 - 74%
63 Capital Improvement 300,000 310,800 - 104%
76 Sewer 600,000 641,927 176,158 136%
1,941,137 1,422,514 614,220 105%
CIP24-02 FY23/24 Crack & Slurry Seal Project Complete FY 24-25 17 Local Streets and Roads 185,000 145,541 88% 17,747 63 Capital Improvement 200,000 200,000 100% -84 ARPA 15,290 14,400 - 94% 400,290 359,941 94% 17,747
CIP24-06 Design of Sidewalk Extension for Outside Dining Uses Complete FY 24-25 63 Capital Improvement 50,000 40,392 - 81%CIP25-01 FY 24/25 Street Rehabilitation Project Project Development FY 25-26 63 Capital Improvement 300,000 32,420 - 11% 17 Local Streets and Roads 730,000 - - 0%
47 RMRA SB1 386,065 - - 0%
76 Sewer 300,000 - - 0%
1,716,065 32,420 - 2%
CIP25-02 FY 24/25 Crack & Slurry Seal Project Project Development FY 24-25 17 Local Streets and Roads 200,000 - - 0% 63 Capital Improvement 200,000 - - 0%
400,000 - - 0%
CIP25-03 Pedestrian Safety - Central Ave & Fountain Ave Project Development FY 24-25 63 Capital Improvement 270,000 - - 0% CIP25-14 Sidewalk Ext at Lighthouse & Fountain Work in Progress FY 24-25 63 Capital Improvement 340,000 6,529 - 2% CIP25-15 Sidewalk Projects at Sinex & Sunset Project Development FY 24-25 63 Capital Improvement 175,000 - - 0% Total Streets $ 7,344,439 $ 2,887,919 $ 1,048,406 54%
PGCC 2-19-25

Page 69 ends

Capital Improvement Project Budget Report
2nd Quarter - Fiscal Year 2024-25
Project Project Name Status of Project Estimated Completion Fund No. Fund Name Amended Budget YTD Expenses PO Balances % of Budget Park, Open Space Improvements (Object 6031)
CIP22-13 Backstop Replacement Municipal Ball Park Complete FY 24-25 84 ARPA 25,736 25,736 - 100% 92 McIndoo Donation 17,387 17,387 - 100%93 Koo Estate Donation 7,000 5,973 - 85%63 Capital Improvement 96,000 90,254 - 94% 146,123 139,350 - 95%
CIP22-21 GW Park Playground & ADA Compliant Playground Complete FY 24-25 63 Capital Improvement 81,952 81,853 100% - 84 ARPA 25,000 25,000 100% -
106,952 106,853 100% -
CIP23-22 Recreation Board's Park Inventory Work in Progress FY 24-25 84 ARPA 15,000 - 13,786 92% CIP24-05 George Washington Park (GWP) Enhancement Project Work in Progress FY 24-25 63 Capital Improvement 50,000 11,060 - 22% CIP25-11 Pico Ave & Crocker Ave Stormwater Improvements Complete FY 24-25 46 Strong Disbursement 45,000 41,371 - 92%CIP25-16 Butterfly Sanctuary Fencing Project Development FY 24-25 63 Capital Improvement 75,000 - - 0% CIP25-17 GW Park Ball Field Drainage Work in Progress FY 24-25 63 Capital Improvement 50,000 - - 0% CIP25-18 Pickleball/Tennis Court Resurfacing & Sound Fencing Work in Progress FY 24-25 63 Capital Improvement 47,000 24,214 - 52%CIP25-19 ADA Access at GW Park Project Development FY 24-25 63 Capital Improvement 25,000 - - 0% Total Park and Open Space $ 560,075 $ 322,848 $ 60% 13,786 General Building Improvements (Object 6021)
CIP18-46 Tide Pool & Point Pinos Complete FY 24-25 63 Capital Improvement 35,902 $ $ 74,366 $ (10,293) 178% CIP23-05 Point Pinos Lighthouse Roof Repair Project Development FY 24-25 27 Lighthouse 60,000 3,525 - 6% CIP23-07 Museum Mezzanine Upgrades Complete FY 24-25 08 Museum Improvement 75,000 33,768 52% 5,065 CIP23-08 Museum Basement Moisture Control Complete FY 24-25 08 Museum Improvement 38,800 25,041 - 65% CIP23-10 Fire Station Roof Repair Complete FY 24-25 84 ARPA 44,310 50,676 - 114%CIP23-12 Fire Dept. Bathroom & Shower Remodel Complete FY 24-25 84 ARPA 153,550 76,879 97% 72,201 CIP25-05 PG Museum Flooring Replacement Project Development FY 24-25 08 Museum Improvement 35,000 - - 0% CIP25-06 Museum Roof Repair - Storage Garage Project Development FY 24-25 08 Museum Improvement 17,000 - - 0% CIP25-07 Point Pinos Lighthouse Electrical Panel Complete FY 24-25 27 Lighthouse 20,000 3,810 - 19% CIP25-08 Golf Course Water Heater Complete FY 24-25 77 Golf 20,000 - 0% CIP25-09 Library Door Repair Work in Progress FY 24-25 84 ARPA 22,000 - 20,672 94% CIP25-10 Recreation Trail Improvements - Esplanade Park Work in Progress FY 25-26 46 Strong Disbursement 20,000 6,812 - 34% Total General Building $ 541,562 $ 274,878 $ 67% 87,646 PGCC 2-19-25

Page 70 ends

Capital Improvement Project Budget Report
2nd Quarter - Fiscal Year 2024-25
Project Project Name Status of Project Estimated Completion Fund No. Fund Name Amended Budget YTD Expenses PO Balances % of Budget Sewer System Improvements (Object 6051)
CIP22-03 Phase 9 Sewer Improvements Complete FY 24-25 76 Sewer 997,387 $ 797,347 $ 14,450 $ 81% CIP23-06 Pump Station Replacement Bids/RFP FY 24-25 76 Sewer 337,095 86,933 - 26%CIP24-03 Priority Stormwater Repair Project on Syida Dr Project Development FY 24-25 63 Capital Improvement 100,000 4,077 - 4%CIP24-04 Sewer Collection System Master Plan Projects 1,6 & 9 Work in Progress FY 24-25 76 Sewer 1,800,000 101,879 1,709,614 101% CIP25-04 Community Center Sewer Repairs Complete FY 24-25 76 Sewer 50,000 - - 0% Total Sewer 3,284,482 990,236 1,724,064 83%
Grand Totals $ 11,730,558 $ 4,475,881 $ 2,873,902 63%
Fund No. Fund Name % of Budget Spent Budget YTD Exps PO Balance % Budget 8 Museum Improvement 35% 39% 35% 165,800 58,809 39% 5,065 17 Local Streets and Roads 33% 37% 33% 1,917,245 629,995 37% 84,04820 RSTP (TAMC) 42% 80% 42% 1,000,000 416,675 387,082 80%27 Lighthouse 9% 9% 9% 80,000 7,335 - 9% 46 Strong Disbursement 74% 74% 74% 65,000 48,183 - 74%47 RMRA SB1 0% 42% 0% 891,114 371,761 - 42% 63 Capital Improvement 37% 36% 37% 2,395,854 875,966 (10,293) 36%76 Sewer 38% 83% 38% 4,240,482 1,628,086 1,900,222 83% 77 Golf 0% 0% 0% 20,000 - - 0%
84 ARPA 85% 99% 85% 930,676 787,472 136,016 99%
92 McIndoo Donation 100% 100% 100% 17,387 17,387 100% - 93 Koo Estate Donation 85% 85% 85% 7,000 5,973 - 85%
38% 63% 38% 11,730,558 4,475,881 2,873,902 63%
Project Count 38% of Projects with a Status of % of Total Project Development 29%Complete 45%Work in Progress 24%Bids/RFP 3%Contract 0% 100%
PGCC 2-19-25

Page 71 ends

Agenda No. 8 C

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Jazelle Johnson, Accountant
MEETING DATE: February 19, 2025
SUBJECT: Second Quarter Treasurer’s Quarterly Report
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

RECOMMENDATION

1. Receive the report.

2. Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item.

DISCUSSION
Article 19, Section (K) of the City Charter requires that a quarterly statement of all funds in the treasury be submitted to the Council. The Treasurer’s report allows the Council and public to verify that the City’s funds are invested in a safe and prudent manner, and that such investments comply with City policy and state law. The Treasurer’s Report is different from a budget report, as its purpose is to report on cash balances.

This report reflects the City’s balances as of December 31st, 2024 and shows that cash and investments were held citywide, with a market value of $35.9 million. The average yield on the City’s portfolio for the quarter is 3.12%. This represents a yield rate that is 0.08% less than the prior quarter and 0.06% less than the same quarter of the prior year. All investments are in government securities, certificates of deposit (CD), or other approved investment vehicles. The maturity dates are laddered, to ensure liquidity. Investments that have matured will be reinvested according to the cities' applicable policies. All bank balances are insured. The City does not actively trade either certificates of deposits or federal agency securities but holds investments in the portfolio for maturity. The table belows shows the activity for the quarter.

Date Description Rate Dollar Amt./ Face
Value Activity
10/17/2024 United Treasury Bills 0% $500,000 Matured
11/08/2024 Southern Bk Poplar
Bluff 4.70% $249,000 Matured
11/22/2024 Alabama Cr Union 4.90% $248,000 Matured
PGCC 2-19-25

Page 72 ends

11/27/2024 Live Oak Banking 1.85% $249,000 Matured
12/09/2024 Liberty Fed Cr Union 4.90% $249,000 Matured

OPTIONS
N/A – This is an informational report.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact. This is informational only.

FOCUSED PRIORITY AREA: Not Applicable.

Attachments
Q2 Treasurer's Report
PGCC 2-19-25

Page 73 ends

City of Pacific Grove
Treasurers' Report
As of December 31, 2024

DEPOSITORY ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION OF SECURITY

MATURITY
DATE

INTEREST

RATE/YIELD

DOLLAR/PAR
AMOUNT
MARKET
VALUE
State of California Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) Immediate 4.43% 790,011.25 790,011.25 790,011.25 790,011.25
Bank of America Checking Pooled Cash Immediate 0.00% 8,194,127.45 8,194,127.45 8,194,127.45 8,194,127.45
N/A Petty Cash General Immediate 0.00% 685.00 685.00
685.00 685.00
Concourse Financial Group Cash Dreyfus Govt Cash Mngt 4.11% 8,022,541.09 8,022,541.09 Concourse TVI Certificate of Deposit All In Fed Cr Un Daleville AL Sh Ctf 12/20/2027 4.40% 249,000.00 251,753.94 Concourse TVI Certificate of Deposit Alliant Cr Un Chicago Ill Sh Ctf 12/30/2027 4.85% 249,000.00 254,941.14 Concourse TVI Certificate of Deposit Ally Bk Sandy Utah 6/9/2026 3.00% 246,000.00 242,292.78 Concourse TVI Certificate of Deposit Amerant Bk Natl Assn Coral Gables FL 12/3/2025 0.45% 249,000.00 240,713.28 Concourse TVI Certificate of Deposit American Express Natl Bk 7/13/2027 3.25% 246,000.00 241,466.22 Concourse TVI Certificate of Deposit Austin Telco Fed Cr Un Tex Sh CTF 12/16/2026 4.95% 249,000.00 253,352.52 Concourse TVI Certificate of Deposit BMW Bk North Amer Salt Lake City Utah 11/20/2025 0.50% 249,000.00 241,198.83 Concourse TVI Certificate of Deposit Bank Baroda New York Brh 7/22/2025 0.65% 249,000.00 244,184.34 Concourse TVI Certificate of Deposit Baxter Cr Un Vernon Hills Ill Sh CTF 11/30/2026 5.00% 248,000.00 252,464.00 Concourse TVI Certificate of Deposit Baycoast Bnk Swansea Mass CTF 1/24/2025 1.70% 247,000.00 246,528.23 Concourse TVI Certificate of Deposit Bridgewater Bk St Louis Pk, MN 11/28/2025 0.45% 249,000.00 240,835.29 Concourse TVI Certificate of Deposit Capital One Natl Assn Glen Allen VA CTF 6/9/2025 3.00% 246,000.00 244,710.96 Concourse TVI Certificate of Deposit Celtic Bk Salt Lake City Utah 3/17/2027 4.70% 249,000.00 252,600.54 Concourse TVI Certificate of Deposit Direct Fed Cr Un Needham Mass SH CTF 11/9/2026 4.75% 249,000.00 252,212.10 Concourse TVI Certificate of Deposit Discover BknGreenwood Del 6/7/2027 3.15% 246,000.00 241,099.68 Concourse TVI Certificate of Deposit Dort Finl CR Grand Blanc MI 1/12/2026 4.50% 247,000.00 247,953.42 Concourse TVI Certificate of Deposit First Natl Bk Middle TENN 5/19/2027 4.45% 244,000.00 246,391.20 Concourse TVI Certificate of Deposit First Technology FED CR Mtn View CA 2/18/2025 4.85% 249,000.00 249,179.28 Concourse TVI Certificate of Deposit Flagstar BK Hicksville New York 4/24/2025 5.25% 243,000.00 243,716.85 Concourse TVI Certificate of Deposit Honolulu Fire Dept Fed CR UN 6/22/2027 4.65% 249,000.00 252,739.98 Concourse TVI Certificate of Deposit Ideal Cr Un Woodbury MN SH CTF 12/29/2027 4.50% 249,000.00 252,500.94 Concourse TVI Certificate of Deposit Industrial & Coml Bk China USA Natl Assn NY CTF 2/11/2026 0.45% 249,000.00 239,149.56 Concourse TVI Certificate of Deposit JPMorgan Chase BK NA Columbus OH CTF Dep 12/15/2025 0.50% 248,000.00 239,617.60 Concourse TVI Certificate of Deposit Latino Cmnty Cr Un Durham NC SH CTF 12/21/2027 4.50% 249,000.00 252,453.63 Concourse TVI Certificate of Deposit Liberty First Cr Un Lincoln Neb 1/20/2026 4.55% 249,000.00 250,110.54 Concourse TVI Certificate of Deposit Lyons Natl BK NY 3/16/2026 4.75% 244,000.00 245,847.08 Concourse TVI Certificate of Deposit Manufacturers & Traders Buffalo NY 1/31/2025 4.50% 244,000.00 243,912.16 Concourse TVI Certificate of Deposit Medallion Bk Salt Lake City UTAH 6/16/2027 4.50% 249,000.00 251,841.09 Concourse TVI Certificate of Deposit Merrick Bk South Jordan Utah 1/31/2025 1.70% 249,000.00 248,482.08 Concourse TVI Certificate of Deposit Minnwest Bk Redwood Falls Minn Ctf Dep 7/15/2025 0.50% 249,000.00 244,119.60 Concourse TVI Certificate of Deposit Morgan Stanley Bk N A Salt Lake City Ut CTF 3/23/2028 4.90% 244,000.00 250,539.20 Concourse TVI Certificate of Deposit New York Cmnty Bk Westbury N Y 7/1/2026 0.70% 249,000.00 236,881.17 Concourse TVI Certificate of Deposit Signature FED Cr Un Alexandria VA 1/31/2028 4.40% 249,000.00 251,885.91 Concourse TVI Certificate of Deposit Synchrony Bk Retail CTF Dep Citigroup Instl CTF Dep 12/10/2026 1.25% 248,000.00 235,438.80 Concourse TVI Certificate of Deposit Technology CR UN San Jose CA 1/21/2025 5.00% 248,000.00 248,099.20 Concourse TVI Certificate of Deposit Texas Exchange Bk SSB Crowley Ctf Dep 11/25/2025 0.60% 249,000.00 240,890.07 Concourse TVI Certificate of Deposit Truliant FED Cr Un Winston Salem NC 3/27/2026 5.00% 247,000.00 249,608.32 Concourse TVI Certificate of Deposit UBS Bk USA Salt Lake City Ut 6/23/2026 0.75% 249,000.00 237,142.62 Concourse TVI Certificate of Deposit US Alliance FCU Rye New York SH CTF 9/30/2027 4.00% 249,000.00 248,950.20 Concourse TVI Certificate of Deposit University Bk Ann Arbor MICH CTF DEP 11/30/2027 4.20% 249,000.00 250,332.15 Concourse TVI Certificate of Deposit Univest Natl Bk TR Souderton PA 5/5/2028 4.10% 249,000.00 249,749.49 Concourse TVI U.S. Treasury Securities United Sts Treas NTS 9/30/2025 0.60% 250,000.00 242,732.50 Concourse TVI U.S. Treasury Securities United Sts Treas NTS 5/31/2026 0.70% 250,000.00 238,095.00 Concourse TVI U.S. Treasury Securities United Sts Treas NTS 4/15/2025 3.35% 500,000.00 497,670.00 Concourse TVI U.S. Government Bonds Federal Home Ln Bks 9/8/2028 4.770% 250,000.00 253,130.00 Concourse TVI U.S. Government Bonds Federal Home Ln Bks 1/17/2029 4.240% 250,000.00 248,362.50 Concourse TVI U.S. Government Bonds Federal Farm Cr Bks 1/11/2027 1.470% 530,000.00 500,176.90 Concourse TVI U.S. Government Bonds Federal Farm Cr Bks 11/27/2028 4.400% 500,000.00 501,620.00 Concourse TVI U.S. Government Bonds Federal Farm Cr Bks 1/18/2029 3.970% 750,000.00 735,075.00 Concourse TVI U.S. Government Bonds Federal Farm Cr Bks 4/5/2029 4.650% 500,000.00 503,710.00 Concourse TVI U.S. Government Bonds Federal Farm Cr Bks 3/12/2029 4.125% 500,000.00 494,425.00 Concourse TVI U.S. Government Bonds Federal Farm Cr Bks* 7/12/2029 4.250% 1,000,000.00 992,750.00 Concourse TVI U.S. Government Bonds Federal Farm Cr Bks* 2/20/2029 3.625% 500,000.00 485,105.00 PGCC
Pg 1 of 2
2-19-25

Page 74 ends

City of Pacific Grove
Treasurers' Report
As of December 31, 2024

DEPOSITORY ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION OF SECURITY

MATURITY
DATE

INTEREST

RATE/YIELD

DOLLAR/PAR
AMOUNT
MARKET
VALUE
Concourse TVI U.S. Government Bonds Federal Agric MTG Corp 10/4/2027 4.500% 334,000.00 329,357.40 Total Concourse - General 24,297,541.09 24,152,636.38
TOTAL GENERAL INVESTMENTS 33,282,364.79 33,137,460.08
Concourse TVI Yount Cash Sweep Money Market Fund 4.11% 169.32 169.32 Concourse TVI Yount Fixed Income Bank Hapoalim B M New York BRH Ctf Dep 12/15/2025 0.50% 205,000.00 198,079.20 Concourse TVI Yount U.S. Government Bonds Federal Farm Cr Bks Cons Systemwide BDS 9/16/2025 0.55% 96,000.00 93,499.20 Concourse TVI Yount U.S. Government Bonds Federal Farm Cr Bks Cons Systemwide 5/13/2026 0.88% 170,000.00 162,164.70 Concourse TVI Yount U.S. Government Bonds Federal Farm Cr Bks Cons Systemwide BDS 1/11/2027 1.47% 97,000.00 91,541.81 Concourse TVI Yount U.S. Government Bonds Federal Farm Cr Bks Cons Systemwide BDS 4/5/2029 4.65% 180,000.00 181,335.60 Concourse TVI Yount U.S. Government Bonds Federal Agric Mtg Corp Medium Terms Nts Fed 1/15/2026 0.48% 95,000.00 91,264.60 Total Concourse - Endowments 843,169.32 818,054.43
TOTAL INVESTMENTS HELD FOR ENDOWMENTS 843,169.32 818,054.43 Umpqua Bank Money Market 0.01% 2,017,816.66 2,017,867.53 Total Umpqua Bank 2,017,816.66 2,017,867.53
TOTAL RESERVE INVESTMENT 2,017,816.66 2,017,867.53
GRAND TOTAL 36,143,350.77 35,973,382.04
PGCC
Pg 2 of 2
2-19-25

Page 75 ends

Agenda No. 8 D

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Joseph Sidor, Contract Planner
MEETING DATE: February 19, 2025
SUBJECT: Housing Element Monthly Status Update
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

RECOMMENDATION

1. Receive the report.

2. Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item.

DISCUSSION
On December 20, 2023, City Council approved the first amendment to the contract with Rincon Consultants, initiating the preparation of the Housing Element Update (HEU), along with related General Plan Amendments, Zoning Amendments, and Environmental Impact Report (EIR).

Subsequently, City Staff and Rincon Consultants continued/commenced work and provided the twelfth monthly progress report update to Council on January 15, 2025. Since then, the following tasks have been undertaken:

January 9, 2025: The Housing Element Team met to discuss next steps for the Housing Element Update, including amendments to the Zoning Code, Land Use, and Health and Safety Elements, as well as the Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR).

January 10, 2025: City Staff provided Rincon with consolidated comments on the EIR draft Project Description.

January 10, 2025: Rincon provided a draft Zoning Map and draft Land Use Map to City Staff for review.

January 13, 2025: Rincon provided a draft Land Use Element to City Staff for review.

January 16, 2025: The Housing Element Team met to discuss the EIR draft Project Description.

January 23, 2025: The Housing Element Team met to discuss next steps for the Housing Element Update, including amendments to the Zoning Code, Land Use, and Health and Safety Elements, as well as the Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR).

January 29, 2025: City Staff provided Rincon with consolidated comments on the EIR final Project Description.

February 3, 2025: The Housing Element Team met to discuss the draft Land Use Element.

February 7, 2025: City Staff provided Rincon with consolidated comments on the draft Land Use Element.

February 7, 2025: The Housing Element Team met with HCD to discuss the City's 2nd Draft Housing Element submittal and to receive HCD's preliminary feedback.

PGCC 2-19-25

Page 76 ends

February 10, 2025: The Housing Element Team met to discuss revisions based on HCD's preliminary feedback.

February 11, 2025: City Staff updated the Housing Element webpage with new information, including posting of the revisions to the 2nd Draft Housing Element for public review, and concurrently submitted the revisions to the 2nd Draft Housing Element to HCD.

The Housing Element Team includes City Planning, Housing, and City Manager staff, City legal representation, and Rincon/subconsultant staff.

Staff will provide a monthly status update to the Council throughout the process, leading to an adopted and certified Housing Element.

For more information, please visit the Housing Element
Webpage: www.cityofpacificgrove.org/HousingElement

OPTIONS
N/A - This is information only.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact associated with receiving this report.

FOCUSED PRIORITY AREA: Affordable Housing
PGCC 2-19-25

Page 77 ends

Agenda No. 8 E

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Lori McDonnell, Councilmember
MEETING DATE: February 19, 2025
SUBJECT: Community Human Services Highlights for January 2025 CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

RECOMMENDATION
Receive highlights.

Attachments
CHS Highlights
PGCC 2-19-25

Page 78 ends

HIGHLIGHTS OF

REGULAR BOARD MEETING
January 16, 2025

1. Mary Ann Carbone, Board Chair, called the meeting to order at 11:15 a.m. at City Hall in Sand City.

2. The Board approved routine consent items, including minutes of the December 19, 2024 Board meeting and disbursements for the period of December 1-31, 2024 in the amount of $1,054,521.19.

3. CEO Robin McCrae and Board Chair Mary Ann Carbone presented a certificate of appreciation to former Board Member Loren Steck for serving 21 years on the CHS Board of Directors representing Monterey Peninsula College.

4. From the CEO report:
• The MCGives campaign totaled $171,183 from 159 donors, not including the “match.” This is significantly higher than last year’s total of $56,550 ($66,160 with match). • Board giving totaled $1,760 from 11 board members (69%). There’s still time for Board Members to make an annual contribution to CHS to help us reach 100% board giving. • We continued to secure furnishings from donors (Yellow Brick Road, realtors, estate sales, etc.) for shelter guests moving into permanent housing. • Charitable Contributions Summaries will be sent to donors by January 31 for tax-purposes. • Bombas donated 2,500 pairs of socks for distribution to Shuman HeartHouse, Casa de Noche Buena, the SHARE Center, Safe Place Youth Shelter, Safe Passage, the Youth Navigation Center and the Street Outreach Teams for our clients experiencing homelessness. • Grant applications were submitted to:
o City of Monterey Community Development Block Grant:
▪ $20K Safe Place Youth Shelter
▪ $20K Casa De Noche Buena
▪ $20K Shuman HeartHouse
o Rotary Club of Monterey, $5K for Shuman HeartHouse
o Monterey Peninsula Foundation, $60K for Monterey Peninsula Street Outreach Program and Safe Place Youth Shelter
• December’s “Pick It Up, Pay It Forward” campaign resulted in an $11,000 donation from Coastal Roots (the Tarpy’s, Montrio, Rio Grill restaurant group). • A fundraising event will take place on Saturday, April 12, at the Sand City Art Park— “Banding Together: A Jamfest to Support Mental Health, Substance Abuse, and Homeless Services”
• We continue to interview for vacant Senior Program Officer of Mental Health Services and Development Director positions.
• Our programs celebrated the holidays in style, spreading cheer to all our clients. Here are some photo highlights!
PGCC 2-19-25

Page 79 ends

5. From the COO report:
• There are currently three facilities improvements projects taking place:
o Genesis House Bathroom Improvement Project, funded by City of Seaside CDBG, Gateway-Beacon Foundation and CHS
o Safe Passage Bathroom Improvements Project, funded by HUD and CHS o Seaside Family Service Center Mainline Plumbing Project, funded by City of Seaside CDBG and CHS
• Commission for the Accreditation of Rehabilitation Facilities received our Quality Improvement Plan (QIP) for Off Main Clinic, which recently received a three-year accreditation.
• Monterey County Behavioral Health accepted our Corrective Action Plan (CAP) for the Outpatient Mental Health ACCESS Program at the South County satellite • The SHARE Center held a holiday event on December 29, which was well attended by County and City of Salinas elected officials, news outlets, CHS staff, community members, and shelter guests.

6. Finance Committee Chair reported out from the Finance Committee meeting held earlier in the day.

The Dashboard looks great. Year-to-date net income is high but will adjust considerably lower once anticipated salary improvements are implemented. The County is staying on top of making payments. FY 2023-24 net income was $123K.

7. The board approved the annual resolution authorizing agency signers for legal agreements.

8. The board approved a resolution designating and authorizing signers at financial institutions.

9. The board approved additional Support Counselor Hours at Genesis House.

10. The board approved the targeted salary improvements for some classifications identified in a recent salary study and a 5% COLA for all employees, retroactive to June 26, 2024, as proposed by the Personnel Committee.

PGCC 2-19-25

Page 80 ends

11. The board approved miscellaneous revision to the CHS personnel policies, as proposed by the Personnel Committee.

12. The board approved the PBS “Empowered Program with Meg Ryan” video production project at a projected cost of $32,900.

13. Board Member Jeniffer McNary reported that PGUSD will be having a wellness event on January 25th at Pacific Grove Middle School.

14. Board Member Lori McDonell asked Rosie Angulo Executive Assistant to send out an email with BLAAC Heritage Celebration information.

15. Board Chair Mary Ann Carbone adjourned the meeting at 1:21p.m.

The next regular board meeting is scheduled for Thursday, February 20th from 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. at the Sand City City Hall, Sand City, CA.

PGCC 2-19-25

Page 81 ends

Agenda No. 9 A

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Katie Clark, Recreation Manager
MEETING DATE: February 19, 2025
SUBJECT: PGUSD & City of Pacific Grove ELOP MOU 2025
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

RECOMMENDATION
Approve the City of Pacific Grove to enter a Memorandum of Understanding with Pacific Grove Unified School District allowing Pacific Grove Recreation to operate the Expanded Learning Opportunities (ELOP) Summer Camp Program.

1. 2. Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item.

DISCUSSION
The City of Pacific Grove partnered with Pacific Grove Unified School District (PGUSD) to offer a free summer camp opportunity in 2023 and 2024 through the District’s Expanded Learning Opportunities Program (ELOP) Grant. The Expanded Learning Opportunities Program Grant, awarded by the state of California, provides schools with funding to operate programs outside the instructional school day.

PGUSD has approached the City of Pacific Grove to work together for summer 2025 to provide the same free summer camp through their current district awarded ELOP Grant to serve the district's unduplicated pupil population. PGUSD will provide facilities, funding, and guidance on ELOP guidelines to support the ELOP Summer Camp Program. The City of Pacific Grove Recreation Department will provide the programming, staff training and oversight for this program. This camp will be located at Robert H. Down Elementary School and will run up to 8 weeks from June 9-August 1, 2025. PGUSD & the City of Pacific Grove Recreation Department are looking at either a 7- or 8-week program. The final decision will take into account the 2025-2026 PGUSD Academic Calendar, the needs of Robert H Down staff and campus, and the student participants. Camp program hours will be Monday-Friday from 8:00 am-5:00 pm. Each week the program will serve up to 60 students. The final number of students will be dependent on the total number of staff hired for this program. PGUSD is assisting the City of Pacific Grove with recruitment efforts. A Memorandum of Understanding between Pacific Grove Unified School District and the City of Pacific Grove has been drafted. See attachment 1.

The attached MOU was received and approved by the PGUSD School Board, as consent agenda item O, at their meeting on February 6, 2025.

OPTIONS
PGCC 2-19-25

Page 82 ends

1. Take no action

2. Provide alternate direction
FINANCIAL IMPACT:

The proposed Memorandum of Understanding between PGUSD and the City of Pacific Grove presented in this report outlines the terms of the fiscal arrangement and other types of support to be provided by each entity. A short summary of the fees section has been included here for consideration.

The proposed MOU will be effective June 1-August 30, 2025. PGUSD will pay for all students recruited by the district for the Expanded Learning Opportunities (ELOP) Summer Camp at a rate $240.30 per child, per week, for up to 60 students a week, for the duration of the 8-week program. The total payment for all 60 students for 8 weeks of camp program will be $115,344 and will be paid directly to the City of Pacific Grove. The $240.30 per child, per week of camp reflects the City of Pacific Grove fee to cover all staffing costs associated with the program. PGUSD will also be billed for any additional materials and supplies required for the ELOP Summer Camp Program which are currently estimated at $6,000.00.

FOCUSED PRIORITY AREA: Recreation Services
Attachments
PGUSD & City of Pacific Grove ELOP MOU 2025
PGCC 2-19-25

Page 83 ends

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

BETWEEN

PACIFIC GROVE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT AND THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
This Memorandum of Understanding (“Agreement”) is entered into between the Pacific Grove Unified School District (“District”) and The City of Pacific Grove (“City”) for the establishment of an Expanded Learning Opportunities Summer Camp Program located at the Pacific Grove Youth Center, 302 16th Street Pacific Grove, CA 93950 (the “Youth Center”), Robert Down Elementary School, 485 Pine Ave., Pacific Grove, CA 93950 (the “RHD”), and the Pacific Grove Community Center, 515 Junipero Ave, Pacific Grove, CA 93950 (the “Community Center”). Together, the sites listed in will be known as (the ”Facilities”). Together, the District and the City are referred to herein as the “Parties.” WHEREAS, the Community Recreation Act (California Education Code sections 10900 through 10914.5) authorizes school districts and cities to organize, promote, and conduct community recreation programs and activities to promote the health and general welfare of the community; and
WHEREAS, the California Civic Center Law (California Education Code sections 38130- 38138) establishes a civic center at every school for use by citizens for a variety of purposes, including recreation; and
WHEREAS, the District is the owner of real property, including facilities and Active Use Areas that are capable of being used for community recreational purposes; and WHEREAS, the City is the owner of real property, including facilities and Active Use Areas that are capable of being used for community recreational purposes; and WHEREAS, under appropriate circumstances, these publicly held lands and facilities should be used most efficiently to maximize use and increase recreational opportunities for the community; and
WHEREAS, California Education Code section 10905 authorizes the governing bodies of any two or more public authorities may cooperate with each other to enter into agreements to promote the health and general welfare of the community and to enhance the recreational opportunities afforded to the community.

A. Term: The Term of this MOU shall be for the period June 1, 2025 through August 30, 2025.

PGCC 2-19-25

Page 84 ends

B. Fees: The District shall pay for all District students recruited by the District for the Expanded Learning Opportunities (ELOP) Summer Camp Program. All fees associated with the District's ELOP City program will be paid at the rate of $240.30/child per week for up to 60 students for the 8 week program.

Any additional materials and supplies required to support the District’s Expanded Learning Opportunities Summer Camp Program will be billed to the District by its pro rata share of use.

Supplies for the 2025 Summer program are estimated to be $6,000 The District payment per student per week shall constitute reimbursement to the City for the additional cost in overhead associated with the increased capacity of the City’s Summer Camp Program to accommodate the District’s Expanded Learning Opportunities Summer Camp Program. The District has agreed to recruit additional Pacific Grove High School Students as chaperones, lifeguards, counselors etc. for the City’s Summer Camp Program, and the District will work directly with the students to fill out the online application required by the City.

The District will set up payment directly to the City, not to exceed $121,344 ($115,344 for tuition and $6,000 for supplies) for the District’s Expanded Learning Opportunities 2025 Summer Camp Program.

C. Use: The District shall have joint use of all Facilities associated with the City’s Summer Camp Program for the District’s expansion of the program known as Expanded Learning Opportunities Summer Camp Program.

The City shall have joint use of all Facilities associated with the District’s Expanded Learning Opportunities Summer Camp Program.

The Facilities will be used to conduct both the City’s Summer Camp Program and the District’s expansion of the program known as Expanded Learning Opportunities Summer Camp Program.

The District will offer their program slots to the unduplicated pupil population in grades TK-6. The District will give the exact number of students enrolled in the program following the District’s lottery to be held prior to May 1, 2025.

D. Termination: This Agreement will be in effect for the fiscal year 2024-25 and 2025-26, expiring as specified above. Both Parties have a right to terminate PGCC 2-19-25

Page 85 ends

the Agreement within (30) days written notice to either party without cause or for any reason.

E. Utilities Services: Gas, electricity and water usage will not be assessed by either party associated with this Agreement.

F. Waste: All waste associated with the City’s Summer Camp Program and the District’s expansion of the program known as Expanded Learning Opportunities Summer Camp Program will be isolated to each of the defined Facilities. The District will provide custodial support staff to dispose of all waste at its real property location (RHD), and the City will provide custodial support staff to dispose of all waste at its real property location(s).

G. Nuisance: The District agrees that, in connection with its use of the Facilities, The District will not commit any public or private nuisance or any other act or thing which might or would reasonably be construed to disturb the quiet enjoyment of nearby property.

The City agrees that, in connection with its use of the Facilities, The City will not commit any public or private nuisance or any other act or thing which might or would reasonably be construed to disturb the quiet enjoyment of nearby property.

H. Fingerprinting/Background Checks: All District staff in direct contact with children will be required to be fingerprinted by the District via livescan at their sole expense. All City staff in direct contact with children will be required to be fingerprinted via livescan by the City at their sole expense.

I. Repairs: Outside of the normal Maintenance Obligations provided by the District, the District agrees to maintain all real property owned Facilities in good condition. All repairs and upgrades to the Facilities are at the expense of the District, unless otherwise agreed upon by both Parties.

Outside of the normal Maintenance Obligations provided by the City, the City agrees to maintain all real property owned Facilities in good condition. All repairs and upgrades to the Facilities are at the expense of the City, unless otherwise agreed upon by both Parties.

J. Insurance: The District and the City shall both carry and maintain, during the entire term hereof, at its own cost and expense, the following types of insurance:

PGCC 2-19-25

Page 86 ends

1. Comprehensive General Liability Insurance covering bodily injury and property damage in an amount no less than $2,000,000 per occurrence, $2,000,000 aggregate.

2. Comprehensive general liability insurance policy shall be endorsed with the language that “District, its officers and employees”, is named as additional insured for all liability arising out of the operations in the performance of this MOU agreement.

3. Comprehensive general liability insurance policy shall be endorsed with the language that “the City, its officers and employees”, is named as additional insured for all liability arising out of the operations in the performance of this MOU agreement.

4. The additional insured endorsement must be noted on a separate form which accompanies the Certificate of Insurance (COI).

K. Hold Harmless: The City shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the District and its agents, representatives, officers, the District’s, employees, Board of Trustees, members of the Board of Trustees (collectively, the “District Parties”), from and against any and all claims, demands, liabilities, damages, losses, suits and actions, and expenses (including, but not limited to attorney fees and costs including fees of the District) of any kind, nature and description (collectively, the “Claims”) directly or indirectly arising out of, connected with, or resulting from any act, error, omission, negligence, or willful misconduct of the City, its agents, subcontractors, employees, material or equipment suppliers, invitees, or licensees (collectively, the “the City Parties”) in the performance of or failure to perform the City’s or the City Parties’ obligations under this Agreement, including, but not limited to the City’s or the City Parties’ use of District sites, performance of the Services, breach of any of the representations or warranties contained in this Agreement, or for injury to or death of persons or damage to property or delay or damage to the District or the District Parties. Such obligation shall not be construed to negate, abridge, or reduce other rights or obligations of indemnity, which would otherwise exist as to a party, person, or entity described in this paragraph. The indemnification provided for in this Section includes, without limitation to the foregoing, claims that may be made against District by any taxing authority asserting that an employer-employee relationship exists by reason of this Agreement, and any claims made against District alleging civil rights violations by the City or the City Parties under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”).

PGCC 2-19-25

Page 87 ends

The District shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City and its agents, representatives, officers, the City’s, employees, Mayor, City Council, members of the City Council (collectively, the “City Parties”), from and against any and all claims, demands, liabilities, damages, losses, suits and actions, and expenses (including, but not limited to attorney fees and costs including fees of the City) of any kind, nature and description (collectively, the “Claims”) directly or indirectly arising out of, connected with, or resulting from any act, error, omission, negligence, or willful misconduct of the District, its agents, subcontractors, employees, material or equipment suppliers, invitees, or licensees (collectively, the “the District Parties”) in the performance of or failure to perform the District’s or the District Parties’ obligations under this Agreement, including, but not limited to the District’s or the District Parties’ use of City sites, performance of the Services, breach of any of the representations or warranties contained in this Agreement, or for injury to or death of persons or damage to property or delay or damage to the City or the City Parties. Such obligation shall not be construed to negate, abridge, or reduce other rights or obligations of indemnity, which would otherwise exist as to a party, person, or entity described in this paragraph. The indemnification provided for in this Section includes, without limitation to the foregoing, claims that may be made against City by any taxing authority asserting that an employeremployee relationship exists by reason of this Agreement, and any claims made against City alleging civil rights violations by the District or the District Parties under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”).

L. Parking: the City shall have access to the parking lots located at the real property Facilities owned by the District during the time the City is using the Facilities.

PACIFIC GROVE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
By: ________________________________ Date: _____________________ Title: ______________________________
PGCC 2-19-25

Page 88 ends

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
By: ________________________________ Date: _____________________ Title: ______________________________
PGCC 2-19-25

Page 89 ends

Agenda No. 9 B

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Nick Smith, Mayor
MEETING DATE: February 19, 2025
SUBJECT: Appointments to Museum Board
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

RECOMMENDATION
Approve appointments to Museum Board listed below.

DISCUSSION
City committees play an important role in our city government. We are fortunate to have many highly qualified residents willing to serve on our committees.

I’ve used information gleaned from many sources to select these appointments: applications, resumes, personal contacts, observations, and feedback from City staff and residents. I’ve taken into consideration demonstrated commitment to the City and fit to the committee’s mission.

Terms for committee positions are 4 years for Charter committees. Incumbents are not automatically reappointed. Terms of office begin February 1 and end January 31 of the respective year. Mayoral appointments to City committees must be confirmed by Council (City Charter, Art. 26).

Appointments for confirmation are as follows:

Charter committee
Museum Board – Melvin Dubee; Amy Tomlinson; Shelton Virden

OPTIONS
N/A
FINANCIAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact on appointments to Boards, Commission, and Committees.

GOAL ALIGNMENT: Not Applicable.

Attachments
Combined Redacted Applications and Resumes
PGCC 2-19-25

Page 90 ends

Combined Redacted Applications and Resumes
PGCC 2-19-25

Page 91 ends

PGCC 2-19-25

Page 92 ends

PGCC 2-19-25

Page 93 ends

PGCC 2-19-25

Page 94 ends

PGCC 2-19-25

Page 95 ends

PGCC 2-19-25

Page 96 ends

PGCC 2-19-25

Page 97 ends

PGCC 2-19-25

Page 98 ends

PGCC 2-19-25

Page 99 ends

PGCC 2-19-25

Page 100 ends

Agenda No. 9 C

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Matthew Mogensen, City Manager
MEETING DATE: February 19, 2025
SUBJECT: Proposed Amended Schedule of City Council Meetings for 2025 and 2026 CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

RECOMMENDATION

1. Motion to Adopt Proposed Amended Schedule of City Council Meetings for 2025 and 2026.

2. In the alternative, approve a different regular City Council meeting schedule.

DISCUSSION
On December 4, 2024, the City Council approved a Regular Meeting Schedule 2025 and 2026. (Attachment 1). This Schedule provides that there will be no scheduled City Council meetings on the first Wednesday in January and no City Council meetings in July.

City Charter Article 13 provides, in part, as follows:
“There shall be two regular meetings of the Council in each month at a day and hour by ordinance determined, and any regular meeting may be adjourned to a date and hour certain and such adjourned meeting shall be a regular meeting for all purposes; provided however, the Council may cancel one of those meetings, as circumstances may require, by five (5) affirmative votes.

The Council shall adopt rules for the conduct of its proceeding and shall provide by ordinance the manner in which its special meetings may be called.”
Thus, there must be a least one regular City Council a month. The Schedule adopted on December 4, 2024 did not include any regular City Council meetings in July 2025 or July 2026.

The attached Proposed Amended Schedule of City Council Meetings for 2025 and 2026 (Attachment 2) provides for no regular City Council meeting to be held on: the first Wednesday in January, the second Wednesday in July, the first Wednesday in August and the second Wednesday in December. City Council meetings are not scheduled on these dates in order to allow for vacation opportunities.

OPTIONS
Provide alternate direction.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact related to enactment of this Ordinance.

PGCC 2-19-25

Page 101 ends

There is no fiscal impact related to enactment of this Ordinance.

FOCUSED PRIORITY AREA: Not Applicable.

Attachments
1 Adopted Schedule of CC Meetings for 2025 and 2026
2 Proposed Amended Schedule of CC Meetings for 2025 and 2026 PGCC 2-19-25

Page 102 ends

CITY COUNCIL
ADOPTED 2025 REGULAR MEETING SCHEDULE,
1ST Wednesday 3rd Wednesday
* January 15
February 5 February 19
March 5 March 19
April 2 April 16
May 7 May 21
June 4 June 18
** **
August 6 August 20
September 3 September 17
October 1 October 15
November 5 November 19
December 3 December 17
*One meeting scheduled.
**No meetings scheduled.

PGCC 2-19-25

Page 103 ends

CITY COUNCIL
ADOPTED 2026 REGULAR MEETING SCHEDULE
1ST Wednesday 3rd Wednesday
* January 21
February 4 February 18
March 4 March 18
April 1 April 15
May 6 May 20
June 3 June 17
** **
August 5 August 19
September 2 September 16
October 7 October 21
November 4 November 18
December 2 December 16
*One meeting scheduled.
** No meetings scheduled.

PGCC 2-19-25

Page 104 ends

CITY COUNCIL
AMENDED ADOPTED 2025 REGULAR MEETING

SCHEDULE,
1ST Wednesday 3
rdWednesday
* January 15
February 5 February 19
March 5 March 19
April 2 April 16
May 7 May 21
June 4 June 18
July 2 *
* August 20
September 3 September 17
October 1 October 15
November 5 November 19
December 3 *
*One meeting scheduled.
*
PGCC 2-19-25

Page 105 ends

CITY COUNCIL
AMENDED ADOPTED 2026 REGULAR MEETING

SCHEDULE
1ST Wednesday 3
rdWednesday
* January 21
February 4 February 18
March 4 March 18
April 1 April 15
May 6 May 20
June 3 June 17
July 1 *
* August 19
September 2 September 16
October 7 October 21
November 4 November 18
December 2 *
*One meeting scheduled.
.

PGCC 2-19-25

Page 106 ends

Agenda No. 9 D

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM:

Daniel Gho, Public Works Director/Deputy City Manager; Lori McDonnell, City Councilmember
MEETING DATE: February 19, 2025
SUBJECT: Pacific Grove Cares Projects Newly added item.

CEQA: Categorical Exemption, CEQA Guidelines Section 15304, Class 4, Minor Alterations to Land

RECOMMENDATION
Authorize Pacific Grove Cares to commence work on two landscape project sites, Caledonia Park by the Tommy Stillwell sign, and Chase Park West, and authorize staff to assist Pacific Grove Cares with the two projects.

DISCUSSION
The City of Pacific Grove has been approached by Pacific Grove Cares, regarding a potential plan to refresh portions of Caledonia and Chase Park. Pacific Grove Cares is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit volunteer organization dedicated to restoring, maintaining, and improving the town's planted public landscape.

Pacific Grove Cares has two locations where they would like to perform demonstration projects to kick off their efforts, the west side of Chase Park, and Caledonia under the park sign.

Chase Park
Chase Park is divided into two parcels, one parcel is adjacent to the Sally Griffin Center and the Vista Point Apartments, and the other Parcel is at the intersection of 17th and Ocean View, on the east side above the main Lovers Point parking lot. The park serves as a connecting route from the Sally Griffin Center and the apartments to the recreation trail and Lovers Point.

The park on the east side of Ocean View is where the Praske’s Family donated their time and efforts to restore the landscaping, and Pacific Grove Cares would like to complete Chase Park and restore the west side. The project will consist of the removal of weeds and the trimming or removal of the aged plants. Additional there is a large Elm Tree that has poor structure that will be requested for removal.

The soil, where any replanting will occur, will have the soil amended and will be replanted with 1 and 5-gallon native plants, a planting plan is attached to this report. Irrigation and a weed fabric blocker will be placed on the ground with bark that will match the east side of Chase Park. After the installation of the bark, new memorial benches will be installed.

Caledonia Park
Pacific Grove Cares has also developed a plan to enhance the landscaping on the corner of Central Avenue and Caledonia Street, which is where the Caledonia Park, Tommy Stillwell Court sign is. Like PGCC 2-19-25

Page 107 ends

Chase Park West, Pacific Grove Cares plans to remove the weeds, prepare the soil for planting, install weed fabric, install irrigation, and then install decorative bark. This is a smaller, much simpler project than the one at Chase Park, that Pacific Grove Cares plans to embark upon, but equally important.

The work at both sites, is to be completed by a group of volunteers, that is being compiled by Pacific Grove Cares. Pacific Grove Cares intends to retain the services of a landscaping firm to assist. Pacific Grove Cares has committed to the long-term maintenance of these two locations.

If the Council approves the two projects, staff will follow all the procedures set forth in the City code to ensure that all aspects of the projects are properly permitted. This would include posting of the elm tree for removal and since both projects are within the coastal zone, staff will submit applications to our Community Development Department for Coastal Development Permit approvals.

The BNRC received this report and unanimously endorsed the project and Pacific Grove Cares at their January 21, 2025 meeting.

OPTIONS

1. Do not authorize the commencement of the two project sites FINANCIAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact associated with the project. All work will be funded through donations and volunteer efforts, with the exception of some assistance by City staff.

FOCUSED PRIORITY AREA: Not Applicable.

Attachments
Chase Park
Caledonia Plan
Plant List
PGCC 2-19-25

Page 108 ends

PGCC 2-19-25

Page 109 ends

PGCC 2-19-25

Page 110 ends

PGCC 2-19-25

Page 111 ends

PGCC 2-19-25

Page 112 ends

PGCC 2-19-25

Page 113 ends

PGCC 2-19-25

Page 114 ends

PGCC 2-19-25

Page 115 ends

PGCC 2-19-25

Page 116 ends

PGCC 2-19-25

Page 117 ends

Agenda No. 9 E

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Joe Amelio, Councilmember
MEETING DATE: February 19, 2025
SUBJECT: Parking Permits for Volunteers for City Events Moved from regular agenda.

CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

RECOMMENDATION
Approve the recommendation from the Traffic Safety Commission to issue parking permits to volunteers for city events.

1. Direct the City Attorney to return to Council with an ordinance to add PG Municipal Code Section 16.40.605 Parking permits for volunteers on city business.

2. 3. Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item.

DISCUSSION
Pacific Grove is host to a variety of special events such as traditional seasonal celebrations, community gatherings, annual runs/walks, car shows, and parades. These events have become a large part of the city's unique heritage and are loved by both Pacific Grove residents, volunteers, and visitors.

Pacific Grove Municipal Code 16.40.600 states:

16.40.600 Parking permits for private vehicles used on city business.

The city clerk shall issue a parking permit to any city employee or official required to use his or her private vehicle on city business. Such permit shall grant a private vehicle the status of a city vehicle with respect to parking regulations. The permit shall be subject to the following limitations:
(a) Permit valid only when private vehicle used to conduct official business; (b) Permit to be clearly displayed as designated by the city clerk; (c) Permit valid only in city parking facilities and on streets; (d) Permit not valid where parking is prohibited (e.g., red zones, loading zones) or where parking is restricted to handicapped;
(e) Permit shall be revoked for abuse. [Ord. 1729 N.S. § 1, 1990].

The addition of the below code would permit volunteers to park without time restrictions.

16.40.600.1 Parking permits for volunteers on city business.

City manager or designee shall issue parking permits for volunteers at city sponsored events i.e., 4th of July celebration, PG Concours Rally, Butterfly Parade, Stillwell’s Holiday in the Park, PGCC 2-19-25

Page 118 ends

4th of July celebration, PG Concours Rally, Butterfly Parade, Stillwell’s Holiday in the Park, Good Old Days, Walk of Remembrance, and other events as approved by the city manager or designee. The permit shall be subject to the following limitations:
(a) Permit shall be clearly displayed;
(b) Permit is not valid where parking is prohibited (e.g., red zones, loading zones) or where parking is restricted to handicapped;
(c) Permit shall be revoked for abuse.

This is a recommendation received from the Traffic Safety Commission. As outlined in Chair Gunby's memo attached to this agenda report, this will allow volunteers to help out at city events without the concern of receiving parking tickets.

OPTIONS
Provide alternate direction.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact to discuss this agenda item.

GOAL ALIGNMENT: Not Applicable.

Attachments
TSC Chair Memo
PGCC 2-19-25

Page 119 ends

November 26, 2024
To: Traffic Safety Commission
From Michael Gunby, Chairman
Proposal to Issue Free Parking Passes for Volunteers at City Events.

This proposal is to allow the City of Pacific Grove to issue passes for free parking in City lots and on City streets beyond the posted time limits for volunteers for set up, working and breakdown at City sponsored or permitted events i.e. Good Old Days, Butterfly Days, Little Car Show, etc. Such permits have been issued in the past. However, they no longer are now.

This will allow volunteers to help out at events and not have to move their cars during the event or have concern of receiving a parking ticket for parking too long. Often, volunteers have complained they receive a ticket even with a note on their dashboard explaining the situation.

The Police Department has indicated they are obligated to ticket vehicles that violate the parking time limit.

This proposal may require City Council to amend the Pacific Grove Municipal Code Chapter 16.40 to add this provision or to allow the City Manager or other designee discretion to issue such permits.

Thank you for your consideration.

PGCC 2-19-25

Page 120 ends

Agenda No. 10 A

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Katie Clark, Recreation Program Manager
MEETING DATE: February 19, 2025
SUBJECT: Recreation Board Minutes: November 25, 2024
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

RECOMMENDATION
Receive minutes.

Attachments
Recreation Board Minutes November 25, 2024
PGCC 2-19-25

Page 121 ends

November 25, 2024 Recreation Board Meeting Minutes

1. CALL TO ORDER
Recreation Board Chair, Colleen Goldsmith, called the meeting to order at 4:03 PM. Also present in the chamber were Board Member Ashley Gamble, Board Member Roger O'Sullivan, Public Works Director/Deputy City Manager Daniel Gho, and Recreation Program Manager Katie Clark. City Council Liaison Nick Smith, Board Member Darrell Smith, and Vice Chair Jay Tulley were not present.

2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Upon motion by Board Member Gamble and seconded by Board Member O'Sullivan, the Recreation Board voted unanimously to approve the agenda.

3. BOARD AND STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS (City-Related Items Only) Public Works Director/Deputy City Manager Gho announced:
• A contract has been approved to work on the ADA pathway and ramps off of Sinex Ave to approve ADA accessibility at GW.
• The soundproofing for the QJDLMFCBMM courts will be installed soon. The courts will be resurfaced in the spring.
• The GW drainage project is complex, but in progress with engineers and contractors. • The garbage receptacles for Lovers Point Park have been ordered and will be installed when they arrive.
• The coastal turnouts and the Rec Trail have received ongoing improvements.

Recreation Program Manager Clark announced:
• Youth Basketball League: Starts in January for ages 7-10 at PG High School Gym. • Adult Programming Survey: Open from Nov 22 to Dec 20. • Holiday Events:
• City Tree Lighting: Dec 2 at Jewel Park.
• Gingerbread Decorating Parties: Dec 7.
• Holiday Cookie Decorating: Dec 12.
• Winter Break Camp: During PGUSD break.
• Parade of Lights: Dec 5.
• Stillwell's Holiday in the Park: Dec 7.
• Rudolph Run: Dec 14 at Lovers Point.

Board member O’Sullivan asked for clarification about the areas under the City Jurisdiction.

Recreation Board Chair, Colleen Goldsmith announced:
• The Chinese Pavilion project and fundraiser have raised $150,000. There is still an opportunity for residents in Pacific Grove and elsewhere to donate to this project. • There is another fundraiser going on for Chautauqua Hall. They have raised around $160,000, but they are going to need a way lot more money than that.

4. COUNCIL LIAISON ANNOUNCEMENTS
City Council Member Nick Smith sent an email to the Recreation Program Manager, Katie PGCC 2-19-25

Page 122 ends

November 25, 2024 Recreation Board Meeting Minutes
Clark. The email wished everyone the best and said Happy Thanksgiving. Board Chair Colleen Goldsmith said congratulations to the new Mayor-Elect, Nick Smith, and that we look forward to working with him.

5. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT
Public Comments:

Don Mothershead made a public comment about drainage at Arnet Park, and he hopes people who are terming out on the Recreation Board will consider signing up for another term.

Recreation Board Chair, Colleen Goldsmith announced there will be openings on the board in 2025.
1 written public comment was received from Don Mothershead regarding Parks and Rec Day.

6. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES
Upon motion by Board Member Gamble and seconded by Board Member O'Sullivan, the Recreation Board voted unanimously to approve the Meeting Minutes from October 24, 2024.

7. REGULAR AGENDA
A. 2024 Fall Soccer Report
Received report from Andy Lisping, Sports Coordinator.

The 2024 Fall Soccer program included
• Junior Soccer Program for ages 3-4 to familiarize kids with soccer, develop basic skills and have fun.
• Youth Soccer League for ages 5-12 had skill assessments, a league format, one practice a week and games on Saturdays. There were a few all girls and all boys teams for the older age ranges.
• Staff and volunteers helped to run the program by coaching, refereeing, maintaining the fields.
• The location this year was at Robert Down Elementary School Filed. • 225 kids participated in the program, which was up from 2023. • Moving forward some changes will be made to the program including adjusting age ranges to align with outside programs, working with Pacific Grove High School more, and additional staff training.
• Thanks to the City, PGUD, volunteers, staff and participants and their families.

Don Mothershead commented that it may be helpful to break up age ranges by grades and commended Andy for his hard work.

Board Member O’Sullivan asked if there were any other sports conflicts, Andy said yes, though that is true for any season.

PGCC 2-19-25

Page 123 ends

November 25, 2024 Recreation Board Meeting Minutes Gamble and Goldsmith commended Andy for the great program.

B. City and PGUSD Joint Use Agreement
Received report from Colleen Goldsmith, Recreation Board Chair. • The Joint Use Agreement was reviewed including discussion on facility usage, scheduling improvements, and addressing past miscommunications. • The agreement allows mutual use of facilities with fee waivers.

Don Mothershead commented publicly that the City and PGUSD used to function with a “handshake agreement.” It is nice to have an actual agreement and if possible it would be nice to have the document online.

Board Member Gamble and O’Sullivan, and Board Chair Goldsmith asked clarifying questions.

8. NEXT MEETING
December’s meeting has been canceled. The next meeting will be Thursday, January 23, 2025, at 4:00 PM at the Council Chamber, City Hall at 300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA.

9. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 5:06 PM
.inutes respectfully submitted by Board Member Gamble.

PGCC 2-19-25

Page 124 ends

Agenda No. 11 A

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Leticia Livian, Human Resources Director
MEETING DATE: February 19, 2025
SUBJECT: First reading of an ordinance to amend the City Salary Classification Schedule CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

RECOMMENDATION

1. Request the City Attorney read the title of the ordinance.

2. Motion to waive further reading of the ordinance.

3. 4. Direct that publication of the ordinance will be satisfied by publication of a summary approved by the City Attorney.

DISCUSSION
The City’s salary schedule identifies job classifications that have been approved by Council (e.g., Administrative Technician) and the hourly rates of pay for each classification at each step authorized by the Personnel Rules. Pursuant to Charter Article 25 and the Pacific Grove Municipal Code (PGMC) Section 4.20.280, approval and amendment to the salary schedule must be adopted by the Council.

City Council approved adding two new classifications at the FY 24/25 mid-year budget adjustment: urban forester and civil engineer.

There are several common experience levels of civil engineers. Staff is recommending the civil engineer be brought in as an experience level of Principal Civil Engineer. This level requires five years of civil engineering experience and allows for highly responsible assistance to the Public Works Director, as well as provides supervision of public works personnel.

The requested changes to the salary scheduled are for the addition of an Urban Forester and a Principal Civil Engineer classifications, all other classifications in the salary schedule remain the same. To view the entire salary schedule, please refer to the City’s website, http://www.cityofpacificgrove.org/about-city/human-resources/salaries-benefits-and-mous.

The proposed salary ranges for both classifications is listed below.

Classification Step Step Step Step Step Step Step
Urban Forester 1A 2B 3C 4D 5E 6F 7G
Hourly Rate 45.22 47.49 49.86 52.35 54.97 57.03 59.17

Classification Step Step Step Step Step Step Step
Principal Civil Engineer 1A 2B 3C 4D 5E 6F 7G
Hourly Rate 55.79 58.58 61.50 64.58 67.81 71.20 74.76
PGCC 2-19-25

Page 125 ends

The recommended salary ranges are based on market and internal analysis of compensation. Urban Forester is bench-marked with the City’s current classification of Program Manager and the Principal Civil Engineer is bench-marked with the City’s classification of Program Manager, Senior.

Both draft job descriptions can be found on the city’s website, or by clicking here for Urban Forester and clicking here for Principal Civil Engineer.

OPTIONS

1. Take no action.

2. Provide alternative direction to staff.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

From the 9/18/2024 mid-year FY 24/25 budget amendment, estimated fiscal impacts and annual costs are listed below.

Proposed New Position Est. Annual
Cost
Est. Impact
FY 24-25*
City Forester $230,000 $38,000
City Engineer $306,000 $51,000
* Estimates are based on the positions being filled by the end of April 2025.

FOCUSED PRIORITY AREA: Not Applicable.

Attachments
Ordinance
PGCC 2-19-25

Page 126 ends

ORDINANCE NO. 25 -

ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE

AMENDING THE SALARY CLASSIFICATION SCHEDULE TO ADD

URBAN FORESTER AND PRINCIPAL CIVIL ENGINEER

CLASSIFICATIONS
Findings

1. City Council approved adding two new classifications to the FY 24/25 budget; and

2. The two new classifications are Urban Forester and Principal Civil Engineer; and

3. New classifications, Urban Forester and Principal Civil Engineer are being added to the salary schedule; and

4. Amendment to the salary schedule classification plan must be adopted by the City Council pursuant to Pacific Grove Municipal Code (PGMC) Section 4.20.280; and

5. In the enactment of this ordinance, the City followed the guidelines adopted by the State of California and published in the California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000, et seq. Enactment of this ordinance action does not constitute a “project” as defined by California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it is an organizational or administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment pursuant Section 15378.

Ordinance

NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. The foregoing findings of the City Council are incorporated into this Ordinance as if set forth in full.

SECTION 2. The position classification plan approved and adopted by the City Council pursuant to PGMC § 4.20.280 is amended to add Urban Forester and Principal Civil Engineer classifications with the following salary schedule:

Classification - Hourly Rates Step
1A
Step
2B
Step
3C
Step
4D
Step
5E
Step
6F
Step
7G
Urban Forester 45.22 47.49 49.86 52.35 54.97 57.03 59.17 Principal Civil Engineer 55.79 58.58 61.50 64.58 67.81 71.20 74.76 PGCC 2-19-25

Page 127 ends

SECTION 3. The City Manager is directed to execute all documents and to perform all other necessary City acts to implement this Ordinance.

SECTION 4. Upon approval at second reading, this ordinance shall be given an effective date of 03/05/2025.

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE this 5TH day of March, 2025, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

APPROVED:

NICK SMITH, Mayor
ATTEST:

SANDRA KANDELL, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

BRIAN PIERIK, City Attorney
PGCC 2-19-25

Page 128 ends

Agenda No. 12 B

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Daniel Gho, Public Works Director/Deputy City Manager MEETING DATE: February 19, 2025
SUBJECT: George Washington Park (GWP) Biological Assessment, Direction to Proceed with Developing an Updated GWP Management Plan & Direction to proceed with short-term Maintenance Activities in GWP Moved ahead of Pine Avenue & Fountain agenda item.

CEQA: Categorical Exemption, CEQA Guidelines Section 15304, Class 4, Minor Alterations to Land

RECOMMENDATION

1. Receive the George Washington Park (GWP) Biological Resources Report

2. Direct staff to return with an updated long-term GWP Management Plan

3. Direct staff to proceed with short-term fuel reduction tasks in GWP in accordance with the 1999 GWP Master Plan and 2024 Community Wildfire Protection Plan

4. Alternatively, discuss and take other action

DISCUSSION

HISTORY
In 1925, the City of Pacific Grove purchased the pine forest land, now known as George Washington Park (GWP), from Del Monte Properties Company for $10. While there were no deed restrictions, the land was used as a park. In 1948, voters passed an ordinance officially designating the space for recreational use.

Today, GWP is a 20-acre urban forest, home to the largest contiguous Monterey pine forest in the City.

Spanning six city blocks and surrounded by residential zones, the park provides habitat for diverse plant and animal species and offers both passive and active recreation opportunities.

In 1999, the City developed a George Washington Park Master Plan (1999 GWP Master Plan) to guide park management with goals to:
• Preserve and enhance the park’s natural character
• Protect park resources
• Improve visual quality/ appearance, and
• Promote accessibility
Although the plan provides general guidance and goals, it lacks specific implementation tactics. As a PGCC 2-19-25

Page 129 ends

result, the Public Works Department, responsible for park maintenance, has historically worked with the Beautification and Natural Resources Commission (BNRC) and City Council to obtain formal direction on specific management actions.

The history provided below describes maintenance activities and discussions that have occurred over the past 8+ years.

MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES: 2016 - TO DATE
Over the years, small-scale tree planting/watering and weeding projects in GWP have been spearheaded by the BNRC subcommittee and City volunteers. While these efforts have benefited the park's ecosystem and have been a source of community pride, they have not addressed the overall forest health and the ongoing need for maintenance and fuel load reduction.

Maintenance in the park has been minimal in recent years, since staff has not received authorization or direction from the BNRC and City Council. The park today, has an over abundance of fallen trees, dead brush, poison oak, and dry grasses.
• Prior to 2014 – Formal documentation of park maintenance during this period is minimal. It is believed that most efforts were limited to annual perimeter mowing and routine safety upkeep. • 2014 – The City secured a Cal Fire grant and enlisted Cal Fire Gabilan Camp crews from Soledad to remove dead and diseased trees and clean the fuel load on the forest floor. • 2016 – The City again utilized Cal Fire Gabilan Camp crews for tree removal and forest floor/fuel load cleanup.
• 2017 – The City continued to utilized Cal Fire Gabilan Camp crews for tree removal and forest floor/fuel load cleanup.This was the last large-scale maintenance effort in GWP. • 2018 – The park’s interior remained in relatively clear due to the extensive work done in 2016 and 2017. Maintenance efforts were limited to perimeter mowing and minor upkeep in accordance with the 1999 GWP Master Plan.
• 2019–2023 – Maintenance was limited to perimeter mowing and the removal of hazard trees around the perimeter of the park.
• 2023 – On September 6, City staff received direction from City Council to address fire safety, hazard treesignificant concerns from members of the community regarding the maintenance work caused the work to be halted before much clean up was accomplished. • 2023–Present –Maintenance remains limited to perimeter mowing and hazard tree removal that have specific targets.

PROPOSED 2022 GWP FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
In 2019, staff sought formal direction on GWP maintenance. Staff presented various mechanical, manual, and biological strategies to improve safety and reduce fire risk, to the BNRC and City Council.

At their September 18, 2019 meeting, City Council directed staff to develop a new GWP management plan to build community consensus on short- and long-term forest maintenance strategies, with funding allocated for this effort via the FY21/22 Capital Improvement Plan.

While the plan was in progress, work in GWP was limited to:
· Volunteer-led pilot projects for tree planting, watering, and weeding in small demonstration sites, and · Park perimeter mowing
PGCC 2-19-25

Page 130 ends

The goal was for the newly develop plan to establish a clear management strategy and prevent further delays in addressing critical forest health and fuel load reduction activities, which had been stalled since 2018.

The draft 2022 GWP Forest Management Plan (FMP) was prepared by Dudek. This plan was brought to the BNRC and subsequently City Council for review in October 2022 and September 2023 respectively.

The draft plan provides a five-year strategy to reduce wildfire risks to homes around GWP and restore a healthy forest within the park. It focuses on three key objectives:

1. Wildfire Risk Reduction – Reduce flammable vegetation within 100 feet of homes.

2. Forest Health Improvement – Promote a diverse mix of tree ages and sizes by reducing competition and supporting regeneration.

3. Park Safety Enhancement – Remove hazardous trees that threaten park users and nearby properties.

The FMP also provides specific management activities, execution methods, and an implementation blueprint with the intention of fostering a healthier forest. It was to replace the 1999 GWP Master Plan and contained updated data, strategies, and solutions that reflect current conditions and challenges.

At their October 2022 meeting, the BNRC did not recommend FMP adoption or conducting maintenance activities due to CEQA concerns. Following the meeting, Dudek prepared, and the City Attorney’s Office reviewed a Revised Plan Memo. The memo clarified that while the plan includes various management strategies, the priority is creating defensible space and reducing wildfire risk near homes along the park perimeter and confirms these maintenance activities met CEQA Categorically Exemptions (Class 4).

The FMP, Revised Plan Memo, and request to perform fuel load reduction tasks were brought forward for Council review on September 6, 2023. Ultimately, the FMP was not approved, and direction was provided to develop a multi-seasonal biological assessment for all zones of the park.

Although the FMP was not approved, and remains in draft form, Council direction was provided to perform fuel reduction/maintenance activities consistent with the 1999 GWP Master Plan. Those tasks centered around fire safety, hazard trees, and overall park and trail accessibility. Due to significant community opposition, these tasks were halted shortly after commencing, with only some work completed.
2024 Biological Resources Report
In accordance with the Council’s direction and their approved 2023-2024 Goals & Work Plan, staff initiated a year-long biological assessment performed by Denise Duffy and Associates (DDA). The final Biological Resources Report (Attachment 1) summarizes the surveys, methods, findings, and impact assessment, along with avoidance and minimization measures to inform a future CEQA document for park forest management. A CEQA analysis will be conducted once a new management plan is developed.

The assessment revealed no major surprises. DDA did not identified any previously undocumented special-status species, except for the Western red bat (a California species of special concern, but not threatened or endangered). A portion of GWP is host to a federally listed plant species, the Yadon’s Piperia. The entire park assessment did not show indications of any additional Yadon’s Piperia, beyond PGCC 2-19-25

Page 131 ends

the previously documented occurrence.

The report also addresses impacts and mitigation measures related to nesting birds and raptors, bats and roosting habitats, overwintering monarch butterflies, Monterey pine, Yadon’s Piperia, and the Monterey pine forest.

Ultimately, this report provides vital information that can help serve as the backbone for the development of an updated, comprehensive forest and park management plan.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION 1 - RECEIVE THE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES REPORT.

The GWP Biological Resources Report meets the Council’s direction and goals/work plan milestone addressing all zones of the park for a year-long period. Staff recommends the City Council formally receive the Biological Resources Report. 2024 Community Wildfire Protection Plan
This Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) has been developed by the Monterey Fire Department, in coordination with the Cities of Monterey, Carmel-by-the-Sea, and Pacific Grove, with input and direction from interested parties, agency representatives, and community members.

The CWPP serves as a fire protection planning document and outlines the community’s physical characteristics, wildfire hazards, assets at risk, risk reduction strategies, vegetation management projects, and action plans to mitigate wildfire threats. The plan area covers the entire city, including GWP.

At the July 2024 City Council meeting CWPP was adopted unanimously for implementation in Pacific Grove.

The approved CWPP includes management tasks and priority vegetation management projects specific to GWP. The CWPP will be harnessed to conduct necessary vegetation and fire fuel management in the park until a new GWP plan is approved (see “Maintenance Action Needed” section below).

Although the CWPP provides specific fuel reduction, vegetation management, and defensible space recommendations for GWP, it is not a comprehensive plan to address forest health.

Consequently, the newly approved CWPP, along with the Biological Resources Report, 2022 FMP and 1999 GWP Master Plan, will inform and be vital inputs to a comprehensive management plan that balances ecosystem health and fuel reduction.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION 2 - Direct staff to return with an updated long-term GWP Management Plan
When the original Biological Resources Report agreement with DDA was awarded, City Staff outlined a plan to develop a new comprehensive GWP Plan building on the CWPP, 1999 GWP Master Plan, and 2022 FMP, with the Biological Resources Report as its foundation. With all necessary components now complete, Staff seeks formal authorization to proceed.

Next Steps: Once the City Forester is onboarded, they will oversee the development the new comprehensive plan.

PGCC 2-19-25

Page 132 ends

Attachment 2 provides a chronological record of all items presented to BNRC and City Council from 2019 to the present. This report, the 15th on this topic in the past five years, reflects the shared commitment of the community and staff to caring for a valued public asset and the ongoing desire to address park safety and maintenance needs.

MAINTENANCE ACTION NEEDED
Since 2017, minimal cleanup has occurred in the park.. Today, GWP has an overabundance of fallen trees, dead brush, poison oak, and dry grasses. Concerns of wildfire risk have been growing for neighboring residents of the park and calls for staff to perform interior maintenance have grown.

Approved plans (CWPP and 1999 GWP Master Plan) and the draft 2022 FMP outline techniques for fuel reduction, all previously identified as appropriate. To address further fuel loads, staff is seeking direction from the City Council to develop short-term fuel load maintenance activities consisting of one or a combination of the methods described below.

1. Grazing: Livestock such as cattle, goats, or sheep can reduce fine fuel loads by grazing on grasses, shrubs, and young tree growth.
· A minimum of 5 acres is required for a handler to consider GWP a viable site.

2. Hand Labor: This method involves pruning, cutting, and removing vegetation using hand tools or handheld equipment. It includes dead wood removal, piling, and spreading mulch. This technique is best suited for small or hard-to-access areas. It allows for selective vegetation management and is best when combined with other techniques.
· This technique would be best executed by a contractor, as trained professionals can efficiently and safely remove brush.
· Alternatively, a Cal Fire grant could be obtained, but this is an unreliable and inconsistent source of labor.
· Volunteers have offered to drag brush and debris to the curb or assist with a small chipper. However, significant safety and liability concerns make this option infeasible. Poison oak contamination and the potential for injury while hauling heavy volumes of debris present safety and liability risks; these tasks should be executed by trained professionals. Additionally, the large volume of debris would require more labor than volunteer groups can realistically provide.

3. Mechanical Techniques: These methods use motorized heavy equipment to remove or alter vegetation by rearranging, compacting, or chipping material. Equipment includes masticators, tractors, and chippers.
· Mechanical techniques are the most viable and efficient option typically in dense debris areas. The park is 20 acres with large accumulations of debris. Moreover, there is dense poison oak in many areas, making mechanical options preferable to reduce risk of exposure for hand crews. · Harnessing a masticator would be the most efficient way to reduce fuel load. Sensitive areas identified in the Biological Assessment would be fenced off and large areas, with heavy poison oak, could be efficiently addressed.
· Chippers with skid loaders or small excavators with grappling buckets, are also an option. This use of mechanical equipment would entail staging chippers on the trail and using loaders to remove and load debris into the chipper.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION #3 – DIRECT STAFF TO DEVELOP SHORT-TERM FUEL REDUCTION TASKS IN GWP IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE 1999 GWP MASTER PLAN AND 2024 CWPP.

PGCC 2-19-25

Page 133 ends

Maintenance of GWP is urgently needed to reduce fuel load and improve forest health. The tactics outlined above align with the approved plans and address the priority areas listed in the CWPP. These maintenance activities are CEQA Categorically Exempt (Class 4).

Next Steps
If approved, Public Works Staff would:
· Develop a work plan with identified maintenance areas based upon the recommended tactics · Host a public walkthrough to discuss the approved strategies and locations · Implement maintenance strategies
o A bird survey would be conducted by a qualified biologist if work was scheduled to occur between February 1st and September 15th.

OPTIONS

1. Do not authorize staff to begin working on an updated, comprehensive management plan for GWP.

2. Do not authorize maintenance activities to occur in the park FINANCIAL IMPACT:

In recent years, over $76,000 has been expended on consulting services to develop plans and reports to help provide guidance on appropriate park maintenance activities (see breakdown below). Since 2019, an average of only $5,060 per year ($30,358 in total) has been expended on GWP park maintenance, limited to perimeter mowing.

FOCUSED PRIORITY AREA: Environmental Stewardship
Attachments
Biological Assessment Report
Previous Agenda Reports
PGCC 2-19-25

Page 134 ends

George Washington Park
Biological Resources Report
December 30, 2024
Prepared for
City of Pacific Grove
300 Forest Avenue
Pacific Grove, CA 93950
Prepared by
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

Contact: John Wandke
947 Cass St. Suite 5
Monterey, California 93940
PGCC 2-19-25

Page 135 ends

Denise Duffy & Associates
George Washington Park i
Biological Resources Report

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Background .................................................................................................................................. 1

1.2 Project Location and Setting........................................................................................................ 1

1.3 Project Description ...................................................................................................................... 4

2.0 METHODS ...................................................................................................................................... 5

2.1 Personnel and Survey Methods ................................................................................................... 5

2.2 Data Sources ................................................................................................................................ 6

2.3 Focused Field Surveys ................................................................................................................. 7

2.4 Definitions ................................................................................................................................... 8

2.5 Special-Status Species ................................................................................................................. 8

2.6 Sensitive Habitats ........................................................................................................................ 9

2.7 Regulatory Setting ....................................................................................................................... 9

3.0 RESULTS ...................................................................................................................................... 13

3.1 Vegetation Surveys .................................................................................................................... 13

3.2 Invasive Non-Native Plants ....................................................................................................... 17

3.3 Wildlife Surveys ........................................................................................................................ 17

3.4 Special-Status Species ............................................................................................................... 19

3.5 Sensitive Habitats ...................................................................................................................... 23

3.6 Protected Trees .......................................................................................................................... 23

3.7 Habitat Connectivity and Nursery Sites .................................................................................... 24

4.0 Impact Thresholds .......................................................................................................................... 24

5.0 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION .................................................................................................... 25

6.0 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................. 29 TABLES
Table 1. Summary of Vegetation Types ..................................................................................................... 13

FIGURES
Figure 1. Project Location Map .................................................................................................................... 2 Figure 2. Site Plan ......................................................................................................................................... 3 Figure 3. Vegetation Types & Special Status Plants................................................................................... 15 Figure 4. Understory Vegetation Map ........................................................................................................ 16 Figure 5. Invasive Plant Species ................................................................................................................. 18 PGCC 2-19-25

Page 136 ends

Denise Duffy & Associates
George Washington Park ii
Biological Resources Report

APPENDICES
APPENDIX A. California Natural Diversity Database Report APPENDIX B. IPaC Resource List
APPENDIX C. Special-Status Species Table
APPENDIX D. List of Flora and Fauna Observed
APPENDIX E. Avian Survey Results
APPENDIX F. Bumble Bee Survey Results
APPENDIX G. Bat Survey Results Memo
APPENDIX H. Wetland Data Sheets
PGCC 2-19-25

Page 137 ends

Denise Duffy & Associates
George Washington Park 1
Biological Resources Report

1.0 INTRODUCTION
George Washington Park (GWP) is an approximately 20-acre forested urban park that contains the largest contiguous area of Monterey pine (Pinus radiata) forest within the City of Pacific Grove (City). The park is located in the western portion of the City and is surrounded by residential lots and streets (Figure 1). The park supports habitat for both common and rare flora and fauna and provides passive and active recreation opportunities for residents and visitors. The City proposes to update the existing Master Plan (City of Pacific Grove, 1999) for the park and to implement recommendations of the 2021 Forest Management Plan (FMP; Dudek, 2022) (the Project).

Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. (DD&A) completed a biological assessment of the entire park to determine if sensitive biological resources are present or have the potential to occur within and in the vicinity of the site. The assessment was performed over the course of all four seasons during 2024. This report describes the existing biological resources within the project site, including any special-status species or sensitive habitats which occur or have the potential to occur in the area. This report assesses the potential impacts to biological resources that may result from implementation of the FMP, and recommends appropriate avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures to reduce those impacts to a less than significant level in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

1.1 Background
The FMP was prepared to address necessary improvements to management of forest resources in the park, which include reduction of wildfire risk, restoration and enhancement of the Monterey pine forest ecosystem, and maintenance of the trail system for public use and safety. According to both the FMP and the existing Master Plan, the Monterey pine forest in the park has suffered impacts from historic overuse and soil compaction, drought, as well as pests and pathogens including pitch canker disease (Fusarium circinatum), dwarf mistletoe (Arceuthobium sp.), bark beetles, and invasion by non-native plant species. A combination of these factors as well as fire suppression, has led to a shift in the forest composition represented by a predominance of large old Monterey pine trees, a lack of sufficient new Monterey pine seedlings and saplings to regenerate and maintain healthy mid-canopy forest structure, and an increasing density of coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia). Additionally, the current condition of the forest in the park presents a relatively high fire risk due to an overaccumulation of flammable woody debris and dried thatch from a thick understory layer of non-native annual grasses. Habitat conditions for certain species, perhaps most notably overwintering Monarch butterflies (Danaus plexippus), are also in decline.

1.2 Project Location and Setting
GWP is located in a residential area within the City (Figure 1). The park is divided into four management zones (Zone 1 – 4) with Zone 1 generally consisting of an approximately three-acre recreational area in the southern section of the park that includes a baseball field, restrooms, playground, and picnic areas. Zones 2 – 4 consist of forested areas in a natural condition with a series of unimproved walking trails (Figure 2).

GWP is bounded by Sinex Avenue towards the south, Short Street towards the north, Alder Street towards the east and Melrose Street towards the West. Pine Avenue crosses through the middle section of the park and forms the boundary between Zone 3 and 4. The Project site is located within Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APN) 006-561-001-000, 006-441-001-000, and 006-331-010-000 and the U.S. Geological Survey 7.5- minute Monterey quadrangle. The site is located outside of the Coastal Zone.

PGCC 2-19-25

Page 138 ends

PGCC 2-19-25

Page 139 ends

PGCC 2-19-25

Page 140 ends

Denise Duffy & Associates
George Washington Park 4
Biological Resources Report
On average, topography slopes gently from east to west with elevations ranging from approximately 134 feet above mean sea level (amsl) in the western portion of Zone 2 up to approximately 176 feet amsl in the northeastern corner of Zone 4. Slope aspect ranges from northwest to southwest facing. The lowest elevation areas are found in Zone 2 where a broad and shallow dip in the topography occurs across Zones 1 and 2 in an approximately east-west orientation. The landscape in Zones 3 and 4 is more elevated due to its position along the western aspect of a broad, gently sloping hill.

1.3 Project Description
As outlined in the FMP, forest management within the park is expected to include three main actions:
reduction of wildfire risk, restoration of forest health and structure, and management of trails and improvement of public safety. These activities will be performed throughout the park. However, Zones 2 - 4 are characterized by undeveloped Monterey pine forest and will likely be the focus of most management activities. Although Zone 1 is designated for more active recreational use, mature coast live oak, Monterey pine, and Monterey cypress (Hesperocyparis macrocarpa) trees are scattered throughout and therefore may still require some forest management actions.

Fire Hazard Reduction
Fire hazard reduction will involve periodic removal of flammable vegetation and/or debris within approximately 100 feet of residential structures. Because the park is surrounded by residential areas, these activities will occur within a buffer zone around the entire perimeter of the park but will not occur in the interior portions. According to the FMP, vegetation management activities will align with CAL FIRE defensible space requirements and will include:
• Cutting or mowing tall annual grasses and annual herbaceous vegetation to four inches in height or less;
• Removing dead trees and woody shrubs;
• Removing fallen dead trees and tree parts that are 6 inches in diameter or smaller; • Bucking and scattering fallen dead trees or tree parts larger than 6 inches diameter; • Trimming off lower branches on mature trees to create 10 feet of space between the ground and lower branches;
• Removing shrubs and thickets within the dripline of a mature tree; and • Selective removal of small oaks to improve horizontal spacing.

Implementation methods will be selected by the City but both use of light mechanical equipment and hand crews is proposed by the FMP. Light mechanical equipment would include a skid steer loader to masticate woody understory vegetation, mow herbaceous vegetation, and/or transport larger logs with a grapple attachment. Hand crews would perform vegetation management using power equipment including chain saws, mowers, and weed whips as well as hand saws, pruners, and loppers. Removed material would likely be fed into a chipper parked on nearby residential streets and used on site as mulch. Management of understory vegetation may also be performed using goat grazing supervised by a herder.

PGCC 2-19-25

Page 141 ends

Denise Duffy & Associates
George Washington Park 5
Biological Resources Report
Forest Restoration and Enhancement
Forest restoration and enhancement activities are proposed for the interior portion of the park in Zones 2 –

4. According to the FMP, management activities will focus on creating conditions that promote Monterey pine regeneration and will occur in up to 16, ¼-acre plots situated in areas with less than 50% canopy closure, predominantly annual herbaceous understory vegetation and nearby mature Monterey pine and coast live oak trees. Forest restoration and enhancement activities are expected to include:
• Selective felling of dead and dying overstory trees;
• Removing concentrations of dead and downed logs, or cutting and scattering on site; • Mowing grass and herbaceous vegetation and removing understory woody surface vegetation; • Raking and removing/reducing the pine needle and leaf litter layer to expose mineral soil to improve conditions for Monterey pine seedling recruitment; and • Planting/caging/maintaining tree plantings of up to 50 trees per site.

Safety and Trail Maintenance
Occasional forest maintenance activities along trails within Zones 2 – 4 and throughout the active recreation areas of Zone 1 may be necessary to maintain safe conditions for the public. These activities may include:
• Trimming overhead broken tree branches with a potential for falling on trails; • Removal of hazard trees in the vicinity of trails, park facilities, or along adjacent streets; and • Removal of fallen limbs or tree trunks that block trails or impact park facilities.

2.0 METHODS

2.1 Personnel and Survey Methods
DD&A performed a series of field surveys over the course of 2024 in all four zones of GWP to thoroughly document natural resources throughout all four seasons. Multiple surveys were appropriately timed to accurately detect and identify plants during their peak bloom periods and to assess the potential presence of special status wildlife. Surveys included traversing the project site along a series of walking transects to identify general and sensitive habitat types, identifying all plant species to the intraspecific taxon necessary to eliminate them as being special-status species, and identifying potential habitat for special-status plant species. Concurrently, multiple reconnaissance-level wildlife habitat surveys were conducted to identify suitable habitat and observe any special-status wildlife species. Data collected during the surveys were used to assess the environmental conditions of the project site and its surroundings, evaluate environmental constraints at the site and within the local vicinity, and provide a basis for recommendations to minimize and avoid impacts.

The survey area was evaluated for botanical resources following the applicable guidelines outlined in Guidelines for Conducting and Reporting Botanical Inventories for Federally listed, Proposed and Candidate Plants (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [Service], 2000), Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities (California Department of Fish and Wildlife [CDFW], 2018), and California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Botanical Survey Guidelines (CNPS, 2001). Additional details on field surveys are provided below.

PGCC 2-19-25

Page 142 ends

Denise Duffy & Associates
George Washington Park 6
Biological Resources Report

2.2 Data Sources
Prior to conducting field work, DD&A reviewed literature and data sources to determine the occurrence or potential for occurrence of special-status species within the survey area as follows:
• Current agency status information from the Service and CDFW for species listed, proposed for listing, or candidates for listing as threatened or endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) or California Endangered Species Act (CESA), and those considered CDFW “species of special concern,” including:
California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) occurrences reports from the Monterey

7.5-minute U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle and the four surrounding quadrangles, including Marina, Seaside, Mt. Carmel, and Soberanes Point (CDFW, 2024b; Appendix A); and
Service IPaC Resource List (Service, 2024a; Appendix B). • The CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California (CNPS, 2024); • The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey (USDA-NRCS, 2024);
• The National Wetlands Inventory Wetlands Mapper (Service, 2024b); and • The National Hydrographic Dataset (USGS, 2022).

From these resources, a list of special-status plant and wildlife species known or with the potential to occur within or adjacent to the project site was created (Appendix C). This list presents these species along with their legal status, habitat requirements, and a brief statement of the likelihood to occur. Other site-specific documents were reviewed including the 1999 Master Plan, the FMP, and technical reports relevant to monarch butterfly prepared by Creekside Science (2011, 2023).

2.2.1 Botany
Vegetation types identified in A Manual of California Vegetation (Sawyer et al., 2009) were utilized to determine if vegetation types identified as sensitive on CDFW’s California Natural Communities List (CDFW, 2024a) are present within the project site. Information regarding the distribution and habitats of local and state vascular plants was also reviewed (Howitt and Howell, 1964 and 1973; Munz and Keck, 1973; Baldwin et al., 2012; Matthews and Mitchell, 2015; Jepson Flora Project, 2022). All plants observed within the project site during the evaluation were identified to species or intraspecific taxon necessary to eliminate them as being special-status species using keys and descriptions in The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California, Edition 2 (Baldwin et al., 2012) and The Plants of Monterey County an Illustrated Field Key (Matthews and Mitchell, 2015). Scientific nomenclature for plant species identified within this document follows Baldwin, et al., (2012); common names follow Matthews and Mitchell (2015). Dominant species within each habitat were noted. Dominant plant species are those which are more numerous than their competitors in an ecological community or make up more of the biomass; generally, the species that are most abundant. Most ecological communities are defined by their dominant species.

The California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC) Inventory (Cal-IPC, 2024) was reviewed to determine if any plant species identified within the project site are listed as invasive by the Cal-IPC Inventory.

PGCC 2-19-25

Page 143 ends

Denise Duffy & Associates
George Washington Park 7
Biological Resources Report
Occurrences of non-native invasive plant species were mapped using handheld GPS equipment. In addition, a list of plant species observed during botanical surveys was compiled (Appendix D).

2.2.2 Wildlife
The following literature and data sources were reviewed: CDFW reports on special-status wildlife (Remsen, 1978; Williams, 1986; Jennings and Hayes, 1994; Thelander, 1994; Thomson et Al, 2016); California Wildlife Habitat Relationships Program species-habitat models (Zeiner et al., 1988 and 1990); and general wildlife references (Stebbins, 1972, 1985, and 2003).

2.3 Focused Field Surveys
Focused Botanical Surveys and Vegetation Mapping
Focused surveys for special-status plants were conducted on April 16 and July 10, 2024, to allow identification of potentially occurring spring blooming and summer blooming species with special attention given to the species with a moderate occurrence potential (Appendix C). The known occurrence of Yadon’s piperia (Piperia yadonii) was also visited on January 18, 2024, to inventory the number of individuals with basal leaves and install protective cages on several individuals to prevent herbivory and allow complete identification during the summer bloom period. The location of the Yadon’s piperia occurrence was also mapped using handheld GPS equipment with sub-meter accuracy. When possible, nearby known reference populations of special status plants were visited to confirm timing of the bloom period.

DD&A performed vegetation mapping throughout the park over a series of field visits on April 16, June 4, June 18, July 10, and August 23, 2024. Vegetation mapping consisted of a visual evaluation of 84 plots, each approximately 1,000 square feet (sf) in size, that were evenly divided throughout the park. At each plot aerial coverage of the upper canopy layer, the middle canopy layer, and the understory vegetation was estimated by cover class. Canopy closure was grouped into categories of sparse (10-25%), open (25-40%), moderate (40-60%), and dense (>60%). The most dominant tree species within the canopy were noted at each plot. Understory vegetation was grouped into cover classes of <1%, 1-5%, 5-15%, 15-25%, 25-50%, 50-75%, and >75% and dominant species were noted at each plot. This data was used to identify and map the dominant species within the upper canopy, middle canopy, and understory vegetation layers. In addition, occurrences of invasive non-native plant species were mapped using handheld GPS equipment with submeter accuracy.

Focused Wildlife Surveys
In addition to the reconnaissance-level wildlife and habitat surveys, several focused wildlife surveys were performed as part of this study. These included avian point count surveys, field surveys for candidate special status bumble bees, and a focused habitat assessment and series of seasonal surveys for bats.

Avian point count surveys were on conducted on June 19, July 10, and August 23, 2024, at 20 monitoring stations located along two north-south transects oriented along the long-axis of the park. Avian surveys were performed to provide additional baseline wildlife data and inform implementation of avoidance measures for nesting birds. Point-count survey methodology was adapted from Ralph et al., (1993, 1995) and consisted of counting all species of birds observed or heard during a period of five minutes per survey location within a 25-meter radius. A 25-meter radius was used instead of a 50-meter radius due to the forested condition of GWP, which limits the line-of-sight distance. Data from the avian point count surveys is summarized in Appendix E.

PGCC 2-19-25

Page 144 ends

Denise Duffy & Associates
George Washington Park 8
Biological Resources Report
Field surveys for bumble bees were conducted concurrently with vegetation mapping activities on April 16, June 4, June 18, July 10, and August 23, 2024. Bumble bee surveys were photographic in nature and did not involve handling and animals. Survey and habitat assessment methodology is described in detail in Appendix F.

Given the potential for Project activities to affect potential bat roosting or maternity colony habitat, focused surveys for bats were performed by bat specialist Nick Fisher in all areas of GWP. Bat surveys consisted of a daytime habitat assessment, which identified potential bat roosting features and flyway areas, and a series of seasonal night emergence and foraging surveys using a passive acoustic detector (Wildlife Acoustics Song Meter Mino Bat unit) and a series of walking transects with a hand-held acoustic detector (Wildlife Acoustics Echometer 2 Pro and Batbox baton). The daytime habitat assessment was performed on June 6, 2024, and night surveys were conducted on June 6, July 27, October 10, and November 18, 2024.

The survey timing targeted the breeding season (late March – September), the dispersal period of maternity colonies (September – October) and the post-dispersal period. A detailed description of methodology is provided in the Bat Survey Results Memo (Appendix G).

Wetlands
Although a formal wetland delineation was not performed, an assessment for the presence of potentially jurisdictional wetlands and waters within the survey area was performed on July 16, 2024 in accordance with the requirements set forth in The Field Guide for Wetland Delineation: 1987 Corps of Engineers Manual (1987 Manual; Wetland Training Institute, 1995) and the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (Version 2.0) (Supplement; ACOE, 2008). The assessment included collected of two paired samples located in a topographic low area along the boundary of Zone 1 and Zone 2 to determine if dominant wetland vegetation, wetland soils, or wetland hydrology is present (Appendix H). This area was selected for evaluation because it occupies the lowest landscape position in GWP and therefore has the highest likelihood for retention of water and formation of wetland conditions.

2.4 Definitions

2.5 Special-Status Species
Special-status species are those plants and animals that have been formally listed or proposed for listing as endangered or threatened or are candidates for such listing under the ESA or the CESA. Listed species are afforded legal protection under the ESA and CESA. Species that meet the definition of rare or endangered under the CEQA Section 15380 are also considered special-status species. Animals on the CDFW’s list of “species of special concern” (most of which are species whose breeding populations in California may face extirpation if current population trends continue) meet this definition and are typically provided management consideration through the CEQA process, although they are not legally protected under the ESA or CESA. Additionally, the CDFW also includes some animal species that are not assigned any of the other status designations on their “Special Animals” list; however, these species have no legal or protection status.

Plants listed as rare under the California Native Plant Protection Act (CNPPA) or included in CNPS California Rare Plant Ranks (CRPR) 1A, 1B, 2A, and 2B are also treated as special-status species as they meet the definitions of Sections 2062 and 2067 of the CESA and in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15380. In general, the CDFW requires that plant species on CRPR 1A (Plants presumed extirpated PGCC 2-19-25

Page 145 ends

Denise Duffy & Associates
George Washington Park 9
Biological Resources Report
in California and Either Rare or Extinct Elsewhere), CRPR 1B (Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere), CRPR 2A (Plants presumed extirpated in California, but more common elsewhere); and CRPR 2B (Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere) of the CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California (CNPS, 2024) be fully considered during the preparation of environmental documents relating to CEQA. CNPS CRPR 4 species (plants of limited distribution) may, but generally do not, meet the definitions of Sections 2062 and 2067 of the CESA, and are not typically considered in environmental documents relating to CEQA. While other species (i.e., CRPR 3 or 4 species) are sometimes found in database searches or within the literature, these were not included within the analysis as they did not meet the definitions of Section 2062 and 2067 of the CESA.

Raptors (e.g., eagles, hawks, and owls) and their nests are protected in California under Fish and Game Code Section 3503.5. Section 3503.5 states that it is “unlawful to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird except otherwise provided by this code or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto.” In addition, fully protected species under the Fish and Game Code Section 3511 (birds), Section 4700 (mammals), Section 5515 (fish), and Section 5050 (reptiles and amphibians) are also considered specialstatus animal species. Species with no formal special-status designation but thought by experts to be rare or in serious decline may also be considered special-status animal species in some cases, depending on project-specific analysis and relevant, localized conservation needs or precedence.

2.6 Sensitive Habitats
Sensitive habitats include riparian corridors, wetlands, habitats for legally protected species, areas of high biological diversity, areas supporting rare or special-status wildlife habitat, and unusual or regionally restricted vegetation types. Vegetation types considered sensitive include those listed on CDFW’s California Natural Communities List (i.e., those habitats that are rare or endangered within the borders of California) (CDFW, 2024a), those that are occupied by species listed under the ESA or are critical habitat in accordance with the ESA, and those that are defined as Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas under the California Coastal Act. Specific habitats may also be identified as sensitive in city or county general plans or ordinances. Sensitive habitats are regulated under federal regulations (such as the Clean Water Act and Executive Order 11990 – Protection of Wetlands), state regulations (such as CEQA and the CDFW Streambed Alteration Program), or local ordinances or policies (such as city or county tree ordinances and general plan policies).

2.7 Regulatory Setting
The following regulatory discussion describes the laws and ordinances that may be applicable to the project.

2.7.1 Federal Regulations
Federal Endangered Species Act
Provisions of the ESA of 1973 (16 USC 1532 et seq., as amended) protect federally listed threatened or endangered species and their habitats from unlawful take. Listed species include those for which proposed and final rules have been published in the Federal Register. The ESA is administered by the Service or National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). In general, the NMFS is responsible for the protection of ESA-listed marine species and anadromous fish, whereas other listed species are under Service jurisdiction.

PGCC 2-19-25

Page 146 ends

Denise Duffy & Associates
George Washington Park 10
Biological Resources Report
Section 9 of ESA prohibits the take of any fish or wildlife species listed under ESA as endangered or threatened. Take, as defined by ESA, is “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct.” Harm is defined as “any act that kills or injures the fish or wildlife…including significant habitat modification or degradation that significantly impairs essential behavioral patterns of fish or wildlife.” In addition, Section 9 prohibits removing, digging up, and maliciously damaging or destroying federally listed plants on sites under federal jurisdiction. Section 9 does not prohibit take of federally listed plants on sites not under federal jurisdiction. If there is the potential for incidental take of a federally listed fish or wildlife species, take of listed species can be authorized through either the Section 7 consultation process for federal actions or a Section 10 incidental take permit process for non-federal actions. Federal agency actions include activities that are on federal land, conducted by a federal agency, funded by a federal agency, or authorized by a federal agency (including issuance of federal permits).

Clean Water Act
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulate discharge of dredged and fill material into waters of the U.S. under Section 404 of the CWA. Waters of the U.S. are defined broadly as waters susceptible to use in commerce (including waters subject to tides, interstate waters, and interstate wetlands) and other waters (such as interstate lakes, rivers, streams, mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds) (33 CFR 328.3). Potential wetland areas are identified as “those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soils conditions.” Under Section 401 of the CWA, any applicant receiving a Section 404 permit from the USACE must also obtain a Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). A Section 401 Water Quality Certification is issued when a project is demonstrated to comply with state water quality standards and other aquatic resource protection requirements.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918 prohibits killing, possessing, or trading migratory birds except in accordance with regulation prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior. Most actions that result in taking or in permanent or temporary possession of a protected species constitute violations of the MBTA.

The USFWS is responsible for overseeing compliance with the MBTA.

2.7.2 State Regulations
California Endangered Species Act
The CESA was enacted in 1984. The California Code of Regulations (Title 14, §670.5) lists animal species considered endangered or threatened by the state. Section 2090 of CESA requires state agencies to comply with endangered species protection and recovery and to promote conservation of these species. Section 2080 of the Fish and Game Code prohibits “take” of any species that the commission determines to be an endangered species or a threatened species. “Take” is defined in Section 86 of the Fish and Game Code as “hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill.” A Section 2081 Incidental Take Permit from the CDFW may be obtained to authorize “take” of any state listed species.

PGCC 2-19-25

Page 147 ends

Denise Duffy & Associates
George Washington Park 11
Biological Resources Report
California Native Plant Protection Act
The CNPPA of 1977 directed CDFW to carry out the legislature’s intent to “preserve, protect and enhance rare and Endangered plants in the State.” The CNPPA prohibits importing rare and Endangered plants into California, taking rare and Endangered plants, and selling rare and Endangered plants. The CESA and CNPPA authorized the Fish and Game Commission to designate endangered, threatened, and rare species and to regulate the taking of these species (§2050-2098, Fish and Game Code). Plants listed as rare under the CNPPA are not protected under CESA; however, these plants may not be taken or possessed at any time and no licenses or permits may be issued for their take except for collecting these species for necessary scientific research.

California Fish and Game Code
Birds. Section 3503 of the Fish and Game Code states that it is “unlawful to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto.” Section 3503.5 prohibits the killing, possession, or destruction of any birds in the orders Falconiformes or Strigiformes (birds-of-prey). Section 3511 prohibits take or possession of fully protected birds. Section 3513 prohibits the take or possession of any migratory nongame birds designated under the federal MBTA. Section 3800 prohibits take of nongame birds.

Fully Protected Species. The classification of fully protected was the state’s initial effort in the 1960’s to identify and provide additional protection to those animals that were rare or faced possible extinction. Lists were created for fish (§5515), mammals (§4700), amphibians and reptiles (§5050), and birds (§3511). Most fully protected species have also been listed as threatened or endangered species under the more recent endangered species laws and regulations. Fully protected species may not be taken or possessed at any time and no licenses or permits may be issued for their take except for collecting these species for necessary scientific research and relocation of the bird species for the protection of livestock.

Species of Special Concern. As noted above, the CDFW also maintains a list of wildlife “species of special concern.” Although these species have no legal status, the CDFW recommends considering these species during analysis of project impacts to protect declining populations and avoid the need to list them as endangered in the future.

Lake or Streambed Alteration. Sections 1600-1607 of the Fish and Game Code require any agency that proposes a project that will substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow of or substantially change the bed or bank of a river, stream, or lake to notify CDFW before beginning construction. If CDFW determines that the project may substantially and adversely affect fish or wildlife resources, a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement will be required. CDFW’s jurisdictional limits are usually defined by the tops of the stream or lake banks, or the outer edge of riparian vegetation, whichever is wider.

Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 1969 (Porter-Cologne) is California’s statutory authority for the protection of water quality and applies to surface waters, wetlands, and groundwater, and to both point and nonpoint sources. Under the Porter-Cologne, the State Water Resources Control Board (State Board) has the ultimate authority over State water rights and water quality policy. However, Porter-Cologne also establishes nine RWQCBs to oversee water quality on a day-to-day basis at the local/regional level.

The project site is located within Region 3 – Central Coast RWQCB. Porter-Cologne incorporates many PGCC 2-19-25

Page 148 ends

Denise Duffy & Associates
George Washington Park 12
Biological Resources Report
provisions of the federal CWA, such as delegation to the State Board and RWQCBs of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting program.

Under Porter-Cologne, the state must adopt water quality policies, plans, and objectives that protect the state’s waters for the use and enjoyment of the people. Regional authority for planning, permitting, and enforcement is delegate to the nine RWQCBs. The regional boards are required to formulate and adopt water quality control plans for all areas in the region and establish water quality objectives in the plans. The Porter-Cologne sets forth the obligations of the State Board and RWQCBs to adopt and periodically update water quality control plans (basin plans). The act also requires waste dischargers to notify the RWQCBs of such activities through filing of Reports of Waste Discharge (RWD) and authorizes the State Board and RWQCBs to issue and enforce waste discharge requirements (WDRs), NPDES permits, Section 401 water quality certifications, or other approvals. The RWQCBs also have authority to issue waivers to RWD requirements and WDRs for broad categories of “low threat” discharge activities that have minimal potential for adverse water quality effects, when implemented according to prescribed terms and conditions.

The term “Waters of the State” is defined by Porter-Cologne as “any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the state.” The RWQCB protects all waters in its regulatory scope but has special responsibility for wetlands, riparian areas, and headwaters, including isolated wetlands, and waters that may not be regulated by the ACOE under Section 404 of the CWA. Waters of the State are regulated by the RWQCB under the State Water Quality Certification Program, which regulates discharges of fill and dredged material under Section 401 of the CWA and the Porter-Cologne.

California Essential Habitat Connectivity Project
In 2010, CDFW and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) commissioned a team of consultants to produce a statewide assessment of essential habitat connectivity using the best available science, data sets, spatial analyses and modeling techniques. The goal was to identify Essential Habitat Connectivity Area (EHCA), which are large remaining blocks of intact habitat or natural landscape and model linkages between them that need to be maintained, particularly as corridors for wildlife. Over sixty federal, state, local, tribal and non-governmental organizations collaborated in the creation of a statewide wildlife habitat connectivity map using a GIS-based modeling approach, an assessment of the biological value of identified connectivity areas, and a strategic plan that helps varied end users interpret and use the statewide map and outlines a methodology necessary for completing connectivity analyses at finer spatial scales.

2.7.3 Local Regulations
Definition of Protected Trees
The City municipal code chapter 12.20.020 provides definitions for five categories of protected trees that require a permit for removal. Three of these definitions are relevant to GWP and include, 1) native trees which include all Gowen cypress, regardless of size, and all coast live oak, Monterey pine, shore pine, Torrey pine, and Monterey cypress over six inches in trunk diameter, measured at 54 inches above grade; 2) monarch butterfly habitat trees, including all trees within 100 yards of Monarch butterfly sanctuaries, (including the documented historic clustering site at GWP); and 3) public trees, including all trees on public property six inches in trunk diameter, measured at 54 inches above grade.

PGCC 2-19-25

Page 149 ends

Denise Duffy & Associates
George Washington Park 13
Biological Resources Report
Pruning and Removal of Protected Trees
Municipal code chapter 12.20.040(c) prohibits pruning or removal of protected trees in monarch butterfly habitat, except as “prescribed in the approved Monarch sanctuary habitat management plan or upon a finding by the city council that such is necessary for proper maintenance of the site or for public health, safety, or welfare”. Therefore, the City does not need to issue itself a permit for removal of trees in GWP but shall adhere to the recommendations of the Monarch Sanctuary Habitat Management Plan, or other documentation approved by city council, such as the FMP. Chapter 12.20.040(d) specifies that pruning or removal of trees within 100 yards of a monarch sanctuary “shall be prohibited during the months of October through April unless deemed necessary by the city arborist and confirmed by the public works director for public health, safety, or welfare”.

3.0 RESULTS

3.1 Vegetation Surveys
The field surveys and mapping determined that three
vegetation types occur within GWP in addition to developed areas. Acreages are summarized in Table 1, and each is
described in greater detail below. A complete list of plant species observed during the 2024 surveys is provided as Appendix D.

Monterey Pine Forest
• A Manual of California Vegetation classification(s):

Pinus radiata Forest Alliance
• CDFW California Natural Communities List:

Sensitive
The majority of GWP consists of Monterey pine forest,
which is dominated by an upper canopy formed by mature
Monterey pine (Figure 3). The density of the upper canopy is generally sparse, and in some areas, the upper canopy layer is absent. Along the southern boundary of the park in Zone 1 and in several other edge areas, Monterey cypress lines the park edge along streets. However, Monterey cypress does not occur within the interior areas of GWP, and the study area lies outside of the historic native range of the species, which indicates the cypress trees were originally planted. Coast live oak is very common in GWP and contributes to the mid-canopy along with some smaller Monterey pines. Coast live oak is the dominant mid-canopy species (i.e. > 50% relative canopy cover) in large portions of the park (Figure 3) and occurs beneath the upper canopy of Monterey pine. Although coast live oaks occur, the presence of Monterey pine at ≥30% canopy cover defines the community as Monterey pine forest (Sawyer et al., 2009). Woody shrubs including coffeeberry (Frangula californica), sticky monkey flower (Diplacus aurantiacus) and toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia) are occasionally found throughout the park.

The understory layer is not particularly diverse and is dominated by a combination of native vines including poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum) and California blackberry (Rubus ursinus) or non-native grasses.

Non-native annual grasses grow vigorously at this location and most commonly include rattlesnake grass (Briza major) and slender wild oat (Avena barbata). Ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus) and perennial Table 1. Summary of Vegetation
Types
Vegetation Type
Survey
Area
(Acres)
Monterey pine forest 15.52
Mixed woodland
(managed)

2.77 Ruderal/Disturbed
(managed)

0.59 Developed park facilities 0.93
Total 19.81
PGCC 2-19-25

Page 150 ends

Denise Duffy & Associates
George Washington Park 14
Biological Resources Report
ryegrass (Festuca perennis) are also common throughout the understory. In and around Zone 1, the nonnative perennial grass species kikuyu grass (Pennisetum clandestinum) and panic veldt grass (Ehrharta erecta) are common. In isolated areas, patches of native herbaceous species dominated by hedge nettle (Stachys bullata) occur. The distribution of dominant understory vegetation types is shown on Figure 4.

Monterey pine forest in GWP provides suitable habitat for a variety of wildlife including but not limited to black-tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), western gray squirrel (Sciurus griseus nigripes), a variety of bat species, and numerous small mammal species. Focused bat surveys detected ten species of bats utilizing the Monterey pine forest in GWP.

Mountain lion (Puma concolor) have been sighted in Pacific Grove and may occasionally travel through GWP. Many species of birds are known to utilize the Monterey pine forest. According to eBird data, some of the most common birds observed in GWP include but are not limited to scrub jay (Aphelocoma californica), chestnut-backed chickadee (Poecile rufescens), acorn woodpecker (Melanerpes formicivorus), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), oak titmouse (Baeolophus inornatus), pygmy nuthatch (Sitta pygmaea), brown creeper (Certhia americana), house finch (Haemorhous mexicanus), song sparrow (Melospiza melodia), California towhee (Melozone crissalis), spotted towhee (Pipilo maculatus), and darkeyed junco (Junco hyemalis).

Raptors commonly observed in GWP include red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus), and turkey vulture (Cathartes aura). Raptors less commonly observed in GWP include cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii), peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus), osprey (Pandion haliaetus), sharp shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus), great-horned owl (Bubo virginianus), and white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus) (eBird, 2021). More information on avian and bat species from focused field surveys is provided in Section 3.3.

Mixed Woodland (managed)
• A Manual of California Vegetation classification(s): None • CDFW California Natural Communities List: Not Sensitive Mixed woodland in GWP is concentrated in Zone 1 within and around areas that are managed for active recreation. The canopy is dominated by coast live oak, with occasional Monterey pines and Monterey cypress trees forming an upper canopy along the margins of Zone 1. The understory is managed by the City and kept mostly free of vegetation to allow access and permit recreational activities. Many areas are mulched with wood chips. Therefore, the herbaceous and woody understory vegetation that is present in other areas of GWP is lacking and only a sparse cover of non-native annual and perennial grasses occurs.

However, this habitat is still regularly utilized by wildlife including a variety of birds that forage in the oak canopy; multiple species of bats including big brown bat (Eptesicus fuscus), silver-haired bat (Lasionyteris noctavagans), California myotis (Myotis californicus), and Mexican free-tailed bat (Tadarida braziliensis); and black-tailed deer.

Ruderal/Disturbed (managed)
• A Manual of California Vegetation classification(s): None • CDFW California Natural Communities List: Not Sensitive Ruderal areas are characterized by regular human disturbance and consist primarily of non-native plant species. Ruderal vegetation at GWP occurs along the margins of the baseball field and in several open areas within Zone 1. The oak and/or Monterey pine canopy is lacking, the understory vegetation is sparse, and PGCC 2-19-25

Page 151 ends

PGCC 2-19-25

Page 152 ends

PGCC 2-19-25

Page 153 ends

Denise Duffy & Associates
George Washington Park 17
Biological Resources Report
the ground is often covered by woodchips. Ruderal areas are subject to regular maintenance, which keeps vegetation limited to herbaceous species that include non-native annual grasses, panic veldt grass, and kikuyu grass. Several Pride of Madeira (Echium candicans) shrubs and Monterey pine saplings occur in this area as well as several large Monterey cypress trees, which line the park edge.

Developed Park
• A Manual of California Vegetation classification(s): None • CDFW California Natural Communities List: Not Sensitive Portions of Zone 1 consist of a developed park landscape. These areas include the picnic and play area, BBQ equipment, restrooms, seating areas, the baseball field and associated structures, and adjacent unimproved pathways.

3.2 Invasive Non-Native Plants
Invasive non-native plant species occur in some areas of GWP and include relatively extensive areas of Cape ivy (Delairea odorata) in Zones 3 and 4, Sydney golden wattle (Acacia longifolia) in Areas of Zone 2 north of the baseball field, French broom (Genista monspessulana) in Zone 2, scattered individuals of lollypop tree (Myoporum laetum), and patches of Pride of Madeira around the park edges (Figure 5). As noted above, non-native annual grasses dominate the understory vegetation in most areas of GWP (Figure 4), with the most common species being rattlesnake grass, slender wild oat, ripgut brome and perennial ryegrass. Non-native annual grasses grow vigorously where they occur at GWP and form a thick thatch layer that competes with native seedlings and creates a fire hazard. Some invasive non-native perennial grasses also occur and include panic veldt grass and kikuyu grass. These two species are concentrated in Zone 1 in the vicinity of the baseball field and in the managed ruderal understory areas of Zone 1.

3.3 Wildlife Surveys
Focused wildlife surveys performed by DD&A included avian point count surveys, surveys for bumble bees, and seasonal surveys for bats. GWP is a well-known birding location and avian surveys performed by DD&A confirmed that a variety of passerine species are common and abundant throughout most areas of the park. The most frequently sighted species included dark-eyed junco, spotted towhee, acorn woodpecker, song sparrow, and chestnut-backed chickadee. Acorn woodpeckers are a common sight in GWP as they use the abundant dead Monterey pine snags as granary trees. Songbirds are most often spotted foraging throughout the tree canopies, especially within coast live oak, and understory vegetation. Both ground-nesting and tree-nesting species occur in the park. Raptors, including red-shouldered hawk and redtailed hawk, were observed perching on high Monterey pine limbs and soaring over the site, although no raptor nesting behavior or nest sites were observed. Data is summarized in Appendix E.

Surveys for bumble bees performed concurrently with vegetation mapping and special status plant surveys found areas of flowering plants within the Monterey pine forest understory that could be utilized by bumble bees. The most bumble bee activity was noted during July, when several dozen individuals were observed on a patch of flowering stinging phaecelia (Phaecelia malvifolia). Based on hair color marking patterns, these bumble bees were determined to not be the special status candidate species Crotch bumble bee (CBB; Bombus crotchii) or western bumble bee (WBB; Bombus occidentalis) and are most likely Vosnesensky bumble bee (Bombus vosnesenskii), a species commonly reported in the area. Additional discussion of WBB and CBB is provided in the Bumble Survey Results Memo (Appendix F).

Focused seasonal bat surveys discovered that numerous bat species utilize GWP. A total of 1,121 bat vocalizations were detected using acoustical equipment, with the most activity occurring during the June PGCC 2-19-25

Page 154 ends

PGCC 2-19-25

Page 155 ends

Denise Duffy & Associates
George Washington Park 19
Biological Resources Report
and July surveys, with activity tapering off in October. No vocalizations were recorded in November. A total of ten bat species were identified, including one detection of western red bat (Lasiurus blossevillii), a California species of special concern. Some of the more common bat species detected include California myotis, big brown bat, and silver haired bat. Additional details are provided in the discussion of western red bat below and in the Bat Survey Results Memo (Appendix G).

A complete list of wildlife species observed during 2024 at GWP is provided as Appendix D.

3.4 Special-Status Species
Published occurrence data within the project area and surrounding USGS quadrangles were evaluated to compile a table of special-status species known to occur in the vicinity of the survey area (see “Methods”).

Each of these species was evaluated for their likelihood to occur within and immediately adjacent to the survey area (Appendix C). Only the special-status species that are known to or have been determined to have a moderate or high potential to occur within or immediately adjacent to the survey area are discussed below. All other species evaluated are unlikely to occur or have a low potential to occur based on the species-specific reasons presented in Appendix C, are therefore unlikely to be impacted by the project, and are not discussed further.

3.4.1 Special Status Wildlife Species
Western Red Bat
The western red bat is a CDFW species of special concern. This species occurs in California, Arizona, and New Mexico, south to South America (Cryan, 2003). In California, western red bats occur from Shasta County to the Mexican border, west of the Sierra Nevada/Cascade crest and deserts. Although this species is migratory, western red bats are known to reside in California year-round and there is evidence that California populations do not migrate out of the state (Cryan, 2003). Western red bats are associated with forests and woodlands from sea level up through mixed conifer forests; however riparian areas appear to be favored, particularly willows, cottonwoods, and sycamores (Western Bat Working Group, 2005). Roost sites are often in edge habitat adjacent to streams, fields, or urban areas. Preferred sites are hidden from above, with few branches below, and have ground cover of low reflectivity. This nocturnal species emerges from roosting sites one to two hours after dark (AGFD, 2003) and feeds over a variety of habitats, including grasslands, shrublands, open woodlands, forests, and croplands. Moths, beetles, crickets, and cicadas are the typical prey species. Western red bats are typically a solitary species, but they often feed with other bat species, may migrate in groups (AGFD, 2003), and may form nursery colonies. Mating occurs in the fall and sperm is stored over winter. Fertilization occurs in the spring and gestation is 80 to 90 days. One to five young are born in mid-May to early July; however, most litters have two or three. During the rearing period, females may move the young between roost sites. Young are capable of sustained flight after approximately three to six weeks.

One Western red bat call was detected during the fall migration period on October 10, 2024, acoustical survey at GWP. Suitable foraging and roosting habitat for Western red bat occurs throughout GWP in Monterey pine forest, especially in Zones 2 – 4, where abundant trees and standing dead snags with roosting habitat occur. Roosting habitat features include exfoliating bark, woodpecker holes, crevices, and cavities (Appendix G). If present, project activities that involve removal of trees or standing dead snags could impact roosting or maternity colonies of western red bat.

PGCC 2-19-25

Page 156 ends

Denise Duffy & Associates
George Washington Park 20
Biological Resources Report
Northern California Legless Lizard
The Northern California legless lizard (Anniella pulchra) is a CDFW species of special concern. This fossorial (burrowing) species typically inhabits sandy or loose (friable) soils. Habitats known to support Northern California legless lizard include, but are not limited to, coastal dunes, valley and foothill grasslands, chaparral, and coastal scrub at elevations from near sea level to approximately 1,800 meters (6,000 feet). The Northern California legless lizard forages on invertebrates beneath the leaf litter or duff layer at the base of bushes and trees or under wood, rocks, and slash in appropriate habitats. The diet of this species likely overlaps to some extent with that of juvenile alligator lizards and perhaps some other salamanders. This species may be preyed upon by alligator lizards, snakes, birds, and small mammals. Little is known about the specific habitat requirements for courtship and breeding; however, the mating season for this species is believed to begin late spring or early summer, with one to four live young born between September and November.

Northern California legless lizard is relatively common in the Asilomar dunes and Point Piños dunes and is documented by several CNDDB occurrences at those locations. One CNDDB record (Occurrence #375) for Northern California legless lizard exists in the southwestern corner of GWP (Zone 1), where one individual was found in sandy soil in 2017. DD&A did not observe any California legless lizards during the field surveys, but did not perform focused surveys for this species. Although the species has been documented in GWP, the habitat conditions are not the typical dune scrub or sandy riparian wash habitats commonly associated with this species. The proposed project activities do not involve soil disturbance and therefore would be unlikely to impact Northern California legless lizard.

Monarch butterfly
The monarch butterfly is proposed for listing under FESA and has special local and regional importance.

They are the only known insect in the world that make an annual, back-and-forth, long-distance migration.

Each fall monarch butterflies fly west and south to the same overwintering sites, and frequently to the same trees, in coastal California conifer and Eucalyptus groves and high-altitude Mexican conifer forests. In California, the butterflies cluster in these sites from approximately October to February. A dwindling number of groves along the California coast have the characteristics necessary to support overwintering monarch butterflies. Monarch butterflies generally overwinter in stands of eucalyptus or Monterey pine and selected groves are often in a canyon or drainage where butterflies have a source of water. Specific microclimate conditions within the groves are necessary for monarch butterfly use. Overwintering groves generally have more stable temperatures (i.e., less variation between day and night temperatures), less direct sunlight, less wind, and more moisture in the air than groves not used by monarch butterflies. In the spring monarch butterflies depart their wintering grounds, flying north and east throughout North America to search for milkweed plants (Asclepias sp.), on which the females lay their eggs. The migrating butterflies die soon after they lay eggs. Monarchs migrating towards overwintering habitat are reliant on “autumnal roosts” and “nectaring bivouacs.” Autumnal roosts generally host smaller populations in the fall and early winter and typically support one or more varieties of milkweed, the primary food source of monarch butterflies. These areas serve as important feeding habitats where monarchs replenish their fat reserves before winter sets in. Nectaring bivouacs are areas which may have a consistent flow of monarchs in and out of the site, as butterflies nectar and return to their clusters elsewhere. Monarch butterflies are threatened by conversion of grassland habitat to agriculture, exposure to insecticides, herbicide use, and loss/senescence of overwintering sites in California and Mexico (Service, 2023).

PGCC 2-19-25

Page 157 ends

Denise Duffy & Associates
George Washington Park 21
Biological Resources Report
GWP is a known historic overwintering site for monarch butterfly and is monitored annually. GWP is also identified as designated monarch butterfly sanctuary in City municipal code chapter 12.20.020 and is defined as: “That portion of land bordered on the east and west by Alder Street and Melrose Avenue, respectively, on the north by Pine Avenue, and on the south by the imaginary extension of Junipero Avenue westerly from Alder to Melrose”. The historic overwintering site lies in Zone 3, approximately between Pine and Spruce Avenue (CNDDB Occurrence #89, Xerces Society site #2934). Overwintering monarch butterflies were reported at this location as early as the 1960’s and were reported to utilize both mature and smaller Monterey pines, some coast live oak as well as California lilac (Ceanothus thyrsiflorus). This site lies approximately 0.4 mile southeast of the well-known Monarch Grove Sanctuary, one of the top monarch butterfly overwintering sites along the central-California coast. During the 2020 monarch butterfly population crash, no monarch butterflies were observed at the Monarch Grove Sanctuary during the Thanksgiving count. The population has since rebounded with 6,608 overwintering monarchs counted at the Monarch grove sanctuary during the 2023 Thanksgiving count (Creekside Science 2024). No overwintering groupings of monarch butterflies have been observed at the GWP site since 2011 when 61 butterflies were counted. The last substantial count of overwintering monarch butterflies in GWP was recorded in 2006 with 11,795 butterflies recorded (Creekside Science, 2023). Count records in the CNDDB, which date back to the 1960’s fluctuate between zero and thousands of overwintering butterflies counted.

Overwintering butterflies at this location are reported to utilize primarily Monterey pine (CDFW, 2023b).

The historic overwintering site at GWP may no longer be as favorable for monarch clustering as it once was due to the loss of shelter from wind caused by mortality of Monterey pines. The coverage of overstory Monterey pine within the historic overwintering site and in areas towards the south and west have resulted in increased exposure during strong wind events. Regeneration of new trees that can potentially restore wind protection is occurring in some areas but needs to be bolstered by active management activities. The site could also benefit from improved winter sheltering in the mid-story canopy layer provided by additional young Monterey pines, coast live oak, California lilac and toyon (Creekside Science, 2023).

DD&A did not observe any clusters of overwintering monarch butterflies in GWP during surveys performed on January 9 and 18, 2024, when on the same dates, clustering monarch butterflies were observed in abundance at the Monarch Grove Sanctuary. Only two monarch butterflies were observed in flight in GWP on the January 18, 2024, site visit. However, due to the historic presence of overwintering monarch butterflies at the site and the habitat conditions, the site could potentially support overwintering monarch butterflies in the future and therefore this species has a high potential for occurrence. If present, forest management activities could potentially impact overwintering monarch butterflies.

Nesting Raptors and Other Protected Avian Species, including White tailed kite Raptors, their nests, and other nesting birds are protected under California Fish and Game Code. While the life histories of these species vary, overlapping nesting (approximately February through August) and foraging similarities allow for their concurrent discussion. Most raptors are breeding residents throughout most of the wooded portions of the state. Stands of live oak, riparian deciduous, or other forest habitats, as well as open grasslands, are used most frequently for nesting. Breeding occurs February through August, with peak activity May through July. Prey for these species includes small birds, small mammals, and some reptiles and amphibians. Many raptor species hunt in open woodland and habitat edges.

Raptors and other nesting birds could potentially utilize a wide variety of locations to construct nests throughout GWP. Suitable nesting locations include tree canopies in both Monterey pines, coast live oaks PGCC 2-19-25

Page 158 ends

Pacific Grove City CouncilFebruary 19, 2025

Pacific Grove City Council
February 19, 2025