Pacific Grove City Council
May 7, 2025

CITY COUNCIL

SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA
Wednesday, May 7, 2025, 5:00 P.M.

Council Chamber – City Hall – 300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA 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 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.

Join the Zoom Meeting to participate live at:
https://www.cityofpacificgrove.org/Zoom_Closed
Please click here for directions to dial into the meeting audio.

AGENDA

CALL TO ORDER

SPECIAL MEETING

PUBLIC COMMENT ON SPECIAL MEETING MATTERS
Comments from the public will not receive Council action. Comments must deal with matters on the Special Meeting agenda and will be limited to three minutes.

A. Public Employment, (Government Code § 54957)
Title: City Manager Performance Evaluation

1. Written Public Comment

ADJOURNMENT
PGCC 5-7-25

CITY COUNCIL

REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
Wednesday, May 7, 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. Public comments received through this email address by noon on the day of the meeting will be posted with the corresponding agenda item.

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
PGCC 5-7-25

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Councilmember Poduri

1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA

2. PRESENTATIONS
A. Pacific Grove Golf Links / CourseCo Presentation PG 8 Reference: Chief Executive Officer Michael Sharp
Recommended Action: Receive the presentation.

CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
B. National Public Works Week PG 18
Reference: Nick Smith, Mayor
Recommended Action: Receive the presentation.

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

3. COUNCIL AND STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS (City-Related Items Only) A. Report on Closed Session by City Attorney
B. 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.

PGCC 5-7-25

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 City Council April 16, 2025 Regular Meeting PG 20 Reference: Staphany Arriola, Management Analyst
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
A. Resolution of Intention to Levy the Annual Assessment for the Hospitality Improvement District (HID) PG 26
Reference: Lori Frati, Finance Manager
Recommended Action:

Approve a resolution of intention to levy an assessment for the Hospitality Improvement District for Fiscal Year 2025-26.

1. Direct staff to notice a public hearing to be held on May 21, 2025 for the purpose of hearing any protests and determining whether to levy the assessment.

2. CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
B. Resolution of Intention to Levy the Annual Assessment for the Downtown Business Improvement District (BID) PG 30
Reference: Lori Frati, Finance Manager
Recommended Action:

Approve the attached Resolution of Intention to Levy an Assessment for the Downtown Business Improvement District for Fiscal Year 25-26

1. Hold a public hearing on May 21, 2025 to hear protests and determining whether to levy the assessment.

2. CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
C. Acceptance of Conservation Easement Deeds for 1661 Sunset Drive and 236 Asilomar Avenue, Pacific Grove (APNs 007-041-036 and 007-041-035) Reference: Joseph Sidor, Contract Planner PG 34
Recommended Action: Staff recommends the City Council:

PGCC 5-7-25

Recommended Action: Staff recommends the City Council:
a. Find that accepting the Conservation Easement Deeds is categorically exempt per Section 15317 of the CEQA Guidelines;
b. Accept the Conservation Easement Deeds to satisfy Condition of Approval No. 7 of Coastal Development Permit Amendment No. 24-0186;
c. Adopt the resolution authorizing the City Manager to accept the deeds or grants conveying an interest in or easement upon the subject real property or real estate; and d. Direct the City Manager to accept and submit the Conservation Easement Deeds to the County Recorder for recordation with all applicable recording fees paid by the applicant.

CEQA: Categorical Exemption, CEQA Guidelines Section 15317, Class 17, Open Space Contracts or Easements

7. ORDINANCES
Items pulled from this section will be placed under 11. Public Hearings

8. REPORTS – INFORMATION ONLY
Items pulled from this section will be placed under 12. Unfinished and Ongoing Business or 13. New Business
A. Monterey Salinas Transit Minutes for March 10, 2025 PG 104 Reference: Joe Amelio, Mayor Pro Tem
Recommended Action: Receive minutes.

CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
B. Housing Element Monthly Status Update PG 111
Reference: Joseph Sidor, Contract Planner
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

9. REPORTS – REQUIRING ACTION
Items pulled from this section will be placed under 12. Unfinished and Ongoing Business or 13. New Business
A. Pedestrian Safety - Central/Fountain Ave & Grand/Fountain Ave PG 113 Reference: Daniel Gho, Public Works Director/Deputy City Manager Recommended Action:

1. Approve the Central, Grand and Fountain Avenue reconfiguration; and

2. Authorize staff to issue a call for bids for the project.

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

PGCC 5-7-25

CEQA: Categorical Exemption, CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, Class I, Existing Facilities

10. MEETING MINUTES OF COMMISSIONS, BOARDS, AND COMMITTEES Items pulled from this section will be placed under 13. New Business A. Beautification and Natural Resources Commission Minutes: November 19, 2024, January 21, 2025 and February 18, 2025 PG 128
Reference: George Fuerst, Environmental Program Manager 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. Update Regarding Changes to Government Code Section 36516 (City Council Compensation) and Consideration of Potential Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacific Grove Increasing the Compensation of the Mayor and City Councilmembers and Providing Medical Benefits Available to City Management Employees PG 138 Reference: Brian Pierik, City Attorney
Recommended Action:

Discuss Potential Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacific Grove Increasing the Compensation of the Mayor and City Councilmembers and Providing Medical Benefits Available to City Management Employees. If the Council directs to proceed with the Potential Ordinance, then the following are the recommended actions.

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

3. Motion to waive further reading of the ordinance.

Introduce and hold a first reading of an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacific Grove Increasing the Compensation of the Mayor and City Councilmembers and Providing Medical Benefits Available to City Employees.

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

5. 6. Other action related to this Agenda Item
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

12. UNFINISHED AND ONGOING BUSINESS
PGCC 5-7-25

A. Authorization of Interim Fuel Management Activities in George Washington Park Reference: Daniel Gho, Public Works Director/Deputy City Manager PG 176 Recommended Action:

Determine the Project to be exempt from CEQA and authorize interim fuel management activities in George Washington Park in accordance with the CEQA memo prepared by Denise Duffy & Associates.

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

CEQA: Categorical Exemption, CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, Class I, Existing Facilities

13. NEW BUSINESS
A. Five-Year CIP Recap PG 198
Reference: Joyce Halabi, Deputy Public Works Director
Recommended Action: Receive presentation.

CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
B. FY25/26 - FY26/27 Capital Improvement Plan & SB1 Project List PG 199 Reference: Joyce Halabi, Deputy Public Works Director
Recommended Action:

Receive and approve the Fiscal Year 25/26 - 26/27 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for inclusion in the Budget, and

1. 2. Approve a resolution adopting the FY25/26 Senate Bill 1 Project List.

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

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 5-7-25

Agenda No. 2 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: May 07, 2025
SUBJECT: Pacific Grove Golf Links / CourseCo Presentation CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

RECOMMENDATION
Receive the presentation.

Attachments
PPT
PGCC 5-7-25

PACIFIC GROVE

GOLF LINKS

COURSECO
May 2025
PGCC 5-7-25

COURSECO CORE VALUES
•
•
•
•
PGCC 5-7-25

•
•
•
•
•

HISTORY
PGCC 5-7-25

CAPITAL PROJECT

HISTORY
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
PGCC 5-7-25

ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
PGCC 5-7-25

COMMUNITY EVENTS
PGCC 5-7-25

ROUNDS, REVENUE,

RENT HISTORY
Paid Rounds Gross Revenue Rent Paid to City
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
PGCC 5-7-25

VISION FOR THE FUTURE
•
•
•
•
PGCC 5-7-25

QUESTIONS?
PGCC 5-7-25

Agenda No. 2 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: May 07, 2025
SUBJECT: National Public Works Week
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

RECOMMENDATION
Receive the presentation.

Attachments
Proclamation
PGCC 5-7-25

National Public Works Week Proclamation
May 18–24, 2025
“People, Purpose, Presence”
WHEREAS, public works professionals focus on infrastructure, facilities, and services that are of vital importance to sustainable and resilient communities and to public health, high quality of life, and well-being of the people of City of Pacific Grove; and, WHEREAS, these infrastructure, facilities, and services could not be provided without the dedicated efforts of public works professionals, who are engineers, managers, and employees at all levels of government and the private sector, who are responsible for rebuilding, improving, and protecting our nation’s transportation, water supply, water treatment and solid waste systems, public buildings, and other structures and facilities essential for our citizens; and, WHEREAS, it is in the public interest for the citizens, civic leaders, and children in City of Pacific Grove to gain knowledge of and maintain an ongoing interest and understanding of the importance of public works and public works programs in their respective communities; and, WHEREAS, the year 2025 marks the 65th annual National Public Works Week sponsored by the American Public Works Association/Canadian Public Works Association be it now, RESOLVED, I, Mayor Nick Smith, do hereby designate the week of May 18–24, 2025, as National Public Works Week. I urge all citizens to join with representatives of the American Public Works Association and government agencies in activities, events, and ceremonies designed to pay tribute to our public works professionals, engineers, managers, and employees and to recognize the substantial contributions they make to protecting our national health, safety, and advancing quality of life for all. __________________________________
Nick Smith, Mayor
PGCC 5-7-25

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: Staphany Arriola, Management Analyst (Confidential) MEETING DATE: May 07, 2025
SUBJECT: Minutes of the City Council April 16, 2025 Regular Meeting CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

RECOMMENDATION
Approve minutes.

Attachments
Draft Minutes 4-16-25
PGCC 5-7-25

1 DRAFT MEETING MINUTES

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE

CITY COUNCIL

REGULAR MEETING
Wednesday, April 16, 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 called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m. Present in Chamber: Mayor Smith, Mayor Pro Tem Amelio, Councilmembers Garfield, McDonnell, Rau, and Walkingstick. Absent: Councilmember Poduri.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:

Mayor Smith led the pledge of allegiance.

1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Action: Upon motion by Councilmember Garfield and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Amelio, Council voted 6-0-1, Councilmember Poduri absent, to approve the agenda.

2. PRESENTATIONS
A. Mayor's Proclamation: Arbor Day
Action: Council received the presentation.

CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
B. Service Awards
Action: Council received presentations.

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

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

4. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT
Public comment received from unknown caller, Michelle Raine, Jaine Haines, Kim and Lisa Ciani.

A. Written General Public Comment

CONSENT AGENDA
Action: Consent Agenda item 8B was pulled and considered immediately following the Consent Agenda.

Action: Upon motion by Mayor Pro Tem Amelio and seconded by Councilmember Rau Council DRAFT PGCC 5-7-25

2 voted 6-0-1, Councilmember Poduri absent, to approve the Consent Agenda as modified.

5. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
A. Minutes of the March 19, 2025 Special and Regular meeting and April 2, 2025 Regular Meeting
Action: Approved minutes.

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

6. RESOLUTIONS

7. ORDINANCES
A. Ordinance Amending the City’s 2024-25 Budget, removing the allocation of one Program Manager Classification in the City Manager’s Office and replacing with one Deputy City Manager Classification in the City Manager’s Office Action: Held second reading and adopted Ordinance No. 25-006 to amend the City’s 2024- 25 Budget, removing the allocation of one Program Manager classification in the City Manager’s Office and adding one Deputy City Manager classification to the allocation plan in the City Manager’s Office to be funded in 2024-25 with current budget savings.

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

8. REPORTS – INFORMATION ONLY
A. Community Human Services March 2025 Meeting Board Highlights Action: Received the highlights.

CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
B. Check Register March 2025 This item was pulled and considered immediately following the Consent Agenda.

Action: Received the Check Register.

CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
C. Housing Element Monthly Status Update
Action: Received the report.

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

9. REPORTS – REQUIRING ACTION

10. MEETING MINUTES OF COMMISSIONS, BOARDS, AND COMMITTEES *****

8.B. Check Register March 2025 This item was pulled and considered immediately following the Consent Agenda.

Action: Received the Check Register.

CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines DRAFT PGCC 5-7-25

3 Section 15378

REGULAR AGENDA

11. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Housing Element - Affirmatively Further Fair Housing Review Public comment received from Christie Thomas and Jaine Haines Action: Received the Housing Element Affirmatively Further Housing Review.

CEQA: Environmental Impact Report

12. UNFINISHED AND ONGOING BUSINESS
A. AB 481 Military Equipment Annual Report for 2024
No public comment received.

Action: Received the AB 481 Annual Report for 2024.

CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
B. Stain Glass Butterflies Window Donation This item was not ready to be heard and was moved to end of the agenda and heard after 13A.

Reference: Matthew Mogensen, City Manager
Recommended Action: Receive art donation application for one stained-glass window and provide direction.

CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
C. Financial Obligation and Reserve Policy Review This item was moved from New Business to Unfinished and Ongoing Business.

No public comment received.

Action: Council received the report and provided staff feedback regarding potential options for further consideration to address the City's Financial Obligations and Reserve Policy.

CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
D. Archaeological Resources Review and Tribal Monitoring Protocol This item was pulled and will be brought back at a later meeting.

Reference: Joyce Halabi, Deputy Public Works Director Public Works Recommended Action:

1. Receive Update

2. Provide direction; authorize staff to proceed with option 1, 2, or 3 as outlined in the staff report

3. Alternatively, discuss and take other action
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
DRAFT PGCC 5-7-25

4 13. NEW BUSINESS
A. Financial Obligation and Reserve Policy Review This item was moved up and heard directly after 12A.

Reference: Fred Marsh, Administrative Services Director Recommended Action: Receive the report and provide staff feedback regarding potential options for further consideration to address the City's Financial Obligations and Reserve Policy.

CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
B. Stain Glass Butterflies Window Donation This item was moved from Unfinished and Ongoing Business.

Public comment received from Annet Cochrane, Evaleto Kahan, Lee Willoughby, Robert Ralph, Diane Willoughby, Sally Moore, David Dillworth, Inge Lorentzen Daumer, Lisa Ciani, and Kris Lindstom.

Action: Upon motion by Mayor Pro Tem Amelio and seconded by Councilmember Rau the Council voted not to receive the art donation application for one stained-glass window.

Motion carried 6-0-1, by the following roll call vote:

AYES: Mayor Smith, Mayor Pro Tem Amelio, Councilmembers Garfield, McDonnell, Rau and Walkingstick.

NOES: None.

ABSENT: Councilmember Poduri.

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

14. FULL PRESENTATIONS

15. CLOSED SESSION

ADJOURNMENT
Council adjourned the regular meeting at 8:39pm.

Respectfully Submitted,
Staphany Arriola, Management Analyst
for Sandra Kandell, City Clerk
DRAFT PGCC 5-7-25

5 Approved by Mayor: _______________________________Date________________ Attest by City Manager: ____________________________Date_________________ DRAFT PGCC 5-7-25

Agenda No. 6 A

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Lori Frati, Finance Manager
MEETING DATE: May 07, 2025
SUBJECT: Resolution of Intention to Levy the Annual Assessment for the Hospitality Improvement District (HID)
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

RECOMMENDATION
Approve a resolution of intention to levy an assessment for the Hospitality Improvement District for Fiscal Year 2025-26.

1. Direct staff to notice a public hearing to be held on May 21, 2025 for the purpose of hearing any protests and determining whether to levy the assessment.

2. DISCUSSION
In 2007, the City established the Hospitality Improvement District (HID), appointed an advisory board, and established an assessment for the District. On November 18, 2018, City Council passed Resolution No. 18-047, amending the Hospitality Improvement District assessment be set at $2.00 per room night for full-service lodging establishments and $1.00 per room night for all others, effective January 1, 2019. Pacific Grove has no full-service hotels or bed and breakfast establishments that collect the $2.00 per room night fee. (Resolution 12-014 defines full service accommodations as “…generally mid-price, upscale or luxury hotels with a restaurant, lounge facilities and meeting space as well as minimum service levels, often including bell service and room service. These hotels report food and beverage revenue”). HID assessment revenues are exclusively used for the support and benefit of the hospitality economy of Pacific Grove.

Pursuant to State law and City Council Resolution 07-044, which formed the HID, an Annual Report is required that reports on District revenues and expenditures, proposes a budget for Fiscal Year (FY) 2025-26, and requests the levy of an assessment for FY 2025-26. The annual report prepared by the HID will be included in the May 21, 2025 agenda report. No changes to HID boundaries are recommended for FY 2025-26.

At the public hearing on May 21, 2025, the Council will have the opportunity to hear and evaluate any protests received and determine whether to levy the assessment. The Council will also have the opportunity to appoint an advisory board.

OPTIONS
PGCC 5-7-25

1. Decline to adopt the Resolution.

2. Provide alternate direction.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact. The City acts as the administrative pass-through to See Monterey and HID.

Assessment revenues may only be used for HID purposes.

FOCUSED PRIORITY AREA: Not Applicable.

Attachments
HID Resolution
PGCC 5-7-25

RESOLUTION NO. 25-xxx

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE STATING THE CITY’S INTENTION TO LEVY AN ASSESSMENT FOR THE PACIFIC GROVE HOSPITALITY IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2025-26

FINDINGS

1. In 2007 the City of Pacific Grove established the Pacific Grove Hospitality Improvement District (HID); and

2. The HID has been approved for continuation each year since it was first established, and has proved to be of benefit to the Community in terms of promoting tourism and the hospitality economy; and

3. The Pacific Grove Chamber of Commerce has requested continuation of the HID for the 2025- 26 fiscal year; and

4. The Action proposed by this Resolution does not constitute a “Project” as that term is defined under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), CEQA Guideline section 15378.

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

1. The City Council finds each recital set forth above to be true and correct, and by this reference incorporates each as an integral part of this Resolution.

2. It is the intention of the City to levy and collect assessments for the Fiscal Year 2025-26 within the Pacific Grove Hospitality Improvement District (HID), as described in Section 6.54 of the Pacific Grove Municipal Code. The proposed assessment, equal to $2.00 per room night for fullservice establishments and $1.00 per room night for other establishments, will be collected by the City from lodging establishment owners when Transient Occupancy Taxes are paid.

3. On May 21, 2025, the City Council will receive an annual report prepared by the HID’s Advisory Board, which contains detail of expenditures in 2024-25 and a description of the anticipated costs, revenue, number of licenses, and activities to be provided in Fiscal Year 2025-26. Copies of the report will be on file with the City Clerk and available at the offices of the Pacific Grove Chamber of Commerce.

4. There is no change to the boundaries of the district as established and set forth in Section

6.54.030 of the Pacific Grove Municipal Code.

PGCC 5-7-25

5. The Council hereby sets the public hearing to consider the levy of the proposed Fiscal Year 2025-26 assessment for the HID for May 21, 2025, at 6:00 pm, or as soon thereafter as the item may be called, at the Pacific Grove City Hall, 300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California.

6. At the public hearing, the City Council shall hear and consider any and all protests against the Fiscal Year 2025-26 levy of assessments for the HID. The rules and procedures used in receiving and considering protests will comply with those set forth in Streets and Highways Code sections 36524, 36525 and 36534. Following the hearing, the Council may adopt a resolution approving the levy.

7. The City Clerk is hereby directed to give a summary notice of the public hearing by causing this resolution of intention to be published once in a newspaper of general circulation not less than seven days before the public hearing.

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE this 7th day of May 2025, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

APPROVED:
____________________________________
NICK SMITH, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
SANDRA KANDELL, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
________________________________
BRIAN A. PIERIK, City Attorney
PGCC 5-7-25

Agenda No. 6 B

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Lori Frati, Finance Manager
MEETING DATE: May 07, 2025
SUBJECT: Resolution of Intention to Levy the Annual Assessment for the Downtown Business Improvement District (BID)
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

RECOMMENDATION
Approve the attached Resolution of Intention to Levy an Assessment for the Downtown Business Improvement District for Fiscal Year 25-26

1. Hold a public hearing on May 21, 2025 to hear protests and determining whether to levy the assessment.

2. DISCUSSION
In 2000, the City established the Downtown Pacific Grove Business Improvement District (BID), appointed an advisory board, and levied assessments for the District. The assessments may be used only for the promotion, marketing and advertising of professional and retail businesses located in the district, and for general maintenance to benefit those businesses. All businesses located in the BID are assessed an amount equal to 35% of their business license tax. The assessment is collected together with the business license tax payment, each year in July. Since 2000, the BID and assessments have been reauthorized annually, without exception.

Pursuant to State law and the City Council Resolution forming the BID, an Annual Report is required that reports on District revenues and expenditures for the prior fiscal year, proposes a budget, and requests the levy of an assessment for the next year. The annual report will be included in the May 21, 2025 agenda report. No changes to BID boundaries are recommended for Fiscal Year 2025-26.

At the public hearing on May 21, 2025, the Council will have the opportunity to hear and evaluate any protests received and determine whether to levy the assessment. The Council will also have the opportunity to appoint an advisory board.

OPTIONS

1. Decline to adopt the Resolution.

2. Provide alternate direction.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

PGCC 5-7-25

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

The assessed funds may only be used for BID purposes. These revenues may not be used for any other City purpose.

FOCUSED PRIORITY AREA: Not Applicable.

Attachments
BID Resolution
PGCC 5-7-25

RESOLUTION NO. 25-xxx

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE STATING THE CITY’S INTENTION TO LEVY AN ASSESSMENT FOR THE PACIFIC GROVE BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2025-26

FINDINGS

1. In 2000 the City of Pacific Grove established the Downtown Pacific Grove Business Improvement District (BID); and

2. The BID has been approved for continuation each year since it was first established, and has proved to be of benefit to the City in terms of promoting the downtown professional and retail business economy; and

3. The Pacific Grove Chamber of Commerce has requested continuation of the Downtown BID for the 2025-26 fiscal year; and

4. The action proposed by this Resolution does not constitute a “Project” as that term is defined under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), CEQA Guideline section 15378.

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

1. The City Council finds each recital set forth above to be true and correct, and by this reference incorporates each as an integral part of this Resolution.

2. The City intends to levy and collect assessments for Fiscal Year 2025-26 within the Downtown Pacific Grove Improvement District (BID), as described in Section 6.50.010 of the Pacific Grove Municipal Code. The proposed assessment would be collected by the City from the business owners when the business license tax is paid in 2025-26. Excepting catalog sales establishments, each and every business in the district will pay an assessment equal to 35% of its business license tax for fiscal year 2025-26.

3. On May 21, 2025, the City Council will receive an annual report prepared by the BID’s Advisory Board, which contains details of expenditures in 2024-25 and a description of the anticipated costs, revenue, number of licenses, and activities to be provided in Fiscal Year 2025-26. These activities include, but are not limited to, promotion, marketing, and advertising of businesses in the district, support for special events, and general maintenance to benefit businesses within the BID.

4. Copies of the report will be on file with the City Clerk and are also available at the offices of the Pacific Grove Chamber of Commerce.

PGCC 5-7-25

5. There is no change to the boundaries of the district as established and set forth in Section

6.5.020 of the Pacific Grove Municipal Code.

6. The Council sets the public hearing to consider the levy of the proposed Fiscal Year 2025-26 assessment for the BID for May 21, 2025 at 6:00 pm, or as soon thereafter as the item may be called, at the Pacific Grove City Hall, 300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California to be conducted under public hearing Zoom Meeting protocols.

7. At the public hearing, the City Council shall hear and consider all protests against the Fiscal Year 2025-26 levy of assessments for the BID. The rules and procedures used to receive and consider protests will comply with Streets and Highways Code sections 36524, 36525 and 36534. Following the hearing, the Council may adopt a resolution approving the levy.

8. The City Clerk is hereby directed to give a summary notice of the public hearing by causing this resolution of intention to be published once in a newspaper of general circulation not less than seven days before the public hearing.

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE this 7th day of May 2025, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

APPROVED:
____________________________________
NICK SMITH, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________________
SANDRA KANDELL, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
________________________________
BRIAN A. PIERIK, City Attorney
PGCC 5-7-25

Agenda No. 6 C

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: May 07, 2025
SUBJECT: Acceptance of Conservation Easement Deeds for 1661 Sunset Drive and 236 Asilomar Avenue, Pacific Grove (APNs 007-041-036 and 007-041-035) CEQA: Categorical Exemption, CEQA Guidelines Section 15317, Class 17, Open Space Contracts or Easements

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council:
a. Find that accepting the Conservation Easement Deeds is categorically exempt per Section 15317 of the CEQA Guidelines;
b. Accept the Conservation Easement Deeds to satisfy Condition of Approval No. 7 of Coastal Development Permit Amendment No. 24-0186;
c. Adopt the resolution authorizing the City Manager to accept the deeds or grants conveying an interest in or easement upon the subject real property or real estate; and d. Direct the City Manager to accept and submit the Conservation Easement Deeds to the County Recorder for recordation with all applicable recording fees paid by the applicant.

DISCUSSION
Pursuant to the City's certified Local Coastal Program, the Planning Commission required the proposed conservation easements (attached) as a condition of approval of a Coastal Development Permit (CDP) Amendment for a project approved by the Planning Commission on November 14, 2024 (CDP Amendment No. 24-0186, attached as Exhibit B to the proposed conservation easement deeds). The proposed conservation easements satisfy Condition of Approval No. 7, and are consistent with Land Use Plan Policy BIO-24(d), which states the following:

"As a condition of coastal development permit approval, all other areas of the lot outside of the Residential Development Envelope shall be restored/enhanced and maintained in a natural dune condition within which the only allowed development, use, and activities are those associated with dune restoration/enhancement and protection. All dune restoration, enhancement, and protection areas shall be covered by both a dune restoration, enhancement and protection plan prepared by a qualified dune restoration professional, as well as a deed restriction or other similar legal restriction adhering to the property (i.e., a conservation easement, etc.) designed to limit allowed development, use, and activities in perpetuity to those associated with dune restoration, enhancement, and protection."
PGCC 5-7-25

The Applicant has submitted the conservation easement metes and bounds legal descriptions and maps showing the general location of the easements on the properties (attached as Exhibits C1 and C2 to the proposed conservation easement deeds). The City would hold the easement in perpetuity for the benefit of the people of the State of California; however, per the terms of the deeds, the public would not have physical access to the private property. Per the terms of the Conservation Easement Deeds, all costs and expenses for maintenance or improvement of the conservation easement areas would be the responsibility of the property owner (i.e., the Grantor). The City (i.e., the Grantee) would not be obligated to maintain, improve, or otherwise expend any funds in connection with the conservation easement areas. Potentially, the City could incur costs associated with monitoring the terms of compliance of the deeds if the property owner fails to maintain the conservation areas. If the conservation areas are not maintained per the terms of the conservation easement deeds, then compliance monitoring would be a function of code enforcement, and costs incurred could be recouped via the levying of fines or other enforcement mechanism.

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
In reviewing this action, the City has followed the CEQA statute adopted by the State of California as published in the California Public Resources Code, Division 13, §21000, et seq., and the associated guidelines as published in the California Code of Regulations, Title 14, §15000, et seq. (i.e., CEQA Guidelines). The acceptance of the conservation easement deeds is found to be categorically exempt under the CEQA Guidelines Section 15317, Class 17, Open Space Contracts or Easements. The Class 17 categorical exemption consists of the acceptance of easements in order to maintain the open space character of the area. The exceptions to exemptions in Section 15300.2 of the CEQA Guidelines pertaining to location, cumulative impacts, significant effects, scenic highways, hazardous waste sites, and historical resources do not apply to this acceptance of the conservation easements. Also, no adverse environmental effects were identified and there is no substantial evidence of an unusual circumstance because there is no feature or condition of the project that distinguishes the project from the exempt class. No further environmental analysis is required.

OPTIONS
Accept the Conservation Easement Deeds to satisfy Condition of Approval No. 7 of Coastal Development Permit Amendment No. 24-0186 and adopt the resolution authorizing the City Manager to accept the deeds or grants conveying an interest in or easement upon the subject real property or real estate; or

1. 2. Discuss and take other action related to this item.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

All costs associated with maintenance of and/or improvement to the conservation easement areas will be borne by the property owner, not the City.

FOCUSED PRIORITY AREA: Environmental Stewardship
Attachments
Proposed Resolution
Conservation Easement Deed, including Exhibits - 1661 Sunset Drive Conservation Easement Deed, including Exhibits - 236 Asilomar Avenue PGCC 5-7-25

RESOLUTION NO. 25 - XXX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC

GROVE AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ACCEPT THE
CONSERVATION EASEMENT DEEDS TO SATISFY CONDITION NO. 7
OF COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AMENDMENT NO. 24-0186

CONVEYING AN INTEREST IN REAL ESTATE OR REAL PROPERTY
TO SAID CITY AND TO CONSENT TO THE RECORDATION THEREOF.

WHEREAS, the City of Pacific Grove is a charter city and municipal corporation organized and existing pursuant to the Constitution and laws of the State of California; and WHEREAS, Section 27281 of the Government Code of the State of California provides that deeds or grants conveying any interest in or easements upon real estate or real property to a political corporation or governmental agency for public purposes shall not be accepted for recordation without the consent of the grantee evidenced by its resolution of acceptance or certificate of acceptance pursuant to its resolution authorizing an officer or agent to accept and consent to the recordation of such deeds and grants, attached to or printed on the deed or grant; and
WHEREAS, the City of Pacific Grove is a governmental agency within the purview of Section 27281 of the Government Code of the State of California;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. The above recitals are true and correct and are a substantive part of this Resolution.

SECTION 2. The City Manager of the City of Pacific Grove is hereby authorized to accept deeds or grants conveying an interest in or easement upon real property or real estate at 1661 Sunset Drive and 236 Asilomar Avenue to the said City.

SECTION 3. The City Manager of the City of Pacific Grove is hereby authorized to consent to the recordation of deeds or grants conveying an interest in or easement upon real estate or real property at 1661 Sunset Drive and 236 Asilomar Avenue to the said City, on behalf of the City Council of said City.

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE this 7th day of May, 2025 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

PGCC 5-7-25

APPROVED:
_______________________________
NICK SMITH, Mayor
ATTEST:

DATED: _______________
____________________________
SANDRA KANDELL, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________
BRIAN A. PIERIK, City Attorney
PGCC 5-7-25

1 When recorded return to:

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT.

Attn: Joseph Sidor
300 Forest Avenue
Pacific Grove, CA 93950
(831) 648-3199
No fee document pursuant to Government Space above for Recorder’s Use Code Section 27383.

CONSERVATION EASEMENT DEED
(COASTAL)
THIS CONSERVATION EASEMENT DEED (this “Easement Deed”) is made this _____ day of _______________, 2025, by and between ELSTOB FAMILY INVESTMENTS LP, as Grantor, and the CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE, a political subdivision of the State of California, as Grantee.

WITNESSETH:

WHEREAS, Grantor is the owner in fee of the real property more particularly described and depicted in Exhibits “A1” and “A2” attached hereto and made a part hereof, situated in the City of Pacific Grove, County of Monterey, State of California (hereinafter the “Property”); and
Permit No.: Amendment 24-0186
The Undersigned Grantor(s) Declare(s):

DOCUMENTARY TRANSFER TAX OF $ 0
[ ] computed on the consideration or full value of
property conveyed, OR
[ ] computed on the consideration or full value less
value of liens and/or encumbrances remaining at
time of sale,
[ ] unincorporated area; and
[ X ] Exempt from transfer tax,
Reason: Transfer to a governmental entity

Resolution No.: Planning Commission Permit
No. 24-0186
Owner Name: Elstob Family Investments,
LP

Project Planner: Joseph Sidor
APN: 007-041-036-000

PGCC 5-7-25

2 WHEREAS, a portion of the Property comprises the Conservation Easement, and includes environmentally sensitive area and environmentally sensitive habitat area, as those terms are defined under the California Coastal Act of 1976 (the “Act”) and the City of Pacific Grove Local Coastal Program (“LCP”), (referred to herein, collectively, as “ESHA”), and also provides natural scenic beauty and open space values; and WHEREAS, the Grantor and the Grantee desire to preserve and conserve for the public benefit the Conservation Easement area, including for its ESHA, its great natural scenic beauty, and its open space values, in such a way as to ensure enhancement, protection, and management of such areas as protected and self-functioning habitat areas in perpetuity; and including because such ESHA protection is essential to the health and well-being of the Asilomar Dunes, not only in terms of the value of the resources themselves, but also in terms of fostering a natural environment within which the Dune’s residential and visitor-serving commercial uses can thrive; and WHEREAS, the Act requires that any coastal development permit approved by the City must be consistent with the provisions of the certified LCP; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the Act, and the LCP, Grantor applied to the City for a permit to undertake development as defined in the LCP; and WHEREAS, an Amendment to a previously approved Coastal Development Permit was granted (Community Development Department File Number 24-0186, hereinafter referred to as the “Permit”) on November 14, 2024, by the City of Pacific Grove Planning Commission pursuant to the Findings, Evidence, and Conditions contained in Permit No. 24-0186, attached hereto as Exhibit “B” and hereby incorporated by this reference in its entirety (hereinafter the “Permit”), subject to the following condition:
“Condition of Approval No. 7 – Recordation of Deed Restriction(s). Owner shall cause to be recorded on forms to be provided by the City two (2) deed restrictions, one on each resultant parcel, that delineate all areas outside the approved 15% Primary Coverage Area+Outdoor Use Area (new driveways and access roads are included in the PCA) development areas specifically for restoration and protection of archaeological and cultural resources. The westerly merged property (007-041-033 and -034) PGCC 5-7-25

3 shall have recorded a deed restriction encompassing ± 78,206 square feet (~ 1.80 acre) of the property outside the PCA+OUA and existing access road; the easterly property (007-041-035) of 57,237 square feet (~ 1.31 ac) shall also identify a 15% PCA+OUA and record a deed restriction encompassing approximately 47,901 square feet (~ 1.1 acre), to protect the undeveloped portions of the property.

This condition is required pursuant to LUP Policy BIO-24(d). As a condition of coastal development permit approval, all other areas of the lot outside of the Residential Development Envelope shall be restored/enhanced and maintained in a natural dune condition within which the only allowed development, use, and activities are those associated with dune restoration/enhancement and protection. All dune restoration, enhancement, and protection areas shall be covered by both a dune restoration, enhancement and protection plan prepared by a qualified dune restoration professional, as well as a deed restriction or other similar legal restriction adhering to the property (i.e., a conservation easement, etc.) designed to limit allowed development, use, and activities in perpetuity to those associated with dune restoration, enhancement and protection.

WHEREAS, the areas being protected include natural, scenic, and open space qualities and features valuable for plant and wildlife habitat; and WHEREAS, the City, acting on behalf of the People of the State of California and pursuant to the Act, and in accordance with the findings contained in the Permit, granted the Permit to the Grantor upon the condition described above (hereinafter the “Condition”) requiring, inter alia, that the Grantor record a conservation easement affecting the Conservation Easement and agree to restrict development on and use of the Conservation Easement so as to enhance, protect, preserve, and manage the habitat, open space, scenic, and overall natural resource values present in the Conservation Easement as protected and self-functioning habitat areas in perpetuity, including to prevent any adverse direct and cumulative effects on these resources; and PGCC 5-7-25

4 WHEREAS, the City has placed the Condition on the Permit because a finding must be made under the law that the proposed development is in conformity with the provisions of the certified LCP and that in the absence of the protections provided by the Condition said finding could not be made; and
WHEREAS, Grantor has elected to comply with the Condition and execute this Easement Deed so as to enable Grantor to undertake the development authorized by the Permit; and
WHEREAS, it is intended that this Easement Deed be irrevocable and shall constitute enforceable restrictions within the meaning of Article XIII, Section 8, of the California Constitution and that this Easement Deed shall thereby qualify as an enforceable restriction under the provision of the California Revenue and Taxation Code, Section 402.1; and
WHEREAS, the Grantor is willing to execute this Easement Deed for the conservation and scenic use as herein expressed of the Conservation Easement, and thereby enhance, protect, preserve, and manage the habitat, open space, scenic, and overall natural resource value by the restricted use and enjoyment of the Conservation Easement by the Grantor through the imposition of the restrictions hereinafter expressed; and
WHEREAS, the recitals set forth above are hereby incorporated in and made a part of this Easement Deed by this reference.

NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, Grantor does hereby grant and convey unto Grantee for the benefit of the People of the State of California, an estate, interest, and conservation easement in perpetuity for the purpose of habitat protection and resource conservation over the Conservation Easement area in accordance with the following provisions (the “Conservation Easement”); and to that end and for the purposes of accomplishing the intent of the parties hereto, Grantor covenants on behalf of itself, its heirs, successors, and assigns, with the Grantee, its successors and assigns, to do and refrain from doing severally and collectively upon the Conservation Easement the various acts hereinafter mentioned.

PGCC 5-7-25

5 A. PROPERTY SUBJECT TO EASEMENT. The Property of the Grantor hereinabove referred to and to which the provisions of this instrument apply is situated in the City of Pacific Grove, County of Monterey, State of California, and is particularly described and depicted in Exhibits “C1” and “C2””, attached hereto, and made a part hereof, hereinafter referred to as the “Conservation Easement”.

B. RESTRICTIONS, EXCEPTIONS, AND RESERVATIONS. Upon
recordation of this Easement Deed and thereafter in perpetuity, the use of the Conservation Easement shall be limited to natural open space for habitat protection and resource conservation uses. No “development” (as defined in Land Use Plan Section

1.10 of the LCP), including, but not limited to, removal of trees and other major or native vegetation, grading, paving, installation of structures such as signs, buildings, etc., and no grazing or agricultural activities shall occur or be allowed on the Conservation Easement with the exception of the following (subject to compliance with any applicable governmental regulatory requirements):

1. The right to maintain, repair, and use all existing roads, trails, public service and utility lines, pipes, and transmission facilities (including those for gas, electricity, telephone, water, sewer, and cable television), and facilities for drainage and erosion and sedimentation control, upon the Conservation Easement area.

2. The right to the construction, maintenance, repair, and use of new public service and utility lines, pipes, and transmission facilities (including those for gas, electricity, telephone, water, sewer, and cable television), and facilities for drainage and erosion and sedimentation control, when such public service, utility, and drainage pipes and facilities are found to be infeasible to be located outside of such conservation areas, and, if infeasible, when such facilities are the minimum necessary.

3. Conduct of public and private scientific study, consistent with the intent of this Conservation Easement.

4. The use and occupancy of the Conservation Easement area not inconsistent with the conditions and restrictions herein imposed, such as public and private visitation, hiking, and similar passive or low-impact outdoor recreational uses.

5. Management of resources within the Conservation Easement area in accordance with a Native Botanical & Habitat Restoration Plan dated/revised PGCC 5-7-25

6 February 27, 2024 (incorporated herein by reference and a copy of which is maintained in the Community Development Department of the City).

For any allowable use and development, Grantor shall provide Grantee with copies of all Site and Construction Plans (e.g. Site, Grading, Utility, Drainage, Erosion Control, and Landscape plans, etc.) showing the location of existing and proposed facilities and the materials and specifications for proposed grading and construction within the Conservation Easement area. Grantor shall give advance notice to Grantee whenever maintenance or construction activities will occur within the Conservation Easement area.

C. SUBJECT TO APPLICABLE LAWS. Land uses and development permitted or reserved to the Grantor by this instrument shall be subject to all applicable laws regulating the use of land.

D. BENEFIT AND BURDEN. This Conservation Easement shall run with and burden the Conservation Easement area, and all obligations, terms, conditions, and restrictions hereby imposed shall be deemed to be covenants and restrictions running with the land and shall be effective limitations on the use of the Conservation Easement from the date of recordation of this document and shall bind the Grantor and all of its successors and assigns. This Conservation Easement shall benefit Grantee and its successors and assigns on behalf of the People of the State of California forever.

E. RIGHT OF ENTRY. The Grantee, the Coastal Commission, or their agents may enter onto the Conservation Easement area to ascertain whether the use restrictions set forth above are being observed at times reasonably acceptable to the Grantor.

F. ENFORCEMENT. Any act or any conveyance, contract, or authorization, whether written or oral, by the Grantor which uses or would cause to be used or would permit use of the Conservation Easement area contrary to the terms of this Easement Deed will be deemed a breach hereof. The Grantee or the Coastal Commission may bring any action in court necessary to enforce this Easement Deed, including, but not limited to, injunction to terminate a breaching activity and to force the restoration of all damage done by such activity, or an action to enforce the terms and provisions hereof by specific performance. It is understood and agreed that the Grantee or the Coastal PGCC 5-7-25

7 Commission may pursue any appropriate legal and equitable remedies. The Grantee or the Coastal Commission shall have sole discretion to determine under what circumstances an action to enforce the terms and conditions of this Easement Deed shall be brought in law or in equity. Any forbearance on the part of the Grantee or the Coastal Commission to enforce the terms and provisions hereof in the event of a breach shall not be deemed a waiver of Grantee’s or the Coastal Commission’s rights regarding any subsequent breach.

G. MAINTENANCE. The Grantee shall not be obligated to maintain, improve, or otherwise expend any funds in connection with the Conservation Easement or any interest or easement created by this Easement Deed. All costs and expenses for such maintenance, improvement, use, or possession shall be borne by the Grantor, except for costs incurred by Grantee for monitoring compliance with the terms of this Easement Deed. Grantor and its successors and assigns shall manage and maintain the Conservation Easement area in accordance with the standards of a Native Botanical & Habitat Restoration Plan dated/revised February 27, 2024, as well as any other standards and requirements of whatever kind that may from time to time be legitimately imposed on the Conservation Easement subject to all required approvals, including entitlement approvals for any development, including changes in intensity of use.

H. LIABILITY AND INDEMNIFICATION. This conveyance is made and accepted upon the express condition that the Grantee, the Coastal Commission, and their agencies, departments, officers, directors, agents, employees, and authorized volunteers are to be free from all liability and claim for damage by reason of any injury to any person or persons, including Grantor, or property of any kind whatsoever and to whomsoever belonging, including Grantor, from any cause or causes whatsoever, except matters arising out of the sole negligence or intentional misconduct of the Grantee or the Coastal Commission while in, upon, or in any way connected with the Conservation Easement, Grantor hereby covenanting and agreeing to indemnify and hold harmless the Grantee, the Coastal Commission, and their agencies, departments, officers, directors, agents, employees, and authorized volunteers from all liability, loss, cost, and obligations on account of or arising out of such injuries or losses however occurring, except to the extent caused by the sole negligence or intentional misconduct PGCC 5-7-25

8 of such entities or persons. The Grantee and the Coastal Commission shall have no right of control over, nor duties and responsibilities with respect to, the Conservation Easement which would subject the Grantee or the Coastal Commission to any liability occurring upon the Conservation Easement area by virtue of the fact that the Grantee and the Coastal Commission have the right to enter the Conservation Easement area, as such right is strictly limited to preventing uses inconsistent with the interest granted.

The parties acknowledge and agree that the Conservation Easement area is not “property of a public entity” or “public property”, and Grantee’s and Coastal Commission’s rights herein do not include the right to enter the Conservation Easement area for the purposes of correcting any “dangerous condition” as those terms are defined by California Government Code Section 830.

I. TRANSFER OF TITLE. Grantor shall have the absolute right to transfer its right, title, and interest in and to all or any portion of the Conservation Easement area and upon such a transfer the transferee, by acceptance of the deed (whether or not so stated in the deed), shall have assumed and shall be obligated to perform all of the covenants of Grantor under this Easement Deed and shall have all of the rights and obligations of and be deemed to stand in the place of the Grantor for all purposes under this Easement Deed, with respect to the land transferred; and upon such a transfer Grantor shall be fully relieved and discharged from all of Grantor’s obligations under this Easement Deed with respect to the land transferred.

J. ASSIGNMENT.

1. Grantor shall have the right to assign its rights or delegate its obligations under this Easement Deed, in whole or in part. No such assignment or delegation by Grantor, however, shall relieve the fee owner or owners of the Conservation Easement area from the obligations to perform the covenants of Grantor in this Easement Deed, and such covenants shall continue as covenants running with the land as specified in Paragraph D above.

2. Grantee shall have the right to assign its rights and delegate its obligations under this Easement Deed, but only to a public agency, private association, or corporation which agrees to accept such rights and assume such obligations and is approved in writing in advance by the City, the Executive Director of the California PGCC 5-7-25

9 Coastal Commission, and Grantor. Grantee shall not abandon the Conservation Easement, but may assign the Conservation Easement in accordance with the preceding sentence.

K. PUBLIC ENTRY AND USE OF CONSERVATION AREA. This Easement Deed does not govern access to or use of the Conservation Easement Area by members of the public.

L. SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS. The terms, covenants, conditions, exceptions, obligations, and reservations contained in this conveyance shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the successors and assigns of both the Grantor and the Grantee, whether voluntary or involuntary.

M. SEVERABILITY. If any provision of this Easement Deed is held to be invalid or for any reason becomes unenforceable, no other provision shall be thereby affected or impaired.

N. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION. This Easement Deed may be amended, modified, or changed only with the written consent of the Grantor and the Grantee. In addition, an amendment to the Permit may be required, if necessary, as determined by the City. Any amendment of this Easement Deed and any necessary amendment to the Permit shall be void and of no effect without the written consent of the two entities.

Executed this _____ day of _______________, 2025, at _______________, California.

GRANTOR
By: _____________________________
(Signature)
Mark Elstob, General Partner
Elstob Family Investments, LP
PGCC 5-7-25

10 A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) SS.

COUNTY OF MONTEREY )
On , 2025, before me, , a
Notary Public, personally appeared , who proved to me
on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.

I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.

WITNESS my hand and official seal.

Signature
(Seal)
PGCC 5-7-25

11 ACCEPTANCE AND CONSENT TO RECORDATION
This is to certify that the interest in real property conveyed by the easement deed or grant dated ____________________________ from Mark Elstob, General Partner of the Elstob Family Investments LP, to the City of Pacific Grove, a political corporation and/or governmental agency, is hereby accepted by the City Council of the City of Pacific Grove on __________________________, (or by the undersigned officer or agent on behalf of the City of Pacific Grove pursuant to authority conferred by resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacific Grove (Resolution No. 25 - ___) adopted on _________________________,) and the grantee consents to recordation thereof by its duly authorized officer.

DATED: ________________ _____________________________________ (Signature)
MATTHEW MOGENSEN, City Manager
ATTEST:

DATED: ________________ _____________________________________ SANDRA KANDELL, City Clerk
A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) SS.

COUNTY OF MONTEREY )
On , 2025, before me, , a Notary
Public, personally appeared , who proved to me on the
basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.

I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.

WITNESS my hand and official seal.

Signature
(Seal)
PGCC 5-7-25

12 Document Form/Content Acceptable:
______________________________ Dated: ________________
BRIAN A. PIERIK, City Attorney
PGCC 5-7-25

EXHIBIT A1
Legal Description
Of
MergedParcels I & II Fronting onSunset Drive
(APN'S007-041-033/034) Into a SingleParcel
ParcelA (APN 007-041-036-000)
PLNPermit No. CDP24-0186
Certain RealProperty in the City ofPacific Grove, the County of Monterey,State of California, Described as follows:

Beginning at a point on the East Boundary of Sunset Drive and being the westerly corner of that certain property granted from HYH Properties LP toElstob Family Investments LP. per Grant Deeds 2021074913 & 2021074914 recorded on11/02/2021 with Recorder of Monterrey County, California; thenceSoutheasterly along theSouthwest boundary of saidProperty

1. South 76° 38 • oo •• East, 322.52 feet to the Southery corner of said property, thence along the Southeast boundary of said property

2. North 13 ° 22 • 00 .. East, 287 .90 feet to the Easterly corner of said property, thence along the Northeast boundary of said property

3. North 76° 38 • oo .. West, 322.52 feet to the Northerly corner of said property, thence along the Northwest boundary of said property also being the Southeast boundary of Sunset Drive

4. South 13 ° 22 • oo·· West, 287 .98 feet to the Point of Beginning.

Date: 4 December 2024
H. Patrick Ward
Registered Civil Engineer #29811
State of California
WO6752.02
L/6752/675202/Sent-Out/240104_LLA/Elstob Parcel A.docx
Exhibit A1 Page 1 of 1
PGCC 5-7-25

-------------------------------------

SUNSET DRIVE
- ------ - - --(A ;w'-WiDE l.;lrY-Si�EE-i-)-
S 13°
22'00" W 287.98 - -;;-- -
P
O
-
�l
-
T
_-
O
_
F
---:._1 _43
!!!!"'
.
"!!!"
99-�-- -:=\(
Z:::: - _-_-_-_-
1 _4
_
3 !!!!"'
.
-:;
99 �--_ --- ----�-·,;;-::: __ _

BEGINNING I
PARCEL 1

1.066 AC±
APN 007-041-033
I
I I
I
I
I I
I
I
ELSifOB

PARICIEL A
APN 000-
1 000-000
ooopolAe±

PARCEL II

1.066 AC±
APN 007-041-034
N 13°
22'00" IE 287.98
0 I
3=1 I- "<t
(1)8
::::) I
b N o::�
0 I[) 1-'r
N
......

I"') N 08
I"') Oz " (/)�
z
, z
w
I a..
143.99 I � 143.99 -.,
:::,:::,.c!r"' - lll,, ..> O�i"-- �, 51°'.§8_ ----.,..,,13.-,,.3.....-r-5- -- PARCEL (PARCEi::- I� �
IV I Ill ��

0.564 AC± � 1
.750 AC± I :::r:: 'r
>" I APN 007�04 - 35 I > 8
EL rqs 1
1 �
I
! I I
I --·------- I
er
CIVIL ENGINEERING • SURVEYING • LAND PLANNING
9701 BLUE LARKSPUR LANE, MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA 93940
831.373.2941 831.649.4118F
PREPARED FOR: Elstob

COUNTY OF MONTEREY,
EXHIBIT A2
CDP 24-0186
SCALE:

DATE:

SHEET:

WO:

CALIFORNIA
1"= 50'
11/21/24
1 OF 1
6752.02
PGCC 5-7-25

EXHIBIT B
Amendment 24-0186
PGCC 5-7-25

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
Community Development Department – Planning Division
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA 93950
T: 831.648.3183 • F: 831.648.3184 • www.ci.pg.ca.us/cdd AMENDMENT (24-0186) TO ARCHITECTURAL PERMIT, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, AND PARCEL MERGER (AP/CDP/PM 19-0645) TO MODIFY THE PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND PARCEL MERGER TO: AMPLIFY AND CLARIFY

THE FACTS AND EVIDENCE REGARDING VISUAL RESOURCES, BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES, LOT LEGALITY, AND WATER SUPPLY; ALLOW THE MERGER OF THE TWO LEGAL LOTS UNDER APN 007-041-035; AND ADD RELATED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL.

FACTS

1. The subject site is located at 1661 Sunset Drive, Pacific Grove, 93950; APNs 007-041-033, -034, and -035.

2. The subject site has a land use designation of Low Density Residential (1 - 2 du/ac) in the adopted and certified City of Pacific Grove Land Use Plan (LUP).

3. The subject site is located in the R-1-B-4 zoning district.

4. The subject site is located in the Coastal Zone and within the Asilomar Dunes Residential Area which is considered an Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA). The site is also within an archaeologically sensitive area.

5. The subject site is located outside of the Monarch butterfly habitat area and the Area of Special Biological Significance (ASBS).

6. The project area consists of four (4) separate legal parcels with a combined size of approximately 3.47 acres. The two (2) vacant parcels abutting Sunset Drive (APNs 007-041-033 and -034) were issued Unconditional Certificates of Compliance in 2008. APN -035 abutting Asilomar Avenue is comprised of two (2) legal lots of record and was developed with the existing single-family residence in 1930. The existing residence was found to be ineligible for the Historic Resources Inventory (HRI) in 2019. This determination is further supported by a Historical Resources Evaluation Update prepared by Rincon Consultants, Inc. (July 8, 2022).

7. The Planning Commission approved Architectural Permit, Coastal Development Permit, and Parcel Merger (AP/CDP/PM 19-0645) on August 12, 2021. This approval allowed the demolition of the existing singlefamily residence on the eastern portion of the property (APN -035 adjacent to Asilomar Avenue) and the construction of a 5,912 square foot split-level single-family residence on the western portion of the property (APNs -033 and -034 adjacent to Sunset Drive), and the merger of APNs 007-041-033 and -034. The Planning Commission also considered and adopted the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP) prepared for the project.

8. As proposed, the amendment would modify the previously-approved Coastal Development Permit (CDP) and Parcel Merger (PM) to: 1) amplify and clarify the facts and evidence regarding visual resources, biological resources, lot legality, and water supply; 2) allow the merger of the two legal lots under APN 007-041-035; and 3) add conditions of approval related to the CDP and PM. No changes are proposed to the Architectural Permit (AP) and the AP is not under reconsideration by the Planning Commission.

9. As amended, the project would consist of the demolition of the existing single-family residence on the eastern portion of the site (APN -035 adjacent to Asilomar Avenue) and the construction of a 5,912 square foot split-level single-family residence on the western portion of the site (APNs -033 and -034 adjacent to Sunset Drive), the merger of APNs 007-041-033 and -034, and the merger of the two legal lots under APN 007-041-035.

10. Pursuant to Pacific Grove Municipal Code (PGMC) Sections 23.90.050, City CDP Determinations, and

23.90.040, CDP Exemptions, Community Development Department (CDD) staff determined the proposed Docusign Envelope ID: 6985D5BD-CC59-4D39-A701-9489A0CC57E1 PGCC 5-7-25

changes would require an Amendment to the previously-approved Coastal Development Permit (CDP) and forwarded this determination to the Coastal Commission on August 15, 2024.

11. Per PGMC Section 23.90.140, Coastal Hazards, Community Development Department (CDD) staff reviewed LUP Figure 3 (Coastal Hazards and Areas of Potential Sea Level Rise), aerial and topographic imagery, plan set, and conducted a site visit on August 15, 2024, and determined the site and proposed development, as amended, would not be subject to coastal hazards over its lifetime. The lowest point of the area of proposed development on the subject property is at an elevation of approximately 42 feet above mean sea level and over 300 feet from the shoreline. In this case, submittal of a Coastal Hazards Report is not required or warranted.

12. Per PGMC Section 23.90.150, Water Quality and Marine Resources, the applicant prepared a Grading, Drainage, and Erosion Control Plan (plan sheets C1 and C2). As designed, stormwater runoff would be retained and dissipated on site and the proposed project would not result in water quality impairment.

13. Per PGMC Section 23.90.160, Scenic Resources, CDD staff reviewed LUP Figure 4 (Scenic Areas), aerial and street view imagery, and conducted a site visit on August 15, 2024. This review determined the site is within a designated scenic view area and development would be visible from Sunset Drive and the shoreline trails. To minimize potential impacts to the public viewshed, the previously-approved development/design would maintain a maximum ridge height of 16 feet, 2 feet below the maximum allowed height of 18 feet in the Asilomar Dunes Residential Area. The project plan set includes a site-specific visual analysis (plan sheets A-7.1 through A-7.4) and an exterior lighting plan (plan sheet EL-1). As previously approved, the project includes minimal landscape planting areas immediately adjacent to the residence; therefore, in this case, a landscape plan is not required or warranted. As designed and conditioned, the approved development/design would not result in adverse visual impacts as viewed from Sunset Drive or other public vistas. The project also includes approximately 1,340 cubic yards (cy) of grading which will be balanced onsite for landscaping and restoration purposes.

14. As required by PGMC Section 23.90.170, the application includes a Biological Assessment and a Restoration Plan (Froke, revised 02-27-2024). The Asilomar Dunes Residential Area is considered dune habitat and an environmentally sensitive habitat area. The area to be disturbed as a result of new construction will be minimized and deed restrictions will be recorded to place areas outside the development envelopes under permanent conservation easement. The areas outside the development envelope will also be restored. The qualified professional biologist who prepared the biological assessment and restoration plan concluded that the proposed development will not impact sensitive species and will not have a significant negative effect on the environment. Mitigation measures for the protection of biological resources and restoration have been applied to the project as required by the LCP. Therefore, as conditioned and mitigated, the approved development would minimize impacts to natural habitats and biological resources.

15. As required by PGMC Section 23.90.200, the project includes an archaeological report prepared by a qualified archaeologist, Patricia Paramoure, RPA/MA. The Phase I report resulted in the expansion of a known recorded site into the proposed development envelope. This triggered the preparation of a Phase 2 report which involveds a complete, subsurface survey and testing of identified sites sufficient to determine their horizontal and vertical boundaries, their cultural and scientific importance, and the site’s eligibility for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The site work was completed in March 2021 with monitors from both the Esselen Tribe of Monterey County (Esselen) and the Ohlone-Costanoan Esselen Nation (OCEN) onsite throughout. The Phase 2 report resulted in a finding that the site is ineligible for listing on the NRHP. The project is conditioned to require onsite Tribal and archaeological monitoring for all ground disturbing activities.

16. The property slopes gently from Asilomar Avenue on the east toward Sunset Drive to the west. Currently, natural drainage from the property is to the existing facility in the Sunset Drive right of way. The project includes a Grading, Drainage, and Erosion Control Plan (plan sheets C1 and C2) which indicates that any stormwater created by the proposed development can be accommodated onsite. See also Fact 12 above.

Docusign Envelope ID: 6985D5BD-CC59-4D39-A701-9489A0CC57E1 PGCC 5-7-25

17. As required by PGMC Section 23.90.180(C)(4)(d), the areas outside the proposed Residential Development Envelope (RDE) on the merged parcels (-033, -034) will be restored and further enhanced to predevelopment conditions. Furthermore, the easterly parcel (-035), a separate legal parcel, where the existing home is proposed to be demolished, will also be restored and an appropriate deed restriction(s) will be recorded over both resultant properties. The deed restriction on -035 may allow a 15% RDE and 750 square foot Outdoor Use Area (OUA) to be retained as it is a separate legal parcel and may be developed in the future once potable water is available.

18. The proposed demolition is required in order to transfer the existing water meter from the existing singlefamily residence on APN -035 to the proposed single-family residence on APN -034. The City received a letter from California American Water (Cal Am) dated October 13, 2020, indicating that the relocation of the existing water meter to the adjacent property under the same ownership is acceptable. The Monterey Peninsula Water Management District confirmed the allowed relocation of the existing water meter via letter dated 02-02-2024. See also CDP Finding No. 8 below.

19. The Architectural Review Board (ARB) held a noticed public hearing on June 8, 2021. At that meeting, the applicant’s architect proposed a 2-foot reduction in height resulting in a maximum height from finished grade of 16 feet. The ARB recommended that the Planning Commission approve the project with the modification to height and based on the findings, conditions of approval, and the IS/MND and MMRP provided for consideration.

20. The IS/MND and MMRP were prepared in accordance to Article 6, CCR Title 14, California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and circulated for public review. See also the CEQA Finding below.

21. Following the Planning Commission’s decision on August 12, 2021, an interested party appealed the decision of the Planning Commission to the City Council. On March 24, 2023, the appellant withdrew the appeal prior to a hearing before the City Council and the prior decision of the Planning Commission remained in effect.

22. Following the withdrawal of the appeal, CDD staff prepared and submitted a Final Local Action Notice (FLAN) to the California Coastal Commission (CCC) on March 28, 2023. On April 12, 2023, the CCC filed an appeal to the Planning Commission’s decision. To allow time for the applicant and the CCC to discuss and resolve questions related to the project, CDD staff rescinded the FLAN on May 16, 2023. On August 13, 2024, following discussions between the applicant and CCC staff, the applicant submitted an application to the City to amend the project per CCC staff direction.

23. As proposed, the current application would amend the CDP and PM. No changes are proposed to the AP.

Per PGMC Section 23.72.020, permits involving concurrent permit processing allow for a clear permitting and decision-making path. Since the Planning Commission was the final review authority for the original project, this amendment returns to the Planning Commission for consideration. See also Fact No. 8 above.

24. AP/CDP/PM 19-0645 was approved for a period of two (2) years; however, the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision placed the timeline in abeyance pending resolution of the appeal. The appeal was withdrawn on March 24, 2023, so the revised permit expiration date would be March 24, 2025. On August 13, 2024, the applicant applied to amend the original permit.

FINDINGS
Architectural Permit findings per PGMC Section. 23.70.060

1. The architecture and general appearance of the completed project are compatible with the neighborhood.

The proposed 5,310 square foot split-level home with an attached 602 square foot garage will be of a “contemporary craftsman” style situated on the property to take full advantage of the ocean views to the west. The highest portions of the roof will be 16 feet which is 2 feet below the maximum allowed height of 18 feet in the Asilomar Dunes Residential Area. The property slopes from the east down toward the coastline; Docusign Envelope ID: 6985D5BD-CC59-4D39-A701-9489A0CC57E1 PGCC 5-7-25

the maximum 16-foot height will be achieved through the grading of approximately 1,340 cubic yards (cy) of cut which will be balanced on the site for landscaping and restoration. There are several covered outdoor living areas, walkways, and patios that are included in the RDE, in addition to the 750 square foot OUA. A materials sheet is included showing the use of stone pavers, King City stone wall materials, metal door and window samples, heavy timber beams, painted stainless steel gutters and downspouts, and horizontal wood siding. The roof pitch will be 4:12. The general appearance will be compatible to the eclectic mix of homes along Sunset Drive.

2. The completed project will neither be detrimental to the orderly and harmonious development of the City nor impair the desirability of investment or occupation in the neighborhood.

The merger of the two (2) western parcels into one helps to reduce the development potential within the fragile dune system. The development of one home on the merged parcels which will align in its placement with the other homes to the north and south will not be detrimental to the orderly and harmonious development of the City. The replacement of one large custom home with another large custom home will contribute to the desirability of investment in the Asilomar Dunes neighborhood.

3. The Commission has been guided by and has made reference to applicable provisions of the architectural review guidelines in making its determinations on single-family residences.

The proposed design references many of the recommendations in the Guidelines including, but not limited to Nos. 1, 10-12, 13, 16, 24, and 37. The plan set includes visual simulations showing the proposed building in relation to existing nearby buildings, a lighting plan, and a materials sheet.

Demolition per PGMC Section 23.70.060
Per 23.70.060(c)(2), Within the coastal zone, architectural permits for new construction, major and minor alterations to existing structures, or demolition and reconstruction of structures, including an amendment to an approved architectural permit. The demolition of the existing home on APN -035 requires an Architectural Permit. The four (4) separate legal parcels that comprise the project site are under the same ownership. In order to transfer the existing water meter from the existing home to the proposed new home, the existing home must be demolished. The result will be a net zero increase in development on the overall site. The existing home has been determined ineligible for the City’s Historic Resources Inventory (HRI). This determination is further supported by a Historical Resources Evaluation Update prepared by Rincon Consultants, Inc. (July 8, 2022).

Exceptions for Chimneys per PGMC Section 23.90.160(b)(1)(B) Although not a finding, per se, this section allows minor height exceptions as follow:

Exceptions are allowed only for chimneys, vents, and similar vertical extensions, not to exceed an additional four feet, and not to comprise more than five percent of a building’s roof area. In all cases, heights may be further limited in order to meet LCP scenic resource protection requirements.

The project includes one (1) chimney that exceeds the 16-foot height limit by approximately 3 feet. Given the topography of the site, the transects shown in the architectural elevations include a variety of heights. This is based on the definition of height in the LCP which is defined as “the vertical distance measured between legally established existing grade and the top-most portion of the development above existing grade.” Coastal Development Permit findings per PGMC Section 23.90.080

1. LCP Consistency. The project is consistent with the LCP.

The project meets the requirements of the LCP including, but not limited to, the applicable Coastal Resource Protection Standards (PGMC 23.90.130) of the Implementation Plan (IP) and the Biological, Docusign Envelope ID: 6985D5BD-CC59-4D39-A701-9489A0CC57E1 PGCC 5-7-25

Cultural, Scenic, and Community Design policies of the Land Use Plan (LUP). These standards and policies are discussed further in the following findings.

2. Public Views. The project protects or enhances public views.

Per PGMC Section 23.90.160, Scenic Resources, CDD staff reviewed LUP Figure 4 (Scenic Areas), aerial and street view imagery, and conducted a site visit on August 15, 2024. This review determined the site is within a designated scenic view area and development would be visible from Sunset Drive and the shoreline trails. To minimize potential impacts to the public viewshed, the previously-approved development/design would maintain a maximum ridge height of 16 feet, 2 feet below the maximum allowed height of 18 feet in the Asilomar Dunes Residential Area. Additionally, the removal of the existing large, two-story house at the east side of the project site and its replacement with a 16-foot high home downslope from Asilomar Avenue will improve the existing public views toward the coast from Asilomar Avenue. Although the residence will be visible looking to the east from Sunset Drive, the protected views seaward along Sunset Drive will not be affected. As designed and conditioned, the approved development/design would not result in adverse visual impacts as viewed from Sunset Drive or other public vistas. See also Fact No. 13 above.

3. Habitat Protection. The project protects vegetation, natural habitats, and natural resources consistent with LCP.

As required by PGMC Section 23.90.170, the application includes a Biological Assessment and a Restoration Plan (Froke, revised 02-27-2024). The Asilomar Dunes Residential Area is considered dune habitat and an environmentally sensitive habitat area. The area to be disturbed as a result of new construction will be minimized and deed restrictions will be recorded to place areas outside the development envelopes under permanent conservation easement. The areas outside the development envelope will also be restored. The qualified professional biologist who prepared the biological assessment and restoration plan concluded that the proposed development will not impact sensitive species and will not have a significant negative effect on the environment. Mitigation measures for the protection of biological resources and restoration have been applied to the project as required by the LCP. Therefore, as conditioned and mitigated, the approved development would minimize impacts to natural habitats and biological resources. See also Fact No. 14 above.

4. Design Consistency. The design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the proposed development are consistent with applicable LCP design requirements, including design plans and area plans incorporated into the LCP.

The size of the project’s Residential Development Envelope (RDE), which consists of both the Primary Coverage Area (PCA) and the Outdoor Use Area (OUA), complies with the applicable limits in the LCP.

Site coverage includes, but is not limited to, covered living areas, driveway, parking, walkways and patios.

This area encompasses 14.97% of the total (merged) lot area. The allowed maximum is 15%. The 750 square foot OUA is allowed in addition to this PCA coverage area. The residence is designed to meet the design standards in PGMC Section 23.90.180.

5. Coastal Access. The project protects or enhances public access to and along the coast.

The project will have no effect on coastal access to or along the coast.

6. Visitor Serving. The project supports the LCP goal of providing for visitor-serving needs as appropriate, including providing low and no cost visitor and recreational facilities.

The project consists of the development of a single-family residence and, therefore, will have no visitorserving features, but may qualify for a Short-Term Rental (STR) license given its location within the Coastal zone. As of this writing, there is no indication that the applicant intends to pursue an STR license.

Docusign Envelope ID: 6985D5BD-CC59-4D39-A701-9489A0CC57E1 PGCC 5-7-25

7. Appropriate Use. The project is consistent with the allowed LCP uses associated with the property.

One single-family residence is allowed. The project will result in the replacement of one, two-story home on one parcel with a new, split-level home on the other adjoining and merged parcel under the same ownership.

8. Coastal Resources. The proposed development protects or enhances coastal resources, where applicable.

The approximately 3.45-acre project site is currently in a significantly degraded state primarily covered in invasive ice plant. As conditioned, the project will result in the onsite restoration and enhancement of approximately 126,107 square feet (~ 2.9 acres).

Regarding water supply and service for the new residence, the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (MPWMD) rules allow the use of water credits anywhere on a “site” comprised of contiguous parcels under common ownership (confirmed by MPWMD letter dated February 2, 2024). Demolition of the existing residence located at 1661 Sunset Drive will result in a water use credit that may be applied to future water use on that site within a ten-year period. Therefore, the water use credits generated by the demolition of the existing residence may be utilized to permit construction of a new residence within ten years of the demolition date. The estimated water use credit of 33.5 fixture units can be applied toward the new residence and exterior water demand. Additional demand could be obtained by purchasing a Water Entitlement from the City of Pacific Grove. Also, the existing water meter may be relocated to support the new location of the residence (confirmed by Cal-Am letter dated October 13, 2020).

Parcel Merger findings per PGMC Section 24.06.040 and Subdivision Map Act §§ 66451.10 - 66451.24 The four legal lots of record consist of Lots 7 (Parcel II) and 8 (Parcel I) in Block 317, Lot 6 (Parcel III) in Block 318, and a portion of Lot 7 (Parcel IV) in Block 318, as identified on the map entitled “Map of Pacific Grove Acres”, filed on June 2, 1919, in Volume 3 of Maps, “Cities and Towns”, Page 13, Records of Monterey County. The Subdivision Map Act (SMA) governs the subdivision of property and provides the framework for determining when a legal lot or record has been created. SMA Section 66412.6 relates to separate conveyances of property prior to 1972 and provides that:
“For purposes of this division or of a local ordinance enacted pursuant thereto, any parcel created prior to March 4, 1972, shall be conclusively presumed to have been lawfully created if the parcel resulted from a division of land in which fewer than five parcels were created and if at the time of the creation of the parcel, there was no local ordinance in effect which regulated divisions of land creating fewer than five parcels."
Parcel I was conveyed by Del Monte Properties Company to Amy Bowen Hittell separately from any other parcel, on February 11, 1924. The deed was recorded in Volume 34, Page 145, Official Records. In each successive transfer of this parcel, the parcel is separately described in the legal description of the grant deeds.

On June 15, 2008, the City of Pacific Grove recorded a certificate of compliance confirming that the parcel is a separate legal lot of record.

Parcel II was conveyed by Del Monte Properties Company to Amy Bowen Hittell separate from any other parcel on February 6, 1924. The deed was recorded in Volume 34, Page 105, Official Records. In each successive transfer of said parcel, the parcel is separately described in the legal description of the grant deeds.

On June 15, 2008, the City of Pacific Grove recorded a certificate of compliance confirming that the parcel is a separate legal lot of record.

Parcel III was conveyed by Del Monte Properties Company to Amy Bowen Hittell separately from any other parcel, on June 14, 1923. The deed was recorded in Volume 19, Page 182, Official Records. In each successive transfer of said parcel, the parcel is separately described in the legal description of the grant deeds. Therefore, the City of Pacific Grove recognizes the parcel as a separate legal lot of record in compliance with the relevant provisions of the Subdivision Map Act, including Section 66412.6.

Docusign Envelope ID: 6985D5BD-CC59-4D39-A701-9489A0CC57E1 PGCC 5-7-25

Parcel IV was conveyed by Del Monte Properties Company to Paul Ehlert on July 13, 1923. The deed was recorded in Volume 22, Page 43, Official Records. On April 29, 1948 M.D. King and Lillian Kent conveyed a portion of the parcel to David and Eileen Chew. In each successive transfer the remainder of the parcel is separately described noting "excepting therefrom the portion deeded to Chew" in the legal description of the grant deeds. Therefore, the City of Pacific Grove recognizes the parcel as a separate legal lot of record in compliance with the relevant provisions of the Subdivision Map Act, including Section 66412.6.

In accordance with the Subdivision Map Act Section 66412(d), approval of a lot-line adjustment (i.e., a lot merger in this case) shall be based upon a determination by the director that the following criteria are in evidence:
(a) The adjustment involves four or fewer adjoining parcels that were legally created and will not result in the creation of more parcels than originally existed.

As proposed, the merger of the four (4) existing legal lots will result in a total of two (2) separate, legal parcels.
(b) Each resulting parcel is viable in supporting existing or planned land uses based on applicable general plan and other applicable zoning regulations.

The resultant parcels will be viable in supporting existing or planned land uses. (c) The resulting parcels and any structure(s) or parking space(s) located thereon will comply with the requirements of the zoning district in which the parcel is located and with applicable building regulations, except that where an existing parcel(s) or structure(s) is nonconforming with respect to zoning regulations, a lot-line adjustment may be approved if the degree of nonconformance is not increased.

The resultant parcels will have adequate room for permitted structures and required parking. (d) The adjustment will not impair any existing public-street or private-access easement or create parcels without legal access to a public street and the number of lots fronting on a public street is not being reduced.

The merged parcels will have legal access to a public street and will not impair the existing access easement which benefits the neighbor to the north (1663 Sunset Drive). (e) The adjustment will not require substantial alteration of any existing public easements or improvements.

There are no known public easements or improvements that will require alteration as a result of these mergers.
(f) The adjustment will not result in a utility service line being located on any property other than the lot being served, unless the service line is contained in a recorded utility easement.

Utilities will be extended from their existing location(s) across a property under the same ownership. No easement is needed at this time.
(g) Each resulting parcel has been, or can be, provided with adequate sewage-disposal facilities.

The resultant parcels will be connected to the public sewer in Sunset Drive.

PGMC 23.90.180(c)(3) - Coastal Community Design for the Asilomar Dunes Residential Area (ADRA) In addition to all other applicable LCP policies, the following design standards for development within the Asilomar Dunes Residential Area have been addressed in the application materials: the Residential Development Envelope which includes the Primary Coverage Area (PCA) and the Outdoor Use Area (OUA); the Restoration and Protection of the ADRA dune environment; Fencing (none); Heights and Articulation; OffStreet Parking; Setbacks; Accessory Structures (none); Off-Site Mitigation; Subdivisions (none); Nonconforming (none) and Conforming Development; and Views.

Docusign Envelope ID: 6985D5BD-CC59-4D39-A701-9489A0CC57E1 PGCC 5-7-25

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND), and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP) were prepared for AP-CDP-PM 19-0645 in accordance to Article 6, CCR Title 14, California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and circulated for public review/comment and to the State Clearinghouse (SCH#2021040697).

As amended, the project is consistent with the previously-adopted final IS/MND for the project (AP-CDP-PM 19-0645), adopted by the Planning Commission on August 12, 2021. Pursuant to Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, the Planning Commission has reviewed the project, considered the final IS/MND, and finds that the project does not require subsequent environmental analysis based on the following:
a) No substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions to the previous IS/MND due to involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified impacts; b) No substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions to the previous IS/MND due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; and
c) No new information of substantial importance has been provided which was not known at the time of the previous IS/MND.

The following facts remain as adopted by the Planning Commission on August 12, 2021 and as considered on November 14, 2024:
a) The final IS/MND was completed in compliance with CEQA; b) The final IS/MND was presented to the Planning Commission, and that the decision-making body reviewed and considered the information contained in the final IS/MND prior to approving the project and amendment;
c) The final IS/MND reflects the lead agency's independent judgment and analysis; and d) The custodian for these documents shall be the Community Development Department for the City of Pacific Grove found at 300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950.

Site Plan Review Committee (SPRC) Meeting
In compliance with the requirements of PGMC Section 23.70.050, an SPRC meeting was held on February 2, 2021. Members commented on stormwater, sewer, gross floor area, and demolition truck routes. These items have been addressed in the conditions of approval.

PERMIT
AMENDMENT (24-0186) OF ARCHITECTURAL PERMIT, PARCEL MERGER, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AP/PM/CDP 19-0645
To modify the previously-approved Coastal Development Permit and Parcel Merger to: amplify and clarify the facts and evidence regarding visual resources, biological resources, lot legality, and water supply; allow the merger of the two legal lots under APN 007-041-035; and add related conditions of approval.

As amended, the resulting project would allow the demolition of the existing single-family residence on the eastern portion of the property (APN -035) and the construction of a 5,912 square foot split-level single-family residence on the western portion of the property, and the merger of APNs 007-041-033 and -034, and the merger of the two legal lots under APN -035.

Docusign Envelope ID: 6985D5BD-CC59-4D39-A701-9489A0CC57E1 PGCC 5-7-25

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
General Conditions

1. Conformance to Plans. Development and uses of the site shall conform to the approved plans for the HPH Properties, LP, Project dated April 24, 2023, on file with the Community Development Department and to the Building Code, with the exception of any subsequently-approved changes. Minor plan changes shall be subject to review and approval by the Community Development Director and/or Public Works Director as appropriate, prior to implementation. Major plan changes may also require review and approval of the Planning Commission. Project revisions may require additional CEQA analysis. The final building permit site plan shall accurately reflect 15% lot coverage in compliance with BIO-24(b).

2. Permit Expiration. The project permits shall expire and be null and void if a building permit has not been applied for within two (2) years from and after the date of approval. Application for extension of this approval must be made prior to the expiration date.

3. Construction Compliance. All construction must occur in general compliance with the proposal as set forth in the application, subject to any special conditions of approval herein. Any deviation from approvals must be reviewed and approved by staff and may require subsequent discretionary approval.

4. Terms and Conditions. These terms and conditions shall run with the land and bind to all future owners and possessors of the subject property, unless amended. Amendments to this permit may be achieved only if an application is made and approved, pursuant to the Zoning Code.

Prior to Issuance of the Demolition Permit

5. Encroachment Permit. The project proponent shall obtain an encroachment permit prior to any work within the public right-or-way. The encroachment permit application shall be submitted for review and approval by the Chief Building Official and Public Works Director.

6. Temporary Fencing. Prior to the start of construction, temporary fencing shall be installed to delineate the Construction Zone for the purpose of protecting surrounding dune habitat. The Project Biologist shall oversee the installation of the temporary fencing. Temporary fencing shall be maintained in good condition and remain in place until all construction on site is completed and final building inspection approval has been received. Removal or changing the location of the fence, to accommodate onsite restoration activities, for example, will require the concurrence of the Project Biologist. After confirming that final building approval has been received, the Project Biologist shall oversee removal of the fencing.

Prior to Issuance of Building Permits

7. Recordation of Deed Restriction(s). Owner shall cause to be recorded on forms to be provided by the City two (2) deed restrictions, one on each resultant parcel, that delineate all areas outside the approved 15% Primary Coverage Area+Outdoor Use Area (new driveways and access roads are included in the PCA) development areas specifically for restoration and protection of archaeological and cultural resources. The westerly merged property (007-041-033 and -034) shall have recorded a deed restriction encompassing ± 78,206 square feet (~ 1.80 acre) of the property outside the PCA+OUA and existing access road; the easterly property (007-041-035) of 57,237 square feet (~ 1.31 ac) shall also identify a 15% PCA+OUA and record a deed restriction encompassing approximately 47,901 square feet (~ 1.1 acre), to protect the undeveloped portions of the property.

This condition is required pursuant to LUP Policy BIO-24(d). As a condition of coastal development permit approval, all other areas of the lot outside of the Residential Development Envelope shall be restored/enhanced and maintained in a natural dune condition within which the only allowed development, use, and activities are those associated with dune restoration/enhancement and protection. All dune restoration, enhancement, and protection areas shall be covered by both a dune restoration, enhancement and protection plan prepared by a qualified dune restoration professional, as well as a deed restriction or other similar legal restriction adhering to the property (i.e., a conservation easement, etc.) designed to limit Docusign Envelope ID: 6985D5BD-CC59-4D39-A701-9489A0CC57E1 PGCC 5-7-25

allowed development, use, and activities in perpetuity to those associated with dune restoration, enhancement and protection.

8. Adobe Shed Protection. The small adobe shed at the east end of APN -035 shall be retained.

9. Grading Plan. All grading-phase related conditions of approval for the Planning permit(s) shall be printed on a full-size plan sheet and included with the grading plan set submitted to the Building Division.

10. Building Plans. All conditions of approval for the Planning permit(s) shall be printed on a full-size plan sheet and included with the construction plan set submitted to the Building Division.

11. Public Works, Fire, and Building. Review and approval by the Public Works Department, Fire Department, and Building Division are required prior to issuance of a building permit. Work taking place in the public right-of-way shall require an encroachment permit prior to issuance of the building permit.

12. Other Utilities. The existing water meter at Asilomar Avenue will remain with a new lateral extended to the new home. The existing sewer lateral to Sunset Drive will remain and be extended to the new home.

Existing PG&E utilities (gas and electric) will be extended underground along the south property line to the new home. The existing driveway pavement will be replaced without expanding the prism or impervious areas.

13. Glare Reduction. Westerly facing windows and glass doors shall use bird-safe and anti-glare glass to minimize bird impacts and to reduce afternoon and evening glare.

14. Exterior Lighting. Exterior lighting shall be positioned so that no direct light extends onto neighboring properties. Exterior lighting shall be screened to confine light splay to the site and shall be at a wattage level that sufficiently limits light glare. After installation, the City may require lamps to have a lower wattage level in order to limit the glare levels of the light fixtures. As an ongoing requirement, all exterior lighting shall conform with LUP Policy DES-6.

15. Construction Noise Reduction. Prior to the issuance of demolition or grading permits, the City shall ensure that the project applicant includes the following on all construction plans and contracts for the proposed project:

Construction Hours. All noise-generating construction activities, as well as delivery and removal of materials and equipment associated with those construction activities, are limited to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday, and 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Sunday.

Construction Equipment. Properly maintain construction equipment and ensure that all internal combustion engine driven machinery with intake and exhaust mufflers and engine shrouds (if the equipment had such devices installed as part of its standard equipment package) that are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment. Equipment engine shrouds shall be closed during equipment operation. The developer shall require all contractors, as a condition of contract, to maintain and tune-up all construction equipment to minimize noise emissions.

Vehicle and Equipment Idling. Construction vehicles and equipment shall not be left idling for longer than five minutes when not in use.

Stationary Equipment. All noise-generating stationary equipment such as air compressors or portable power generators shall be located as far as possible from sensitive receptors. Temporary noise barriers shall be constructed to screen stationary noise generating equipment when located near adjoining sensitive land uses.

Temporary noise barriers shall be designed to reduce construction noise levels by at least 10 dBA.

Construction/Demolition Route. All construction and demolition traffic to and from the project site shall be routed via designated truck routes where feasible. All construction-related heavy truck traffic in residential areas shall be prohibited where feasible.

Docusign Envelope ID: 6985D5BD-CC59-4D39-A701-9489A0CC57E1 PGCC 5-7-25

Workers’ Radios. All noise from workers’ radios shall be controlled to a point that they are not audible at sensitive receptors near the construction activity.

Prior to Demolition Activities

16. Preconstruction Bird Surveys. Should demolition or grading activities begin during the local bird nesting season (January 1 through July 31), the applicant shall retain a qualified wildlife biologist or ornithologist to conduct a preconstruction nesting survey of the project area to ascertain whether nesting birds and their active nest could be jeopardized by the new activities. This survey shall take place no more than 15 days before the start of the potentially disruptive work. Should nesting be detected where there would be a threat to the nest/ eggs/nestlings, the biologist will coordinate with the owner and contractor to work out an alternative work pattern or calendar to provide time necessary for the birds to complete their nesting effort.

17. Archaeological and Tribal Monitors Under Contract. Prior to any grading or other ground-disturbing activities, the applicant shall provide to the Community Development Department copies of the executed contracts with both a qualified registered archaeologist and qualified Tribal monitors of either the Esselen Tribe of Monterey County (Esselen) and/or the Ohlone-Costanoan Esselen Nation (OCEN).

Prior to Grading or Any Ground-Disturbing Activities

18. Pre-Construction Meeting (Archaeo/Cultural). Prior to demolition and again at the start of construction of the new home, the Project Archaeologist and Tribal monitor (if interested) shall conduct an educational meeting to explain the purpose of the monitoring, to show the construction personnel what is being monitored and to explain what will happen in the incidence of locating an artifact during construction activities. The Project Archaeologist will briefly explain the history of the area. The construction personnel will be shown a photo of the items that have already been observed onsite and asked to be prepared to immediately stop demolition/construction activity if an inadvertent discovery is made. This meeting may be concurrent with the similar pre-construction meeting for biological resources.

19. Pre-Construction Meeting (Bio). Prior to demolition and again at the start of construction of the new home, the Project Biologist shall conduct an educational meeting to explain the purpose of the monitoring, to show the construction personnel what is being monitored and to explain what will happen in the incidence of locating a species of special concern during construction activities. The Project Biologist will explain the life history of the species of special concern, why they may be found on the property, and what construction staff should do if one is spotted on the project site. The construction personnel will be shown a photo of the species of special concern and asked to be prepared to immediately stop demolition activity if a species of special concern is discovered and wait until the species is safely removed from the construction zone before restarting. This meeting may be concurrent with the similar pre-construction meeting for archaeological /Tribal resources.

During Construction and Prior to Final Inspection

20. On-Going Site Management. All activities associated with construction, trenching, storage of materials, and disposal of construction waste and excavated soil shall not impact areas protected by fencing. The areas protected by the fence shall remain in a trash-free condition and not used for material stockpiling, storage or disposal, or vehicle parking. All construction personnel shall be prohibited from entering the areas protected by fencing.

21. Construction & Biological Remediation Monitoring for Archaeological Resources. Archaeological and Tribal monitoring shall be conducted by both a qualified archaeologist and a Native American monitor from the Esselen and/or OCEN for all ground-disturbing activities occurring between 0 to 4-feet below the ground surface. This includes: 1) field preparation and iceplant remediation activities that include the use of any heavy equipment; and 2) for utility and stormwater trenching. The following standard protocols shall be followed:

Docusign Envelope ID: 6985D5BD-CC59-4D39-A701-9489A0CC57E1 PGCC 5-7-25

a) Procedures for Inadvertent Discovery of Archaeological Resources - if any unanticipated precontact or historic-era cultural deposits and/or features are encountered during construction activities, all ground disturbing work within 100-feet of the find shall be halted and directed away from the discovery, until a Secretary of the Interior qualified archaeologist assesses the significance of the resource. The archaeologist, in consultation with the property owner, the City of Pacific Grove and Tribal consultants, should make the necessary plans for treatment of the find(s) and for the assessment and mitigation of impacts, if the finds are found to be eligible to the National or California Registers, qualify as a unique archaeological resource under CEQA Section 21083.2, or determined to be a tribal cultural resource, as defined in Section 21074.
b) Procedures for Inadvertent Discovery of Human Remains - If human remains are encountered during Project-related earth-disturbing activities, all work within 100-feet of the discovery area shall cease immediately, nothing is to be disturbed, and the area shall be secured. The Monterey County Coroner’s Office, the SHPO, and the City of Pacific Grove must be notified immediately. The Coroner will determine if the remains are pre-contact Native American or of modern origin, and if there are any criminal or jurisdictional questions.

If the Coroner believes the remains to be those of a precontact Native American, they shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) by telephone within 24-hours. The NAHC will notify the person it believes to be the most likely descendant (MLD) of the remains.

The MLD has 48-hours to make recommendations to the landowner for treatment or disposition of the human remains. If the descendant does not make recommendations within 48-hours, the landowner shall reinter the remains in an area of the property secure from further disturbance. If the property owner does not accept the descendant’s recommendations, the owner or the descendant may request mediation by the NAHC. According to the California Health and Safety Code, six (6) or more human burials at one (1) location constitute a cemetery (Section 8100), and willful disturbance of human remains is a felony (Section 7052). An archaeologist(s) should also be retained to evaluate the historical significance of the discovery, the potential for additional remains, and to provide further recommendations for treatment of the site in coordination with the MLD.

22. Biological Remediation Activities. Site reclamation and restoration activities shall be conducted in compliance with the Restoration Plan prepared for this project (Native Botanical & Habitat Restoration Plan (Califauna, amended February 2, 2024). Installation of plants shall be completed prior to final building permit inspection approval and granting of occupancy.

23. During-Construction Pollution Prevention (a): During construction, the developer shall employ storm water best management practices (BMPs) for erosion and sediment control, prevention of non-stormwater discharges, and implement good housekeeping and construction waste management practices to protect the storm drainage system and water quality as required by City Code Section 9.30.130(c), the City Phase II NPDES Permit, State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Construction General Permit (CGP), and the Monterey Regional Storm Water Management Program (MRSWMP).

24. During-Construction Pollution Prevention (b): Construction activities subject to BMP requirements shall continuously employ measures to control waste such as discarded building materials, concrete truck washout, chemicals, litter, and sanitary waste at the construction site that may cause adverse impacts to water quality, contamination, or unauthorized discharge of pollutants.

25. During-Construction Pollution Prevention (c): Whenever construction activity is being done contrary to and in violation of Municipal Code Chapter 9.30, the Public Works/Community Development Director may order that construction activity to stop by posting a written notice on the premises. All persons shall immediately stop such work unless or until the Public Works Director authorizes removing the stop work order and allows construction activity to proceed.

Docusign Envelope ID: 6985D5BD-CC59-4D39-A701-9489A0CC57E1 PGCC 5-7-25

Prior to Certificate of Occupancy

26. Biological Restoration. The completion of the “planting and seeding” phase described in the project’s Native Botanical & Habitat Restoration Plan (Califauna, amended February 2, 2024) shall be completed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.

Ongoing Operational Conditions

27. Stormwater Treatment Measure. The stormwater treatment measures shall be maintained by the property owner in perpetuity. City staff shall be allowed access to inspect all stormwater treatment measures on an annual basis.

28. Maintenance of Landscaping and Lighting. All landscaping and lighting shall be maintained in good condition for the life of the project. Any plants that die or are diseased shall be promptly removed and replaced. Groundcover shall be similarly maintained as needed. All lighting equipment, bulbs, conduit, shall be maintained and replaced in-kind as needed. Any deficiencies noted by City staff shall be addressed within 7 calendar days of written notice of non-compliance by the City.

29. Onsite Habitat Restoration Maintenance and Monitoring.

Following satisfactory installation of the new landscape, a 5-year maintenance and monitoring program shall commence, overseen and directed by the Project Biologist.

Monitoring - the Project Biologist will conduct: (a) Monitoring would follow standard protocol: the project biologist will conduct:
(a) bi-weekly site check for the first two months after plantings are completed [4 visits]; (b) three quarterly inspections for the following nine months [3 visits]; and (c) for the following 4 years (yrs 2-5 of 5) at two visits [15]. Total = 17 visits (estimated total of 8 hrs); with a final report and verification to the City of Pacific Grove at the completion of the 5-year monitoring effort.
(CALIFAUNA Native Botanical & Restoration Plan, revised February 2, 2024)

30. Final Archaeological Report. At the discretion of the professional archaeologist, a report suitable for compliance documentation may be prepared and provided to the appropriate State agencies. This report will document the field methodology and findings and make management recommendations, as necessary. If required, this report shall be completed within six (6) months of completion of monitoring.

31. Mitigation Measures – All Mitigation Measures, including monitoring and compliance measures, and longterm compliance measures contained in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan as adopted by the Planning Commission, and in association with the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, are incorporated herein and enforceable under this instrument.

32. Notice of Permit Approval. The applicant shall record a Permit Approval Notice. This notice shall state:
"An Amendment (Permit No. 24-0186) to a previously-approved Parcel Merger, Architectural Permit, and Coastal Development permit (Permit No. PM/AP/CDP 19-0645) was approved by the City of Pacific Grove Planning Commission for Assessor's Parcel Numbers 007-041-033, -034, and -035 on November 14, 2024.

The permit was granted subject to thirty-six (36) conditions of approval which run with the land. A copy of the permit is on file with the City of Pacific Grove Community Development Department.” Proof of recordation of this notice shall be furnished to the Community Development Department prior to issuance of building permits.

33. Remove fencing and entry posts located on Sunset Drive. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the fencing and entry posts located along Sunset Drive shall be removed.

Docusign Envelope ID: 6985D5BD-CC59-4D39-A701-9489A0CC57E1 PGCC 5-7-25

34. Off-Site (Right-of-Way) habitat restoration along Sunset Drive and Asilomar Avenue. The property frontage along both Sunset Drive and Asilomar Avenue shall be restored in accordance with the same requirements as described in the on-site restoration plan. See Condition No. 29.

This condition is required pursuant to LUP Policy BIO-24(f). Development shall only be approved if the area in the public right-of-way between the lot frontage and the paved portion of the road is also restored/enhanced and maintained in a natural dune condition within which the only allowed development, use, and activities are those associated with dune restoration, enhancement and protection.

35. Certificates of Compliance. The Owner(s)/Applicant(s) shall prepare, execute and record deeds that reflect the lot line adjustment (i.e., parcel mergers) as required by California Government Code §66412(d) and request an unconditional Certificate of Compliance for each of the adjusted parcels.

Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Owner(s)/Applicant(s) shall take all necessary steps to merge Parcels I and II fronting on Sunset Drive (APNs 007-041-033/-034) into a single parcel, and Parcels III and IV fronting on Asilomar Avenue (APN 007-041-035) into a single parcel, including but not limited to doing the following:

Have a professional land surveyor prepare a legal description and plat with closure calculations. The legal description shall be entitled "Exhibit A" and shall have the planning permit no. (CDP 22-0296) in the heading. The plat may be incorporated by reference into Exhibit “A,” or be entitled Exhibit “B.” The legal description and plat shall comply with the Monterey County Recorder's guidelines as to form and content.

Submit the draft legal descriptions, plats and closure calculations to the project planner for both of the following:
a. Each newly adjusted parcel of the lot line adjustment for which a Certificate of Compliance will be issued.
b. For the adjusted parcels, being all areas being conveyed by Owner(s) in conformance to the approved lot line adjustment.
i. The Owner(s)/Applicant(s) shall be responsible for ensuring the accuracy and completeness of all parties listed as Grantor and Grantee on the deeds.
ii. The purpose of the deed shall be stated on the first page of the deed, as follows: “The purpose of this deed is to adjust the parcel boundaries in conformance to the lot line adjustment approved by the City of Pacific Grove (19-0645, as amended by 24-0186). This deed is being recorded pursuant to §66412(d) of the California Government Code and shall be deemed to reconfigure the subject parcels in conformance to said approved lot line adjustment. Any configuration of said subject parcels that existed prior to recordation of this deed shall no longer be valid and shall not be used for the purpose of sale, lease or financing, whether immediate or future.”
NOTE: Owner(s) is/are responsible for securing any re-conveyance, partial re-conveyance and/or subordination in connection with any loan, mortgage, lien or other financial obligation on all property being transferred between parties.

Following project planner review and any corrections of the legal descriptions and plats:
a. Record the fully executed and acknowledged deed(s) to the adjustment parcels with the County Recorder. b. Deliver a copy of the recorded deed(s) to the project planner. c. Deliver the legal description and plat of each Certificate of Compliance to the Community Development Department for final processing, together with a check, payable to the “Monterey County Recorder,” for the appropriate fees to record the Certificate(s) of Compliance.

36. Off-Site Restoration. Pursuant to LUP Policy BIO-25, in addition to the restoration requirements specified in Policy BIO-24(d) and (f) (see condition nos. 7 and 34 above), all areas of new dune coverage associated Docusign Envelope ID: 6985D5BD-CC59-4D39-A701-9489A0CC57E1 PGCC 5-7-25

with development on legal lots of record in the Asilomar Dunes Residential Area shall be required to be mitigated on a 2:1 square foot basis by providing for off-site restoration or enhancement of degraded dune areas in the Asilomar Dunes area. This requirement may be addressed through offsite restoration/enhancement and/or proportionate contributions to the City’s Environmental Assessment Fund (i.e., in-lieu fee) provided such funds are used exclusively for dune restoration, enhancement, and protection efforts in the Asilomar Dunes area. The in-lieu fee requirement would amount to $58,732.00 (14,683 square feet x 2 x $2.00 per square foot) for the adjusted lot adjacent to Sunset Drive and $37,344.00 (9,336 square feet x 2 x $2.00 per square foot) for the adjusted lot adjacent to Asilomar Avenue.

37. Operational Permit. As amended, AP/CDP/PM 24-0186 shall become the operational entitlement for the project, and all conditions of approval shall be cleared under this amendment.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE:

1. The Planning Commission determines that each of the Facts and Findings set forth above is true and correct, and by this reference incorporates those Facts and Findings as an integral part of this Permit.

2. The Planning Commission approves the Amendment 24-0186 to AP/PM/CDP 19-0645, subject to the findings and conditions as amended, and consistent with the previously adopted Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration.

3. This permit shall become effective upon the expiration of the 10-day appeal period.

4. This permit shall not take effect until the owner acknowledges and agrees to all terms and conditions and agrees to conform to and comply with those terms and conditions.

Passed and adopted as a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Pacific Grove on the 14th day of November, 2024, by the following vote:

AYES: Sweigert, Sawyer, Murphy, Fredrickson, Kubica, and Nodzenski NOES: None
ABSENT: Davison
ABSTENTIONS: None
APPROVED:
_____________________________
Don Murphy, Chair
The undersigned hereby acknowledge and agree to the approved terms and conditions, and agree to fully conform to, and comply with, said terms and conditions.

Mark Elstob, General Partner
Elstob Family Investments, LP
Date
Docusign Envelope ID: 6985D5BD-CC59-4D39-A701-9489A0CC57E1 11/15/2024
PGCC 5-7-25

Exhibit C1 Page 1 of 2
PGCC 5-7-25

Exhibit C1 Page 2 of 2
PGCC 5-7-25

PGCC 5-7-25

1 When recorded return to:

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT.

Attn: Joseph Sidor
300 Forest Avenue
Pacific Grove, CA 93950
(831) 648-3199
No fee document pursuant to Government Space above for Recorder’s Use Code Section 27383.

CONSERVATION EASEMENT DEED
(COASTAL)
THIS CONSERVATION EASEMENT DEED (this “Easement Deed”) is made this _____ day of _______________, 2025, by and between ELSTOB FAMILY INVESTMENTS LP, as Grantor, and the CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE, a political subdivision of the State of California, as Grantee.

WITNESSETH:

WHEREAS, Grantor is the owner in fee of the real property more particularly described and depicted in Exhibits “A1” and “A2” attached hereto and made a part hereof, situated in the City of Pacific Grove, County of Monterey, State of California (hereinafter the “Property”); and
Permit No.: Amendment 24-0186 The Undersigned Grantor(s) Declare(s):

DOCUMENTARY TRANSFER TAX OF $ 0
[ ] computed on the consideration or full value of
property conveyed, OR
[ ] computed on the consideration or full value less
value of liens and/or encumbrances remaining at
time of sale,
[ ] unincorporated area; and
[ X ] Exempt from transfer tax,
Reason: Transfer to a governmental entity

Resolution No.: Planning Commission Permit
No. 24-0186
Owner Name: Elstob Family Investments,
LP
Project Planner: Joseph Sidor
APN: 007-041-035-000

PGCC 5-7-25

2 WHEREAS, a portion of the Property comprises the Conservation Easement, and includes environmentally sensitive area and environmentally sensitive habitat area, as those terms are defined under the California Coastal Act of 1976 (the “Act”) and the City of Pacific Grove Local Coastal Program (“LCP”), (referred to herein, collectively, as “ESHA”), and also provides natural scenic beauty and open space values; and WHEREAS, the Grantor and the Grantee desire to preserve and conserve for the public benefit the Conservation Easement area, including for its ESHA, its great natural scenic beauty, and its open space values, in such a way as to ensure enhancement, protection, and management of such areas as protected and self-functioning habitat areas in perpetuity; and including because such ESHA protection is essential to the health and well-being of the Asilomar Dunes, not only in terms of the value of the resources themselves, but also in terms of fostering a natural environment within which the Dune’s residential and visitor-serving commercial uses can thrive; and WHEREAS, the Act requires that any coastal development permit approved by the City must be consistent with the provisions of the certified LCP; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the Act, and the LCP, Grantor applied to the City for a permit to undertake development as defined in the LCP; and WHEREAS, an Amendment to a previously approved Coastal Development Permit was granted (Community Development Department File Number 24-0186, hereinafter referred to as the “Permit”) on November 14, 2024, by the City of Pacific Grove Planning Commission pursuant to the Findings, Evidence, and Conditions contained in Permit No. 24-0186, attached hereto as Exhibit “B” and hereby incorporated by this reference in its entirety (hereinafter the “Permit”), subject to the following condition:
“Condition of Approval No. 7 – Recordation of Deed Restriction(s). Owner shall cause to be recorded on forms to be provided by the City two (2) deed restrictions, one on each resultant parcel, that delineate all areas outside the approved 15% Primary Coverage Area+Outdoor Use Area (new driveways and access roads are included in the PCA) development areas specifically for restoration and protection of archaeological and cultural resources. The westerly merged property (007-041-033 and -034) PGCC 5-7-25

3 shall have recorded a deed restriction encompassing ± 78,206 square feet (~ 1.80 acre) of the property outside the PCA+OUA and existing access road; the easterly property (007-041-035) of 57,237 square feet (~ 1.31 ac) shall also identify a 15% PCA+OUA and record a deed restriction encompassing approximately 47,901 square feet (~ 1.1 acre), to protect the undeveloped portions of the property.

This condition is required pursuant to LUP Policy BIO-24(d). As a condition of coastal development permit approval, all other areas of the lot outside of the Residential Development Envelope shall be restored/enhanced and maintained in a natural dune condition within which the only allowed development, use, and activities are those associated with dune restoration/enhancement and protection. All dune restoration, enhancement, and protection areas shall be covered by both a dune restoration, enhancement and protection plan prepared by a qualified dune restoration professional, as well as a deed restriction or other similar legal restriction adhering to the property (i.e., a conservation easement, etc.) designed to limit allowed development, use, and activities in perpetuity to those associated with dune restoration, enhancement and protection.

WHEREAS, the areas being protected include natural, scenic, and open space qualities and features valuable for plant and wildlife habitat; and WHEREAS, the City, acting on behalf of the People of the State of California and pursuant to the Act, and in accordance with the findings contained in the Permit, granted the Permit to the Grantor upon the condition described above (hereinafter the “Condition”) requiring, inter alia, that the Grantor record a conservation easement affecting the Conservation Easement and agree to restrict development on and use of the Conservation Easement so as to enhance, protect, preserve, and manage the habitat, open space, scenic, and overall natural resource values present in the Conservation Easement as protected and self-functioning habitat areas in perpetuity, including to prevent any adverse direct and cumulative effects on these resources; and PGCC 5-7-25

4 WHEREAS, the City has placed the Condition on the Permit because a finding must be made under the law that the proposed development is in conformity with the provisions of the certified LCP and that in the absence of the protections provided by the Condition said finding could not be made; and
WHEREAS, Grantor has elected to comply with the Condition and execute this Easement Deed so as to enable Grantor to undertake the development authorized by the Permit; and
WHEREAS, it is intended that this Easement Deed be irrevocable and shall constitute enforceable restrictions within the meaning of Article XIII, Section 8, of the California Constitution and that this Easement Deed shall thereby qualify as an enforceable restriction under the provision of the California Revenue and Taxation Code, Section 402.1; and
WHEREAS, the Grantor is willing to execute this Easement Deed for the conservation and scenic use as herein expressed of the Conservation Easement, and thereby enhance, protect, preserve, and manage the habitat, open space, scenic, and overall natural resource value by the restricted use and enjoyment of the Conservation Easement by the Grantor through the imposition of the restrictions hereinafter expressed; and
WHEREAS, the recitals set forth above are hereby incorporated in and made a part of this Easement Deed by this reference.

NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, Grantor does hereby grant and convey unto Grantee for the benefit of the People of the State of California, an estate, interest, and conservation easement in perpetuity for the purpose of habitat protection and resource conservation over the Conservation Easement area in accordance with the following provisions (the “Conservation Easement”); and to that end and for the purposes of accomplishing the intent of the parties hereto, Grantor covenants on behalf of itself, its heirs, successors, and assigns, with the Grantee, its successors and assigns, to do and refrain from doing severally and collectively upon the Conservation Easement the various acts hereinafter mentioned.

PGCC 5-7-25

5 A. PROPERTY SUBJECT TO EASEMENT. The Property of the Grantor hereinabove referred to and to which the provisions of this instrument apply is situated in the City of Pacific Grove, County of Monterey, State of California, and is particularly described and depicted in Exhibits “C1” and “C2””, attached hereto, and made a part hereof, hereinafter referred to as the “Conservation Easement”.

B. RESTRICTIONS, EXCEPTIONS, AND RESERVATIONS. Upon
recordation of this Easement Deed and thereafter in perpetuity, the use of the Conservation Easement shall be limited to natural open space for habitat protection and resource conservation uses. No “development” (as defined in Land Use Plan Section

1.10 of the LCP), including, but not limited to, removal of trees and other major or native vegetation, grading, paving, installation of structures such as signs, buildings, etc., and no grazing or agricultural activities shall occur or be allowed on the Conservation Easement with the exception of the following (subject to compliance with any applicable governmental regulatory requirements):

1. The right to maintain, repair, and use all existing roads, trails, public service and utility lines, pipes, and transmission facilities (including those for gas, electricity, telephone, water, sewer, and cable television), and facilities for drainage and erosion and sedimentation control, upon the Conservation Easement area.

2. The right to the construction, maintenance, repair, and use of new public service and utility lines, pipes, and transmission facilities (including those for gas, electricity, telephone, water, sewer, and cable television), and facilities for drainage and erosion and sedimentation control, when such public service, utility, and drainage pipes and facilities are found to be infeasible to be located outside of such conservation areas, and, if infeasible, when such facilities are the minimum necessary.

3. Conduct of public and private scientific study, consistent with the intent of this Conservation Easement.

4. The use and occupancy of the Conservation Easement area not inconsistent with the conditions and restrictions herein imposed, such as public and private visitation, hiking, and similar passive or low-impact outdoor recreational uses.

5. Management of resources within the Conservation Easement area in accordance with a Native Botanical & Habitat Restoration Plan dated/revised PGCC 5-7-25

6 February 27, 2024 (incorporated herein by reference and a copy of which is maintained in the Community Development Department of the City).

For any allowable use and development, Grantor shall provide Grantee with copies of all Site and Construction Plans (e.g. Site, Grading, Utility, Drainage, Erosion Control, and Landscape plans, etc.) showing the location of existing and proposed facilities and the materials and specifications for proposed grading and construction within the Conservation Easement area. Grantor shall give advance notice to Grantee whenever maintenance or construction activities will occur within the Conservation Easement area.

C. SUBJECT TO APPLICABLE LAWS. Land uses and development permitted or reserved to the Grantor by this instrument shall be subject to all applicable laws regulating the use of land.

D. BENEFIT AND BURDEN. This Conservation Easement shall run with and burden the Conservation Easement area, and all obligations, terms, conditions, and restrictions hereby imposed shall be deemed to be covenants and restrictions running with the land and shall be effective limitations on the use of the Conservation Easement from the date of recordation of this document and shall bind the Grantor and all of its successors and assigns. This Conservation Easement shall benefit Grantee and its successors and assigns on behalf of the People of the State of California forever.

E. RIGHT OF ENTRY. The Grantee, the Coastal Commission, or their agents may enter onto the Conservation Easement area to ascertain whether the use restrictions set forth above are being observed at times reasonably acceptable to the Grantor.

F. ENFORCEMENT. Any act or any conveyance, contract, or authorization, whether written or oral, by the Grantor which uses or would cause to be used or would permit use of the Conservation Easement area contrary to the terms of this Easement Deed will be deemed a breach hereof. The Grantee or the Coastal Commission may bring any action in court necessary to enforce this Easement Deed, including, but not limited to, injunction to terminate a breaching activity and to force the restoration of all damage done by such activity, or an action to enforce the terms and provisions hereof by specific performance. It is understood and agreed that the Grantee or the Coastal PGCC 5-7-25

7 Commission may pursue any appropriate legal and equitable remedies. The Grantee or the Coastal Commission shall have sole discretion to determine under what circumstances an action to enforce the terms and conditions of this Easement Deed shall be brought in law or in equity. Any forbearance on the part of the Grantee or the Coastal Commission to enforce the terms and provisions hereof in the event of a breach shall not be deemed a waiver of Grantee’s or the Coastal Commission’s rights regarding any subsequent breach.

G. MAINTENANCE. The Grantee shall not be obligated to maintain, improve, or otherwise expend any funds in connection with the Conservation Easement or any interest or easement created by this Easement Deed. All costs and expenses for such maintenance, improvement, use, or possession shall be borne by the Grantor, except for costs incurred by Grantee for monitoring compliance with the terms of this Easement Deed. Grantor and its successors and assigns shall manage and maintain the Conservation Easement area in accordance with the standards of a Native Botanical & Habitat Restoration Plan dated/revised February 27, 2024, as well as any other standards and requirements of whatever kind that may from time to time be legitimately imposed on the Conservation Easement subject to all required approvals, including entitlement approvals for any development, including changes in intensity of use.

H. LIABILITY AND INDEMNIFICATION. This conveyance is made and accepted upon the express condition that the Grantee, the Coastal Commission, and their agencies, departments, officers, directors, agents, employees, and authorized volunteers are to be free from all liability and claim for damage by reason of any injury to any person or persons, including Grantor, or property of any kind whatsoever and to whomsoever belonging, including Grantor, from any cause or causes whatsoever, except matters arising out of the sole negligence or intentional misconduct of the Grantee or the Coastal Commission while in, upon, or in any way connected with the Conservation Easement, Grantor hereby covenanting and agreeing to indemnify and hold harmless the Grantee, the Coastal Commission, and their agencies, departments, officers, directors, agents, employees, and authorized volunteers from all liability, loss, cost, and obligations on account of or arising out of such injuries or losses however occurring, except to the extent caused by the sole negligence or intentional misconduct PGCC 5-7-25

8 of such entities or persons. The Grantee and the Coastal Commission shall have no right of control over, nor duties and responsibilities with respect to, the Conservation Easement which would subject the Grantee or the Coastal Commission to any liability occurring upon the Conservation Easement area by virtue of the fact that the Grantee and the Coastal Commission have the right to enter the Conservation Easement area, as such right is strictly limited to preventing uses inconsistent with the interest granted.

The parties acknowledge and agree that the Conservation Easement area is not “property of a public entity” or “public property”, and Grantee’s and Coastal Commission’s rights herein do not include the right to enter the Conservation Easement area for the purposes of correcting any “dangerous condition” as those terms are defined by California Government Code Section 830.

I. TRANSFER OF TITLE. Grantor shall have the absolute right to transfer its right, title, and interest in and to all or any portion of the Conservation Easement area and upon such a transfer the transferee, by acceptance of the deed (whether or not so stated in the deed), shall have assumed and shall be obligated to perform all of the covenants of Grantor under this Easement Deed and shall have all of the rights and obligations of and be deemed to stand in the place of the Grantor for all purposes under this Easement Deed, with respect to the land transferred; and upon such a transfer Grantor shall be fully relieved and discharged from all of Grantor’s obligations under this Easement Deed with respect to the land transferred.

J. ASSIGNMENT.

1. Grantor shall have the right to assign its rights or delegate its obligations under this Easement Deed, in whole or in part. No such assignment or delegation by Grantor, however, shall relieve the fee owner or owners of the Conservation Easement area from the obligations to perform the covenants of Grantor in this Easement Deed, and such covenants shall continue as covenants running with the land as specified in Paragraph D above.

2. Grantee shall have the right to assign its rights and delegate its obligations under this Easement Deed, but only to a public agency, private association, or corporation which agrees to accept such rights and assume such obligations and is approved in writing in advance by the City, the Executive Director of the California PGCC 5-7-25

9 Coastal Commission, and Grantor. Grantee shall not abandon the Conservation Easement, but may assign the Conservation Easement in accordance with the preceding sentence.

K. PUBLIC ENTRY AND USE OF CONSERVATION AREA. This Easement Deed does not govern access to or use of the Conservation Easement Area by members of the public.

L. SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS. The terms, covenants, conditions, exceptions, obligations, and reservations contained in this conveyance shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the successors and assigns of both the Grantor and the Grantee, whether voluntary or involuntary.

M. SEVERABILITY. If any provision of this Easement Deed is held to be invalid or for any reason becomes unenforceable, no other provision shall be thereby affected or impaired.

N. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION. This Easement Deed may be amended, modified, or changed only with the written consent of the Grantor and the Grantee. In addition, an amendment to the Permit may be required, if necessary, as determined by the City. Any amendment of this Easement Deed and any necessary amendment to the Permit shall be void and of no effect without the written consent of the two entities.

Executed this _____ day of _______________, 2025, at _______________, California.

GRANTOR
By: _____________________________
(Signature)
Mark Elstob, General Partner
Elstob Family Investments, LP
PGCC 5-7-25

10 A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) SS.

COUNTY OF MONTEREY )
On , 2025, before me, , a
Notary Public, personally appeared , who proved to me
on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.

I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.

WITNESS my hand and official seal.

Signature
(Seal)
PGCC 5-7-25

11 ACCEPTANCE AND CONSENT TO RECORDATION
This is to certify that the interest in real property conveyed by the easement deed or grant dated ____________________________ from Mark Elstob, General Partner of the Elstob Family Investments LP, to the City of Pacific Grove, a political corporation and/or governmental agency, is hereby accepted by the City Council of the City of Pacific Grove on __________________________, (or by the undersigned officer or agent on behalf of the City of Pacific Grove pursuant to authority conferred by resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacific Grove (Resolution No. 25 - ___) adopted on _________________________,) and the grantee consents to recordation thereof by its duly authorized officer.

DATED: ________________ _____________________________________ (Signature)
MATTHEW MOGENSEN, City Manager
ATTEST:

DATED: ________________ _____________________________________ SANDRA KANDELL, City Clerk
A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) SS.

COUNTY OF MONTEREY )
On , 2025, before me, , a Notary
Public, personally appeared , who proved to me on the
basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.

I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.

WITNESS my hand and official seal.

Signature
(Seal)
PGCC 5-7-25

12 Document Form/Content Acceptable:
______________________________ Dated: ________________
BRIAN A. PIERIK, City Attorney
PGCC 5-7-25

EXHIBIT A1
Legal Description
Of
Merged Parcels Ill & IV Fronting on Asilomar Avenue
(APN 007-041-035) Into a Single Parcel
Parcel B (APN TBD)
PLN Permit No. CDP24-0186
Certain Real Property in the City of Pacific Grove, the County of Monterey, State of California, described as follows:

Beginning at a point on the Westerly Boundary of Asilomar Avenue and being the Easterly Corner of that certain property granted from HPH Properties LP. to Elstob Family Investments per Grant Deed 2021074915 and West End Properties LP. to Elstob Family Investments per Grant Deed 2021074916 recorded 11/02/2021 with Recorder of Monterey County, California; thence along the Westerly Boundary of Asilomar Avenue and the Easterly Boundary of said property

1. South 17° 44 • 00 •• East, 22.12 feet; thence

2. Southerly 75.43 feet along the arc of a curve to the right having a radius of 340.00 feet; through a central angle of 12° 42 • 40"to a Point on a Compound Curve; thence

3. Southerly 64.86 feet along the arc of a curve to the right having a radius of 340.00 feet; through a central angle of 10° 55 • 49·· to the Southeast corner of said property; thence along the Southerly boundary of said property

4. North 75° 12 • 00 .. West, 420.28 feet to the Westerly corner of said property; thence along the Westerly boundary of said property
S. North 13° 22 • 00 •• East 137 .59 feet to the Northerly corner of said property; thence along the Northeast boundary of said property

6. South 77° 00 • oo-- East 362. 73 feet to the Point of Beginning.

Date: 4 December 2024
H. Patrick Ward
Registered Civil Engineer #29811
State of California
#9�JiJ
WO6752.02
L/6752/67 5202/Sent-O ut/240104 _LLA/Elstob Pa reel B.docx Exhibit A1 Page 1 of 1
PGCC 5-7-25

O'J
0 0 z,
uJ �
Il'
0 (.)0 8
z
a..
<
......
0 0 z,
u.J�
Il'
0"
08 co
�
co
11'1 0 -
...J Ll,I Ll,I
a,:
z
a..
<
143.99
I
I
I
N 13°22'
PARCEL
IV
I I I
PREPARED FOR: Elstob

CIVIL ENGINEERING - SURVEYING - LAND PLANNING
9701 BLUE LARKSPUR LANE, MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA 93940
831.373.2941 831.649.4118F

COUNTY OF MONTEREY,
EXHIBIT A2
CDP 24-0186
LO
N
0 uJ I
I--� -o I' �g
z
a..
<
I
---�
SCALE:
1"= 50'
DATE: 11/21/24
SHEET:
1 OF 1
WO:

CALIFORNIA 6752.02
PGCC 5-7-25

EXHIBIT B
Amendment 24-0186
PGCC 5-7-25

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
Community Development Department – Planning Division
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA 93950
T: 831.648.3183 • F: 831.648.3184 • www.ci.pg.ca.us/cdd AMENDMENT (24-0186) TO ARCHITECTURAL PERMIT, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, AND PARCEL MERGER (AP/CDP/PM 19-0645) TO MODIFY THE PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND PARCEL MERGER TO: AMPLIFY AND CLARIFY

THE FACTS AND EVIDENCE REGARDING VISUAL RESOURCES, BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES, LOT LEGALITY, AND WATER SUPPLY; ALLOW THE MERGER OF THE TWO LEGAL LOTS UNDER APN 007-041-035; AND ADD RELATED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL.

FACTS

1. The subject site is located at 1661 Sunset Drive, Pacific Grove, 93950; APNs 007-041-033, -034, and -035.

2. The subject site has a land use designation of Low Density Residential (1 - 2 du/ac) in the adopted and certified City of Pacific Grove Land Use Plan (LUP).

3. The subject site is located in the R-1-B-4 zoning district.

4. The subject site is located in the Coastal Zone and within the Asilomar Dunes Residential Area which is considered an Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA). The site is also within an archaeologically sensitive area.

5. The subject site is located outside of the Monarch butterfly habitat area and the Area of Special Biological Significance (ASBS).

6. The project area consists of four (4) separate legal parcels with a combined size of approximately 3.47 acres. The two (2) vacant parcels abutting Sunset Drive (APNs 007-041-033 and -034) were issued Unconditional Certificates of Compliance in 2008. APN -035 abutting Asilomar Avenue is comprised of two (2) legal lots of record and was developed with the existing single-family residence in 1930. The existing residence was found to be ineligible for the Historic Resources Inventory (HRI) in 2019. This determination is further supported by a Historical Resources Evaluation Update prepared by Rincon Consultants, Inc. (July 8, 2022).

7. The Planning Commission approved Architectural Permit, Coastal Development Permit, and Parcel Merger (AP/CDP/PM 19-0645) on August 12, 2021. This approval allowed the demolition of the existing singlefamily residence on the eastern portion of the property (APN -035 adjacent to Asilomar Avenue) and the construction of a 5,912 square foot split-level single-family residence on the western portion of the property (APNs -033 and -034 adjacent to Sunset Drive), and the merger of APNs 007-041-033 and -034. The Planning Commission also considered and adopted the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP) prepared for the project.

8. As proposed, the amendment would modify the previously-approved Coastal Development Permit (CDP) and Parcel Merger (PM) to: 1) amplify and clarify the facts and evidence regarding visual resources, biological resources, lot legality, and water supply; 2) allow the merger of the two legal lots under APN 007-041-035; and 3) add conditions of approval related to the CDP and PM. No changes are proposed to the Architectural Permit (AP) and the AP is not under reconsideration by the Planning Commission.

9. As amended, the project would consist of the demolition of the existing single-family residence on the eastern portion of the site (APN -035 adjacent to Asilomar Avenue) and the construction of a 5,912 square foot split-level single-family residence on the western portion of the site (APNs -033 and -034 adjacent to Sunset Drive), the merger of APNs 007-041-033 and -034, and the merger of the two legal lots under APN 007-041-035.

10. Pursuant to Pacific Grove Municipal Code (PGMC) Sections 23.90.050, City CDP Determinations, and

23.90.040, CDP Exemptions, Community Development Department (CDD) staff determined the proposed Docusign Envelope ID: 6985D5BD-CC59-4D39-A701-9489A0CC57E1 PGCC 5-7-25

changes would require an Amendment to the previously-approved Coastal Development Permit (CDP) and forwarded this determination to the Coastal Commission on August 15, 2024.

11. Per PGMC Section 23.90.140, Coastal Hazards, Community Development Department (CDD) staff reviewed LUP Figure 3 (Coastal Hazards and Areas of Potential Sea Level Rise), aerial and topographic imagery, plan set, and conducted a site visit on August 15, 2024, and determined the site and proposed development, as amended, would not be subject to coastal hazards over its lifetime. The lowest point of the area of proposed development on the subject property is at an elevation of approximately 42 feet above mean sea level and over 300 feet from the shoreline. In this case, submittal of a Coastal Hazards Report is not required or warranted.

12. Per PGMC Section 23.90.150, Water Quality and Marine Resources, the applicant prepared a Grading, Drainage, and Erosion Control Plan (plan sheets C1 and C2). As designed, stormwater runoff would be retained and dissipated on site and the proposed project would not result in water quality impairment.

13. Per PGMC Section 23.90.160, Scenic Resources, CDD staff reviewed LUP Figure 4 (Scenic Areas), aerial and street view imagery, and conducted a site visit on August 15, 2024. This review determined the site is within a designated scenic view area and development would be visible from Sunset Drive and the shoreline trails. To minimize potential impacts to the public viewshed, the previously-approved development/design would maintain a maximum ridge height of 16 feet, 2 feet below the maximum allowed height of 18 feet in the Asilomar Dunes Residential Area. The project plan set includes a site-specific visual analysis (plan sheets A-7.1 through A-7.4) and an exterior lighting plan (plan sheet EL-1). As previously approved, the project includes minimal landscape planting areas immediately adjacent to the residence; therefore, in this case, a landscape plan is not required or warranted. As designed and conditioned, the approved development/design would not result in adverse visual impacts as viewed from Sunset Drive or other public vistas. The project also includes approximately 1,340 cubic yards (cy) of grading which will be balanced onsite for landscaping and restoration purposes.

14. As required by PGMC Section 23.90.170, the application includes a Biological Assessment and a Restoration Plan (Froke, revised 02-27-2024). The Asilomar Dunes Residential Area is considered dune habitat and an environmentally sensitive habitat area. The area to be disturbed as a result of new construction will be minimized and deed restrictions will be recorded to place areas outside the development envelopes under permanent conservation easement. The areas outside the development envelope will also be restored. The qualified professional biologist who prepared the biological assessment and restoration plan concluded that the proposed development will not impact sensitive species and will not have a significant negative effect on the environment. Mitigation measures for the protection of biological resources and restoration have been applied to the project as required by the LCP. Therefore, as conditioned and mitigated, the approved development would minimize impacts to natural habitats and biological resources.

15. As required by PGMC Section 23.90.200, the project includes an archaeological report prepared by a qualified archaeologist, Patricia Paramoure, RPA/MA. The Phase I report resulted in the expansion of a known recorded site into the proposed development envelope. This triggered the preparation of a Phase 2 report which involveds a complete, subsurface survey and testing of identified sites sufficient to determine their horizontal and vertical boundaries, their cultural and scientific importance, and the site’s eligibility for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The site work was completed in March 2021 with monitors from both the Esselen Tribe of Monterey County (Esselen) and the Ohlone-Costanoan Esselen Nation (OCEN) onsite throughout. The Phase 2 report resulted in a finding that the site is ineligible for listing on the NRHP. The project is conditioned to require onsite Tribal and archaeological monitoring for all ground disturbing activities.

16. The property slopes gently from Asilomar Avenue on the east toward Sunset Drive to the west. Currently, natural drainage from the property is to the existing facility in the Sunset Drive right of way. The project includes a Grading, Drainage, and Erosion Control Plan (plan sheets C1 and C2) which indicates that any stormwater created by the proposed development can be accommodated onsite. See also Fact 12 above.

Docusign Envelope ID: 6985D5BD-CC59-4D39-A701-9489A0CC57E1 PGCC 5-7-25

17. As required by PGMC Section 23.90.180(C)(4)(d), the areas outside the proposed Residential Development Envelope (RDE) on the merged parcels (-033, -034) will be restored and further enhanced to predevelopment conditions. Furthermore, the easterly parcel (-035), a separate legal parcel, where the existing home is proposed to be demolished, will also be restored and an appropriate deed restriction(s) will be recorded over both resultant properties. The deed restriction on -035 may allow a 15% RDE and 750 square foot Outdoor Use Area (OUA) to be retained as it is a separate legal parcel and may be developed in the future once potable water is available.

18. The proposed demolition is required in order to transfer the existing water meter from the existing singlefamily residence on APN -035 to the proposed single-family residence on APN -034. The City received a letter from California American Water (Cal Am) dated October 13, 2020, indicating that the relocation of the existing water meter to the adjacent property under the same ownership is acceptable. The Monterey Peninsula Water Management District confirmed the allowed relocation of the existing water meter via letter dated 02-02-2024. See also CDP Finding No. 8 below.

19. The Architectural Review Board (ARB) held a noticed public hearing on June 8, 2021. At that meeting, the applicant’s architect proposed a 2-foot reduction in height resulting in a maximum height from finished grade of 16 feet. The ARB recommended that the Planning Commission approve the project with the modification to height and based on the findings, conditions of approval, and the IS/MND and MMRP provided for consideration.

20. The IS/MND and MMRP were prepared in accordance to Article 6, CCR Title 14, California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and circulated for public review. See also the CEQA Finding below.

21. Following the Planning Commission’s decision on August 12, 2021, an interested party appealed the decision of the Planning Commission to the City Council. On March 24, 2023, the appellant withdrew the appeal prior to a hearing before the City Council and the prior decision of the Planning Commission remained in effect.

22. Following the withdrawal of the appeal, CDD staff prepared and submitted a Final Local Action Notice (FLAN) to the California Coastal Commission (CCC) on March 28, 2023. On April 12, 2023, the CCC filed an appeal to the Planning Commission’s decision. To allow time for the applicant and the CCC to discuss and resolve questions related to the project, CDD staff rescinded the FLAN on May 16, 2023. On August 13, 2024, following discussions between the applicant and CCC staff, the applicant submitted an application to the City to amend the project per CCC staff direction.

23. As proposed, the current application would amend the CDP and PM. No changes are proposed to the AP.

Per PGMC Section 23.72.020, permits involving concurrent permit processing allow for a clear permitting and decision-making path. Since the Planning Commission was the final review authority for the original project, this amendment returns to the Planning Commission for consideration. See also Fact No. 8 above.

24. AP/CDP/PM 19-0645 was approved for a period of two (2) years; however, the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision placed the timeline in abeyance pending resolution of the appeal. The appeal was withdrawn on March 24, 2023, so the revised permit expiration date would be March 24, 2025. On August 13, 2024, the applicant applied to amend the original permit.

FINDINGS
Architectural Permit findings per PGMC Section. 23.70.060

1. The architecture and general appearance of the completed project are compatible with the neighborhood.

The proposed 5,310 square foot split-level home with an attached 602 square foot garage will be of a “contemporary craftsman” style situated on the property to take full advantage of the ocean views to the west. The highest portions of the roof will be 16 feet which is 2 feet below the maximum allowed height of 18 feet in the Asilomar Dunes Residential Area. The property slopes from the east down toward the coastline; Docusign Envelope ID: 6985D5BD-CC59-4D39-A701-9489A0CC57E1 PGCC 5-7-25

the maximum 16-foot height will be achieved through the grading of approximately 1,340 cubic yards (cy) of cut which will be balanced on the site for landscaping and restoration. There are several covered outdoor living areas, walkways, and patios that are included in the RDE, in addition to the 750 square foot OUA. A materials sheet is included showing the use of stone pavers, King City stone wall materials, metal door and window samples, heavy timber beams, painted stainless steel gutters and downspouts, and horizontal wood siding. The roof pitch will be 4:12. The general appearance will be compatible to the eclectic mix of homes along Sunset Drive.

2. The completed project will neither be detrimental to the orderly and harmonious development of the City nor impair the desirability of investment or occupation in the neighborhood.

The merger of the two (2) western parcels into one helps to reduce the development potential within the fragile dune system. The development of one home on the merged parcels which will align in its placement with the other homes to the north and south will not be detrimental to the orderly and harmonious development of the City. The replacement of one large custom home with another large custom home will contribute to the desirability of investment in the Asilomar Dunes neighborhood.

3. The Commission has been guided by and has made reference to applicable provisions of the architectural review guidelines in making its determinations on single-family residences.

The proposed design references many of the recommendations in the Guidelines including, but not limited to Nos. 1, 10-12, 13, 16, 24, and 37. The plan set includes visual simulations showing the proposed building in relation to existing nearby buildings, a lighting plan, and a materials sheet.

Demolition per PGMC Section 23.70.060
Per 23.70.060(c)(2), Within the coastal zone, architectural permits for new construction, major and minor alterations to existing structures, or demolition and reconstruction of structures, including an amendment to an approved architectural permit. The demolition of the existing home on APN -035 requires an Architectural Permit. The four (4) separate legal parcels that comprise the project site are under the same ownership. In order to transfer the existing water meter from the existing home to the proposed new home, the existing home must be demolished. The result will be a net zero increase in development on the overall site. The existing home has been determined ineligible for the City’s Historic Resources Inventory (HRI). This determination is further supported by a Historical Resources Evaluation Update prepared by Rincon Consultants, Inc. (July 8, 2022).

Exceptions for Chimneys per PGMC Section 23.90.160(b)(1)(B) Although not a finding, per se, this section allows minor height exceptions as follow:

Exceptions are allowed only for chimneys, vents, and similar vertical extensions, not to exceed an additional four feet, and not to comprise more than five percent of a building’s roof area. In all cases, heights may be further limited in order to meet LCP scenic resource protection requirements.

The project includes one (1) chimney that exceeds the 16-foot height limit by approximately 3 feet. Given the topography of the site, the transects shown in the architectural elevations include a variety of heights. This is based on the definition of height in the LCP which is defined as “the vertical distance measured between legally established existing grade and the top-most portion of the development above existing grade.” Coastal Development Permit findings per PGMC Section 23.90.080

1. LCP Consistency. The project is consistent with the LCP.

The project meets the requirements of the LCP including, but not limited to, the applicable Coastal Resource Protection Standards (PGMC 23.90.130) of the Implementation Plan (IP) and the Biological, Docusign Envelope ID: 6985D5BD-CC59-4D39-A701-9489A0CC57E1 PGCC 5-7-25

Cultural, Scenic, and Community Design policies of the Land Use Plan (LUP). These standards and policies are discussed further in the following findings.

2. Public Views. The project protects or enhances public views.

Per PGMC Section 23.90.160, Scenic Resources, CDD staff reviewed LUP Figure 4 (Scenic Areas), aerial and street view imagery, and conducted a site visit on August 15, 2024. This review determined the site is within a designated scenic view area and development would be visible from Sunset Drive and the shoreline trails. To minimize potential impacts to the public viewshed, the previously-approved development/design would maintain a maximum ridge height of 16 feet, 2 feet below the maximum allowed height of 18 feet in the Asilomar Dunes Residential Area. Additionally, the removal of the existing large, two-story house at the east side of the project site and its replacement with a 16-foot high home downslope from Asilomar Avenue will improve the existing public views toward the coast from Asilomar Avenue. Although the residence will be visible looking to the east from Sunset Drive, the protected views seaward along Sunset Drive will not be affected. As designed and conditioned, the approved development/design would not result in adverse visual impacts as viewed from Sunset Drive or other public vistas. See also Fact No. 13 above.

3. Habitat Protection. The project protects vegetation, natural habitats, and natural resources consistent with LCP.

As required by PGMC Section 23.90.170, the application includes a Biological Assessment and a Restoration Plan (Froke, revised 02-27-2024). The Asilomar Dunes Residential Area is considered dune habitat and an environmentally sensitive habitat area. The area to be disturbed as a result of new construction will be minimized and deed restrictions will be recorded to place areas outside the development envelopes under permanent conservation easement. The areas outside the development envelope will also be restored. The qualified professional biologist who prepared the biological assessment and restoration plan concluded that the proposed development will not impact sensitive species and will not have a significant negative effect on the environment. Mitigation measures for the protection of biological resources and restoration have been applied to the project as required by the LCP. Therefore, as conditioned and mitigated, the approved development would minimize impacts to natural habitats and biological resources. See also Fact No. 14 above.

4. Design Consistency. The design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the proposed development are consistent with applicable LCP design requirements, including design plans and area plans incorporated into the LCP.

The size of the project’s Residential Development Envelope (RDE), which consists of both the Primary Coverage Area (PCA) and the Outdoor Use Area (OUA), complies with the applicable limits in the LCP.

Site coverage includes, but is not limited to, covered living areas, driveway, parking, walkways and patios.

This area encompasses 14.97% of the total (merged) lot area. The allowed maximum is 15%. The 750 square foot OUA is allowed in addition to this PCA coverage area. The residence is designed to meet the design standards in PGMC Section 23.90.180.

5. Coastal Access. The project protects or enhances public access to and along the coast.

The project will have no effect on coastal access to or along the coast.

6. Visitor Serving. The project supports the LCP goal of providing for visitor-serving needs as appropriate, including providing low and no cost visitor and recreational facilities.

The project consists of the development of a single-family residence and, therefore, will have no visitorserving features, but may qualify for a Short-Term Rental (STR) license given its location within the Coastal zone. As of this writing, there is no indication that the applicant intends to pursue an STR license.

Docusign Envelope ID: 6985D5BD-CC59-4D39-A701-9489A0CC57E1 PGCC 5-7-25

7. Appropriate Use. The project is consistent with the allowed LCP uses associated with the property.

One single-family residence is allowed. The project will result in the replacement of one, two-story home on one parcel with a new, split-level home on the other adjoining and merged parcel under the same ownership.

8. Coastal Resources. The proposed development protects or enhances coastal resources, where applicable.

The approximately 3.45-acre project site is currently in a significantly degraded state primarily covered in invasive ice plant. As conditioned, the project will result in the onsite restoration and enhancement of approximately 126,107 square feet (~ 2.9 acres).

Regarding water supply and service for the new residence, the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (MPWMD) rules allow the use of water credits anywhere on a “site” comprised of contiguous parcels under common ownership (confirmed by MPWMD letter dated February 2, 2024). Demolition of the existing residence located at 1661 Sunset Drive will result in a water use credit that may be applied to future water use on that site within a ten-year period. Therefore, the water use credits generated by the demolition of the existing residence may be utilized to permit construction of a new residence within ten years of the demolition date. The estimated water use credit of 33.5 fixture units can be applied toward the new residence and exterior water demand. Additional demand could be obtained by purchasing a Water Entitlement from the City of Pacific Grove. Also, the existing water meter may be relocated to support the new location of the residence (confirmed by Cal-Am letter dated October 13, 2020).

Parcel Merger findings per PGMC Section 24.06.040 and Subdivision Map Act §§ 66451.10 - 66451.24 The four legal lots of record consist of Lots 7 (Parcel II) and 8 (Parcel I) in Block 317, Lot 6 (Parcel III) in Block 318, and a portion of Lot 7 (Parcel IV) in Block 318, as identified on the map entitled “Map of Pacific Grove Acres”, filed on June 2, 1919, in Volume 3 of Maps, “Cities and Towns”, Page 13, Records of Monterey County. The Subdivision Map Act (SMA) governs the subdivision of property and provides the framework for determining when a legal lot or record has been created. SMA Section 66412.6 relates to separate conveyances of property prior to 1972 and provides that:
“For purposes of this division or of a local ordinance enacted pursuant thereto, any parcel created prior to March 4, 1972, shall be conclusively presumed to have been lawfully created if the parcel resulted from a division of land in which fewer than five parcels were created and if at the time of the creation of the parcel, there was no local ordinance in effect which regulated divisions of land creating fewer than five parcels."
Parcel I was conveyed by Del Monte Properties Company to Amy Bowen Hittell separately from any other parcel, on February 11, 1924. The deed was recorded in Volume 34, Page 145, Official Records. In each successive transfer of this parcel, the parcel is separately described in the legal description of the grant deeds.

On June 15, 2008, the City of Pacific Grove recorded a certificate of compliance confirming that the parcel is a separate legal lot of record.

Parcel II was conveyed by Del Monte Properties Company to Amy Bowen Hittell separate from any other parcel on February 6, 1924. The deed was recorded in Volume 34, Page 105, Official Records. In each successive transfer of said parcel, the parcel is separately described in the legal description of the grant deeds.

On June 15, 2008, the City of Pacific Grove recorded a certificate of compliance confirming that the parcel is a separate legal lot of record.

Parcel III was conveyed by Del Monte Properties Company to Amy Bowen Hittell separately from any other parcel, on June 14, 1923. The deed was recorded in Volume 19, Page 182, Official Records. In each successive transfer of said parcel, the parcel is separately described in the legal description of the grant deeds. Therefore, the City of Pacific Grove recognizes the parcel as a separate legal lot of record in compliance with the relevant provisions of the Subdivision Map Act, including Section 66412.6.

Docusign Envelope ID: 6985D5BD-CC59-4D39-A701-9489A0CC57E1 PGCC 5-7-25

Parcel IV was conveyed by Del Monte Properties Company to Paul Ehlert on July 13, 1923. The deed was recorded in Volume 22, Page 43, Official Records. On April 29, 1948 M.D. King and Lillian Kent conveyed a portion of the parcel to David and Eileen Chew. In each successive transfer the remainder of the parcel is separately described noting "excepting therefrom the portion deeded to Chew" in the legal description of the grant deeds. Therefore, the City of Pacific Grove recognizes the parcel as a separate legal lot of record in compliance with the relevant provisions of the Subdivision Map Act, including Section 66412.6.

In accordance with the Subdivision Map Act Section 66412(d), approval of a lot-line adjustment (i.e., a lot merger in this case) shall be based upon a determination by the director that the following criteria are in evidence:
(a) The adjustment involves four or fewer adjoining parcels that were legally created and will not result in the creation of more parcels than originally existed.

As proposed, the merger of the four (4) existing legal lots will result in a total of two (2) separate, legal parcels.
(b) Each resulting parcel is viable in supporting existing or planned land uses based on applicable general plan and other applicable zoning regulations.

The resultant parcels will be viable in supporting existing or planned land uses. (c) The resulting parcels and any structure(s) or parking space(s) located thereon will comply with the requirements of the zoning district in which the parcel is located and with applicable building regulations, except that where an existing parcel(s) or structure(s) is nonconforming with respect to zoning regulations, a lot-line adjustment may be approved if the degree of nonconformance is not increased.

The resultant parcels will have adequate room for permitted structures and required parking. (d) The adjustment will not impair any existing public-street or private-access easement or create parcels without legal access to a public street and the number of lots fronting on a public street is not being reduced.

The merged parcels will have legal access to a public street and will not impair the existing access easement which benefits the neighbor to the north (1663 Sunset Drive). (e) The adjustment will not require substantial alteration of any existing public easements or improvements.

There are no known public easements or improvements that will require alteration as a result of these mergers.
(f) The adjustment will not result in a utility service line being located on any property other than the lot being served, unless the service line is contained in a recorded utility easement.

Utilities will be extended from their existing location(s) across a property under the same ownership. No easement is needed at this time.
(g) Each resulting parcel has been, or can be, provided with adequate sewage-disposal facilities.

The resultant parcels will be connected to the public sewer in Sunset Drive.

PGMC 23.90.180(c)(3) - Coastal Community Design for the Asilomar Dunes Residential Area (ADRA) In addition to all other applicable LCP policies, the following design standards for development within the Asilomar Dunes Residential Area have been addressed in the application materials: the Residential Development Envelope which includes the Primary Coverage Area (PCA) and the Outdoor Use Area (OUA); the Restoration and Protection of the ADRA dune environment; Fencing (none); Heights and Articulation; OffStreet Parking; Setbacks; Accessory Structures (none); Off-Site Mitigation; Subdivisions (none); Nonconforming (none) and Conforming Development; and Views.

Docusign Envelope ID: 6985D5BD-CC59-4D39-A701-9489A0CC57E1 PGCC 5-7-25

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND), and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP) were prepared for AP-CDP-PM 19-0645 in accordance to Article 6, CCR Title 14, California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and circulated for public review/comment and to the State Clearinghouse (SCH#2021040697).

As amended, the project is consistent with the previously-adopted final IS/MND for the project (AP-CDP-PM 19-0645), adopted by the Planning Commission on August 12, 2021. Pursuant to Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, the Planning Commission has reviewed the project, considered the final IS/MND, and finds that the project does not require subsequent environmental analysis based on the following:
a) No substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions to the previous IS/MND due to involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified impacts; b) No substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions to the previous IS/MND due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; and
c) No new information of substantial importance has been provided which was not known at the time of the previous IS/MND.

The following facts remain as adopted by the Planning Commission on August 12, 2021 and as considered on November 14, 2024:
a) The final IS/MND was completed in compliance with CEQA; b) The final IS/MND was presented to the Planning Commission, and that the decision-making body reviewed and considered the information contained in the final IS/MND prior to approving the project and amendment;
c) The final IS/MND reflects the lead agency's independent judgment and analysis; and d) The custodian for these documents shall be the Community Development Department for the City of Pacific Grove found at 300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950.

Site Plan Review Committee (SPRC) Meeting
In compliance with the requirements of PGMC Section 23.70.050, an SPRC meeting was held on February 2, 2021. Members commented on stormwater, sewer, gross floor area, and demolition truck routes. These items have been addressed in the conditions of approval.

PERMIT
AMENDMENT (24-0186) OF ARCHITECTURAL PERMIT, PARCEL MERGER, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AP/PM/CDP 19-0645
To modify the previously-approved Coastal Development Permit and Parcel Merger to: amplify and clarify the facts and evidence regarding visual resources, biological resources, lot legality, and water supply; allow the merger of the two legal lots under APN 007-041-035; and add related conditions of approval.

As amended, the resulting project would allow the demolition of the existing single-family residence on the eastern portion of the property (APN -035) and the construction of a 5,912 square foot split-level single-family residence on the western portion of the property, and the merger of APNs 007-041-033 and -034, and the merger of the two legal lots under APN -035.

Docusign Envelope ID: 6985D5BD-CC59-4D39-A701-9489A0CC57E1 PGCC 5-7-25

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
General Conditions

1. Conformance to Plans. Development and uses of the site shall conform to the approved plans for the HPH Properties, LP, Project dated April 24, 2023, on file with the Community Development Department and to the Building Code, with the exception of any subsequently-approved changes. Minor plan changes shall be subject to review and approval by the Community Development Director and/or Public Works Director as appropriate, prior to implementation. Major plan changes may also require review and approval of the Planning Commission. Project revisions may require additional CEQA analysis. The final building permit site plan shall accurately reflect 15% lot coverage in compliance with BIO-24(b).

2. Permit Expiration. The project permits shall expire and be null and void if a building permit has not been applied for within two (2) years from and after the date of approval. Application for extension of this approval must be made prior to the expiration date.

3. Construction Compliance. All construction must occur in general compliance with the proposal as set forth in the application, subject to any special conditions of approval herein. Any deviation from approvals must be reviewed and approved by staff and may require subsequent discretionary approval.

4. Terms and Conditions. These terms and conditions shall run with the land and bind to all future owners and possessors of the subject property, unless amended. Amendments to this permit may be achieved only if an application is made and approved, pursuant to the Zoning Code.

Prior to Issuance of the Demolition Permit

5. Encroachment Permit. The project proponent shall obtain an encroachment permit prior to any work within the public right-or-way. The encroachment permit application shall be submitted for review and approval by the Chief Building Official and Public Works Director.

6. Temporary Fencing. Prior to the start of construction, temporary fencing shall be installed to delineate the Construction Zone for the purpose of protecting surrounding dune habitat. The Project Biologist shall oversee the installation of the temporary fencing. Temporary fencing shall be maintained in good condition and remain in place until all construction on site is completed and final building inspection approval has been received. Removal or changing the location of the fence, to accommodate onsite restoration activities, for example, will require the concurrence of the Project Biologist. After confirming that final building approval has been received, the Project Biologist shall oversee removal of the fencing.

Prior to Issuance of Building Permits

7. Recordation of Deed Restriction(s). Owner shall cause to be recorded on forms to be provided by the City two (2) deed restrictions, one on each resultant parcel, that delineate all areas outside the approved 15% Primary Coverage Area+Outdoor Use Area (new driveways and access roads are included in the PCA) development areas specifically for restoration and protection of archaeological and cultural resources. The westerly merged property (007-041-033 and -034) shall have recorded a deed restriction encompassing ± 78,206 square feet (~ 1.80 acre) of the property outside the PCA+OUA and existing access road; the easterly property (007-041-035) of 57,237 square feet (~ 1.31 ac) shall also identify a 15% PCA+OUA and record a deed restriction encompassing approximately 47,901 square feet (~ 1.1 acre), to protect the undeveloped portions of the property.

This condition is required pursuant to LUP Policy BIO-24(d). As a condition of coastal development permit approval, all other areas of the lot outside of the Residential Development Envelope shall be restored/enhanced and maintained in a natural dune condition within which the only allowed development, use, and activities are those associated with dune restoration/enhancement and protection. All dune restoration, enhancement, and protection areas shall be covered by both a dune restoration, enhancement and protection plan prepared by a qualified dune restoration professional, as well as a deed restriction or other similar legal restriction adhering to the property (i.e., a conservation easement, etc.) designed to limit Docusign Envelope ID: 6985D5BD-CC59-4D39-A701-9489A0CC57E1 PGCC 5-7-25

allowed development, use, and activities in perpetuity to those associated with dune restoration, enhancement and protection.

8. Adobe Shed Protection. The small adobe shed at the east end of APN -035 shall be retained.

9. Grading Plan. All grading-phase related conditions of approval for the Planning permit(s) shall be printed on a full-size plan sheet and included with the grading plan set submitted to the Building Division.

10. Building Plans. All conditions of approval for the Planning permit(s) shall be printed on a full-size plan sheet and included with the construction plan set submitted to the Building Division.

11. Public Works, Fire, and Building. Review and approval by the Public Works Department, Fire Department, and Building Division are required prior to issuance of a building permit. Work taking place in the public right-of-way shall require an encroachment permit prior to issuance of the building permit.

12. Other Utilities. The existing water meter at Asilomar Avenue will remain with a new lateral extended to the new home. The existing sewer lateral to Sunset Drive will remain and be extended to the new home.

Existing PG&E utilities (gas and electric) will be extended underground along the south property line to the new home. The existing driveway pavement will be replaced without expanding the prism or impervious areas.

13. Glare Reduction. Westerly facing windows and glass doors shall use bird-safe and anti-glare glass to minimize bird impacts and to reduce afternoon and evening glare.

14. Exterior Lighting. Exterior lighting shall be positioned so that no direct light extends onto neighboring properties. Exterior lighting shall be screened to confine light splay to the site and shall be at a wattage level that sufficiently limits light glare. After installation, the City may require lamps to have a lower wattage level in order to limit the glare levels of the light fixtures. As an ongoing requirement, all exterior lighting shall conform with LUP Policy DES-6.

15. Construction Noise Reduction. Prior to the issuance of demolition or grading permits, the City shall ensure that the project applicant includes the following on all construction plans and contracts for the proposed project:

Construction Hours. All noise-generating construction activities, as well as delivery and removal of materials and equipment associated with those construction activities, are limited to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday, and 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Sunday.

Construction Equipment. Properly maintain construction equipment and ensure that all internal combustion engine driven machinery with intake and exhaust mufflers and engine shrouds (if the equipment had such devices installed as part of its standard equipment package) that are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment. Equipment engine shrouds shall be closed during equipment operation. The developer shall require all contractors, as a condition of contract, to maintain and tune-up all construction equipment to minimize noise emissions.

Vehicle and Equipment Idling. Construction vehicles and equipment shall not be left idling for longer than five minutes when not in use.

Stationary Equipment. All noise-generating stationary equipment such as air compressors or portable power generators shall be located as far as possible from sensitive receptors. Temporary noise barriers shall be constructed to screen stationary noise generating equipment when located near adjoining sensitive land uses.

Temporary noise barriers shall be designed to reduce construction noise levels by at least 10 dBA.

Construction/Demolition Route. All construction and demolition traffic to and from the project site shall be routed via designated truck routes where feasible. All construction-related heavy truck traffic in residential areas shall be prohibited where feasible.

Docusign Envelope ID: 6985D5BD-CC59-4D39-A701-9489A0CC57E1 PGCC 5-7-25

Workers’ Radios. All noise from workers’ radios shall be controlled to a point that they are not audible at sensitive receptors near the construction activity.

Prior to Demolition Activities

16. Preconstruction Bird Surveys. Should demolition or grading activities begin during the local bird nesting season (January 1 through July 31), the applicant shall retain a qualified wildlife biologist or ornithologist to conduct a preconstruction nesting survey of the project area to ascertain whether nesting birds and their active nest could be jeopardized by the new activities. This survey shall take place no more than 15 days before the start of the potentially disruptive work. Should nesting be detected where there would be a threat to the nest/ eggs/nestlings, the biologist will coordinate with the owner and contractor to work out an alternative work pattern or calendar to provide time necessary for the birds to complete their nesting effort.

17. Archaeological and Tribal Monitors Under Contract. Prior to any grading or other ground-disturbing activities, the applicant shall provide to the Community Development Department copies of the executed contracts with both a qualified registered archaeologist and qualified Tribal monitors of either the Esselen Tribe of Monterey County (Esselen) and/or the Ohlone-Costanoan Esselen Nation (OCEN).

Prior to Grading or Any Ground-Disturbing Activities

18. Pre-Construction Meeting (Archaeo/Cultural). Prior to demolition and again at the start of construction of the new home, the Project Archaeologist and Tribal monitor (if interested) shall conduct an educational meeting to explain the purpose of the monitoring, to show the construction personnel what is being monitored and to explain what will happen in the incidence of locating an artifact during construction activities. The Project Archaeologist will briefly explain the history of the area. The construction personnel will be shown a photo of the items that have already been observed onsite and asked to be prepared to immediately stop demolition/construction activity if an inadvertent discovery is made. This meeting may be concurrent with the similar pre-construction meeting for biological resources.

19. Pre-Construction Meeting (Bio). Prior to demolition and again at the start of construction of the new home, the Project Biologist shall conduct an educational meeting to explain the purpose of the monitoring, to show the construction personnel what is being monitored and to explain what will happen in the incidence of locating a species of special concern during construction activities. The Project Biologist will explain the life history of the species of special concern, why they may be found on the property, and what construction staff should do if one is spotted on the project site. The construction personnel will be shown a photo of the species of special concern and asked to be prepared to immediately stop demolition activity if a species of special concern is discovered and wait until the species is safely removed from the construction zone before restarting. This meeting may be concurrent with the similar pre-construction meeting for archaeological /Tribal resources.

During Construction and Prior to Final Inspection

20. On-Going Site Management. All activities associated with construction, trenching, storage of materials, and disposal of construction waste and excavated soil shall not impact areas protected by fencing. The areas protected by the fence shall remain in a trash-free condition and not used for material stockpiling, storage or disposal, or vehicle parking. All construction personnel shall be prohibited from entering the areas protected by fencing.

21. Construction & Biological Remediation Monitoring for Archaeological Resources. Archaeological and Tribal monitoring shall be conducted by both a qualified archaeologist and a Native American monitor from the Esselen and/or OCEN for all ground-disturbing activities occurring between 0 to 4-feet below the ground surface. This includes: 1) field preparation and iceplant remediation activities that include the use of any heavy equipment; and 2) for utility and stormwater trenching. The following standard protocols shall be followed:

Docusign Envelope ID: 6985D5BD-CC59-4D39-A701-9489A0CC57E1 PGCC 5-7-25

a) Procedures for Inadvertent Discovery of Archaeological Resources - if any unanticipated precontact or historic-era cultural deposits and/or features are encountered during construction activities, all ground disturbing work within 100-feet of the find shall be halted and directed away from the discovery, until a Secretary of the Interior qualified archaeologist assesses the significance of the resource. The archaeologist, in consultation with the property owner, the City of Pacific Grove and Tribal consultants, should make the necessary plans for treatment of the find(s) and for the assessment and mitigation of impacts, if the finds are found to be eligible to the National or California Registers, qualify as a unique archaeological resource under CEQA Section 21083.2, or determined to be a tribal cultural resource, as defined in Section 21074.
b) Procedures for Inadvertent Discovery of Human Remains - If human remains are encountered during Project-related earth-disturbing activities, all work within 100-feet of the discovery area shall cease immediately, nothing is to be disturbed, and the area shall be secured. The Monterey County Coroner’s Office, the SHPO, and the City of Pacific Grove must be notified immediately. The Coroner will determine if the remains are pre-contact Native American or of modern origin, and if there are any criminal or jurisdictional questions.

If the Coroner believes the remains to be those of a precontact Native American, they shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) by telephone within 24-hours. The NAHC will notify the person it believes to be the most likely descendant (MLD) of the remains.

The MLD has 48-hours to make recommendations to the landowner for treatment or disposition of the human remains. If the descendant does not make recommendations within 48-hours, the landowner shall reinter the remains in an area of the property secure from further disturbance. If the property owner does not accept the descendant’s recommendations, the owner or the descendant may request mediation by the NAHC. According to the California Health and Safety Code, six (6) or more human burials at one (1) location constitute a cemetery (Section 8100), and willful disturbance of human remains is a felony (Section 7052). An archaeologist(s) should also be retained to evaluate the historical significance of the discovery, the potential for additional remains, and to provide further recommendations for treatment of the site in coordination with the MLD.

22. Biological Remediation Activities. Site reclamation and restoration activities shall be conducted in compliance with the Restoration Plan prepared for this project (Native Botanical & Habitat Restoration Plan (Califauna, amended February 2, 2024). Installation of plants shall be completed prior to final building permit inspection approval and granting of occupancy.

23. During-Construction Pollution Prevention (a): During construction, the developer shall employ storm water best management practices (BMPs) for erosion and sediment control, prevention of non-stormwater discharges, and implement good housekeeping and construction waste management practices to protect the storm drainage system and water quality as required by City Code Section 9.30.130(c), the City Phase II NPDES Permit, State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Construction General Permit (CGP), and the Monterey Regional Storm Water Management Program (MRSWMP).

24. During-Construction Pollution Prevention (b): Construction activities subject to BMP requirements shall continuously employ measures to control waste such as discarded building materials, concrete truck washout, chemicals, litter, and sanitary waste at the construction site that may cause adverse impacts to water quality, contamination, or unauthorized discharge of pollutants.

25. During-Construction Pollution Prevention (c): Whenever construction activity is being done contrary to and in violation of Municipal Code Chapter 9.30, the Public Works/Community Development Director may order that construction activity to stop by posting a written notice on the premises. All persons shall immediately stop such work unless or until the Public Works Director authorizes removing the stop work order and allows construction activity to proceed.

Docusign Envelope ID: 6985D5BD-CC59-4D39-A701-9489A0CC57E1 PGCC 5-7-25

Prior to Certificate of Occupancy

26. Biological Restoration. The completion of the “planting and seeding” phase described in the project’s Native Botanical & Habitat Restoration Plan (Califauna, amended February 2, 2024) shall be completed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.

Ongoing Operational Conditions

27. Stormwater Treatment Measure. The stormwater treatment measures shall be maintained by the property owner in perpetuity. City staff shall be allowed access to inspect all stormwater treatment measures on an annual basis.

28. Maintenance of Landscaping and Lighting. All landscaping and lighting shall be maintained in good condition for the life of the project. Any plants that die or are diseased shall be promptly removed and replaced. Groundcover shall be similarly maintained as needed. All lighting equipment, bulbs, conduit, shall be maintained and replaced in-kind as needed. Any deficiencies noted by City staff shall be addressed within 7 calendar days of written notice of non-compliance by the City.

29. Onsite Habitat Restoration Maintenance and Monitoring.

Following satisfactory installation of the new landscape, a 5-year maintenance and monitoring program shall commence, overseen and directed by the Project Biologist.

Monitoring - the Project Biologist will conduct: (a) Monitoring would follow standard protocol: the project biologist will conduct:
(a) bi-weekly site check for the first two months after plantings are completed [4 visits]; (b) three quarterly inspections for the following nine months [3 visits]; and (c) for the following 4 years (yrs 2-5 of 5) at two visits [15]. Total = 17 visits (estimated total of 8 hrs); with a final report and verification to the City of Pacific Grove at the completion of the 5-year monitoring effort.
(CALIFAUNA Native Botanical & Restoration Plan, revised February 2, 2024)

30. Final Archaeological Report. At the discretion of the professional archaeologist, a report suitable for compliance documentation may be prepared and provided to the appropriate State agencies. This report will document the field methodology and findings and make management recommendations, as necessary. If required, this report shall be completed within six (6) months of completion of monitoring.

31. Mitigation Measures – All Mitigation Measures, including monitoring and compliance measures, and longterm compliance measures contained in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan as adopted by the Planning Commission, and in association with the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, are incorporated herein and enforceable under this instrument.

32. Notice of Permit Approval. The applicant shall record a Permit Approval Notice. This notice shall state:
"An Amendment (Permit No. 24-0186) to a previously-approved Parcel Merger, Architectural Permit, and Coastal Development permit (Permit No. PM/AP/CDP 19-0645) was approved by the City of Pacific Grove Planning Commission for Assessor's Parcel Numbers 007-041-033, -034, and -035 on November 14, 2024.

The permit was granted subject to thirty-six (36) conditions of approval which run with the land. A copy of the permit is on file with the City of Pacific Grove Community Development Department.” Proof of recordation of this notice shall be furnished to the Community Development Department prior to issuance of building permits.

33. Remove fencing and entry posts located on Sunset Drive. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the fencing and entry posts located along Sunset Drive shall be removed.

Docusign Envelope ID: 6985D5BD-CC59-4D39-A701-9489A0CC57E1 PGCC 5-7-25

34. Off-Site (Right-of-Way) habitat restoration along Sunset Drive and Asilomar Avenue. The property frontage along both Sunset Drive and Asilomar Avenue shall be restored in accordance with the same requirements as described in the on-site restoration plan. See Condition No. 29.

This condition is required pursuant to LUP Policy BIO-24(f). Development shall only be approved if the area in the public right-of-way between the lot frontage and the paved portion of the road is also restored/enhanced and maintained in a natural dune condition within which the only allowed development, use, and activities are those associated with dune restoration, enhancement and protection.

35. Certificates of Compliance. The Owner(s)/Applicant(s) shall prepare, execute and record deeds that reflect the lot line adjustment (i.e., parcel mergers) as required by California Government Code §66412(d) and request an unconditional Certificate of Compliance for each of the adjusted parcels.

Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Owner(s)/Applicant(s) shall take all necessary steps to merge Parcels I and II fronting on Sunset Drive (APNs 007-041-033/-034) into a single parcel, and Parcels III and IV fronting on Asilomar Avenue (APN 007-041-035) into a single parcel, including but not limited to doing the following:

Have a professional land surveyor prepare a legal description and plat with closure calculations. The legal description shall be entitled "Exhibit A" and shall have the planning permit no. (CDP 22-0296) in the heading. The plat may be incorporated by reference into Exhibit “A,” or be entitled Exhibit “B.” The legal description and plat shall comply with the Monterey County Recorder's guidelines as to form and content.

Submit the draft legal descriptions, plats and closure calculations to the project planner for both of the following:
a. Each newly adjusted parcel of the lot line adjustment for which a Certificate of Compliance will be issued.
b. For the adjusted parcels, being all areas being conveyed by Owner(s) in conformance to the approved lot line adjustment.
i. The Owner(s)/Applicant(s) shall be responsible for ensuring the accuracy and completeness of all parties listed as Grantor and Grantee on the deeds.
ii. The purpose of the deed shall be stated on the first page of the deed, as follows: “The purpose of this deed is to adjust the parcel boundaries in conformance to the lot line adjustment approved by the City of Pacific Grove (19-0645, as amended by 24-0186). This deed is being recorded pursuant to §66412(d) of the California Government Code and shall be deemed to reconfigure the subject parcels in conformance to said approved lot line adjustment. Any configuration of said subject parcels that existed prior to recordation of this deed shall no longer be valid and shall not be used for the purpose of sale, lease or financing, whether immediate or future.”
NOTE: Owner(s) is/are responsible for securing any re-conveyance, partial re-conveyance and/or subordination in connection with any loan, mortgage, lien or other financial obligation on all property being transferred between parties.

Following project planner review and any corrections of the legal descriptions and plats:
a. Record the fully executed and acknowledged deed(s) to the adjustment parcels with the County Recorder. b. Deliver a copy of the recorded deed(s) to the project planner. c. Deliver the legal description and plat of each Certificate of Compliance to the Community Development Department for final processing, together with a check, payable to the “Monterey County Recorder,” for the appropriate fees to record the Certificate(s) of Compliance.

36. Off-Site Restoration. Pursuant to LUP Policy BIO-25, in addition to the restoration requirements specified in Policy BIO-24(d) and (f) (see condition nos. 7 and 34 above), all areas of new dune coverage associated Docusign Envelope ID: 6985D5BD-CC59-4D39-A701-9489A0CC57E1 PGCC 5-7-25

with development on legal lots of record in the Asilomar Dunes Residential Area shall be required to be mitigated on a 2:1 square foot basis by providing for off-site restoration or enhancement of degraded dune areas in the Asilomar Dunes area. This requirement may be addressed through offsite restoration/enhancement and/or proportionate contributions to the City’s Environmental Assessment Fund (i.e., in-lieu fee) provided such funds are used exclusively for dune restoration, enhancement, and protection efforts in the Asilomar Dunes area. The in-lieu fee requirement would amount to $58,732.00 (14,683 square feet x 2 x $2.00 per square foot) for the adjusted lot adjacent to Sunset Drive and $37,344.00 (9,336 square feet x 2 x $2.00 per square foot) for the adjusted lot adjacent to Asilomar Avenue.

37. Operational Permit. As amended, AP/CDP/PM 24-0186 shall become the operational entitlement for the project, and all conditions of approval shall be cleared under this amendment.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE:

1. The Planning Commission determines that each of the Facts and Findings set forth above is true and correct, and by this reference incorporates those Facts and Findings as an integral part of this Permit.

2. The Planning Commission approves the Amendment 24-0186 to AP/PM/CDP 19-0645, subject to the findings and conditions as amended, and consistent with the previously adopted Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration.

3. This permit shall become effective upon the expiration of the 10-day appeal period.

4. This permit shall not take effect until the owner acknowledges and agrees to all terms and conditions and agrees to conform to and comply with those terms and conditions.

Passed and adopted as a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Pacific Grove on the 14th day of November, 2024, by the following vote:

AYES: Sweigert, Sawyer, Murphy, Fredrickson, Kubica, and Nodzenski NOES: None
ABSENT: Davison
ABSTENTIONS: None
APPROVED:
_____________________________
Don Murphy, Chair
The undersigned hereby acknowledge and agree to the approved terms and conditions, and agree to fully conform to, and comply with, said terms and conditions.

Mark Elstob, General Partner
Elstob Family Investments, LP
Date
Docusign Envelope ID: 6985D5BD-CC59-4D39-A701-9489A0CC57E1 11/15/2024
PGCC 5-7-25

EXHIBIT C1
Easement DescripƟon (236 Asilomar Ave.)
The land referred to herein below is situated in the City of Pacific Grove, County of Monterey, State of California.  A ConservaƟon Easement, being more parƟcularly described as follows:

Elstob Parcel B as described in that certain CerƟficate of Compliance filed on January 16, 2025 as Instrument No. 2025001832 in the Office of the County Recorder of said County and State except for the following four areas:

Area 1 (West Driveway)
Beginning at a point on the Westerly Boundary of said Parcel B that is North 13°22’00” East, 69.24 feet from the Southwesterly corner of said Parcel B; thence along said Westerly Boundary

1. North 13°22’00” East, 34.64 feet; thence

2. North 22°45’01” East, 23.06 feet; thence

3. North 38°03’16” East, 7.37 feet; thence

4. North 62°58’10” East, 6.70 feet; to a point on said Parcel B Northerly Boundary that is South 77°00’00’ East, 11.94 feet from the Northwesterly corner of Parcel B; thence along last said boundary

5. South 77°00’00” East, 43.54 feet; thence through said Parcel B

6. North 85°12’07” West, 18.04 feet; thence

7. South 86°35’38” West, 14.56 feet; thence

8. South 62°26’39” West, 13.16 feet; thence

9. South 23°17’19” West, 21.27 feet; thence

10. South 13°22’00” West, 32.25 feet; thence

11. North 78°37’09” West, 10.00 feet to the Point of Beginning.

CONTAINING A TOTAL OF 0.02 ACRES (856 SF)

Area 2 (Building and Outdoor Use Area)
Beginning at a point that is North 89°42’59” West 79.77 feet from the Northeasterly corner of said Parcel B, thence

1. South 13°00’00” West, 110.37 feet; thence

2. North 77°00’00” West, 58.0 feet; thence

3. North 13°00’00” East, 110.37 feet; thence

4. South 77°00’00” East, 58.00 feet to the Point of Beginning.

CONTAING A TOTAL OF 0.15 ACRES (6,401 SF)
EXHIBIT C1   Page 1 of 2
PGCC 5-7-25

Area 3 (Adobe)
Beginning at a point that is South 20°19’52” West feet from the Northeasterly corner of said Parcel B thence

1. North 79°07’27” West, 15.85 feet; thence

2. North 10°52’33” East, 28.50 feet; thence

3. South 79°07’27” East, 15.85 feet; thence

4. South 10°52’33” West, 28.50 feet to the Point of Beginning.

CONTAINING A TOTAL OF 0.01 ACRES (452 SF)
Area 4 (East Driveway)
Beginning at the Southerly Corner of above said Area 3 (House); thence along a porƟon of the Easterly Boundary of said Area 3 (House)

1. North 13°00’00” East, 12.00 feet; thence through a porƟon of said Parcel B

2. South 76°36’13” East, 26.54 feet; thence

3. Easterly 59.71 feet along the arc of a curve to the right having a radius of 157.00 feet; through a central angle of 21°47’20” to a point of reverse curvature; thence

4. Easterly 48.40 feet along a curve to the leŌ having a radius of 113.00 feet; through a central angel of 24°32’29” to a point on the Westerly Boundary of Asilomar Ave; thence

5. Southerly 12.06 feet along a curve to the right having a radius of 340.00 feet; through a central angle of 2°01’58”; thence through a porƟon of said Parcel B

6. Westerly 54.82 feet along a curve to the right having a radius of 125.00 feet; through a central angle of 25°07’47” to a point of reverse curvature; thence

7. Westerly 55.14 feet along a curve to the leŌ having a radius of 145.00 feet; through a central angle of 21°47’20”; thence

8. North 76°36’13” West, 26.46 feet to the Point of Beginning.

CONTAING A TOTAL OF 0.04 ACRES (1,627 SF)
Date: 2 April, 2025
H. Patrick Ward, RCE 29811, State of California.

EXHIBIT C1   Page 2 of 2
PGCC 5-7-25

PGCC 5-7-25

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: Joe Amelio, Mayor Pro Tem
MEETING DATE: May 07, 2025
SUBJECT: Monterey Salinas Transit Minutes for March 10, 2025 CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

RECOMMENDATION
Receive minutes.

Attachments
MST Minutes 03102025
PGCC 5-7-25

Agenda # 3-2
April 14, 2025 Meeting

MEETING OF THE MST BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Meeting Minutes
March 10, 2025
10:00 am (Pacific)

Present: Mary Ann Carbone, Chair City of Sand City
Lorraine Worthy, Vice Chair City of Gonzales
Bob Delves City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
Kim Shirley City of Del Rey Oaks
Ariana Rodriguez City of Greenfield
Mike LeBarre City of King
Liesbeth Visscher City of Marina
Ed Smith City of Monterey
Joe Amelio City of Pacific Grove
Tony Barrera City of Salinas
Dave Pacheco City of Seaside
Fernando Cabrera City of Soledad
Luis Alejo County of Monterey

Absent: None
Counsel: Michael D. Laredo General Counsel, De Lay & Laredo Staff: Carl Sedoryk General Manager/CEO
Lisa Rheinheimer Deputy CEO
Kelly Halcon Chief Human Resources Officer
Michael Kohlman Chief Information Officer
Norman Tuitavuki Chief Operating Officer
Michelle Overmeyer Director of Planning and Innovation
Jeanette Alegar-Rocha Deputy Secretary/Clerk to the Board Andrea Williams Finance Manager
Beronica Carriedo C/S & Community Relations Supervisor
Christine Church Compliance Analyst
Cristy Sugabo Mobility Manager
Daniel Rodriguez Customer Service Representative
David Bielsker Transit Scheduler
Elena Grigorichina Operations Specialist
Emma Patel Planning Manager
Ezequiel Rebollar IT System Engineer
PGCC 5-7-25

Ikuyo Yoneda-Lopez Marketing & Communications Manager
Jacob Huggins IT Specialist
Jarred Augusta Risk and Safety Manager
Kevin Allshouse Contract Transportation Manager
Luiza Hatlestad Mobility Specialist
Marzette Henderson Transportation Manager
Natalie Flores Associate Planner
Paul Lopez Facilities Manager
Rolando Munoz Mobility Specialist
Ruben Gomez Mobility Coordinator
Scott Taylor Information Technology Manager
Steven Bruno Purchasing Agent
Susie Flores Grants Analyst
Ursulla Scardina Communications Specialist
Public: Jim Fink 28 Year MST Passenger
Michelle Adams Councilmember, City of Sand City
Jasmine Mejia-Cortes Monterey County Board of Supervisors Javier Gomez Monterey County Board of Supervisors
Linda Gonzales Monterey County Board of Supervisors

1. CALL TO ORDER
1-1. Roll Call.
1-2. Pledge of Allegiance
Chair Carbone called the meeting to order at 10:02 a.m. Roll call was taken and a quorum was established. Director LeBarre led the pledge of allegiance. 1-3. Conduct Swearing in Ceremony of New Board Member Bob Delves.

City of-Carmel-by-the-Sea Councilmember, Bob Delves was sworn in as a newly appointed MST Board member.
1-4. Highlights of the agenda. (Carl Sedoryk)
General Manager/CEO, Carl Sedoryk reviewed highlights of the Agenda.

2. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON MATTERS NOT ON THE AGENDA
Jim Fink, MST passenger, asked to remove cutaways and replace them with standard coaches. He asked to return services to Diridon Station and add Berryessa Bart Station in San Jose. Mr. Fink also asked MST to get on board with the Clipper as the statewide payment system for transit.

PGCC 5-7-25

3. CONSENT AGENDA
These items will be approved by a single motion. Anyone may request that an item be discussed and considered separately.
3-1. Financial Reports – January 2025. (Lori Lee) (Page 7) a) Accept Report of January 2025 Cash Flow,
b) Approve January 2025 Disbursements, and
c) Accept Report of January 2025 Treasury Transactions. 3-2. Approve Minutes of the MST Board Meeting of February 10, 2025. (Jeanette Alegar-Rocha) (Page 19)
3-3. Receive Draft Minutes of the MST Board Operation Performance Committee Meeting of February 10, 2025 (Jeanette Alegar-Rocha) (Page 27)
3-4. Adopt Resolution 2025-16 Recognizing Juan Castillo, Facilities Technician, as Employee of the Month for March 2025. (Paul Lopez) (Page 31)
3-5. Reject Claim by the Claimant Tammy Ryan. (Jarred Augusta) (Page 33) 3-6. Authorize the General Manager/CEO to Purchase Five (5) Toyota Prius Hybrid Vehicles at the Lowest Price/Best Options at the Time of Purchase Utilizing the California Department of General Services (DGS) Contract #1-22-23-10c in an Amount Not to Exceed $180,567. (Norman Tuitavuki) (Page 35)
3-7. Receive Draft Minutes of the Mobility Advisory Committee Meeting of January 29, 2025 (Ruben Gomez) (Page 37)
3-8. Adopt Resolution 2025-17 in Recognition of Transit Employee Appreciation Day, March 18, 2025. (Carl Sedoryk) (Page 41) 3-9. Adopt Resolution 2025-18 in Appreciation of Jeff Baron, His Support to the MST Board, and Contribution to the Community. (Carl Sedoryk) (Page 43) Jim Fink, MST passenger, commented that item 3-9 should be pulled because Jeff Baron is entitled to special recognition for his job of serving on the MST Board. Mr. Sedoryk responded that Mr. Baron specifically asked not to have a special presentation placed on the Agenda. Chair Carbone pulled item 3-9 and moved it to recognitions and special presentations as item 4-3 to allow further comments.

PGCC 5-7-25

On a motion by Director Cabrera and seconded by Director Smith, the Board unanimously approved items 3-1 through 3-8 on the Consent Agenda.

4. RECOGNITIONS AND SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
4-1. March 2025 Employee of the Month – Juan Castillo, Facilities Technician. (Paul Lopez)
The MST Board recognized Juan Castillo, Facilities Technician, as the March 2025 Employee of the Month for his outstanding contribution to MST and to the entire community.
4-2. Transit Employee Appreciation Day. (Carl Sedoryk/Ikuyo Yoneda-Lopez) Carl Sedoryk and Ikuyo Yoneda-Lopez announced a number of events for Transit Employee Appreciation Day on Tuesday, March 18 at MST operations and maintenance facilities.
4-3. Adopt Resolution 2025-18 in Appreciation of Jeff Baron, His Support to the MST Board, and Contribution to the Community. (Carl Sedoryk) Chair Carbone read Resolution 2025-18 in appreciation of Jeff Baron, his support to the MST Board and contribution to the community. Directors Shirley and Barrera commented that they appreciated Jeff Baron’s inquisitive and critical thinking nature. Directors Worthy and Amelio expressed appreciation for his dedication and contribution to the Board.

Jim Fink, MST passenger, commented on Jeff Baron’s service on the Board.

5. PUBLIC HEARINGS
5-1. FY 2024 and FY 2025 Federal Program of Projects. (Susie Flores) (Page 45)
a) Conduct Public Hearing for FY 2024 and FY 2025 Program of Projects, b) Adopt the FY 2024 and FY 2025 Program of Projects, and c) Authorize the Filing of Appropriate Grant Applications with the Federal Transit Administration and Caltrans.

There were no public comments on item 5-1.

On a motion by Director Barrera and seconded by Director Amelio, the Board unanimously approved the FY 2024 and FY 2025 Federal Program of Projects and authorized the filing of appropriate grant applications with the Federal Transit Administration and Caltrans.

PGCC 5-7-25

6. ACTION ITEMS
6-1. Authorize the General Manager/CEO, or Their Designee, to Execute Amendment 2 with Transit App for Mobile Trip Planning, Transit Royale, Rate-My-Ride, and In App Banner and Push Notifications in an Amount Not to Exceed $273,300 for a Three (3) Year Term and Two (2) One-Year Options for an Additional Amount of $245,700. (Ikuyo Yoneda-Lopez) (Page 51)
Jim Fink, MST passenger, made a comment that he hopes the Real Time Transit App would better detect traffic that may delay his bus route because that morning he was significantly delayed on line 20 in Highway 1 traffic between Marina and Monterey.

On a motion by Director Alejo and seconded by Director Barrera, the Board unanimously approved item 6-1.
6-2. Authorize the General Manager/CEO to Execute Amendment 1 with Accenture, Formerly Comtech, for Construction Management Oversight Services for the SURF! Busway and Bus Rapid Transit Project in an Amount Not to Exceed $3,113,206. (Lisa Rheinheimer) (Page 55) Jim Fink, MST passenger, asked what the estimated date of completion was for the SURF! Busway and Bus Rapid Transit Project. Staff responded that the project completion would be no later than March 31, 2028.

On a motion by Director Amelio and seconded by Director Pacheco, the Board unanimously approved item 6-2.
6-3. Adopt a Monterey-Salinas Transit Board Code of Conduct Policy. (Carl Sedoryk) (Page 59)
There were no public comments on item 6-3.

Board members commented and discussed the Code of Conduct Policy.

On a motion by Director Amelio and seconded by Director Pacheco, the Board unanimously approved to review and compare a redlined version of the policy to the original policy at a future meeting.

7. REPORTS & INFORMATION ITEMS
The Board will receive and file these reports, which do not require action by the Board. 7-1. General Manager/CEO Monthly Report – January 2025 (Page 63) 7-2. Federal Legislative Advocacy Report – (Page 65)
PGCC 5-7-25

7-3. Receive State Legislative Advocacy Update and Recommendations – (Page 69)
7-4. Staff Trip Reports – None
7-5. Correspondence – (Page 73-75)

8. BOARD REPORTS, COMMENTS, AND REFERRALS
8-1. Reports on Meetings Attended by Board Members at MST Expense. (AB 1234)
8-2. Board Member Comments and Announcements.
8-3. Board Member Referrals for Future Agendas.

9. ATTACHMENTS
9-1. The Monthly Report for January 2025 can be viewed online:
http://mst.org/about-mst/board-of-directors/board-meetings/

10. CLOSED SESSION
Comments from the public will not receive Board action. Comments must deal with matters on the Closed Session agenda and will be limited to three minutes. 10-1. Conference with Real Property Negotiators, Gov. Code § 54956.8 APN#s: 031-101-063-000 located at Joe Lloyd Way, Unincorporated Monterey County, CA, 002-771-006-000 located at 951 S Sanborn Road, Salinas, CA and 002-771-007-000 located at 1037 Abbott Street, Salinas, CA
MST Negotiators: Carl Sedoryk, General Manager/CEO
Under Negotiation: Price and Terms
Michael Laredo reported that the Board provided negotiating parameters for properties identified to the Property Negotiators.

11. ADJOURN
With no further business to discuss, Chair Carbone adjourned the meeting at 12:02 p.m. (Pacific).

Prepared by: ___________________Reviewed by: __________________ Jeanette Alegar-Rocha Carl G. Sedoryk
Deputy Secretary/Clerk to the Board General Manager/CEO PGCC 5-7-25

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: Joseph Sidor, Contract Planner
MEETING DATE: May 07, 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 fifteenth monthly progress report update to Council on April 16, 2025. Since then, the following tasks have been undertaken:

April 16, 2025: City Staff presented a draft of Program 10, Enhanced Housing Mobility Options, to the City Council at its regular meeting. This draft program is in response to recent direction from HCD regarding Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing.

April 17, 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).

April 17, 2025: City Staff provided Rincon with consolidated comments/feedback from the Planning Commission and City Council regarding the draft Program 10, Enhanced Housing Mobility Options.

April 18, 2025: Rincon provided Batch 2a of the administrative draft EIR sections to City Staff for review.

April 24, 2025: City Staff mailed tribal consultation letters to Native American tribal representatives traditionally and culturally affiliated within the area of the City of Pacific Grove.

April 24, 2025: City Staff provided Rincon with consolidated comments for Batch 1 of the PGCC 5-7-25

April 24, 2025: City Staff provided Rincon with consolidated comments for Batch 1 of the administrative draft EIR sections.

April 25, 2025: Rincon provided Batch 2b of the administrative draft EIR sections to City Staff for review.

April 28, 2025: City Staff provided Rincon with final comments for the draft land use and zoning maps.

April 28, 2025: Rincon provided the revised draft Housing Element responding to HCD’s February 18, 2025, comment letter. Next steps include making the revisions to the Housing Element available for the 7-day public review period and then submitting the draft 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 5-7-25

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: Daniel Gho, Public Works Director/Deputy City Manager MEETING DATE: May 07, 2025
SUBJECT: Pedestrian Safety - Central/Fountain Ave & Grand/Fountain Ave CEQA: Categorical Exemption, CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, Class I, Existing Facilities

RECOMMENDATION

1. Approve the Central, Grand and Fountain Avenue reconfiguration; and

2. Authorize staff to issue a call for bids for the project.

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

DISCUSSION

BACKGROUND
The Kimpton Hotel, formerly Hotel Durell, will be a high-end lodging hotel with amenities including a restaurant, gym, spa, and meeting room. The hotel site is located between Central and Lighthouse Avenues, on the North and South, and Grand & Fountain Avenue on the West and East.

The Conditions of Approval for the hotel, approved by Resolution in September of 2018 and amended by Resolution in March of 2022 by the City Council, included various requirements.

Condition of Approval 11 pertained specifically to the intersections adjacent to the project and states:
“Pedestrian safety. The Applicant shall pay for 25% of the cost for design and construction of the complete reconfiguration of the intersection of Central A venue and Fountain Avenue to provide an All-Way Stop intersection as identified in the Mitigation Measures of the Environmental Impact Report. The intersection redesign shall be consistent with the guidelines described in the "Pedestrian Safety Report" Prepared for the City by the Institute of Transportation Studies dated November 2008.

The Applicant shall pay 25% of the cost for design and construction of the reconfiguration of the intersection of Central Ave, and Grand Ave. to accommodate a new raised pavement crosswalk across the intersection on the south side of Central Ave. The final project landscape plan for landscaping within the public right-of-way shall be designed to incorporate the new raised pavement crosswalk.”
The final resolution, with the full list of the Conditions of Approval, can be found here.

PGCC 5-7-25

ENGINEERING & DESIGN
In accordance with Condition 11, the City requested funding through the FY24/25 Capital Improvement Plan to begin evaluation of the intersections at Fountain & Central, and Grand and Central to enhance the vehicle and pedestrian safety. City also commenced discussions related to the required improvements with the developer of the Kimpton Hotel.

Following evaluation from the City’s Civil and Traffic Engineers, a reconfiguration of both intersections has been engineered. The improvements include:
• A complete reconfiguration of Fountain and Central, with the intent of implementing a 4-way stop.
• A bulb out on the southwest corner of Grand and Central and upgrade of all existing curb ramps
o The original intent was to construct a raised crosswalk at Central and Grand on the southern portion of the intersection (across from the hotel and adjacent to the museum) as specified in the conditions
o However, review from the engineers determined that due to the extremely wide road, a bulb out and updated ADA ramps would better address pedestrian safety and be a superior solution for this intersection.
o This was proposed to enhance safety on the extremely wide roadway by decreasing crossing times
Engineering is complete and the final plan set has been developed. The plans are included as Attachment 1.

FUNDING
Per Condition of Approval 11, 25% of the design and construction of the intersection improvements at Fountain/Central and Grand/ Central are to be paid by the developer.

The City has expanded the project to include repaving the roadways adjacent to the hotel due to poor or failing current conditions, which is not the responsibility of the hotel developer. The current Pavement Condition Index (PCI) on the adjacent roadways to the hotel are:
• Central Avenue: PCI 27 (poor condition)
• Grand Avenue: PCI 44 (poor condition)
• Fountain Avenue: PCI 68 (fair condition)
The Hotel developers are required to pave the travel lanes adjacent to the hotel on Grand, Fountain, and Central to tie in the sidewalk reconstruction that they will perform as part of their project.

The City will pave the remainder of the surrounding roadways to address their deteriorated conditions. It is best to perform the paving work under one contract for coordination and quality control. To facilitate that, the developer is willing to provide $13,000 to the City. This amount is equivalent to the developers cost to their contractor perform the travel lane pavement requirement. This amount would simply be provided to the City to allow repaving both travel lanes as an element of the City’s bid process, versus piecemealing the efforts between the Hotel’s contractor and the City’s contractor.

In addition to the $13,000, the developer will pay 25% of the curb ramps and sidewalk installation at both intersections, though this amount will not be determined until bidding has occurred.

OPTIONS
PGCC 5-7-25

1. Approve the staff recommendation

2. Provide alternative direction
FINANCIAL IMPACT:

There is no impact by receiving this report and approving the plan set. As part of the FY 24/25 CIP, $270,000 has been allocated towards the project. It is anticipated that the City will harness Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP) funds administered by the Transportation Agency of Monterey County to complete the project.

Once the City completes the competitive bid process and determines the total cost of the project, City staff will bring back a full plan to fund the project.

FOCUSED PRIORITY AREA: Infrastructure
Attachments
Plan Set, Central, Grand and Fountain
PGCC 5-7-25

PGCC 5-7-25

PGCC 5-7-25

PGCC 5-7-25

PGCC 5-7-25

PGCC 5-7-25

PGCC 5-7-25

PGCC 5-7-25

PGCC 5-7-25

PGCC 5-7-25

PGCC 5-7-25

PGCC 5-7-25

PGCC 5-7-25

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: George Fuerst, Environmental Program Manager
MEETING DATE: May 07, 2025
SUBJECT: Beautification and Natural Resources Commission Minutes: November 19, 2024, January 21, 2025 and February 18, 2025
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

RECOMMENDATION
Receive minutes.

Attachments
BNRC minutes November 2024 through February 2025
PGCC 5-7-25

Minutes of the

BEAUTIFICATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION
Tuesday, 19 November 2024, 4:00 P.M.

Council Chamber – City Hall – 300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA

1. CALL TO ORDER: Chair Walkingstick called the meeting to order at 4PM. Commissioners Gorman, Wooten, Myers, Brisson, Lee and Dunn present.

2. AGENDA: Approved.

3. COMMISSIONER, SUBCOMMITTEE, and STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS
Commissioner Lee noted the recent activities of the Sea Watch migratory bird count and the Ocean Protection Council. She thanked DPW’s Joyce Halabi for supporting the ‘no fake cobwebs’ effort. She also mentioned the need for the police department to collect germane wildlife data, noting that wildlife is not ‘just animals’ and should be categorized separately from other animal reporting.

Commissioner Brisson commended Sea Watch for their long-term study on migration. She also thanked DPW Director Goh for getting the electronic ‘quiet zone’ sign up and running before the recent marathon. Perhaps it can be a permanent sign? The seals are finally coming in: ~145 counted to date. The monarch subcommittee counted only 92 butterflies this past week; with this low count, the Xerxes Society issue a call to action, especially regarding the use of pesticides and herbicides.

Chair Walkingstick reported that the 18 October monarch meeting at the museum featured representation from many groups. She also shared news about the cooperative BNRC/ Economic Development Committee (EDC) to improve the downtown landscape. The paperwork for this new idea—Project Shopgate— will go to city council.

Staffer Fuerst reported on progress with signage for George Washington Park (GWP); they will be ~3-4 feet high. Permanent seal signage is also in the works. The plastics subcommittee will meet on 21 November to update the status of legislation with the state as well as changes that ReGen and Greenwaste have instigated. There will be a new investigation in re concerns around Crespi Pond. The monarch count shows ‘drastically lower numbers, as seems to be the case throughout California, with the exception of the Santa Cruz area.

Note: Commissioner Lee requested that BNRC be notified regarding developments around Crespi Pond. Mr. Fuerst agreed.

4. COUNCIL LIAISON ANNOUNCEMENTS
Councilman Coletti expressed his appreciation for his role as liaison with BNRC. As he cycles off of city council, he urged BNRC to keep an eye on the GWP biological assessment; the oneyear study is ‘very important’ as it relates to the master plan for GWP. The assessment is due to finalize in January. He also spoke to the first reading of the new district voting coming up before city council on 20 November. A draft of outdoor dining guidelines is in the works.

Construction has begun on upgrading the corner of Lighthouse and Fountain. Lastly, BNRC gave Councilman Coletti a unanimous thank-you for his service with the committee.

5. MINUTES
PGCC 5-7-25

The October minutes were approved as amended: TWO cypress trees will be planted at Lovers Point where the old tree was removed; it is Chair Walkingstick, not Commissioner Wooten; and it is Zachary Mills, not Miller.

6. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT
Kim Akeman took to the podium to heartily thank DPW for the electronic sign fronting the ‘seal’ beach at Hopkins Lab. She reported 45 pregnant seals with 74 in all. She invited BNRC to check with her group, which keeps data, on wildlife disturbances.

Lisa Ciani spoke of her concerns about dredging at Crespi Pond: if it does not happen before nesting season, it will have to wait until next year. A snow goose was spotted there.

Tony Ciani noted that DPW is proceeding with a new trail across from Esplanade Park. He reminded BNRC of its duties in re: design plans, and urged BNRC to comment on projects. 7A. Gena Bentall was unable to do a presentation on sea otters. 7B. Presentation from the California Marine Mammal Center (CMMC) by Laura Gill. CMMC has the largest teaching hospital of its kind in the world.They are now in their 50th year of taking action to protect the oceans and the marine mammals along the 600-mile California coastline and Hawaii. (The Hawaiian site is not open to the public.) They boast ~130 staff and ~1400 volunteers. Sausalito continues to be their headquarters; all animals requiring care eventually end up there.Sea lions are the most common patients, and ~30% of all patients have experienced negative interactions with humans and dogs. Beyond their clinical work, they do research, education and outreach. The public—and their dogs— are reminded to stay away from any marine mammals they find hauled out. Call 415.289.SEAL for help with distressed animals. To view releases of rehabbed patients, text RELEASE to to 65179.

Public comment from Kim Akeman offered kudos to Ms. Gill and to CMMC. She encouraged donations and volunteers to get involved.

Commissioner Lee asked about information to volunteer with CMMC—Moss Landing is the closest option. She also wondered about the loss of beaches due to sea level rise, and the treatment protocol for on-site euthanasia of seals with serious shark bites vs transport to Sausalito. She asked Ms. Gill to share CMMC’s media posts with BNRC so that they can also be shared on the BNRC website. Agreed.

Commissioner Brisson said that maternal separation is an issue here in PG; it appears to be connected with noise.

Chair Walkingstick inquired about the opening of a new satellite site in Castroville. That will happen in the next two months; Moss Landing is still a viable site.

The next meeting will be on Tuesday, 17 December, at 4 PM.

Respectfully submitted,
Marty Dunn
Recording Secretary

PGCC 5-7-25

Minutes of the

BEAUTIFICATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION
Tuesday, 21 January 2025, 4:00 P.M.

Council Chamber – City Hall – 300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA

1. CALL TO ORDER: Chair Walkingstick called the meeting to order at 4PM. Commissioners Gorman, Wooten, Myers, Brisson and Dunn present; Commissioner Lee absent.

2. AGENDA: Approved.

3. COMMISSIONER, SUBCOMMITTEE, and STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS
Commissioner Gorman reported that BNRC’s climate action and adaptation planning subcommittee’s recommendation to City Council was approved at council’s last meeting, and that the city will enter an agreement with Blue Strike Environmental for the Climate Action and Adaptation Planning Services. Also, the US Fish and Wildlife Service is proposing listing the monarch butterfly under the Endangered Species Act. Public comment is open from now until March 12th, and can be submitted electronically or in writing.

Commissioner Brisson shared a count of the monarchs (low—fewer than 100 in December) and mentioned Xerxes call to action, especially in re pesticide use. She suggested pesticide use should be on a BNRC agenda this year. Harbor seal pupping should start on 1 March; there are currently fewer than 110 in the cove, 57 of which are pregnant females. One premature birth has been reported. She requested the social media alerts and signage along the rec trail be repeated again this season. She and Chair Walkingstick attended a recent COAST meeting where the subject was about an initiative to add the Point Pinos Lighthouse Reservation as a National Historic District.

Chair Walkingstick noted that the Monterey Fire Department will be announcing a wildfire community response and preparedness plan. She also mentioned the need for donations to victims of the SoCal fires, and gave a brief update on the Moss Landing conflagration. The postponed presentation on sea otters will take place at the February BNRC meeting. Also at the next meeting, there will be discussion of subcommittee formation for the 2025.

4. COUNCIL LIAISON ANNOUNCEMENTS
Environmental Program Manager (EPM) Fuerst thanked Commissioners Lee and Myers for their service on BNRC and then introduced Lori McDonnell, BNRC’s new council liaison. She reported that the biological assessment of George Washington Park should be ready for the council’s 19 February meeting. The construction at Fountain and Lighthouse is wrapping up and new outdoor dining guidelines have been approved; new permits for the businesses will be issued. Cynthia Garfield was appointed to fill the vacancy on council. Ms. McDonnell asked people to consider—and submit— ideas for new council goals in February.

5. MINUTES
The October November minutes were approved.

6. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT
None.
7A. Tree Appeal, 105 20th Street
PGCC 5-7-25

EPM Fuerst reminded the commission that BNRC can affirm, deny or modify the city arborist’s recommendations. City staff has recommended a denial of the appeal to remove the two palm trees. Mr. Fuerst presented a video overview of the trees in question, and owners Mr. and Mrs.

Annereau each spoke of their safety concerns around the trees. Lisa Ciani called in to express her support for removing the trees. and commissioners further discussed the issue. A motion to deny the appeal was made and approved, 5-1 (Commissioner Dunn dissenting). 8A. Pacific Grove Cares
Public Works Director Dan Goh introduced Peggy Gibbs, the founder of this new 501(c)(3) nonprofit in the community. The purpose of Pacific Grove Cares (PGC) is to restore, maintain and improve public landscapes around town. Volunteers presently number about 20 and are the core of this group, though some local professionals might need to be hired for specific help on occasion. The first target areas are Chase Park West and the frontage strip around the Stillwell sign at Caledonia Park. Plantings will focus on natives and will come from PG’s list of approved species; irrigation will be provided where needed. Ms. Gibbs, a professional fundraiser, reported that local restaurateur Kevin Phillips has donated $5K to this effort.

Public comment included Lisa Ciani’s advice to use plants specific to the coastal zone, and to be sensitive to the archeological/ancestral significance of the some of the areas. Jane Haines contributed her appreciation for PGC, and spoke up for the protection of the creatures in the areas considered.

Commissioners’ comments were overwhelmingly favorable and included suggestions to consider using gopher baskets, to include drought-tolerant and pollinator plants in the mix, and to be mindful of baby bird season as well as the use of pesticides. Commissioner Gorman queried the possible replacement of the ‘ugly’ fencing in front of Stillwell Park, to which Ms. Gibbs responded with the hope that the new landscaping would obscure it.

A motion to accept PG Care’s proposed projects was unanimously approved.

B. Beautification of Lighthouse Avenue Medians
EPM Fuerst presented a slide show of the most prominent medians along Lighthouse, all of which contain one or more iconic cypress trees. Past attempts to spruce up the ground under the trees have been unsuccessful due to maintenance challenges and the roots and asphalt base under the medians. Some feel that dead/dying plants look worse than bare spaces under the trees. Lisa Ciani spoke against planting under the trees. Mike Gibbs wondered how the trees can stay upright with the asphalt underlay. Commissioner Myers suggested getting rid of the asphalt as a potential future capital project. Commissioner Gorman asked about expanding the planting wells under some of the trees and/or adding new soil, but Mr. Gho replied that that would be a very extensive project. Ms. Brisson wants to keep the median trees healthy. Ms.

Wooten said, “These trees are 70 years old. Let them be.’ Chair Walkingstick remarked that the trees are healthy, and that Shop Scape could provide color highlights downtown negating the need for planting under the trees.

Jane Haines called in to thank Ms. Wooten for responding to her letter about the condition of some of the mailboxes around town.

The meeting was adjourned promptly at 6 PM.

9. NEXT MEETING - February 18th, 2025 at 4 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
Marty Dunn
PGCC 5-7-25

Recording Secretary

PGCC 5-7-25

Minutes of the

BEAUTIFICATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION
Tuesday, 18 February 2025, 4:00 P.M.

Council Chamber – City Hall – 300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA

1. CALL TO ORDER: Chair Walkingstick called the meeting to order at 4PM. Commissioners Gorman, Wooten, Brisson, Giraudo, Lloyd and Dunn present. Staff: EPM George Fuerst and Amy Colony and Dan Gho from DPW; Councilmember Lori McDonnell.

2. AGENDA: Approved.

3. COMMISSIONER, SUBCOMMITTEE, and STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS
Chair Walkingstick welcomed our two new commissioners, Mssrs. Lloyd and Giraudo. Comm.

Gorman reiterated that the monarch butterfly is being considered for listing on the Endangered Species Act. Public comment is open from now until March 12th and can be submitted electronically or in writing.

Commissioner Brisson said there are 228 harbor seals, at peak count, in the sanctuary. Pupping is imminent. She asked about permanent signage along the rec trail; Mr. Fuerst said they will be installed shortly.

Chair Walkingstick noted that the Monterey Fire Department will host a wildfire community response and preparedness presentation at a town hall event, 27 February from 5-8:30, at the Monterey Convention Center.

4. COUNCIL LIAISON ANNOUNCEMENTS
Council liaison Lori McDonnell reported that Jon Biggs is the temporary community development officer. District election voting maps are still open for comment. City Council will be discussing 2025 goals at 26 Feb. meeting.

5. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT
Lisa Ciani enjoyed a rare sighting of a banana slug at Asilomar and suggested that species be ‘put on the wildlife subcommittee’s radar.’
Mike Gibbs voiced concerns about homeowners’ insurance due to wildfire risks in California.

Tony Ciani asked BNRC to focus on restoring and protecting Crespi Pond and the Great Tide Pool.

6. MINUTES
The January minutes were approved with corrections.
7A. SELECTION OF OFFICERS
Proposed slate: Ms. Walkingstick as chairperson, Ms. Gorman as vice-chair, Ms. Dunn as secretary. Slate approved unanimously. 7B. FENCING MUNICIPAL CODE REVISION CONCEPT
Before beginning her comprehensive presentation on fencing in the city, Carmelita García acknowledged the volunteer help that local Urban Trapping provided during the SoCal fires.

Ms. García’s slide show focused on fencing prohibitions and height limits in PG. Wood and metal ‘deer fencing’ is used specifically to prevent passage of deer, yet it, along with netting, PGCC 5-7-25

can injure or kill the deer as well as some pollinators. Ms. García asked for a BNRC subcommittee to work with the city to educate the public about fence codes and to monitor fences for compliance.

Public Comment:

Rebecca Lee spoke strongly in favor of this effort. Inge Lorentzen Daumer said contractors often use netting to protect trees, and that it’s ‘ineffectual.’ (She also wondered about City Council’s proposed shortened meeting schedule.) Tony Ciani said the lighthouse picket fence tips could easily be ‘softened.’ He also suggested a re-look at the locations of ‘Deer Crossing’ signs. He said fencing needs to be ‘standardized and codified’ so that ‘bad’ fences could be replaced; also, realtors need to be made aware of fencing laws.

Lisa Ciani suggested having flyers available with the rules and to remove spikes and pointy fences.

Wendy emphasized that deer return to the same areas annually.

Commissioners were agreed that educational efforts are needed; Chair Walkingstick was ‘all for creating a subcommittee ‘and also reaching out to the planning commission to help further understanding of rules. Commissioner Giraudo suggested drafting a statement: what are the problems, then coming back with possible solutions, including new codes, or elements within them, if need be and having a subcommittee address them.

It was decided to defer a vote on this until the next meeting. 7C. GEORGE WASHINGTON PARK BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
DPW Director Gho gave some history of George Washington Park (GWP) planning with the 1999 and 2022 versions. He then proceeded with the new 2024 Biological Assessment, the first to include information from all four seasons. The goal now is to meld the combined documents to implement a Council on Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) plan and present it to BNRC.

Public Comment:

Mike Gibbs said he feels GWP has been degrading for 15 years, that wildfire risks there are documented but public concerns are ignored.

Lisa Ciani spoke to the ‘untimely’ announcing of this agenda item, that it was ‘disrespectful.’ She stressed that no heavy equipment should be used in the park, and that all wildlife should be considered, not just endangered animals. She did not feel GWP’s fire risk was comparable to the issues with the SoCal fires.

Tony Ciani urged not rushing this project and not to try to avoid CEQA.

Inge Lorentzen Daumer noted the need for a Cal Fire grant application to be submitted. She also said GWP needs ‘hand work, not goats or machines’ to do the park work.

Dixie Layne said PG’s forested areas are ‘much different from those in SoCal in many perspectives.’ Overhead wires are the biggest fire risks; they should be undergrounded. What of the BBQ pit near the baseball field?
Amanda Preece of Audubon was pleased with the new biological assessment. She favors handclearing and cautioned not to over clear and to time work carefully.

Kris Lindstrom noted that we need input from insurance companies, and he agreed that we need to take our time, conform with CEQA and use local knowledge vs consultants whenever possible.

Kim Akeman said to put aside the 2022 report and focus on the new plan and the 1999 document. Expertise is needed. Harden homes, enforce no smoking and no mylar balloons (that can snag in power lines).

Commissioner Lloyd noted this is ‘very complex.’ Need to consider neighbors’ concerns, and to move inward from the perimeter. CEQA compliance a positive. Other comments reflected moving cautiously, integrating the 1999 and 2024 plans (but now banning pesticides, as were okayed in 1999), and making decisions that reflect PG’s ‘environmentally friendly attitude.’ PGCC 5-7-25

Commissioner Giraudo said the present state is not tenable, that we need to begin with ‘the what’ (problem) and begin to formulate ‘the how’ (solution).

Chair Walkingstick spoke to being ‘fire-wise’ rather than ‘fire-scared,’ that we need to utilize fire management resources along with the 2024 assessment suggestions.

Motion: Recommend the 2024 Denise Duffy and Associates George Washington Park (GWP) Biological Assessment be used as the basis for updating the 1999 GWP Master Plan.

D. GEORGE WASHINGTON PARK RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL Chair Walkingstick and Commissioner Gorman (tree subcommittee members) presented their comprehensive recommendations on GWP, beginning by noting that there are 28 parks in PG, and that GWP is unique. It contains one of only four natural Monterey pine forests in the world.

The commissioners’ plan is divided into zones and begins from the outside perimeter and moves in. The use of decomposed granite (DG) on the perimeter trail and removing poison oak from trails were some of the suggestions.

PublicComment:

Tony Ciani applauded the project but said conforming with CEQA and having long-term plans is vital. He noted removal of overhead wires was not included.

Lisa Ciani loved the idea; she asked if the interior trails would be DG or wood chips.

Mike Gibbs said ‘it’s a good start’ but what about the fuel on the ground? Also, there are five PG&E transformers along Alder Street.

Amanda Preece supported the plan.

Inge Lorentzen Daumer said to underground the utilities, and also asked about ADA input.

Dixie Layne enthused that ‘the plan surpasses my expectations!’ She noted that the ground in GWP is always moist.

Kris Lindstrom suggested including this report along with the 1999/2024 reports and ‘make it a project!’
Kim Akeman cited the need to underground the utilities and to post new signs, including ‘no bikes.’
Commissioners praised the efforts of the committee in putting together this plan. Beyond kudos, there was talk of ‘wild’ vs ‘groomed’ space, especially in Zone 3; signage a plus; how to deal with DG that abuts the street asphalt; location of wastebins (convenient for pickup); and concerns about parking on DG in Zone 1. Public input should be invited. 7D. GWP RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:

Motion to recommend City Council receive GWP conceptual perimeter layer map.

CWooten/MD; MSP unanimously.

E. BNRC INPUT ON CITY COUNCIL GOAL SETTING
Public Comment:

Lisa Ciani: protect wildlife habitat.

Kim Akeman: need a wildlife officer.

Tony Ciani: ditto to above and protect GWP, Crespi Pond and the Great Tide Pool.

Kris Lindstrom: Use untapped talent in PG instead of outside paid consultants.

Commissioner Wooten: increase tree canopy and protect Crespi Pond PGCC 5-7-25

Commissioner Brisson: protect habitat and open spaces; CSO enforcement; create a no-pesticides ordinance.

Commissioner Dunn: Protect Crespi Pond and Great. Tide Pool; strengthen enforcement of single-use plastics rule.

Commissioner Lloyd: Bring GWP plan to conclusion this year.

Commissioner Gorman: Trees!
Chair Walkingstick: Accomplish GWP plan update.

DPW Director Gho noted that all of these topics are ‘environmental enhancement.’ Motion: BNRC recommends the following goals for City Council consideration:

1. Update GWP Master Plan with BNRC input and measurable milestones for public input

2. Increase tree canopy coverage: Complete tree survey for benchmark to determine tree- increase goals.

3. Protect wildlife and wildlife habitat: CSO enforcement of ordinances.

DB/JG/MSP Unanimously
The meeting was adjourned at 8:21 PM.

9. NEXT MEETING - 18 March 2025 at 4 PM.

Respectfully submitted,
Marty Dunn
Recording Secretary

PGCC 5-7-25

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: Brian Pierik, City Attorney
MEETING DATE: May 07, 2025
SUBJECT: Update Regarding Changes to Government Code Section 36516 (City Council Compensation) and Consideration of Potential Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacific Grove Increasing the Compensation of the Mayor and City Councilmembers and Providing Medical Benefits Available to City Management Employees
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

RECOMMENDATION
Discuss Potential Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacific Grove Increasing the Compensation of the Mayor and City Councilmembers and Providing Medical Benefits Available to City Management Employees. If the Council directs to proceed with the Potential Ordinance, then the following are the recommended actions.

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

3. Motion to waive further reading of the ordinance.

Introduce and hold a first reading of an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacific Grove Increasing the Compensation of the Mayor and City Councilmembers and Providing Medical Benefits Available to City Employees.

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

5. 6. Other action related to this Agenda Item.

DISCUSSION
A. Senate Bill No. 329 – City Councilmembers Compensation On June 29, 2023, Senate Bill No. 329 (Attachment 1) was adopted by the California State Legislature and approved by the Governor pertaining to the compensation of City Councilmembers and became effective on January 1, 2024.

The changes made by SB 329 to Government Code Section 36516 (Attachment 2) included the following permitted compensation increases for City Councilmembers:

1. For cities with a population of 35,000 or less, the compensation permitted increased from $300 dollars to $950 dollars.

PGCC 5-7-25

2. In the alternative, the compensation of City Councilmember could be increased by the greater amount of:
(A) An amount equal to 5 percent for each calendar year from the operative date of the last adjustment of the compensation in effect when the ordinance or amendment is enacted. (B) An amount equal to inflation since January 1, 2024, based upon the California Consumer Price Index, which shall not exceed 10 percent for each calendar year.

The findings in SB 329 regarding the permitted compensation increases for the Councilmembers included the following:

SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(a) The compensation schedule for general law cities has not been adjusted since 1984, meaning that city council compensation has not kept pace with inflation. (b) Allowing cities to adjust their compensation for inflation since 1984 may help city councils become more diverse because increased compensation can help individuals from across different income levels receive sufficient income from their service to help ensure that they can continue to serve the public and support their families.

Government Code Section 36516.1 provides for compensation of an elected Mayor as follows:

“A mayor elected pursuant to Sections 34900 to 34904, inclusive, may be provided with compensation in addition to that which he or she receives as a council member. That additional compensation may be provided by an ordinance adopted by the city council or by a majority vote of the electors voting on the proposition at a municipal election.” There are no provisions in the Government Code which specify the amount of the additional compensation which may be received by an elected mayor. However, since the Pacific Grove Mayor also serves as a member of the City Council, the percentage for compensation increases specified in Government Code Section 36516 as described above can be applied for the Mayor’s compensation .

B. Actions by Other Cities on Compensation Increases
There are some cities which have recently taken action to increase the compensation of their Mayor and City Councilmembers including the City of Marina and the City of Seaside.

On March 4, 2025, the City Council of the City of Marina (a charter city) adopted an Ordinance to increase the compensation of the Mayor from $250 a month to $2250 a month and for City Councilmembers an increase from $200 a month to $2000 a month. The last compensation increase for the Mayor and Councilmembers in the City of Marina prior to 2025 was on September 4, 1990.

On March 20, 2025, the City Council of the City of Seaside (a general law city) approved a motion to increase the compensation of City Councilmembers from $400 a month to $2400. The last compensation increase in compensation for City Council in the City of Seaside prior to 2025 was in 1986.

PGCC 5-7-25

C. City of Pacific Grove Charter and Ordinance on Compensation of Mayor and Councilmembers
The City of Pacific Grove City Charter includes the following provisions in regard to compensation for the Mayor and City Councilmembers confirming that the compensation will be as provided by ordinance and shall not exceed the amount permitted by State Law for general law cities of comparable size to Pacific Grove:

Article 11 The Mayor
“A Mayor shall be elected at each general municipal election and shall hold office for the term of two years from and after the Tuesday next succeeding the day of such election and until a successor is elected and qualified. The Mayor may receive compensation as provided by ordinance, but in no case shall the compensation exceed that amount which is permitted by State Law for General Law cities of comparable size to Pacific Grove. …..” Article 12 The Council
. . . .
“The Councilmembers may receive compensation as provided by ordinance, but in no case shall the compensation exceed that amount which is permitted by the State Law for General Law cities of comparable size to Pacific Grove.”
The most recent increase in salaries for the Mayor and City Councilmembers was by Ordinance No. 98-24 (Attachment 3) adopted on August 19, 1998 (effective December 1, 1998), 26 years ago as of December 1,2024, which increased the compensation of the Mayor from $500 a month to $700 a month and increased the compensation of City Councilmembers from $300 a month to $420 a month.

D. Medical Benefits Available for the Mayor and City Councilmembers City Council Policy 000-11 (Attachment 4) provides for certain Benefits for the Mayor and City Councilmembers including Health Insurance and PERS retirement.

Government Code Section 53208.5 (b) provides:
“(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the health and welfare benefits of any member of a legislative body of any city, including a charter city, county, including a charter county, city and county, special district, school district, or any other political subdivision of the state shall be no greater than that received by nonsafety employees of that public agency. In the case of agencies with different benefit structures, the benefits of members of the legislative body shall not be greater than the most generous schedule of benefits being received by any category of nonsafety employees.”
The current Memorandum of Understanding Management Employees Association July 1, 2023 to June 30, 2026 is attached to this Agenda Report (Attachment 5).

E. Potential Ordinance Increasing The Compensation of the Mayor and City Councilmembers and Providing Benefits Available to City Employees Attached to this Agenda Report is a potential Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pacific Grove Increasing the Compensation of the Mayor and City Councilmembers and Providing Medical Benefits Available to City Management Employees, see Attachment 6.

PGCC 5-7-25

In this Ordinance, there would be an increase in the compensation of City Councilmembers from the current $420 a month to $966 a month using the 5% a year increase allowed by Government Code Section 36516 for the 26 year period from December 1998 (the last compensation increase) through December 2024 which is 26 years. 5% of $420 is $21 multiplied by 26 years is a $546 increase. $420 plus $546 equals $966.

For the Mayor, the Ordinance provides for a compensation increase from the current $700 a month to $1610 a month using the same 5% a year increase allowed by Government Code Section 36516 for the 26 year period from December 1998 (the last compensation increase) through December 2024 which is 26 years. 5% of $700 is $35 multiplied by 26 years is a $910 increase. $700 plus $910 equals $1610.

City Councilmembers, and presumably the Mayor, have the option of waiving any or all of their compensation including the current amount of compensation and/or the potential increase in compensation. Government Code Section 36516 (f).

For medical benefits, the Ordinance provides, consistent with Government Code Section 53208.5 (b), that that the Mayor and City Councilmembers are entitled to receive, at their choice, the Medical Benefits in the Memorandum of Understanding for the Management Employees Association, as it may be amended from time to time, or, in the alternative, the Health Insurance Benefits referenced in City Council Policy 000-11, but in no event will the Medical Benefits for the Mayor and City Councilmembers exceed the most generous schedule of benefits being received by any category of nonsafety employees
It is our understanding that the cities of Seaside, Carmel-by-the-Sea, Monterey, Salinas and Santa Cruz have City contributions for health benefits.

OPTIONS

1. Take alternative action related to this subject

2. Take no action
FINANCIAL IMPACT:

If the Ordinance is adopted, then the following increased annual costs would be incurred by the City which has been confirmed by the City Finance Management Analyst:

1. Compensation . The annual cost for six City Councilmembers compensation will increase from $30,240 to $69,552 which is an increase of $39,312. The annual cost for the Mayor’s compensation will increase from $8400 to $19,320 which is an increase of $10,920. The total increase will be $39,312 plus $10,920 which is an increase of $50,232.

2. Compensation Related Increases. With the compensation increases, Finance has calculated the following annual compensation related increases: Medicare ($728), PERS ($1391) and Workers Compensation ($417) which combined equals $2,536.

3. Total Annual Increase for Compensation and Compensation Related Increases for Mayor and City Councilmembers.

The annual increase for compensation and compensation related increases for Mayor and City Councilmembers if the Ordinance is adopted would be $50,232 in compensation plus $2,536 for compensation related increases for a total of $52,758.

PGCC 5-7-25

4. Medical Coverage.

The City does not currently make any contributions for medical coverage on behalf of the Mayor and City Councilmembers. If the Mayor and City Council elect medical coverage that is available to City Management Employees, the annual cost to the City will depend upon what coverage, if any, is selected.

One option is for the Mayor and/or individual City Councilmembers to receive a cash in-lieu option of $250 a month ($3000 a year) instead of electing medical insurance.

For those who choose medical insurance, the annual cost for the City will depend upon the election made by the Mayor and Councilmembers as follows: No dependents ($13,296); One dependent ($19,596); Two dependents or more ($25,596).

FOCUSED PRIORITY AREA: Not Applicable.

Attachments
1 SB 329 - City Councilmembers Compensation
2 Government Code Section 36516
3 City of Pacific Grove Ordinance No. 98-24
4 City Council Policy No. 000-11
5 MOU Management Employees Association July 1, 2023 to June 30, 2026 6 Potential Ordinance
PGCC 5-7-25

SHARE THIS: Date Published: 06/29/2023 09:00 PM
SB-329 Cities: city council members: compensation. (2023-2024)

Senate Bill No. 329
CHAPTER 27
An act to amend Section 36516 of the Government Code, relating to local government. [ Approved by Governor June 29, 2023. Filed with Secretary of State June 29, 2023. ]

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
SB 329, Dodd. Cities: city council members: compensation.

Existing law authorizes a city council to enact an ordinance to provide each member of the city council a salary based upon the population of the city, as specified. Existing law authorizes that amount to be increased by the city council by an amount that does not exceed 5% for each calendar year from the operative date of the last adjustment of the salary that is in effect when the increase is enacted. Existing law provides for the procedures by which a city may enact ordinances.

This bill would increase the maximum amount of salary, based upon the population of the city, that may be approved by an ordinance passed by the city council, as specified. The bill would authorize the salary of council members to be increased beyond the specified maximums to an amount not exceeding the greater of either 5% for each calendar year from the operative date of the last adjustment of the salary in effect when the ordinance or amendment is enacted, or an amount equal to inflation since January 1, 2024, based upon the California Consumer Price Index, which shall not exceed 10% for each calendar year. The bill would require the city council to consider the adoption of an ordinance to increase council member compensation in open session during at least 2 regular meetings of the city council.

Vote: majority Appropriation: no Fiscal Committee: no Local Program: no THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(a) The compensation schedule for general law cities has not been adjusted since 1984, meaning that city council compensation has not kept pace with inflation.
(b) Allowing cities to adjust their compensation for inflation since 1984 may help city councils become more diverse because increased compensation can help individuals from across different income levels receive sufficient income from their service to help ensure that they can continue to serve the public and support their families.

SEC. 2. Section 36516 of the Government Code is amended to read:

Home Bill Information California Law Publications Other Resources My Subscriptions My Favorites 4/7/25, 3:45 PM Bill Text - SB-329 Cities: city council members: compensation. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240SB329 1/3 PGCC 5-7-25

36516. (a) (1) A city council may enact an ordinance providing that each member of the city council shall receive a salary based on the population of the city as set forth in paragraph (2). (2) The salaries approved by ordinance under paragraph (1) shall be as follows:
(A) In cities up to and including 35,000 in population, up to and including nine hundred fifty dollars ($950) per month.
(B) In cities over 35,000 up to and including 50,000 in population, up to and including one thousand two hundred seventy-five dollars ($1,275) per month.
(C) In cities over 50,000 up to and including 75,000 in population, up to and including one thousand six hundred dollars ($1,600) per month.
(D) In cities over 75,000 up to and including 150,000 in population, up to and including one thousand nine hundred dollars ($1,900) per month.
(E) In cities over 150,000 up to and including 250,000 in population, up to and including two thousand five hundred fifty dollars ($2,550) per month.
(F) In cities over 250,000 population, up to and including three thousand two hundred dollars ($3,200) per month.
(3) For the purposes of this subdivision, the population of a city shall be determined by the last preceding federal census, or a subsequent census, or estimate validated by the Department of Finance. (4) The salary of council members may be increased beyond the amount provided in this subdivision by an ordinance or by an amendment to an ordinance, but the amount of the increase shall not exceed the greater of either of the following:
(A) An amount equal to 5 percent for each calendar year from the operative date of the last adjustment of the salary in effect when the ordinance or amendment is enacted. (B) An amount equal to inflation since January 1, 2024, based upon the California Consumer Price Index, which shall not exceed 10 percent for each calendar year. (5) No ordinance shall be enacted or amended to provide automatic future increases in salary. (b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), at any municipal election, the question of whether city council members shall receive a salary for services, and the amount of that salary, may be submitted to the electors. If a majority of the electors voting at the election favor it, all of the council members shall receive the salary specified in the election call. The salary of council members may be increased beyond the amount provided in this section or decreased below the amount in the same manner.
(c) Unless specifically authorized by another statute, a city council may not enact an ordinance providing for compensation to city council members in excess of that authorized by the procedures described in subdivisions (a) and (b). For the purposes of this section, compensation includes payment for service by a city council member on a commission, committee, board, authority, or similar body on which the city council member serves.

If the other statute that authorizes the compensation does not specify the amount of compensation, the maximum amount shall be one hundred fifty dollars ($150) per month for each commission, committee, board, authority, or similar body.
(d) Any amounts paid by a city for retirement, health and welfare, and federal social security benefits shall not be included for purposes of determining salary under this section, provided that the same benefits are available and paid by the city for its employees.
(e) Any amounts paid by a city to reimburse a council member for actual and necessary expenses pursuant to Section 36514.5 shall not be included for purposes of determining salary pursuant to this section. (f) A city council member may waive any or all of the compensation permitted by this section. (g) (1) For the purposes of this section, a city council shall consider the adoption of an ordinance to increase compensation in open session during at least two regular meetings of the city council. (2) At the first meeting, the city council shall present the proposed ordinance, which shall include findings demonstrating the need for the increased compensation. The ordinance shall not be adopted at the first 4/7/25, 3:45 PM Bill Text - SB-329 Cities: city council members: compensation. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240SB329 2/3 PGCC 5-7-25

meeting.
(3) At least seven days after the first meeting, the city council shall hold a second meeting to consider whether to adopt the ordinance.
4/7/25, 3:45 PM Bill Text - SB-329 Cities: city council members: compensation. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240SB329 3/3 PGCC 5-7-25

CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 36516
(a)(1) A city council may enact an ordinance providing that each member of the city council shall receive a salary based on the population of the city as set forth in paragraph (2). (2) The salaries approved by ordinance under paragraph (1) shall be as follows:
(A) In cities up to and including 35,000 in population, up to and including nine hundred fifty dollars ($950) per month. (B) In cities over 35,000 up to and including 50,000 in population, up to and including one thousand two hundred seventy-five dollars ($1,275) per month.
(C) In cities over 50,000 up to and including 75,000 in population, up to and including one thousand six hundred dollars ($1,600) per month.
(D) In cities over 75,000 up to and including 150,000 in population, up to and including one thousand nine hundred dollars ($1,900) per month.
(E) In cities over 150,000 up to and including 250,000 in population, up to and including two thousand five hundred fifty dollars ($2,550) per month.
(F) In cities over 250,000 population, up to and including three thousand two hundred dollars ($3,200) per month. (3) For the purposes of this subdivision, the population of a city shall be determined by the last preceding federal census, or a subsequent census, or estimate validated by the Department of Finance. (4) The salary of council members may be increased beyond the amount provided in this subdivision by an ordinance or by an amendment to an ordinance, but the amount of the increase shall not exceed the greater of either of the following:
(A) An amount equal to 5 percent for each calendar year from the operative date of the last adjustment of the salary in effect when the ordinance or amendment is enacted.
(B) An amount equal to inflation since January 1, 2024, based upon the California Consumer Price Index, which shall not exceed 10 percent for each calendar year.

PGCC 5-7-25

(5) No ordinance shall be enacted or amended to provide automatic future increases in salary. (b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), at any municipal election, the question of whether city council members shall receive a salary for services, and the amount of that salary, may be submitted to the electors. If a majority of the electors voting at the election favor it, all of the council members shall receive the salary specified in the election call.

The salary of council members may be increased beyond the amount provided in this section or decreased below the amount in the same manner.
(c) Unless specifically authorized by another statute, a city council may not enact an ordinance providing for compensation to city council members in excess of that authorized by the procedures described in subdivisions (a) and (b). For the purposes of this section, compensation includes payment for service by a city council member on a commission, committee, board, authority, or similar body on which the city council member serves. If the other statute that authorizes the compensation does not specify the amount of compensation, the maximum amount shall be one hundred fifty dollars ($150) per month for each commission, committee, board, authority, or similar body. (d) Any amounts paid by a city for retirement, health and welfare, and federal social security benefits shall not be included for purposes of determining salary under this section, provided that the same benefits are available and paid by the city for its employees.
(e) Any amounts paid by a city to reimburse a council member for actual and necessary expenses pursuant to Section 36514.5 shall not be included for purposes of determining salary pursuant to this section. (f) A city council member may waive any or all of the compensation permitted by this section. (g)(1) For the purposes of this section, a city council shall consider the adoption of an ordinance to increase compensation in open session during at least two regular meetings of the city council. (2) At the first meeting, the city council shall present the proposed ordinance, which shall include findings demonstrating the need for the increased compensation. The ordinance shall not be adopted at the first meeting. (3) At least seven days after the first meeting, the city council shall hold a second meeting to consider whether to adopt the ordinance.

PGCC 5-7-25