Agenda packet — Pacific Grove City Council, December 3, 2025 (part 2 of 6)

Response:

The Housing Element does not include
the rezoning of any parcels zoned R-1
within the Area of Special Biological
Significance watershed area. No edits
were made to the Housing Element.

There are actual proposed/potential R1 areas to consider upzoning in PG's ASBS watershed. If you look at page 374 (actual PDF page) of the draft document, there are several areas considered for potential R3 upzoning (example 2, 3, 4, 5) that are clearly located in the ASBS watershed.

Thank you,
Arnaud.

I3.1
Cont.

PGCC 12-3-25

Page 130 ends

Letter I3
COMMENTER: Arnaud Teil
DATE: August 7, 2025
Response I3.1
The commenter states that several areas proposed for upzoning are located in the watershed of Pacific Grove’s Area of Special Biological Significance, and expresses concern that upzoning may lead to drainage and water quality impacts.

The commenter is correct that some of the parcels proposed to be upzoned are located in the watershed of the Pacific Grove Area of Special Biological Significance. Parcels proposed for upzoning in the Central-Eardley Commercial District and the Downtown District are located in the watershed.

Impacts related to drainage and water quality are discussed in Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the Draft EIR, and the Pacific Grove Area of Special Biological Significance is specifically discussed on pages 4.9-1, 4.9-7, and 4.9-13. As discussed under Impact HYD-1 on page 4.9-13, the project would not violate water quality standards. Compliance with permit requirements, including incorporation of operational best management practices into project design to target pollutants of concern, would minimize pollutant discharge during operation, thus reducing the potential for increased conveyance of pollutants into receiving water bodies, including the Area of Special Biological Significance. Further, as discussed under Impacts HYD-3 through HYD-6 starting on page

4.9-17, the project would not substantially alter existing drainage patterns and would not result in significant impacts related to drainage.

PGCC 12-3-25

Page 131 ends

Kayleigh Limbach
From: Jon Biggs <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2025 4:58 PM
To: Kassandra Gale; Megan Jones; Kayleigh Limbach; Joe Sidor; Aaron Campbell Subject: [EXT] FW: DEIR
Attachments: Parking provisions in the DEIR.zip
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of Rincon Consultants. Be cautious before clicking on any links, or opening any attachments, until you are confident that the content is safe .

Here is the email the comments from Mr. Fredrickson came in on.

Jon
From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2025 12:12 PM
To: Jon Biggs <[email protected]>
Cc: andrewkubica <[email protected]>
Subject: DEIR
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Pacific Grove email system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

WinZip
[email protected]
shared
Parking provisions in the DEIR.zip %Cloud_Name%
Don’t have WinZip? Try it free!
Letter I4
PGCC 12-3-25

Page 132 ends

To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

Delivered by Alludo Legal Privacy Terms of Use
Jon,
Attached is a position paper regarding parking in the subject document.

It should make for an interesting discussion among commissioners. Please forward them a copy.

Thanks,
Bill Fredrickson
PGCC 12-3-25

Page 133 ends

Parking provisions in the DEIR
Goal 5 of Pacific Grove’s General Plan states that we “require off-street parking for new developments and for additions that increase the parking demand”.

Further, we should “consider constructing an additional public parking facility downtown”.

These parking lots will potentially be needed in the Central Avenue, Lighthouse Avenue and Forest Hill business development areas.

Based on AMBAG growth projections, the growth in employment in Pacific Grove by 2031 will be 400 positions. While it is clear that not all of these new positions would plan to drive an automobile to work, a prudent plan would provide for a significant percentage that would drive to work. If we use 50%, we would then need to plan for an additional 240 more automobiles to be driving to work in Pacific Grove by 2035. If half of these positions are in Pacific Grove business districts, we need to plan for parking for these automobiles.

Another factor to consider is the number of automobiles that would be owned by new residents to Pacific Grove occupying housing in the city. Pacific Grove’s housing growth by 2031 is projected to be 1,125 units. Assuming that our household size remains about the same as it us now, we would have a population increase of 1,260 people. Since some of these people would be children, we can estimate that our population would grow by about 800 adults. We then can estimate that about 700 of these adults would own an automobile. Where will these new residents park?
Unfortunately, I don’t have the number of automobiles currently registered to Pacific Grove residents so I cannot estimate how an additional 700 automobiles registered to new residents will impact traffic.

Given Carmel’s problems with a lack of adequate parking spaces in their city, we would be negligent if we failed to address the impact of inadequate parking in this EIR.

Consequently, mixed use development in our three business areas must include parking for residents of the buildings and employees of the businesses planned for the development. To accommodate for parking in these buildings, the city will investigate raising the height limits in these areas to 50 feet.

I4.1
I4.2
I4.3
I4.4
PGCC 12-3-25

Page 134 ends

Letter I4
COMMENTER: Bill Fredrickson
DATE: August 12, 2025
Response I4.1
The commenter refers to a goal of Pacific Grove’s current General Plan that requires off-street parking for new development, and states that parking will potentially be needed in commercial areas of the city. The commenter states that the 400 new jobs anticipated as part of the project would increase demand for parking in these areas.

Refer to Response I1.1. As discussed therein, parking impacts, such as whether a project provides adequate parking, are outside the scope of CEQA review and instead projects must be evaluated for secondary impacts related to scarcity of parking. The Draft EIR analyzes the secondary impacts associated with increased vehicle travel in Section 4.2, Air Quality, and Section 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Further, individual projects facilitated by the project would be required to comply with parking requirements for different zoning designations as specified in Title 23, Zoning, of Pacific Grove Municipal Code.

Response I4.2
The commenter refers to the anticipated population growth resulting from new residential development and discusses the need for a plan to address the associated increase in parking demand and traffic.

Refer to Response I1.1. Regarding analysis of parking-related traffic, CEQA requires analysis of impacts related to VMT and does not require analysis of traffic congestion. Specifically, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 (adopted December 2018) identifies VMT as the most appropriate metric for transportation impact analysis. VMT is a measure of total vehicular travel that accounts for the number of vehicle trips and the length of those trips. This represents a shift away from the delay and congestion-based level of service metric that historically has been used for evaluating traffic impacts. As specified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 (a) “a project’s effect on automobile delay shall not constitute a significant environmental impact.” As such, a congestion-based analysis is not required under CEQA and therefore was not included in the Draft EIR.

Response I4.3
The commenter references parking issues in Carmel and suggests addressing parking in the Draft EIR.

Refer to Response I1.1.

Response I4.4
The commenter recommends that new development should include adequate parking for both residents and employees and suggests that the City should consider increasing building height limits to accommodate on-site parking.

PGCC 12-3-25

Page 135 ends

This comment is noted and shall be provided to the City and decision-makers for consideration prior to approval and certification of the EIR. Individual projects facilitated by the project would be required to comply with parking requirements for different zoning designations as specified in Title 23, Zoning, of Pacific Grove Municipal Code. This comment does not contain a substantive comment on the Draft EIR and no further response is required.

PGCC 12-3-25

Page 136 ends

Kayleigh Limbach
From: Joe Sidor <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2025 7:24 AM
To: Kayleigh Limbach
Cc: Kassandra Gale; Leeza Segal; Jon Biggs; Aaron Campbell Subject: [EXT] Fw: Public Comment: opposition to Housing Element rezoning CAUTION: This email originated from outside of Rincon Consultants. Be cautious before clicking on any links, or opening any attachments, until you are confident that the content is safe .

Kayleigh,
Although it appears to address only the Housing Element, I'm forwarding the email below as a DEIR public comment due to the timing.

Joe
Joseph Sidor, Contract Senior Planner
for the City of Pacific Grove
From: Emily Miller <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2025 10:50 PM
To: Planning Commission <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Housing <[email protected]> Subject: Public Comment: opposition to Housing Element rezoning [NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Pacific Grove email system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] I oppose the proposed rezoning of the
Dennett, Sinex, Grove Acre District (sites 38-41) to allow higher density residential development in Pacific Grove’s General Plan Housing Element.

This entire neighborhood has little street parking, narrow streets, and few sidewalks. It does not support higher density traffic safely.

Site 39 within this district is especially of concern due to its entrance and exit location on Dennett St.

Dennett St is very narrow, without sidewalks, has no street parking from Evergreen to Grove Acre, and has a sharp curve with poor visibility. It is already somewhat dangerous to walk there.

I5.1
I5.2
Letter I5
PGCC 12-3-25

Page 137 ends

If the entire proposed district were up for sale at one time (unlikely with multiple owners) or a company purchased each parcel over a long time before development (unlikely due to cost), the entrance and exit could be restricted to Sinex - the street most able to accommodate traffic.

More likely is the parcels would come up for sale separately over time. If only site 39 was developed into high density housing, it could only have its entrance and exit on Dennett.

I strongly support the rezoning of the Forest Hill Commercial District to b for mixed residentialcommercial use. That site can accommodate higher density traffic much better than the Dennett, Sinex, Grove Acre District is able to.

Thank you,
Emily Miller
I5.2
Cont.

I5.3
PGCC 12-3-25

Page 138 ends

Letter I5
COMMENTER: Emily Miller
DATE: August 12, 2025
Response I5.1
The commenter expresses their opposition to the rezoning of housing sites 38 – 41 to allow higher density residential development, and states that the neighborhood could not safely accommodate increased traffic.

The commenter’s opposition is noted and shared with City decision-makers for their consideration.

Potential transportation hazards are discussed under Impact TRA-3 on page 4.14-14 in Section 4.14, Transportation, of the Draft EIR. As discussed therein, the City maintains standards for public improvements and private facilities within the Pacific Grove Municipal Code (e.g., internal circulation, ingress/egress) that guide the construction of transportation facilities to minimize design hazards for all users of the transportation system. Such standards include roadway width standards established by Pacific Grove Municipal Code Section 24.32.110. As development facilitated by the project is proposed, applicants would be required to design developments to comply with City design guidelines in implementing roadway improvements that are necessary to alleviate transportation hazards. The design of project-specific developments would be reviewed and approved by the City, which would ensure project-specific developments would be designed to minimize the potential to result in hazards between vehicles and pedestrians and vehicles and cyclists. Accordingly, the project would have a less than significant impact related to substantially increasing hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible use.

Response I5.2
The commenter expresses concern for Site 39 as it would be accessed by Dennett Street, which the commenter states is narrow and has a sharp curve with poor driver visibility. The commenter suggests that access to Site 39 should be provided via Sinex Avenue.

This comment is noted and will be provided to City decision-makers for their consideration. The proposed project does not include specific development, and as discussed in Response I5.1, future development facilitated by the project would be required to design developments to comply with City design guidelines in implementing roadway improvements that are necessary to alleviate transportation hazards.

Response I5.3
The commenter expresses their support for rezoning the Forest Hill Commercial District to accommodate mixed residential-commercial use.

The commenter’s support is noted. This comment does not contain a substantive comment on the Draft EIR and no further response is required.

PGCC 12-3-25

Page 139 ends

Kayleigh Limbach
From: Joe Sidor <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 18, 2025 7:10 AM
To: Kayleigh Limbach
Cc: Kassandra Gale; Leeza Segal; Jon Biggs; Aaron Campbell; Megan Jones Subject: [EXT] Fw: Comment On The Housing Element DEIR
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of Rincon Consultants. Be cautious before clicking on any links, or opening any attachments, until you are confident that the content is safe .

DEIR comment email below.

Joseph Sidor, Contract Senior Planner
for the City of Pacific Grove
From: fred fredballerini.com <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 15, 2025 3:30 PM
To: Housing <[email protected]>
Subject: Comment On The Housing Element DEIR
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Pacific Grove email system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Attention Joe Sidor, Senior Planner
Dear Mr. Sidor,
In regards to the proposed Housing Element Update, Zoning Amendments and General Plan Amendments Project, please reconsider the proposed reclassifying (rezoning) of Sites #38, #39, and #41 (Dennett Street and Sinex Avenue) to High Density Residential Development. These three sites have not been adequately assessed for scenic or biological impacts and the proposed change from R-2 to R-3 would have significant impacts to scenic and biological resources:

1. Though the 3 sites are not located within the boundaries of the recognized designated scenic resources of the Coastal Zone, they do lie adjacent to Area V (Union Pacific Right of Way) and Area VI (Asilomar) and the forest resources of the 3 sites are extensions of the broader Asilomar Monterey Pine Forest. Sites #38, #39 and #41 are also identified in Urban Tree Canopy Assessment (Ref. City of Pacfic Grove Urban Canopy Tree Assessment, Davey Resource Group, 2015) as having a 48% tree canopy cover, exceeding the City’s target goal of 33% canopy by 15%. General Plan and LCP goals and policies, and Pacific Grove Municipal Code requirements stipulate development shall maintain high visual quality and is visually coherent with the existing character of the city and surrounding development. Loss of the forest resources associated with the three sites would be a considered a significant degradation of the existing visual character of the broader forest associated with Asilomar Conference Grounds and the quality of public views of the project area.

Impacts AES-1 and AES-3 in the DEIR states that the project would not degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the project area and its surroundings, and that impacts to scenic resources would be less than significant, with no mitigation measures required. The urban forest of the three sites harbors remnant landmark endemic Monterey pine (Pinus radiata) amongst other native introduced trees that sprawl across the collective parcels including introduced coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens), Monterey cypress (Hersperocyparis macrocarpa), and naturalized coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia). Several large towering stands of Eucalyptus sp.) are also I6.1
I6.2
I6.3
Letter I6
PGCC 12-3-25

Page 140 ends

found on several parcels. Any removal of a landmark endemic Monterey pine (a list CRPR 1.B1 species) would be considered a significant impact and would further fragment the pine forest extension from Asilomar.

2. Impact BIO-1 through BIO-5 does not adequately consider potential impacts to special status and resident wildlife biological resources associated with Sites #38, #39, and #41. The subject sites contain a large degree of natural open space between housing structures. Native understory habitat conditions are marginal but should still be assessed and surveyed due to the numerous spring flowering special status plant species associated with Monterey pine and the sandy dune substrates. Dune sedge and rush seeps are common elements along the Grove Acre Road, Evergreen Road, Crocker Avenue vicinity and may meet the definition of coastal review wetlands (ESHA) due to the presence of seasonal surface water and/or wetland indicator plant species (e.g., bog rush and bulrush). Additionally, there is no consideration for the presence of CDFW Species of Special Concern, Northern California Legless Lizard (Anniella pulchra) on the aforementioned parcels. This species occurs in the back older sand dune soils and has been found along Evergreen Road in several residential parcels (300+ yards from the project area). Numerous resident raptors, owls and great blue heron utilize the Union Pacific open space meadow (between Dennett St and Crocker Ave at the corner of Sinex Ave) across from Sites #39 and #41 for hunting grounds. The forest constituents (48% canopy cover) on sites #38, #39, and #41, provide significant cover, foraging habitat and nesting habitat not only for numerous raptor (including resident owl) species that nest in the vicinity, but resident and migratory avian species including listed species within the USGS Monterey Quadrangle that were not identified on the DEIR (Ref. Table 4.3-2 Special-status Animals with Potential to Occur in the Project Area). Olive-sided flycatcher (Contopus cooperi), a CDFW Species of Special Concern is documented occurring within the project vicinity. Impact BIO-5 states that Pacific Grove Municipal Code Section 12.20.060, Wildlife Protection, requires that tree pruning and removal activities take place outside of the nesting season of listed threatened, endangered, or special status species, though there is no nexus on the City’s Tree Removal Permit form to enforce this directive and trees are routinely approved for removal throughout the nesting season without requiring qualified surveying.

Numerous bumble bee species occur within the project vicinity utilizing native and ornamental landscape flowering species, the potential exists for the State Candidate Endangered Western Bumble Bee (Bombus occidentalis) to utilize the subject parcels for foraging, nesting and overwintering. Potential Monarch overwintering habitat exists within the towering Monterey cypress, Monterey pine and Eucalyptus that occur on sites #38, #39, and #41. Monarchs have a strong presence in the neighborhood and overwintering Monarch surveys should be recommended for the parcels as they lie in close proximity to the known local overwintering sites. The small seasonal pond at Asilomar is a potential breeding habitat for the listed Federally Threatened California Red Legged Frog, the Federally Proposed Threatened Western Pond Turtle and the CDFW listed Species of Special Concern Coast Range Newt. This pond occurs approximately 700 feet from Sites #41 and #39. Though breeding habitat does not appear to occur at the three subject sites, potential seasonal movements irrespective of riparian corridors or topography could occur within the parcels and should be analyzed for the three sites. The listed special status Coast Range Newt is also associated with cool darkness of damp, well-canopied forests such as those found on Sites #38, #39, and #41.

3. Lastly, the locations of Sites #38, #39, and #41 lie within an area where wildlife from natural woodland areas of Asilomar transition and mobilize into the more urban settings of Pacific Grove. The relationship of these transitional habitat linkage areas is complex from the presence, distribution, movement, and habitat associations of the representative species using them. The DEIR states the project area does not provide a significant corridor for terrestrial wildlife movement. However localized wildlife corridors within the Union Pacific trail and Asilomar State Park utilize the local forest areas near the project site (specifically #38, #39 and #41) to transition to more urban areas, especially after sundown. These habitat linkage areas can be quite diverse as evidenced by the numerous wildlife species that have a strong presence in this remote part of Pacific Grove with resident coyotes, skunks, raccoons, broad-handed moles, Botta’s pocket gopher, black tail deer, and others. Black tail deer birthing and nursery areas are common within the 3 sites as deer have access to the majority of the open grounds found on the parcels. A potentially significant impact not readily analyzed in the DEIR is the affect of adding up to 67 units (Sites #38, #39, #40 and #41) adjacent to the biologically rich Asilomar State Park whose mission is to protect the valued natural resources and foster the remoteness and solitude unique to the area. The addition of the these units in this location will likely have an adverse and significant impact (pollution runoff, noise, glare/lighting) to the State Park natural resources.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Best regards,
Fred Ballerini
Fred Ballerini
PO Box 1023
Pacific Grove, CA 93950
I6.3
Cont.

I6.4
I6.10
I6.5
I6.6
I6.7
I6.8
I6.9
I6.11
I6.12
PGCC 12-3-25

Page 141 ends

Letter I6
COMMENTER: Fred Ballerini
DATE: August 15, 2025
Response I6.1
The commenter requests that the City reconsider the proposed rezoning of Sites 38, 39, and 41 from R-2 to R-3 (High Density Residential). The commenter suggests that these sites have not been adequately assessed and would have significant impacts to scenic resources or biological resources.

This comment is introductory and summarizes the commenter’s concerns. Responses to the commenter’s specific concerns are addressed in Responses I6.2 through I6.12, below.

Response I6.2
The commenter expresses concern about the proposed rezoning of Sites 38, 39, and 41 as they are adjacent to Area V (Union Pacific Right of Way) and Area VI (Asilomar) as identified in the City’s Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan. The commenter also asserts that these sites have higher tree coverages than the City’s targets for tree cover, and that the loss of trees in these sites would degrade the area’s visual character, which would conflict with the City’s General Plan, Local Coastal Program, and Municipal Code requirements.

Potential impacts associated with tree removal are discussed in Section 4.1, Aesthetics, of the Draft EIR. As discussed under Impact AES-3 on page 4.1-23, trees protected by the City’s Municipal Code (Chapter 12.20, Protected Trees) occur throughout the project area and may occur at many of the sites. The Municipal Code includes tree removal and protection requirements, including permitting and root zone protection. Removal of protected trees must not result in less than a total canopy cover of 33 percent on the property; if the canopy cover would be reduced below the City’s canopy cover target, the protected tree would require tree replacement. Future development facilitated by the project would be reviewed for compliance with these regulations, which would minimize visual impacts related to degradation of public views or visual character resulting from the removal of trees.

Response I6.3
The commenter disagrees with the Draft EIR’s conclusion under Impacts AES-1 and AES-3, which state that the project would not significantly degrade visual character or scenic resources. The commenter claims that Sites 38, 39, and 41 contain remnant landmark endemic Monterey pine and other native and introduced tree species, forming part of the broader Asilomar pine forest. The commenter opines that removal of these trees would result in a significant impact to visual character and further fragmentation of the forest extension from Asilomar.

The commenter is correct that development facilitated by the project could result in impacts to visual character or scenic resources if it results in less than 33 percent canopy cover on a given property. As discussed in Section 4.1, Aesthetics, of the Draft EIR, trees protected by the City’s Municipal Code occur throughout the project area and may occur at many of the sites. If tree removal would reduce the canopy cover to below the City’s canopy cover target, tree replacement would be required. Future development facilitated by the project would be reviewed for compliance PGCC 12-3-25

Page 142 ends

with these regulations, which would minimize visual impacts related to degradation of public views or visual character resulting from the removal of trees.

Impacts to Monterey pine and other native trees are discussed under Impact BIO-2 and Impact BIO5 on pages 4.3-22 and 4.3-27, respectively, in Section 4.3, Biological Resources, of the Draft EIR. As discussed therein, impacts to degraded as well as high-quality Monterey pine communities may occur as a result of the project, but impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1(a) through BIO-1(c), and implementation of Pacific Grove Municipal Code Section 12.20.

Response I6.4
The commenter alleges that Impacts BIO-1 through BIO-5 in the Draft EIR do not adequately consider potential impacts to special-status plant species associated with the Monterey pine and sandy dune substrates on Sites 38, 39, and 41. The commenter recommends conducting surveys during appropriate seasons to identify spring-flowering species and to evaluate potential impacts.

Sites 38, 39, and 41 are developed, and the understory of these sites include residential yards, landscaped areas, and driveways. Because no native natural vegetation communities are expected within the understory, no significant impacts related to Monterey pine and sandy dune substrates are expected to occur. Mitigation Measure BIO-1(a), as shown on page 4.3-16 of Section 4.3, Biological Resources, of the Draft EIR, includes a requirement for seasonally timed special status plant surveys. Specifically, Mitigation Measure BIO-1(a) states the special-status plant surveys “shall be floristic in nature and shall be seasonally timed to coincide with the target species.” Accordingly, special-status plant species shall be timed to coincide with when the target species would be present. In addition, the Draft EIR evaluates development facilitated by the project at a programmatic level. Future development facilitated by the project would require additional projectspecific review, including a review of potential impacts to biological resources such as special-status plants if present in any of the housing sites, upzoning areas, or additional parcels.

Response I6.5
The commenter states that dune sedge and rush seeps in the vicinity of Grove Acre Road, Evergreen Road, and Crocker Avenue may qualify as coastal review wetlands or as environmentally sensitive habitat areas due to the presence of seasonal surface water and wetland indicator species.

Sites 38, 39, and 41 are located outside of the Coastal Zone; refer to Table 2-7 and Figure 2-9 in Chapter 2, Project Description, of the Draft EIR. In addition, as discussed in Section 4.3, Biological Resources, a review of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory and aerial imagery indicate that there is an intermittent stream within Site 49, and drainage features on additional parcels A3 and A4, which are the most proximate housing sites to the area the commenter describes. The Draft EIR includes Mitigation Measure BIO-3(a), which would require a City-approved biologist to complete a jurisdictional delineation of wetland features at Site 49 and additional parcels A3 and A4 prior to issuance of grading permits. The Draft EIR also includes Mitigation Measure BIO-3(b), which would require implementation of several best management practices during construction within 100 feet of jurisdictional areas in these sites to avoid and/or minimize potential indirect impacts. Accordingly, wetland features within these sites would be identified and avoided to the extent feasible, or impacts to such features would be adequately mitigated, on a project-by-project basis.

PGCC 12-3-25

Page 143 ends

Response I6.6
The commenter opines that the Draft EIR fails to consider the potential presence of the northern California legless lizard, a CDFW Species of Special Concern, in Sites 38, 39, and 41.

Sites 38, 39, and 41 are generally separated from natural dune habitats, where northern California legless lizard would be likely to occur, by urban development. Accordingly, the potential for this species to occur in these sites is low. As discussed on page 4.3-14 of Section 4.3, Biological Resources, of the Draft EIR, legless lizards are most likely to occur in Sites 47, 49, 50, and 55, and additional parcels A1, A3, and A4, where suitable habitats may be present. Potential impacts to this species would be reduced with implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1(e), Northern California Legless Lizard Avoidance and Minimization, which requires a pre-construction clearance survey and relocation of legless lizards within 48 hours of the start of construction.

Response I6.7
The commenter states that raptors, owls, herons, and other avian species use the open space meadow between Dennett Street and Crocker Avenue, near Sites 39 and 41, for nesting and foraging. The commenter states the Draft EIR does not adequately consider all avian species that could nest and forage in this area, including Olive-sided flycatcher.

Potential impacts to birds are discussed in Section 4.3, Biological Resources. As discussed therein under Impact BIO-1 beginning on page 4.3-15, if any nesting bird species are present at individual development sites, or in the immediate vicinity of individual sites, development facilitated by the project could result in direct mortality through removal of active nests or disturbance levels that cause nest abandonment. Impacts to nesting birds would be potentially significant and Mitigation Measure BIO-1(h) would be required. Mitigation Measure BIO-1(h) requires ground disturbance and vegetation removal activities for development facilitated by the project to be restricted to the nonbreeding season for birds (September 16 to January 31), when feasible, or to conduct preconstruction nesting bird surveys prior to construction activities during breeding season. Nests shall be identified and avoided during construction, and impacts related to nesting birds would be less than significant.

Response I6.8
The commenter expresses concern that, although Impact BIO-5 references seasonal restrictions on tree removal to protect nesting birds, the City’s Tree Removal Permit process lacks enforcement mechanisms to ensure compliance.

The commenter refers to the City’s tree removal permit process, which is an existing process and not the subject of the Draft EIR. However, Chapter 12.20 of the City’s Municipal Code regulates removal and pruning of protected trees, which is defined in Section 12.20.02 as native trees, private trees greater than 12 inches in trunk diameter, monarch butterfly habitat trees, public trees, and designated trees. The City Municipal Code does not regulate removal or trimming on non-regulated trees. Regardless, Mitigation Measure BIO-1(h) in Section 4.3, Biological Resources, of the Draft EIR requires pre-construction nesting bird surveys for development facilitated by the proposed project if vegetation removal would occur during the nesting season. This measure would be enforced by the City through the Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program that will be adopted at the time the Final EIR is certified.

PGCC 12-3-25

Page 144 ends

Response I6.9
The commenter states that numerous bumble bee species, including the state candidate endangered western bumble bee, may use Sites 38, 39, and 41 for foraging, nesting, and overwintering. The commenter also states that monarch butterfly may utilize the Monterey cypress, Monterey pine, and Eucalyptus trees on these sites for overwintering, and recommends conducting overwintering surveys.

As discussed in Section 4.3.1, Setting, in Section 4.3, Biological Resources, of the Draft EIR, the biological resources analysis included a query of several data sources, including CDFW’s CNDDB and the Xerces Society Bumble Bee Watch database. The query of these data sources was conducted for the USGS Monterey 7.5-minute series quadrangle and four surrounding quadrangles (the industry standard nine quadrangle search was reduced due to the lack of quadrangles over the Pacific Ocean). Queries of these databases indicated that there are no known occurrences of western bumble bee within the City or surrounding quadrangles, nor any occurrences on Bumble Bee Watch within five miles of the City. Accordingly, the likelihood for western bumble bee to be present within the City and housing sites is low and mitigation is not required. In addition, no monarch butterfly overwintering sites have been reported within Sites 38, 39, and 41, and monarch butterfly would be unlikely to overwinter in these sites due to surrounding urban development and the lack of windsheltered groves of trees. Potential impacts to monarch butterfly in proximity to other housing sites, upzoning areas, and additional parcels is discussed under Impact BIO-1 on page 4.3-12 in Section

4.3, Biological Resources, of the Draft EIR.

Response I6.10
The commenter states that a seasonal pond proximate to Sites 39 and 41 may serve as breeding habitat for the California red-legged frog, western pond turtle, and coast range newt. The commenter also states that habitat for coast range newts may exist in Sites 38, 39, and 41.

As discussed in Section 4.3, Biological Resources, of the Draft EIR, the biological resources analysis included a query of several data sources, including CDFW’s CNDDB and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service Information for Planning and Conservation database, Critical Habitat Mapper, and National Wetlands Inventory. Based on these queries, western pond turtle is presumed present in the project area as they have been previously documented in the area. However, as discussed on page 4.3-5 of Section 4.3, no habitat for western pond turtle occurs within the housing sites, upzoning areas, and additional parcels, and identified sites are isolated from western pond turtle habitats by existing urban development. Marginal habitat for California red-legged frog and coast range newt is present in Pacific Grove; however, the housing sites, upzoning areas, and additional parcels are isolated from these areas by exiting urban development. Further, the annual grass understory present in Sites 38, 39, and 41 does not provide suitable pine forest habitat for coast range newt.

Response I6.11
The commenter disagrees with the Draft EIR’s conclusion that the project area does not support wildlife movement corridors. The commenter states that Sites 38, 39, and 41 lie within a transitional habitat linkage zone between Asilomar’s natural woodlands and the urban areas of Pacific Grove and are used by a variety of wildlife species as a localized wildlife corridor.

PGCC 12-3-25

Page 145 ends

As discussed under Impact BIO-4 in Section 4.3, Biological Resources, of the Draft EIR, the project area does not contain significant corridors for wildlife movement. Regional corridors occur within the Monterey Peninsula; however, these corridors largely occur within the Del Monte Forest, Rip Van Winke Open Space, and lands that are already preserved (e.g., City and County parks and state beaches). Sites 38, 39, and 41 do not contain significant corridors for wildlife movement. Wildlife within these sites and other housing sites, upzoning areas, and additional parcels would continue to be able to move through existing corridors such as trails or roads. Given the large areas of open space within the Del Monte Forest and Rip Van Winkle Open Space, development facilitated by the project is not expected to result in substantial changes to the genetic connectivity among local populations of wildlife, or within a broader regional context.

Response I6.12
The commenter opines that the Draft EIR does not adequately evaluate the cumulative impact of adding up to 67 housing units on Sites 38, 39, 40, and 41 near Asilomar State Park, and states that development of these sites could have adverse impacts related to runoff, noise, glare, and lighting.

Impacts related to runoff are discussed in Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the Draft EIR. As discussed therein, impacts related to stormwater runoff, drainage patterns, and discharge of pollutants would be less than significant.

Impacts related to noise are discussed in Section 4.11, Noise. As discussed therein, impacts related to construction noise and operational stationary noise would be significant and unavoidable, even with implementation of mitigation measures NOI-1(a), Measures to Reduce Construction Noise, and NOI-1(b), Evaluate and Reduce Stationary Operational Noise.

Impacts related to glare and lighting are discussed in Section 4.1, Aesthetics. As discussed therein, impacts related to new sources of glare and lighting would be less than significant. In addition, the Draft EIR evaluates development facilitated by the project at a programmatic level. Future development facilitated by the project would require additional review, including a review of potential impacts related to light and glare.

PGCC 12-3-25

Page 146 ends

Kayleigh Limbach
From: Jane Haines <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 15, 2025 3:28 PM
To: Housing
Cc: Planning Commission; Pierik, Brian A.; Joe Sidor; Matthew Mogensen; Chamber of Commerce
Subject: Additional comments on the Housing Element DEIR [NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Pacific Grove email system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Attention: Joe Sidor, Contract Senior Planner
Dear Housing Element Team,
I attended last night’s Planning Commission meeting to urge additional public participation before the Commission provides direction on proposed General Plan amendments, zoning amendments and DEIR amendments. Public engagement has been minimal—only two members of the public attended last night, and attendance at the August 6 Q&A was about twenty people—yet staff told the Commission that the public was “well informed” and participation “high” based on website traffic. The Commission accepted this characterization and concluded that no further public input was needed.

Staff and one Commissioner also repeated the DEIR’s assertion that “the provision of parking is not considered to be an environmental impact under CEQA.” While CEQA does not treat the social inconvenience of limited parking as an environmental impact, California courts have made clear that the lack of adequate parking spaces' secondary effects—such as increased traffic and air pollution—are environmental impacts requiring analysis and mitigation. (San Franciscans Upholding the Downtown Plan v. City and County of San Francisco (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 656, 697.) My July 15 comments identified three such secondary effects for Pacific Grove:

1. Increased vehicle idling and emissions,

2. Parking spillover into environmentally sensitive areas, and

3. Loss of economic funding needed for maintenance of environmental programs like the Monarch Sanctuary and harbor seal protection.

The DEIR repeats its misleading statement about parking impacts at least four times (pp. 1-3, 1-4 twice, and 1-7) without acknowledging CEQA’s requirement to address secondary effects. This omission violates CEQA Guidelines §15088(c), which requires a good faith, reasoned analysis in response to comments raising environmental issues. The DEIR’s response to my response to the Notice of Preparation, requesting quantification of parking availability and specific mitigation strategies (e.g., walkability improvements, alternative transportation, and updated Transportation Element policies) merely refers to Section 4.14—17 pages of program descriptions that contain no quantitative analysis or mitigation strategies. This is conclusory, not analytical, and therefore fails CEQA Guideline §15088(c).

Additionally, the DEIR must realistically assess the City’s ability to require parking accommodations on downtown public parking lots (Sites 1, 5, 8, and 9). The Planning Director’s assertion that City ownership I7.1
I7.2
I7.3
I7.4
Letter I7
PGCC 12-3-25

Page 147 ends

ensures control ignores the limits imposed by recent laws such as SB 35 and SB 684, which require ministerial approval for qualifying housing projects. Under these laws, developments meeting objective standards cannot be subjected to discretionary conditions—meaning costly features like underground parking will be unenforceable, and are not legally or economically feasible for affordable housing projects. Without verifiable evidence that the City can impose such requirements, the Planning Director's assurances are unfounded.

I strongly support Commissioner Frederickson’s recommendation that the Housing Element clearly define, for the record and for future readers, what is and is not required for approval of housing projects on downtown parking needs. This clarity is critical to avoid future loss of parking and the environmental harms that would follow.

Request: The FEIR must be revised to (1) address the secondary environmental effects of parking shortages with quantitative analysis and feasible mitigation strategies, and (2) provide substantial evidence of the City’s ability to control development on public parking lots under current and foreseeable state housing laws. Until these deficiencies are corrected, neither the DEIR nor the amended Housing or Health and Safety Elements should be approved.

Respectfully,
Jane Haines
I7.4
Cont.

I7.5
I7.6
PGCC 12-3-25

Page 148 ends

Letter I7
COMMENTER: Jane Haines
DATE: August 18, 20253
Response I7.1
The commenter expresses concern about the lack of public participation in the review of proposed project components. The commenter describes low public participation, even though City staff characterized public engagement as “high” based on website traffic and the Planning Commission accepted this assessment.

The Draft EIR was circulated for public review beginning on June 30, 2025, and was circulated via the City’s website (https://www.cityofpacificgrove.gov/news_detail_T3_R900.php), the Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation CEQAnet website (https://ceqanet.lci.ca.gov/2024010897), and in the Monterey County Weekly in accordance with Section 15087 of the CEQA Guidelines. Accordingly, public noticing requirements pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines have been met.

Response I7.2
The commenter disagrees with the assertion that the provision of parking is not considered an environmental impact under CEQA and refers to their comments submitted on July 15.

Refer to Responses I1.1 through I1.5.

Response I7.3
The commenter opines that their comment on the Notice of Preparation for the Draft EIR, requesting a quantitative parking analysis and mitigation strategies, was inadequately addressed and therefore the EIR fails CEQA Guidelines 15088.

Refer to Responses I1.1 through I1.5. As discussed previously, a quantitative analysis of the availability of parking is not required under CEQA. The commenter refers to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088, which relates to comments on a Draft EIR, not a Notice of Preparation.

Response I7.4
The commenter argues that the Draft EIR fails to realistically evaluate the City’s ability to enforce parking requirements on certain downtown public lots. They challenge the Planning Director’s claim that City ownership guarantees control, pointing out that recent laws such as Senate Bill 35 and Senate Bill 684 limit the City’s authority by mandating ministerial approval for qualifying housing projects. These laws prevent the City from imposing discretionary conditions, which are costly and not feasible for affordable housing.

Statements made by the Planning Director are outside of the scope of the Draft EIR. Future development facilitated by the project would undergo the City’s planning, design review, and environmental review processes. Design standards, including the objective design standards discussed in Section 4.1 of the Draft EIR, would apply to future development. While the project 3 This commenter submitted an additional comment letter on September 5, 2025, outside the public comment period for the Draft EIR.

The September 5 letter reiterated the issues raised in this letter and in Letter I1.

PGCC 12-3-25

Page 149 ends

would facilitate the development of housing in Pacific Grove, such development would still be subject to additional review beyond the programmatic analysis provided in the Draft EIR.

Response I7.5
The commenter expresses their support for Commissioner Frederickson’s recommendation that the Housing Element defines parking requirements for housing projects.

The commenter’s support is noted. Individual future development projects would be required to comply with parking requirements for the applicable underlying zoning designation, as specified in Title 23, Zoning, of Pacific Grove Municipal Code. In addition, the Draft EIR evaluates development facilitated by the project at a programmatic level. Future development facilitated by the project would require additional review, including a review of secondary impacts related to parking. This comment does not contain a substantive comment on the Draft EIR and no further response is required.

Response I7.6
The commenter summarizes their statements and suggests the Draft EIR should not be certified until they have been addressed.

All public comments received on the Draft EIR will be considered by City decision-makers prior to certification of the EIR and project approval. Refer to Responses I1.1 through I1.4 and Responses I7.1 through I7.5.

PGCC 12-3-25

Page 150 ends

Kayleigh Limbach
From: Aaron Campbell <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, August 15, 2025 11:51 AM
To: Megan Jones; Kayleigh Limbach
Cc: Jon Biggs; Joe Sidor
Subject: [EXT] FW: Comments to Draft EIR
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of Rincon Consultants. Be cautious before clicking on any links, or opening any attachments, until you are confident that the content is safe .

Not sure if you got this one yet…
Aaron Campbell
Senior Planner
City of Pacific Grove
www.cityofpacificgrove.org
p: 831-648-3112
a: 300 Forest Ave
Pacific Grove, CA 93950
Planning permits are no longer accepted through this email account. All Planning permit applications must be submitted to either [email protected] or in person at the Community Development Department located on the second floor of City Hall.

From: Andrew Kubica <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 15, 2025 10:56 AM
To: Jon Biggs <[email protected]>; Housing <[email protected]> Subject: Comments to Draft EIR
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Pacific Grove email system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Jon,
Below is my comment on the water issue for the draft EIR.

Andrew Kubica
Section 4.16 Utilities and Service Systems

4.16.1.1 Water supply
Letter I8
PGCC 12-3-25

Page 151 ends

This section provides a history and description of sources of the water supply for the Monterey peninsula. There are many pages describing water resources and a few tables on water usage.

The main point of these 34 pages seems to be shown in chart 4.16-7 which compares supply and demand. There is a potential, based on wet or dry years, that there will not be adequate water for full build out of housing until after the Cal-Am desalination is available in 2030.

Conclusion on Page 4.16.34 is that mitigation measure UTIL-2, Water Supply Verification is required.

I8.1
PGCC 12-3-25

Page 152 ends

Letter I8
COMMENTER: Andrew Kubica, Pacific Grove City Council Member DATE: August 15, 2025
Response I8.1
The commenter highlights a potential shortfall in water availability, especially in dry years, until the Cal-Am desalination project becomes operational in 2030. The commenter states that Mitigation Measure UTIL-2, Water Supply Verification, is required.

The commenter’s summary reflects the discussion in Section 4.16, Utilities and Service Systems. As discussed under Impact UTIL-2 on page 4.16-19 of Section 4.16, there is a potential shortfall in water availability if the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Ocean Desalination Plant is not operational by 2030. Mitigation Measure UTIL-2 would require verification of water supply availability prior to issuance of any building permits facilitated by the project.

PGCC 12-3-25

Page 153 ends

From: Lori McDonnell <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, August 15, 2025 1:51:34 AM
To: Matthew Mogensen <[email protected]> Cc: Lori McDonnell <[email protected]>
Subject: DEIR questions
Hi Matt,
Here are my questions from the first third of the DEIR. Once they are clarified I can provide separate comments if needed.

DEIR comments
p ES-34 (43): NOI-1(a) delete extra word "the"
Measures to Reduce Construction Noise. To minimize noise during construction facilitated by the project, the City of Pacific Grove shall require construction contractors to implement the as many of the following measures for construction activities conducted within the City as feasible p 2-5 (64): confusing sentence
Identify appropriate housing sites and provide housing development opportunities in specified
areas with the potential to accommodate additional housing or are proximate to jobs, transportation, shopping and schools, and the accompanying zoning required to accommodate
housing development.

P 2-8 (67): 2.4.1 Should Cannery Row be described as the northeastern boundary? While David forms the border to the south and east of the city, Cannery Row is generally described as northeast of PG.

Surrounding Land Uses
To the north and west, Pacific Grove is bordered by Monterey Bay and the Pacific Ocean, and much of the city’s northern and western boundaries consist of coastlines and beaches. To the southeast, Pacific Grove is bordered by residential and commercial uses within the City of Monterey, including the Cannery Row area on the city’s southeastern boundary.

P 4.3-5 (166):

I9.1
I9.2
I9.3
I9.4
Letter I9
PGCC 12-3-25

Page 154 ends

Statement that “The Pacific harbor seal ... population appears to be growing (NMFS 2014)” may misrepresent the current state of the harbor seal population, as the citation is 10 years old. I’m checking on the more recent statistics and trends. May be more accurate with this sentence removed.

Is Shoreline Park Berwick Park or Andy Jacobsen Park, or a separate park? Thanks,
Lori
--
Lori McDonnell
Pacific Grove City Council Member
I9.4
Cont.

I9.5
PGCC 12-3-25

Page 155 ends

Kayleigh Limbach
From: Jon Biggs <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 15, 2025 4:15 PM
To: Megan Jones; Kassandra Gale; Leeza Segal; Kayleigh Limbach; Joe Sidor; Aaron Campbell
Subject: [EXT] Fw: DEIR comment
Attachments: Brief synopis - Harbor Seal Colony .docx
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of Rincon Consultants. Be cautious before clicking on any links, or opening any attachments, until you are confident that the content is safe .

Hello Everyone -
These replace the earlier comments I sent over from Councilmember McDonnell on the Draft EIR for the HE.

Thank you for your attention to this.

Take care.

Jon
From: Lori McDonnell <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, August 15, 2025 3:59 PM
To: Matthew Mogensen <[email protected]>; Jon Biggs <[email protected]> Subject: DEIR comment
Hello Matt and Jon, Please see my DEIR comment below.

P 4.3-5 (166):

The statement that “The Pacific harbor seal ... population appears to be growing (NMFS 2014)” misrepresent the current state of the harbor seal population, as the citation is 10 years old, and the colony has declined since the 2012 flyover that was reported in 2014.

Please remove the sentence that the population appears to be growing or update this section with the brief synopsis of the harbor seal colony below and attached to ensure it accurately reflects the current status of the local harbor seal colony.

In 2012, NOAA did a flyover count along the California Coast of the harbor seal (Phoca vitulina) colony. The count from Breakwater Cove in Monterey to Stillwater Cove in Pebble Beach was a total of 652 seals at that time.

In 2014, the harbor seal colony reached a peak of 750 but at the end of that year NOAA recorded a severe warm water event.

I9.6
I9.7
PGCC 12-3-25

Page 156 ends

Beginning in 2015 and over the next couple of years, the warming trend depleted the food sources and the harbor seal population dropped by more than half.

In 2017, the population started to stabilize but in the next few years it dropped again because of an insufficient food supply.

Finally, in 2021 food sources improved and the harbor seal count stabilized.

In 2022 and 2024 disturbances became the factor for drops in the local seal population.

The latest flyover count was done in 2024 due to concern about the decline in the harbor seal colony across the state, and the official results are pending.

This is data utilized by NOAA for their ongoing harbor seal population count.

Thank you,
Lori McDonnell
I9.7
Cont.

PGCC 12-3-25

Page 157 ends

Letter I9
COMMENTER: Lori McDonnell, Pacific Grove City Council Member DATE: August 15, 2025
Response I9.1
The commenter suggests a grammatical improvement.

The following revision has been made to the Draft EIR on page ES-34 in the Executive Summary:

NOI-1(a) Measures to Reduce Construction Noise. To minimize noise during construction facilitated by the project, the City of Pacific Grove shall require construction contractors to implement the as many of the following measures for construction activities conducted within the City as feasible….

Response I9.2
The commenter alleges that a sentence in the Project Description chapter is confusing.

The following revisions have been made to the sentence in question, which is repeated three times in the Draft EIR.

Page ES-11 in the Executive Summary:
 Identify appropriate housing sites and provide housing development opportunities in specified areas with that have the potential to accommodate additional housing; or are proximate to jobs, transportation, shopping and schools,; and have the accompanying zoning required to accommodate housing development.

Page 2 ends

 Identify appropriate housing sites and provide housing development opportunities in specified areas with that have the potential to accommodate additional housing; or are proximate to jobs, transportation, shopping and schools,; and have the accompanying zoning required to accommodate housing development.

Page 6 ends

Response I9.3
The commenter questions whether Cannery Row should be considered the southeast boundary of the project site.

The following revisions have been made in the Draft EIR.

Page 2 ends

PGCC 12-3-25

Page 158 ends

2.1 Project Location
The City of Pacific Grove encompasses approximately 2.9 square miles (or approximately 1,830 acres) on the Monterey Peninsula in northern Monterey County (Figure 2-1). Pacific Grove is bordered by the Pacific Ocean and Monterey Bay to the north and west; the City of Monterey to the east, including the Cannery Row area along the City’s northeastern boundary; and the Del Monte Forest (a census-designated place) to the south (Figure 2-2)…

Page 2 ends

2.4.1 Surrounding Land Uses
To the north and west, Pacific Grove is bordered by Monterey Bay and the Pacific Ocean, and much of the city’s northern and western boundaries consist of coastlines and beaches.

To the southeast, Pacific Grove is bordered by residential and commercial uses within the City of Monterey, including the Cannery Row area on the city’s southnortheastern boundary. To the south and southwest, Pacific Grove is bordered by the Presidio of Monterey and single-family residential uses, open space, and golf courses within the Del Monte Forest.

Page 3 ends

3.1 Regional Setting
The project area consists of the City of Pacific Grove, located on the Monterey Peninsula in northern Monterey County. Pacific Grove is located approximately 15 miles to the southwest of Salinas and 50 miles to the south of San José. Pacific Grove is bordered by the Monterey Bay and Pacific Ocean to the north and west; the City of Monterey to the east, including the Cannery Row area along the City’s northeastern boundary; and the Del Monte Forest (a census-designated place) to the south. Figure 2-1 in Chapter 2, Project Description, shows the location of the project area in the region.

Response I9.4
The commenter suggests using a more up-to-date source when referencing the current Pacific harbor seal population.

Refer to Response G1.6.

Response I9.5
The commenter requests clarity on the labelling of parks.

Parks, recreation, and open spaces in Pacific Grove are shown in Figure 4.13-3 on page 4.13-7 of Section 4.13, Parks and Recreation. As shown therein, Shoreline Park West, Shoreline Park East, Berwick Park, and Andy Jacobsen Park are distinct parks located along Pacific Grove’s northern and eastern shorelines.

PGCC 12-3-25

Page 159 ends

Response I9.6
The commenter requests that information regarding the local Pacific harbor seal population be updated with recent data.

The following revisions have been made in the Draft EIR.

Page 4 ends

Marine Mammals and Species of Regional Significance
Pacific harbor seals (Phoca vitulina richardsi) are protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) and are known to occur along the rocky shores of the project area. A year-round colony of harbor seals occur at a sheltered beach on the southwest side of Cabrillo Point, near the Hopkins Marine Station. Harbor seals have their pups on this beach between February through May, and the City has updated its Municipal Code to provide protections during the pupping season (City of Pacific Grove 2020: 13-14). Pacific harbor seal populations are monitored by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), which prepares annual marine mammal stock assessments. The Pacific harbor seal is not federally listed under the ESA, and the population in California is not considered “depleted” or a “strategic” stock under the MMPA. Furthermore, this population appears to be growing (NMFS 2014). The harbor seal colony in Pacific Grove reached a peak population of 750 individuals in 2014; however, the population has decreased to approximately 270 as of 2023 due to disturbance events and depletion of food sources (Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary Foundation 2023).

Page 7 ends

Monterey, County of. 2008 Draft Environmental Impact Report Monterey County 2007 General Plan Monterey County, California.
______. 2012. Del Monte Forest Area Land Use Plan Local Coastal Program Monterey County, California. June 22, 2012.

Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary Foundation. 2023. Finding Sanctuary – Harbor Seal Population. https://montereybayfoundation.org/blog/blog-finding-sanctuaryvolunteers-looking-out-for-harbor-seals-by-lisa-wooninck-2/ (accessed September 2025).

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2014. Harbor Seal (Phoca vitulina richardii): California Stock Report. Revised 7/31/2015.

Response I9.7
The commenter provides Pacific harbor seal colony counts from flyovers occurring from 2012 to 2025.

Refer to Response I9.6.

PGCC 12-3-25

Page 160 ends

This page left intentionally blank.

PGCC 12-3-25

Page 161 ends

Revisions to the Draft EIR
This chapter presents specific text changes made to the Draft EIR since its publication and public review. The changes are presented in the order in which they appear in the original Draft EIR and are identified by the Draft EIR page number. Changes in text are signified by strikeout font (strikeout font) where text was removed and by underlined font (underlined font) where text was added.

The information contained within this chapter merely clarifies and expands on information in the Draft EIR, and reflects a reduction in an impact determination from significant and unavoidable to less than significant with mitigation. Accordingly, these changes do not constitute “significant new information” requiring recirculation. “Significant new information” is defined in Section 15088.5(a) of the CEQA Guidelines as follows:
(1) A new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented.
(2) A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance. (3) A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the environmental impacts of the project, but the project’s proponents decline to adopt it.
(4) The Draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded.

None of these circumstances has arisen from comments on the Draft EIR and none of the revisions to the Draft EIR included in this chapter amount to significant new information; therefore, recirculation is not required.

3.1 Revisions to the Draft EIR
Executive Summary
Page ES-11:
 Identify appropriate housing sites and provide housing development opportunities in specified areas with that have the potential to accommodate additional housing; or are proximate to jobs, transportation, shopping and schools,; and have the accompanying zoning required to accommodate housing development.

PGCC 12-3-25

Page 162 ends

Impact Mitigation Measure(s) Residual Impact
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Impact GHG-1. Construction and operation
of the proposed project would generate
GHG emissions, and the project would
incorporate features that align with the
goals of the applicable plans, policies, and
regulations related to the reduction of GHG
emissions. However, even with the
implementation of Mitigation Measure
GHG-1, individual projects could face
challenges that hinder their ability to
implement Mitigation Measure GHG-1 and
thus not be consistent with the 2022
Scoping Plan. Therefore, impacts would be
significant and unavoidable.

GHG-1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions.

Development facilitated by the proposed project
shall incorporate GHG emissions reduction actions
to demonstrate consistency with the 2022 Scoping
Plan for residential and mixed-use developments.

Specifically, individual projects shall incorporate the following actions, which shall be verified by the City
prior to issuing a building permit for an individual
project:

Future mixed use residential and commercial
developments shall be designed to support allelectric buildings and electric appliances.

Natural gas connections and activation shall be
permitted when alternative renewable energy
sources are demonstrably infeasible for a
permitted use. Compliance shall be verified by
City staff on building plans prior to granting
building permits.

Provide EV charging infrastructure that, at
minimum, meets California Green Building
Standards Code Tier 2 voluntary measures at the
time of project approval.

Project proponents shall coordinate with
Monterey-Salinas Transit to incorporate public
transit into project features, where feasible.

Project features could include bus stop passes
for residents of future housing units,
participation in the vanpool program, and
installation of new bus stops where appropriate.

Significant and
unavoidable.

Noise
Impact NOI-1. Construction of individual
development facilitated by the project
would temporarily produce high noise
levels, potentially affecting nearby noisesensitive land uses. Operation of development facilitated by the project
would also increase transportation noise.

Impacts would be significant and
unavoidable.

NOI-1(a) Measures to Reduce Construction Noise.

To minimize noise during construction facilitated by
the project, the City of Pacific Grove shall require
construction contractors to implement the as many
of the following measures for construction activities
conducted within the City as feasible. Construction
plans submitted to the City shall include
construction noise analysis and identify these
measures on demolition, grading, and construction
plans submitted to the City. The City of Pacific
Grove Building Division shall verify that grading,
demolition, and/or construction plans submitted to
the City include these notations prior to issuance of
demolition, grading and/or building permits….

Significant and
unavoidable.

Table ES-2 (revised rows only):

PGCC 12-3-25

Page 163 ends

Chapter 2, Project Description

Page 2 ends

Pacific Grove is located approximately 15 miles to the southwest of Salinas and 50 miles to the south of San José. State Route 1 and Highway 68 provide regional access to the city, with local roadways (including Lighthouse Avenue and David Avenue) providing local access within the city.

Page 2 ends

Chapter 3, Environmental Setting

Page 3 ends

PGCC 12-3-25

Page 164 ends

Section 4.3, Biological Resources

Page 4 ends

Special-status Wildlife Species
Based on the results of the database queries, 3029 special-status wildlife species were evaluated for their potential to occur in the project area (Appendix G)… Table 4.3-1 Special-status Animals with Potential to Occur in the Project Area Common Name Scientific Name Status1
Low Potential to Occur
Crotch’s bumble bee Bombus crotchii State candidate Endangered Smith's blue butterfly Antrozous pallidus Federally endangered Tricolored blackbird Agelaius tricolor State threatened Moderate Potential to Occur
Townsend's big-eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii CDFW species of special Concern Presumed Present
Monarch - California
overwintering population
Danaus plexippus plexippus Pop. 1 Federal candidate
Northern California legless lizard Anniella pulchra CDFW species of special Concern Western pond turtle Emys marmorata Federally proposed threatened Burrowing owl (wintering) Athene cunicularia State candidate 1 CDFW 2025a
Habitat for special-status wildlife occurs in undeveloped areas of Sites 49, 47, 50, and 55, and additional parcels A1, A3, and A4. Species with the potential to occur in the housing sites, upzoning areas, and additional parcels include Townsend's big-eared bat and Northern California legless lizard.

Additionally, Sites 42 and 43 are approximately 100 to 200 feet from George Washington Park, a known overwintering site for monarch butterfly. Habitat for native nesting birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Game Code (CFGC) occurs throughout the housing sites, upzoning areas, and additional parcels.

No habitat for Smith's blue butterfly, tricolored blackbird, western pond turtle, or burrowing owl occurs within the housing sites, upzoning areas, and additional parcels; and identified sites are isolated from these species habitats by existing urban development. Suitable habitat for crotch’s bumble bee occurs within Sites 49, 47, 50, and 55, and additional parcels A1, A3, and A4, however this species has not been observed in the Monterey Bay region south of Santa Cruz, therefore has a low potential to occur.

Page 4 ends

Page 165 ends

year-round colony of harbor seals occur at a sheltered beach on the southwest side of Cabrillo Point, near the Hopkins Marine Station. Harbor seals have their pups on this beach between February through May, and the City has updated its Municipal Code to provide protections during the pupping season (City of Pacific Grove 2020: 13-14). Pacific harbor seal populations are monitored by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), which prepares annual marine mammal stock assessments. The Pacific harbor seal is not federally listed under the ESA, and the population in California is not considered “depleted” or a “strategic” stock under the MMPA. Furthermore, this population appears to be growing (NMFS 2014). The harbor seal colony in Pacific Grove reached a peak population of 750 individuals in 2014; however, the population has decreased to approximately 270 as of 2023 due to disturbance events and depletion of food sources (Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary Foundation 2023).

Page 4 ends

Special-status Wildlife
Impacts to Northern California legless lizard would be potentially significant and Mitigation Measures BIO-1(d) and BIO-1(e) would be required. No habitat for Smith's blue butterfly, tricolored blackbird, western pond turtle, or burrowing owl occurs within the housing sites, upzoning areas, or immediate vicinity, and Crotch’s bumble bee has only a low potential to occur; therefore, no impacts to these species are anticipated as a result of project implementation.

Section 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Page 4 ends

GHG-1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions
Development facilitated by the proposed project shall incorporate GHG emissions reduction actions to demonstrate consistency with the 2022 Scoping Plan for residential and mixeduse developments. Specifically, individual projects shall incorporate the following actions, which shall be verified by the City prior to issuing a building permit for an individual project:
a. Future mixed use residential and commercial developments shall be designed to support all-electric buildings and electric appliances. Natural gas connections and activation shall be permitted when alternative renewable energy sources are demonstrably infeasible for a permitted use. Compliance shall be verified by City staff on building plans prior to granting building permits.
b. Provide EV charging infrastructure that, at minimum, meets California Green Building Standards Code Tier 2 voluntary measures at the time of project approval. c. Project proponents shall coordinate with Monterey-Salinas Transit to incorporate public transit into project features, where feasible. Project features could include bus stop passes for residents of future housing units, participation in the vanpool program, and installation of new bus stops where appropriate.

PGCC 12-3-25

Page 166 ends

Section 4.10, Land Use and Planning

Page 4 ends

Assembly Bill 130
Effective June 30, 2025, AB 130 introduces substantial reforms to streamline housing development under CEQA. The bill establishes a statutory CEQA exemption for qualifying infill housing projects located in urban areas up to 20 acres, provided they meet specific criteria such as adjacency to urban uses and avoidance of historic or environmentally sensitive sites. This exemption is designed to reduce environmental review burdens for projects that align with local zoning and planning standards. AB 130 also makes permanent several provisions of the Permit Streamlining Act, including timelines for application completeness and project approval, and limits the number of public hearings for qualifying housing projects. Additionally, the bill codifies elements of the Housing Accountability Act and SB 330, including protections for vested rights and restrictions on growth control measures. A notable provision is the statewide freeze on residential building code updates from October 1, 2025, through June 1, 2031, which aims to reduce regulatory uncertainty and development costs. AB 130 also enhances the role of the California Department of Housing and Community Development in overseeing RHNA methodologies, further aligning local planning efforts with state housing goals.

Senate Bill 131
SB 131, effective June 30, 2025, complements AB 130 by focusing on CEQA streamlining for infrastructure and public-serving projects. It introduces a new review pathway for “near miss” projects—those that narrowly fail to qualify for a CEQA exemption due to a single disqualifying condition. Under this provision, CEQA review is limited to the environmental effects of that specific condition, and such projects are exempt from analyzing alternatives or growth-inducing impacts. SB 131 also creates or expands CEQA exemptions for a range of project types, including advanced manufacturing facilities on industrial-zoned land, broadband infrastructure in public rights-of-way, updates to climate adaptation plans, HighSpeed Rail maintenance facilities, and local rezoning actions that implement Housing Element commitments. Additionally, the bill mandates biennial updates to CEQA Guidelines to improve clarity and address ambiguities. These changes reflect a broader policy shift toward facilitating development while maintaining targeted environmental protections, and they are expected to significantly impact the planning and approval processes for both housing and infrastructure projects across California.

Chapter 6, Alternatives

Page 6 ends

PGCC 12-3-25

Page 167 ends

Chapter 7, References

Page 7 ends

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2014. Harbor Seal (Phoca vitulina richardii): California Stock Report. Revised 7/31/2015.

PGCC 12-3-25

Page 168 ends

This page left intentionally blank.

PGCC 12-3-25

Page 169 ends

4 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that a reporting or monitoring program be adopted for the conditions of project approval that are necessary to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment (Public Resources Code 21081.6). This mitigation monitoring and reporting program is intended to track and ensure compliance with adopted mitigation measures during the project implementation phase. For each mitigation measure recommended in the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR), specifications are made herein that identify the action required, the monitoring that must occur, and the agency or department responsible for oversight.

PGCC 12-3-25

Page 170 ends

Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required Timing
Monitoring
Requirements
Responsible
Agency
Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments
Air Quality
AQ-3(a) Construction Emissions Reductions
Prior to construction activity and issuance of
grading permits for development facilitated
by the project, the City Building Official shall
confirm that the grading plan, building plans,
and specifications stipulate the following
measures shall be implemented:
 All mobile off-road equipment (wheeled
or tracked) used during construction
activities shall meet USEPA Tier 4 Final
standards. Tier 4 certification can be for
the original equipment or equipment that
is retrofitted to meet the Tier 4 Final
standards.
 Alternative fuel (natural gas, propane,
electric, etc.) construction equipment
shall be incorporated where available or
necessary to reduce TAC emissions. These
requirements shall be incorporated into
the contract agreement with the
construction contractor. A copy of the
equipment’s certification or model year
specifications shall be available upon
request for all equipment on-site.
 Electricity shall be supplied to the site
from the existing power grid to support
the electric construction equipment. If
connection to the grid is determined to be
infeasible for portions of the project, a
non-diesel fueled generator shall be used.

Verify that the grading plan,
building plans, and specifications
stipulate all mobile off-road
equipment (wheeled or tracked)
used during construction activities
shall meet USEPA Tier 4 Final
standards; alternative fuel for
construction equipment shall be
incorporated where available; and
electricity shall be supplied to the
site to support electric
construction equipment.

Prior to
construction
activity and
issuance of grading
permits.

Routinely
throughout
construction.

City of Pacific
Grove; project
proponent
Provide a copy of the equipment’s
certification or model year
specifications on-site.

Prior to
construction
activity and
issuance of grading
permits.

Once.

PGCC 12-3-25

Page 171 ends

Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required Timing
Monitoring
Requirements
Responsible
Agency
Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments
AQ-3(b) MBARD Fugitive Dust Reduction Measures
The City shall require the implementation of
the following MBARD fugitive dust reduction
measures, where applicable, to reduce PM10
emissions generated by dust during the
construction phase of development facilitated
by the project:
 Water all active construction areas at
least twice daily. Frequency should be
based on the type of operation, soil, and
wind exposure.
 Prohibit all grading activities during
periods of high wind (over 15 mph).
 Apply chemical soil stabilizers on inactive
construction areas (disturbed lands within
construction projects that are unused for
at least four consecutive days).
 Apply non-toxic binders (e.g., latex acrylic
copolymer) to exposed areas after cut and
fill operations and hydro seed area.
 Haul trucks shall maintain at least 2'0" of
freeboard.
 Cover all trucks hauling dirt, sand, or
loose materials.
 Plant tree windbreaks on the windward
perimeter of construction projects if
adjacent to open land.
 Plant vegetative ground cover in
disturbed areas as soon as possible.
 Cover inactive storage piles.
 Install wheel washers at the entrance to
construction sites for all exiting trucks.
 Pave all roads on construction sites.

Verify implementation of dust
reduction measures.

During
construction.

Routinely
throughout
construction.

City of Pacific
Grove; project
proponent
Implement fugitive dust reduction
measures as specified in the
measure.

During
construction.

Routinely
throughout
construction.

PGCC 12-3-25

Page 172 ends

Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required Timing
Monitoring
Requirements
Responsible
Agency
Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments
 Sweep streets if visible soil material is
carried out from the construction site.
 Post a publicly visible sign which specifies
the telephone number and person to
contact regarding dust complaints. This
person shall respond to complaints and
take corrective action within 48 hours.

The phone number of the Monterey Bay
Unified Air Pollution Control District shall
be visible to ensure compliance with Rule
402 (Nuisance).
 Limit the area under construction at any
one time.

Biological Resources
BIO-1(a) Special-Status Plant Species Surveys
A City-approved biologist shall complete
surveys for special-status plants in
undeveloped areas at Sites 47, 49, 50, and 55,
and additional parcels A1, A3, and A4 prior to
any vegetation removal, grubbing, or other
construction activity (including staging and
mobilization). The surveys shall be floristic in
nature and shall be seasonally timed to
coincide with the target species. All plant
surveys shall be conducted by a Cityapproved biologist during the blooming season, and during development application
processing yet prior to development permit
approval. All special-status plant species
identified on each site shall be mapped onto a
site-specific aerial photograph or topographic
map with the use of Global Positioning
System unit. Surveys shall be conducted in
accordance with the most current protocols
established by the CDFW, USFWS, and the
Conduct seasonally appropriate
special-status plant species survey
as specified in the measure.

During the
blooming
season appropriate
to the target
special-status plant
species and prior to
development
permit approval.

Seasonally and
prior to
development
permit approval.

City of Pacific
Grove; project
proponent;
City-approved
biologist
Repeat survey if construction
does not begin within three years.

If special-status plants are not
identified, no further action is
required. If special-status plants
are identified, implement
Mitigation Measures BIO-1(b) and
BIO-1(c).

During the
blooming
season appropriate
to the target
special-status plant
species and prior to
development
permit approval.

Seasonally and
prior to
development
permit approval.

Review survey results report. Once per survey
cycle.

Once per survey
cycle.

PGCC 12-3-25

Page 173 ends

Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required Timing
Monitoring
Requirements
Responsible
Agency
Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments
local jurisdictions if said protocols exist. A
report of the survey results shall be
submitted to the City, and the CDFW and/or
USFWS for state or federally listed plants, as
appropriate, for review and/or approval. If
project construction does not occur within
three years of the initial special-status plant
survey, additional floristic surveys shall be
repeated.

If special-status plants are not found during
special-status plant surveys, no further action
is required. If federally- and/or state-listed
individuals and/or CRPR 1B or 2 plant
populations are found during special-status
plant surveys, the Mitigation Measures BIO1(b) and BIO-1(c) shall be implemented.

BIO-1(b) Special-Status Plant Species Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation If federally-listed and/or state-listed
individuals, and/or CRPR 1B or 2 plant
populations are found during special-status
plant surveys [pursuant to Mitigation
Measure BIO-1(a)], and would be directly
impacted by development, then the project
shall be re-designed to avoid impacting listed
plant species or CRPR 1B or 2 populations,
where feasible and compatible with project
design. Rare and listed plant occurrences that
are not within the immediate disturbance
footprint but are located within 50 feet of
disturbance limits shall have bright orange
protective fencing installed at least 30 feet
beyond their extent, or other distance as
approved by a City-approved biologist based
Review locations of identified
special-status plants and redesign
project to avoid impacts to listed
plants or special-status plant
populations, where feasible and
compatible with project
objectives.

During project
design and prior to
development
permit approval.

During project
design and prior
to development
permit approval.

City of Pacific
Grove; project
proponent;
City-approved
biologist
Install bright orange fencing at
least 30 feet beyond the edge of
any special-status plant
occurrences located within 50
feet of the disturbance area.

Adjust buffer distance if approved
by a City-approved biologist based
on site-specific conditions.

Prior to and during
project
construction.

Prior to and
during project
construction.

PGCC 12-3-25

Page 174 ends

Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required Timing
Monitoring
Requirements
Responsible
Agency
Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments
on species location in relation to the
construction area and level of disturbance
from construction activities, to protect them
from harm. Prior to initiation of construction
activities the project proponent shall submit a
site plan depicting the location(s) of specialstatus plants and avoidance buffers to the City for review and verification. The Cityapproved biologist(s) shall possess a degree in biology, ecology, botany, or a related field,
and have demonstrated knowledge and
experience with native plant and wildlife
species of the region, their habitats, and
applicable environmental regulations. The
biologist shall have prior experience
conducting pre-construction surveys,
construction monitoring, and implementing
mitigation measures and permit conditions
similar to those required for this project. If
special-status plants can be avoided, no
further action is required. If federally- and/or
state-listed individuals and/or CRPR 1B or 2
plant populations cannot be avoided, then
Mitigation Measure BIO-1(c) shall be
implemented.

If special-status plants can be
avoided, no further action is
required. If avoidance or listed
plants or special-status plant
populations is not feasible,
implement Mitigation Measure
BIO-1(c).

Prior to and during
project
construction.

Prior to and
during project
construction.

BIO-1(c) Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan
If federally- and/or state-listed plants, nonlisted special-status plant populations, sensitive natural communities, or waters of
the US and/or State cannot be avoided and
will be impacted by development, all impacts
shall be mitigated by the implementing entity
at a minimum ratio of 1:1 for occupied
habitat area as a component of habitat
Retain a City-approved biologist
to prepare an HMMP, to be
submitted to the City, that
includes the components
specified and provides mitigation
for impacts at a minimum 1:1
ratio through habitat restoration
or compensatory mitigation.

Prior to issuance of
building permits
and as required by
permitting agencies
(if appropriate).

Once. City of Pacific
Grove;
project
proponent;
City-approved
biologist
PGCC 12-3-25

Page 175 ends

Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required Timing
Monitoring
Requirements
Responsible
Agency
Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments
restoration or through compensatory
mitigation. A habitat mitigation and
monitoring plan (HMMP) shall be prepared by
a City-approved biologist and submitted by
the project proponent to the City for review
and verification prior to the issuance of
building permits. The project proponent shall
also obtain all necessary permits from USFWS
and/or CDFW and provide proof of take
authorization, if required, to the City for
verification prior to issuance of any permits
for ground disturbing activities. The HMMP
shall include, at a minimum, the following
components:

1. Description of the project/impact site
(i.e., location, responsible parties, areas
to be impacted by habitat type).

2. Goal(s) of the compensatory mitigation
project (type[s] and area[s]) of habitat to
be established, restored, enhanced,
and/or preserved; specific functions and
values of habitat type[s] to be
established, restored, enhanced, and/or
preserved).

3. Description of the proposed
compensatory mitigation site (location
and size, ownership status, existing
functions, and values).

4. Implementation plan for the
compensatory mitigation site (rationale
for expecting implementation success,
responsible parties, schedule, site
preparation, planting plan).

5. Maintenance activities during the
monitoring period, including weed
Obtain all necessary permits for
impacts to biological resources
and provide proof of take
authorization to the City, if
required.

Prior to ground
disturbing
activities.

Once.

Implement restoration or
compensatory mitigation in
accordance with the approved
HMMP, including maintenance,
monitoring, reporting, and
corrective actions as needed to
achieve success criteria.

During
restoration/mitigati
on implementation
and continuing until
HMMP success
criteria are met, or
for the duration
specified by
permitting
agencies.

Conduct
monitoring
quarterly during
the first year, and
annually
thereafter for the
duration of the
HMMP; perform
additional
monitoring and
corrective actions
as needed if
success criteria
are not met.

Submit a final monitoring report
to the City documenting
compliance with the HMMP,
monitoring results, and
confirmation of whether success
criteria have been met.

Within 30 days of
completing the
monitoring period
(or as otherwise
specified in the
approved HMMP).

Once, at the
conclusion of the
monitoring
program.

PGCC 12-3-25

Page 176 ends

6. Monitoring plan for the compensatory
mitigation site, including no less than
quarterly monitoring for the first year
(performance standards, target functions
and values, target acreages to be
established, restored, enhanced, and/or
preserved, annual monitoring reports).

7. Success criteria based on the goals and
measurable objectives; said criteria to be,
at a minimum, at least 80 percent survival
of container plants and 30 percent
relative cover by vegetation type or other
industry standards as determined by a
qualified restoration specialist.

8. An adaptive management program and
remedial measures to address any
shortcomings in meeting success criteria.

9. Notification of completion of
compensatory mitigation and agency
confirmation.

10. Contingency measures (initiating
procedures, alternative locations for
contingency compensatory mitigation,
funding mechanism).

11. All nursery plants used in restoration shall
be inspected for sudden oak death.

Within 30 days of completion of monitoring, a
final monitoring report shall be submitted to
the City for review and verification,
documenting compliance with the HMMP and
achievement of success criteria.

PGCC 12-3-25

Page 177 ends

Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required Timing
Monitoring
Requirements
Responsible
Agency
Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments
BIO-1(d) Worker Environmental Awareness Program
Prior to initiation of construction activities at
Site 49, 42, 43, 47, 50, 55, and additional
parcels A1, A3, and A4 (including staging and
mobilization), the project proponent for
development shall arrange for all personnel
associated with project construction for the
applicable phase to attend Worker
Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP)
training, conducted by a City-approved
biologist, to aid workers in recognizing
special-status biological resources that may
occur in the construction area. The specifics
of this WEAP shall include identification of
the sensitive species and habitats, a
description of the regulatory status and
general ecological characteristics of sensitive
resources, and review of the limits of
construction and mitigation measures
required to reduce impacts to biological
resources within the work area. A fact sheet
conveying this information shall also be
prepared for distribution to all contractors,
their employers, and other personnel
involved with construction. All employees
shall sign a form provided by the trainer
indicating they have attended the WEAP
training and understand the information
presented to them. The form shall be
submitted to the City to document
compliance prior to the initiation of ground
disturbing activities, and as new personnel
are added to the construction site.

Ensure that all construction
personnel for the applicable
phase attend a WEAP training
conducted by a City-approved
biologist.

Prior to the
initiation of
construction
activities at Sites
49, 42, 43, 47, 50,
55, and Parcels A1,
A3, and A4.

Verify attendance
at training
sessions, including
as new personnel
are added;
confirm with
signed forms.

City of Pacific
Grove; project
proponent;
City-approved
biologist
Distribute a WEAP fact sheet to all
contractors, subcontractors, and
construction personnel. Each
participant must sign a form
confirming attendance and
understanding of the training
content.

At each training
session, prior to
initiation of
construction and as
new personnel are
added.

Once and as
personnel are
added to the site.

Submit signed forms to the City
documenting WEAP compliance.

Prior to any ground
disturbing activities
and updated as
new personnel are
added.

City to review and
confirm receipt of
forms; maintain
forms on file.

PGCC 12-3-25

Page 178 ends

Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required Timing
Monitoring
Requirements
Responsible
Agency
Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments
BIO-1(e) Northern California Legless Lizard Avoidance and Minimization A pre-construction clearance survey shall be
conducted in undeveloped areas of Sites 47,
49, 50, and 55, and additional parcels A1, A3,
and A4 for Northern California legless lizard
by a City-approved biologist within 48 hours
prior to the start of construction (including
staging and mobilization). The survey shall
cover the entire disturbance footprint within
suitable habitats with moist loose soil, plus a
minimum 100-foot buffer, where permissible,
and should identify all special-status wildlife
species observed on the project site. During
the pre-construction survey the biologist shall
inspect under logs, leaf litter, or other
suitable refuge. If Northern California legless
lizards are identified, individuals shall be
relocated by a biologist to suitable cover with
loose soils a minimum of 500 feet from the
project site, as accessible. A written report
demonstrating compliance with the preconstruction clearance survey requirement, including a description of all individuals
identified and relocated during the survey,
shall be submitted to the City for review and
verification prior to the start of construction.

A City-approved biologist
conducts a pre-construction
clearance survey.

Within 48 hours
prior to the start of
construction
(including staging
and mobilization) at
Sites 47, 49, 50, 55,
and Parcels A1, A3,
and A4.

Confirm survey
completion. If
construction start
is delayed beyond
the 48-hour
window, repeat
the survey.

City of Pacific
Grove; project
proponent;
City-approved
biologist
If any Northern California legless
lizards are found, the biologist
shall relocate individuals to
suitable habitat at least 500 feet
away from the project site, if
accessible.

During preconstruction
clearance survey.

Document each
relocation as
needed during
survey.

Submit a written report to the
City documenting the survey
results and any relocations for
review and verification.

Before the initiation
of construction
activities.

City reviews and
verifies report
prior to
construction
activities.

BIO-1(f) Pre-Construction Bat Surveys and Maternity Roost Avoidance Prior to project activities at Sites 47, 49, 50,
and 55, and additional parcels A1, A3, and A4,
a qualified, City-approved bat specialist shall
conduct a habitat assessment to determine if
bat roosting habitat occurs in or near the
project area. Bat specialists shall be
knowledgeable in bat ecology and
 City-approved bat specialist
conducts a habitat
assessment to determine if
bat roosting habitat exists
within or near the project
area.

Before any project
activities at Sites
47, 49, 50, 55, and
Parcels A1, A3, and
A4.

City to review
habitat
assessment
summary.

City of Pacific
Grove; project
proponent;
City-approved
biologist
PGCC 12-3-25

Page 179 ends

Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required Timing
Monitoring
Requirements
Responsible
Agency
Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments
identification, and shall have demonstrated
experience conducting pre-construction
surveys, monitoring construction activities,
and implementing mitigation measures for
bats on projects similar in scope and setting.

If it is determined that the project area may
contain or occur within 100 feet of potential
day roosting habitat or 300 feet of potential
maternity roosting habitat, a qualified bat
specialist shall conduct a focused bat
emergence survey within these areas at least
30 days prior to construction or vegetation
removal (plus a 100-foot buffer as access
allows). The survey shall be conducted at
least 1 hour before sunset and up to 3 hours
after sunset, at a minimum. Acoustic
recognition technology (such as SonoBat
software or similar technology) shall be used
during the survey to maximize detection of
bats. The qualified bat specialist shall identify
and demarcate habitat (i.e., trees or
structures) containing daytime and/or
nighttime roosts, and any maternity roosts.

Survey results, including negative findings,
shall be provided to the City within 30 days of
completion of the survey.

At least 30 days
before construction
or vegetation
removal.

City to review
survey results and
recommendations
If maternity roosts are identified,
schedule work outside of the
maternity season (Oct 1–Feb 28);
if work must occur during the
maternity season, have a bat
specialist conduct inspections of
trees within 300 feet of project
area for roosts.

At least 7 days prior
to tree removal
within 300 feet of
an identified
maternity roost,
and prior to
construction in
those areas.

City to review
inspection results
within 7 days of
survey.

If trees with potential roosting
habitat must be removed,
implement phased/tree-nudging
or two-day removal protocols
under direction of the bat
specialist.

During tree
removal activities.

Bat specialist to
monitor
compliance and
document
procedures.
 If structures with potential
roosting habitat must be
altered/removed, conduct
surveys at least 14 days prior
to demolition and implement
humane exclusion, if needed.

Prior to demolition
of structures;
monitoring during
demolition.

Bat specialist to
confirm eviction
success.

If large roosts are found, consult
with CDFW and install bat boxes
as determined through
consultation.

Upon detection of
large roosts.

City to verify
consultation
occurred and
mitigation
implemented.

PGCC 12-3-25

Page 180 ends

Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required Timing
Monitoring
Requirements
Responsible
Agency
Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments
verification. Measures to avoid and minimize
impacts to bats may include the following:
 If maternity roosts are observed, work
shall be scheduled between October 1
and February 28, outside of the maternity
roosting season when young bats are
present but are ready to fly out of the
roost (March 1 to September 30). If tree
removal is required during the maternity
roosting season, trees potentially
supporting an active maternity roost shall
be closely inspected by a qualified bat
specialist to determine the presence or
absence of roosting bats. Inspection of
each tree shall occur no more than 7 days
prior to tree disturbance, and inspection
results, including negative findings, shall
be provided to the City within 7 days of
completion of the inspection. Trees
determined to be supporting maternity
roosts shall be left in place until the end
of the maternity season. Work shall not
occur within 300 feet of or directly under
or adjacent to an active maternity roost,
and the non-disturbance buffer shall only
be reduced at the discretion of a qualified
bat specialist based on species location in
relation to the construction area and level
of disturbance from construction
activities. The minimum buffer shall not
be less than 50 feet. Work shall not occur
between 30 minutes before sunset and 30
minutes after sunrise.
 If the removal of a tree containing
potential roosting habitat for leaf dwelling
bat species is required, the tree shall be
pushed down using heavy machinery
Submit survey results report
(including negative findings) to
the City.

Within 30 days of
survey completion.

City reviews
report for
adequacy.

Submit a monitoring report for
any activity involving roost
removal or
avoidance/minimization
measures.

Within 7 days of
activity affecting
roost habitat.

City reviews
report for
compliance
confirmation.

PGCC 12-3-25

Page 181 ends

Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required Timing
Monitoring
Requirements
Responsible
Agency
Com-
pliance
Verifi-
cation
Initial
Com-
pliance
Verifi-
cation
Date
Com-
pliance
Verifi-
cation
Comments
rather than felling with a chainsaw. To
ensure the optimum warning for any
roosting bats that may be present, the
tree shall be gently nudged two or three
times, with a pause of approximately 30
seconds between each nudge to allow
bats to become active. The tree shall then
be pushed to the ground slowly and
remain in place until it is inspected by a
qualified bat specialist. If it is determined
that the removed tree contains a bat
roost, the tree shall not be immediately
bucked or mulched. A period of at least 24
to 48 hours shall elapse prior to such
operations to allow bats to escape.
 If the removal of a tree containing
potential roosting habitat for trunk or
crevice dwelling bat species is required,
the tree shall be removed under the
direction of a City-approved bat specialist
using a two-step tree removal process
conducted over two consecutive days. On
the first day, the tree’s non-habitat
branches shall be trimmed using handheld
equipment only (no heavy machinery),
such as chainsaws. The noise and
vibration disturbance, together with the
visible alteration of the tree, is effective in
causing bats that emerge nightly to feed
to not return to the roost. The remainder
of the tree shall be removed on the
second day.
 If the alteration or removal of structures
(i.e., buildings) containing potential
roosting habitat for bats is required, a
qualified bat specialist shall conduct a
survey of all structures no more than 14
PGCC 12-3-25

Page 182 ends

Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required Timing
Monitoring
Requirements
Responsible
Agency
Com-
pliance
Verifi-
cation
Initial
Com-
pliance
Verifi-
cation
Date
Com-
pliance
Verifi-
cation
Comments
days prior to demolition. If no signs of bat
roosting activity are observed, no further
actions shall be required. If bats or signs
of bat roosting activity are observed, a
City-approved bat specialist shall prepare
specific recommendations for and the
project proponent shall implement the
recommended methods of humane
eviction such as partial dismantling to
allow bats to abandon the roost, or
installation of one-way doors. Removal of
structures containing potential roosting
habitat shall be monitored for compliance
with the recommended methods and
success of eviction by a City-approved bat
specialist. If bats are not successfully
evicted, the bat specialist shall stop work,
reassess exclusion methods, and
demolition may not continue until bats
have been successfully evicted.
 If a roost is observed being used by many
bats (large hibernaculum), bat boxes shall
be installed near the project site. The
number of bat boxes installed shall
depend on the size of the hibernaculum
and shall be determined through
consultation with CDFW.

A monitoring report shall be submitted to the
City within seven days of activities requiring
potential roost removal. The report shall
include a summary of dates of monitoring,
methods used, findings (including species
observed, if known, and roost activity), and
confirmation of compliance with applicable
avoidance and minimization measures.

PGCC 12-3-25

Page 183 ends

Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required Timing
Monitoring
Requirements
Responsible
Agency
Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments
BIO-1(g) Monarch Butterfly Avoidance and Minimization
Project construction activities at Sites 42 and
43, including equipment staging, grading, and
construction, shall be avoided during the
monarch butterfly overwintering season
between October 15 through March 15, if
practicable. In the event project construction
activities cannot be avoided during the
overwintering season, the project proponent
shall retain a City-approved biologist to
conduct a survey for roosting monarch
butterflies within seven days prior to
initiation of construction activities to
determine their presence/absence.

If no monarch butterflies are observed during
pre-construction surveys, no further actions
are necessary. In the event construction
pauses for a period of 7 days or more, if
construction is planned to restart during the
monarch butterfly overwintering season
(October 15 through March 15), the project
proponent shall retain a City-approved
biologist to conduct a new survey in
accordance with the requirements of this
mitigation measure.

If construction activities occur during the
overwintering season and monarch
butterflies are present, the City-approved
biologist shall establish a protective buffer,
ranging from 100 to 300 feet from the
roosting site in which monarch butterflies are
aggregating based on species location in
relation to the construction area and level of
disturbance from construction activities. The
buffer shall be delineated on site by the
biologist with flagging or staking visible by
Schedule construction activities at
Sites 42 and 43 outside of the
monarch butterfly overwintering
season (October 15-March 15), if
practicable.
 During project
scheduling;
prior to October

15..
 Project
proponent to
verify
construction
schedule
avoids
overwintering
season, where
practicable.

City of Pacific
Grove; project
proponent;
City-approved
biologist
If construction during the
overwintering season cannot be
avoided, retain a City-approved
biologist to conduct a preconstruction survey for roosting monarch butterflies. If
construction pauses for 7 days or
more and resumes during the
overwintering season, retain a
City-approved to conduct a new
survey.

Within 7 days prior
to the start of
construction. Prior
to resuming
construction after a
pause of 7 days or
more during
October 15 to
March 15.

Biologist to
document survey
results.

If monarch butterflies are
present, establish a protective
buffer of 100 to 300 feet from the
roosting site under the direction
of the biologist. Ensure no work
occurs within the protective
buffer.

Prior to initiation of
construction.
activities near
roosts.

Biologist to
delineate buffer.

If work within the buffer is
necessary, have the biologist
present on site to monitor
activities and stop work if
disturbance to aggregated
monarch butterflies occurs. Allow
biologist discretion to adjust
Monitor during any
work within
established buffers.

Buffer adjustments
can occur anytime
during
construction.

Biologist to
monitor and
document buffer
adjustments.

PGCC 12-3-25

Page 184 ends

Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required Timing
Monitoring
Requirements
Responsible
Agency
Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments
construction personnel. The construction
contractor shall ensure no construction
occurs within the protective buffer, including
staging of equipment or stopping or idling in
the buffer, during the overwintering season.

In the event construction activities, or other
use of equipment, is needed to work within
the buffer, the City-approved biologist shall
be present on site to monitor construction
activities and determine if the work is
disturbing the aggregated butterflies (e.g.,
aggregations begin to disperse in response to
noise or vibration from construction). If the
biologist determines the work is disturbing
the butterflies at any time, the biologist shall
stop work within the protective buffer. The
biologist shall have the authority to direct
construction activities and can reinitiate
construction activities when the butterflies no
longer show signs of being disturbed. In
addition, due to the regular movement of the
butterflies and locations of the aggregations,
the biologist shall have the discretion to
adjust the protective buffers within the 100-
to 300-foot required buffer range, as
necessary, based on species location in
relation to the construction area and level of
disturbance from construction activities.
buffer size based on butterfly
location and disturbance level.

Verify implementation of butterfly
avoidance and minimization
measures.

During construction
activities at Sites 42
and 43.

Routinely
throughout
construction.

BIO-1(h) Nesting Bird Avoidance
Ground disturbance and vegetation removal
activities shall be restricted to the nonbreeding season for birds (September 16 to January 31), when feasible. For ground
disturbance and vegetation-removal activities
occurring during the bird nesting season
Schedule ground disturbance and
vegetation removal activities
during the non-breeding season
(September 16 to January 31),
when feasible.

Prior to initiation of
construction and
during project
scheduling.

Once, as feasible
by project
proponent.

City of Pacific
Grove; project
proponent;
City-approved
biologist
PGCC 12-3-25

Page 185 ends

Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required Timing
Monitoring
Requirements
Responsible
Agency
Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments
(February 1 to September 15), general preconstruction nesting bird surveys shall be conducted by a City-approved biologist not
more than seven days prior to construction
activities involving ground clearing,
vegetation removal/trimming, or building
demolition. The surveys shall include the
disturbance area plus a 200-foot buffer
around the site, where feasible, and a 500-
foot buffer for raptors. If active nests are
located, an appropriate avoidance buffer shall
be established within which no work activity
would be allowed that would impact these
nests. The avoidance buffer shall be
established by the City-approved biologist on
a case-by-case basis based on the species and
site conditions. In no case shall the buffer be
smaller than 50 feet for non-raptor bird
species, or 200 feet for raptor species. Larger
buffers may be required depending on the
status of the nest and the construction
activities occurring near the nest. The buffer
area(s) shall be closed to all construction
personnel and equipment until juveniles have
fledged and until the nest is inactive. A Cityapproved biologist shall confirm that breeding/nesting is completed and young
have fledged the nest prior to removal of the
buffer. If there are delays in on-site activities
for more than 14 days during the breeding
season, an additional survey shall be required
prior to the start of work. A report of the
survey results and any proposed avoidance
buffers shall be submitted to the City for
review and verification prior to the initiation
of construction activities.

If ground disturbance, vegetation
removal, or building demolition
occurs during the breeding season
(February 1 to September 15), the
project proponent shall retain a
City-approved biologist to
conduct a general preconstruction nesting bird survey.

Biologist establishes buffers
around active nests and no work
within buffers can occur until
breeding/nesting is complete and
young have fledged.

Survey no more
than 7 days prior to
construction
activities; buffer
establishment and
nest monitoring as
needed during
construction.

Biologist conducts
survey(s), and
establishes buffers
and monitors
nests, as needed.

If construction is delayed for more
than 14 days during the breeding
season, conduct a new nesting
bird survey prior to resuming
work.

Prior to resuming
work after a delay
of more than 14
days.

Biologist resurveys asneeded.

Submit a report to the City
documenting survey results and
any proposed avoidance buffers.

Prior to initiating
construction
activities.

City to review
survey report(s).

PGCC 12-3-25

Page 186 ends

Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required Timing
Monitoring
Requirements
Responsible
Agency
Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments
BIO-1(i) Invasive Weed Prevention
For individual development projects where
activity would occur in undeveloped areas at
Sites 47, 49, 50, and 55, and additional
parcels A3 and A4, landscape plans approved
by the City Community Development
Department as part of a development permit
applications shall not include noxious,
invasive, and/or non-native plant species that
are recognized on the federal Noxious Weed
List, California Noxious Weeds List, and/or
California Invasive Plant Council Moderate
and High Risk Lists. During construction the
project proponent shall:
 Limit site access and parking, equipment
storage and stationary construction
activities to the designated staging areas
to the maximum extent feasible.
 Prior to staging equipment on-site, clean
all equipment caked with mud, soils, or
debris from off-site sources or previous
project sites to avoid introducing or
spreading invasive exotic plant species.

When feasible, remove invasive exotic
plants from the individual project site. All
equipment used on the premises should
be cleaned prior to leaving the site for
other projects.
 All disturbed areas requiring hydroseeded
stabilization shall utilize a mix of locally
native species, as feasible, upon
completion of work in those areas.
 In areas where construction is ongoing,
hydroseeding shall occur where no
construction activities have occurred
within six weeks since ground disturbing
activities ceased.

Implement invasive weed
prevention measures as specified
in the measure.

Measures must be
adhered to
throughout
construction.

City to verify
compliance during
construction.

Project
proponent
Submit a compliance
report documenting
implementation of invasive weed
prevention measures.

Within 30 days of
project completion.

City to review and
verify compliance
report.

Review compliance report. After project
completion.

Once. City of Pacific
Grove
PGCC 12-3-25

Page 187 ends

Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required Timing
Monitoring
Requirements
Responsible
Agency
Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments
 If exotic species invade these areas prior
to hydroseeding, weed removal shall
occur in consultation with a City-approved
biologist and the City.

Within 30 days of project completion, a
report shall be submitted to the City for
review and verification documenting
compliance with the invasive weed
prevention measures above.

BIO-3(a) Jurisdictional Delineation
Prior to issuance of grading permits, a Cityapproved biologist shall complete a jurisdictional delineation of wetland features
at Site 49 and additional parcels A3 and A4.

The jurisdictional delineation shall determine
the extent of the jurisdiction for CDFW,
USACE, and/or RWQCB, and shall be
conducted in accordance with the
requirements set forth by each agency. The
result shall be a preliminary jurisdictional
delineation report that shall be submitted to
the city. The delineation shall be used to
inform design development in a manner that
avoids impacts to jurisdictional waters to the
maximum extent practicable. If jurisdictional
waters are identified within 100 feet of
proposed limits of work, Mitigation Measure
BIO-3(b) shall be required. If jurisdictional
waters are identified within proposed limits
of work and cannot be avoided, Mitigation
Measure BIO-1(c) shall be required. The
project proponent shall also be required to
apply for and obtain applicable federal and
State permits for impacting jurisdictional
waters, and shall implement all conditions of
such permit(s).
 Retain a City-approved
biologist to complete
a jurisdictional delineation to
identify any wetlands or
waters regulated
by CDFW, USACE, or RWQCB
at Site 49 and Parcels A3 and
A4.

Before issuance of
grading permits for
Site 49 and Parcels
A3 and A4.

City to verify
delineation
completed by a
qualified biologist.

City of Pacific
Grove; project
proponent;
City-approved
biologist
Prepare delineation in accordance
with agency guidelines and
submit report to the City to
inform project design and
avoidance of impacts.

Prior to issuance of
grading permits.

City to review
delineation
report.

If impacts are unavoidable, obtain
all required permits from relevant
agencies and follow all permit
conditions during construction.

Prior to and during
construction, as
required by
permitting
agencies.

As required by
permitting
agencies.

PGCC 12-3-25

Page 188 ends

Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required Timing
Monitoring
Requirements
Responsible
Agency
Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments
BIO-3(b) Waters and Wetlands Impact Avoidance and Minimization To avoid and/or minimize potential indirect
impacts to jurisdictional waters and water
quality, the City shall require following BMPs
to be implemented by the project proponent
during construction within 100 feet of
jurisdictional areas at Site 49 and additional
parcels A3 and A4:
 Any material/spoils generated from
project activities shall be located away
from jurisdictional areas or special-status
habitat and protected from storm water
run-off using temporary perimeter
sediment barriers such as berms, silt
fences, fiber rolls (non- monofilament),
covers, sand/gravel bags, and straw bale
barriers, as appropriate.
 All vehicles and equipment shall be in
good working condition and free of leaks.

The contractor shall prevent oil,
petroleum products, or any other
pollutants from contaminating the soil or
entering a watercourse (dry or
otherwise). When vehicles or equipment
are stationary, mats or drip pans shall be
placed below vehicles to contain fluid
leaks.
 All re-fueling, cleaning, and maintenance
of equipment shall occur at least 100 feet
from jurisdictional areas.
 Materials shall be stored on impervious
surfaces or plastic ground covers to
prevent any spills or leakage from
contaminating the ground and generally
at least 50 feet from the top of bank.
 Prevent the discharge of silt or pollutants
off the site when working adjacent to
Implement waters and wetlands
impact avoidance and
minimization measures as
specified in the measure.

Throughout
construction.

City or designated
environmental
representative to
conduct routine
inspections during
construction.

City of Pacific
Grove; Project
proponent
Submit a compliance report to the
City documenting implementation
of BMPs and adherence to
the NPDES Permit.

Within 30 days of
project completion.

City to review
compliance report
for verification.

PGCC 12-3-25

Page 189 ends

Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required Timing
Monitoring
Requirements
Responsible
Agency
Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments
jurisdictional areas. Install BMPs (i.e., silt
barriers, sand bags, straw bales) as
appropriate.
 Any spillage of material shall be stopped if
it can be done safely. The contaminated
area shall be cleaned and any
contaminated materials properly
disposed. For all spills, the project
foreman or designated environmental
representative shall be notified.
 Work during times of precipitation shall
be avoided to the maximum extent
possible.

Within 30 days of completion, a report shall
be submitted to the City for review and
verification, documenting compliance with
the above measures and the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
Permit.

Cultural Resources
CUL-2(a) Archaeological Resources Assessment and Protection For specific development projects involving
ground disturbance on identified housing
sites, in upzoning areas, or on additional
parcels, the project proponent shall retain a
City-approved consultant to conduct a
preliminary review to determine the need for
a formal archaeological assessment. The
preliminary review shall include a review of
available information regarding previous
disturbance, the presence of fill, and previous
cultural resources studies on file with the
City. If it can be determined that all proposed
ground disturbance will occur in documented
non-native fill or that the project site has
Retain a City-approved
consultant to conduct
a preliminary archaeological
review. If the site is fully disturbed
or in non-native fill with no prior
findings, no further action is
required.

Prior to
construction.

Once. City of Pacific
Grove; project
proponent;
City-approved
archaeologist
If native soils may be impacted
and no prior study exists,
complete archaeological
assessment, including a records
search, site survey, and a
technical report with findings and
recommendations.

Prior to
construction.

Once, as needed.

PGCC 12-3-25

Page 190 ends

Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required Timing
Monitoring
Requirements
Responsible
Agency
Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments
been previously disturbed and subject to
cultural resources review with negative
findings, no further review will be required. If
preliminary review suggests the project may
impact native soils that have not been
previously subject to cultural resources study,
the project proponent shall retain a Cityapproved archaeologist to prepare an archaeological resources assessment. The
archaeological assessment shall be conducted
by a qualified archaeologist who meets the
Secretary of the Interior’s PQS in prehistoric
or historic archaeology (NPS 2025).

Archaeological assessments shall include a
records search at the Northwest Information
Center, pedestrian survey of the individual
development site, and preparation of a
technical report to be submitted to the City
for review and approval. The archaeological
assessment shall include recommendations
for additional study or mitigation, if
necessary, which may include, but would not
be limited to: subsurface testing, designing
and implementing a worker environmental
awareness program, construction monitoring
by a qualified archaeologist, avoidance of
sites, or preservation in place. Recommended
mitigation measures shall be consistent with
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3).

Submitted archaeological
assessment to the City for review
and approval.

Prior to
construction.

Once.

PGCC 12-3-25

Page 191 ends

Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required Timing
Monitoring
Requirements
Responsible
Agency
Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments
CUL-2(b) Inadvertent Discovery of Archaeological Resources If evidence of any prehistoric or historic-era
subsurface archaeological features or
deposits are discovered during constructionrelated earthmoving activities (e.g., ceramics, trash scatters, lithic scatters), all grounddisturbing activity within a minimum of 50 feet shall be halted until a qualified
archaeologist can assess the significance of
the find. The work exclusion area may be
reduced or expanded as directed by the
qualified archaeologist. If the archaeologist
determines that the find does not meet the
CRHR standards of significance for cultural
resources, construction may proceed. If the
archaeologist determines that further
information is needed to evaluate
significance, a testing plan shall be prepared
and implemented. If the find is determined to
be significant by the qualified archaeologist
(i.e., because the find is determined to
constitute either an historical resource or a
unique archaeological resource), the
archaeologist shall work with the City to avoid
disturbance to the resources. If complete
avoidance is not feasible in light of project
design, economics, logistics, and/or other
factors, the archaeologist shall recommend
additional measures such as the preparation
and implementation of a data recovery plan.

All cultural resources work shall follow
accepted professional standards in recording
any find including submittal of standard
Department of Parks and Recreation Primary
Record forms and location information to the
Northwest Information Center. If the find is a
prehistoric archaeological site, the culturally
Stop work within 50 feet of
any archaeological materials
discovered during construction.

Throughout
construction, as
needed.

Ongoing. City of Pacific
Grove; project
proponent;
qualified
archaeologist Retain a qualified archaeologist to
implement discovery and
recovery measures as specified in
the measure.

Upon discovery and
prior to resuming
construction.

Ongoing.

Review data recovery plan. Once. Once.

PGCC 12-3-25

Page 192 ends

Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required Timing
Monitoring
Requirements
Responsible
Agency
Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments
affiliated California Native American tribe
shall be notified and afforded the opportunity
to monitor mitigative treatment. During
evaluation or mitigative treatment, ground
disturbance and construction work may
continue in other parts of the project area
that are distant enough from the find not to
impact it, as determined appropriate by the
qualified archaeologist.

Geology and Soils
GEO-9 Paleontological Resources Analysis
The City of Pacific Grove shall require the
following specific requirements for projects
that could disturb geologic units with high
paleontological sensitivity (i.e., Quaternary
alluvial fan deposits or Quaternary marine
terrace deposits), including Sites 3, 6, 7, 10-
19, 20-22, 24-28, 30-37, 42-46, 51, 52, 57, A2,
A7, A9, and A11:

1. Prior to initial ground disturbance, the
project applicant shall retain a Qualified
Professional Paleontologist, as defined by
the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology
(SVP 2010), to conduct a paleontological
resources assessment (PRA), which may
be part of a future project-specific
environmental review document or a
stand-alone report. The PRA shall
determine the potential for the project to
impact paleontologically sensitive
sediments and the paleontological
resources that may be contained therein.

The PRA shall be reviewed by the City to
ensure the project’s compliance with this
mitigation measure, SVP Guidelines, and
MGMC Chapter 23.76.

Review PRA. Prior to
construction.

Once. City of Pacific
Grove; project
proponent;
qualified
paleontologist
For projects on sites with high
paleontological sensitivity, the
project proponent must conduct a
paleontological resources analysis
as specified in the measure.

Prior to
construction.

Once.

Monitor for paleontological
resources, as needed.

Monitoring to occur
as needed
throughout
construction.

Ongoing, as
needed.

Submit PRA to City of Pacific
Grove.

Prior to
construction.

Once.

PGCC 12-3-25

Page 193 ends

2. If the PRA identifies no potential impacts
to paleontological resources, then no
further paleontological mitigation would
be required. If the project could have a
significant impact on paleontological
resources, the PRA shall outline mitigation
measures to reduce impacts by ensuring
that all scientifically significant
paleontological resources potentially
encountered during construction are
collected and preserved in a
paleontological repository meeting SVP
(2010) standards. These measures would
be overseen by a Qualified Professional
Paleontologist and may include, but
would not be limited to: training of
construction personnel, paleontological
monitoring, and procedures for an
unanticipated paleontological resource
discovery.

If construction personnel training is required,
the Qualified Professional Paleontologist or
their designee shall conduct a paleontological
Worker Environmental Awareness Program
(WEAP) training for construction personnel
regarding the appearance of fossils and the
procedures for notifying paleontological staff
should fossils be discovered by construction
personnel.

Page 194 ends

Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required Timing
Monitoring
Requirements
Responsible
Agency
Com-
pliance
Verifi-
cation
Initial
Com-
pliance
Verifi-
cation
Date
Com-
pliance
Verifi-
cation
Comments
SVP (2010) definition of a Paleontological
Resources Monitor. The Qualified
Professional Paleontologist may recommend
that monitoring be reduced in frequency or
ceased entirely based on geologic
observations. Such decisions shall be subject
to review and approval by the City. Upon
completion of ground-disturbing activities (or
laboratory preparation and curation of fossils,
if necessary), the Qualified Professional
Paleontologist shall prepare a final report
describing the results of the paleontological
monitoring efforts. The report shall include a
summary of the field and laboratory methods
employed; an overview of project geology;
and, if fossils were discovered, an analysis of
the fossils, including physical description,
taxonomic identification, and scientific
significance. The report shall be submitted to
the City and, if fossil curation occurred, the
designated scientific institution.

In the event of a fossil discovery by the
paleontological monitor or construction
personnel, all construction activity within 50
feet of the find shall cease, and the Qualified
Professional Paleontologist shall evaluate the
find. If the fossil(s) is (are) not scientifically
significant, then construction activity may
resume. If it is determined that the fossil(s) is
(are) scientifically significant, then they shall
be salvaged, prepared to a curation-ready
condition, and curated in a paleontological
repository per SVP (2010) standards.

PGCC 12-3-25

Page 195 ends

Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required Timing
Monitoring
Requirements
Responsible
Agency
Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
GHG-1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions
Development facilitated by the proposed
project shall incorporate GHG emissions
reduction actions to demonstrate consistency
with the 2022 Scoping Plan for residential and
mixed-use developments. Specifically,
individual projects shall incorporate the
following actions, which shall be verified by
the City prior to issuing a building permit for
an individual project:

Future mixed use residential and
commercial developments shall be
designed to support all-electric buildings
and electric appliances. Natural gas
connections and activation shall be
permitted when alternative renewable
energy sources are demonstrably
infeasible for a permitted use. Compliance
shall be verified by City staff on building
plans prior to granting building permits.

Provide EV charging infrastructure that, at
minimum, meets California Green
Building Standards Code Tier 2 voluntary
measures at the time of project approval.

Project proponents shall coordinate with
Monterey-Salinas Transit to incorporate
public transit into project features, where
feasible. Project features could include
bus stop passes for residents of future
housing units, participation in the vanpool
program, and installation of new bus
stops where appropriate.

Verify that the project includes
the GHG reduction measures as
specified in the measure.

Prior to issuance of
building permits for
residential or
mixed-use projects.

Once. City of Pacific
Grove; project
proponent
PGCC 12-3-25

Page 196 ends

Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required Timing
Monitoring
Requirements
Responsible
Agency
Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments
Noise
NOI-1(a) Measures to Reduce Construction Noise
To minimize noise during construction
facilitated by the project, the City of Pacific
Grove shall require construction contractors
to implement as many of the following
measures for construction activities
conducted within the City as feasible.

Construction plans submitted to the City shall
include construction noise analysis and
identify these measures on demolition,
grading, and construction plans submitted to
the City. The City of Pacific Grove Building
Division shall verify that grading, demolition,
and/or construction plans submitted to the
City include these notations prior to issuance
of demolition, grading and/or building
permits.

Mufflers. During excavation and grading
construction phases, all construction
equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be operated
with closed engine doors and shall be
equipped with properly operating and
maintained mufflers consistent with
manufacturers’ standards.

Stationary Equipment. All stationary
construction equipment shall be placed so
that emitted noise is directed away from the
nearest sensitive receivers.

Equipment Staging Areas. Equipment staging
shall be located in areas that will create the
greatest distance feasible between
construction-related noise sources and noisesensitive receivers.

Verify measures in construction
plans and verify compliance.

Before and during
construction.

Routinely
throughout
construction.

City of Pacific
Grove; project
proponent
Include feasible noise-reduction
measures in demolition, grading,
and construction plans submitted
to the City.

Prior to submittal
of plans to City.

Once.

PGCC 12-3-25

Page 197 ends

Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required Timing
Monitoring
Requirements
Responsible
Agency
Com-
pliance
Verifi-
cation
Initial
Com-
pliance
Verifi-
cation
Date
Com-
pliance
Verifi-
cation
Comments
Smart Back-up Alarms. Mobile construction
equipment shall have smart back-up alarms
that automatically adjust the sound level of
the alarm in response to ambient noise levels.

Electrically-Powered Tools and Facilities.

Electrical power shall be used to run air
compressors and similar power tools and to
power any temporary structures, such as
construction trailers or caretaker facilities.

Noise Disturbance Coordinator. The project
applicant shall designate a “noise disturbance
coordinator” responsible for responding to
any local complaints about construction
noise. The disturbance coordinator shall
determine the cause of any noise complaint
and shall require that reasonable measures
be implemented to correct the problem. A
telephone number for the disturbance
coordinator and the City shall be posted at
the construction site.

Temporary Noise Barriers. Erect temporary
noise barriers when construction noise is
predicted to exceed the acceptable standards
(e.g., 80 dBA Leq at residential receivers,
schools or other sensitive receptors during
the daytime) or when the anticipated
construction duration is greater than is typical
(e.g., two years or greater) and there are
sensitive receptors within 500 feet of the
construction site. Temporary noise barriers
PGCC 12-3-25

Page 198 ends

Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required Timing
Monitoring
Requirements
Responsible
Agency
Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments
shall be constructed with solid materials (e.g.,
wood) with a density of at least 1.5 pounds
per square foot with no gaps from the ground
to the top of the barrier. If a sound blanket is
used, barriers shall be constructed with solid
material with a density of at least 1 pound per
square foot with no gaps from the ground to
the top of the barrier and be lined on the
construction side with acoustical blanket,
curtain or equivalent absorptive material
rated sound transmission class 32 or higher.

NOI-1(b) Evaluate and Reduce Stationary Operational Noise The City shall require applicants of
development projects facilitated by the
project and located within 50 feet of noisesensitive uses (including but not limited to residences, schools, and medical care
facilities) to evaluate potential on-site
operational noise impacts on nearby noisesensitive uses. The project applicant shall be required to implement stationary operational
noise reduction measures if noise generated
by operation of the project is anticipated to
exceed the following noise levels established
by the City’s General Plan Health and Safety
Element:
 An hourly Leq of 50 dB or greater
between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.
 An hourly Leq of 45 dB or greater
between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.
 A maximum sound level of 70 dB or
greater between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.
 A maximum sound level of 65 dB or
greater between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.
 Examples of measures to reduce on-site
noise include, but are not limited to,
Verify noise reduction measures
in project plans.

Prior to issuance of
building permits.

Once. City of Pacific
Grove; project
proponent For development projects within
50 feet of noise-sensitive uses,
evaluate potential operational
noise impacts.

Prior to the
issuance of building
permits.

Once.

If noise is expected to exceed the
City’s thresholds,
implement noise reduction
measures as specified in the
measure.

Routinely
throughout
construction as
needed, pursuant
to the City’s
daytime and
nighttime noise
thresholds.

Throughout
construction.

PGCC 12-3-25

Page 199 ends

Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required Timing
Monitoring
Requirements
Responsible
Agency
Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments
operational restrictions, selection of quiet
equipment, equipment setbacks,
enclosures, silencers, and/or acoustical
louvers. Measures to reduce stationary
operational noise shall be submitted to
the City prior to issuance of building
permits. Projects that are not anticipated
to exceed the above noise levels shall not
be required to implement stationary
operational noise reduction measures.

NOI-2 Measures to Reduce Construction Vibration
Prior to issuance of a building permit for
development facilitated by the project
requiring any of the following activities, the
project applicant shall prepare a groundborne
noise and vibration analysis to assess and
mitigate potential noise and vibration impacts
related to these construction activities.
 Pile driving during construction within 135
feet of fragile structures such as historical
resources
 Pile driving during construction within 100
feet of non-engineered timber and
masonry buildings (e.g., most residential
buildings)
 Pile driving during construction within 75
feet of engineered concrete and masonry
(no plaster)
 Use of a vibratory roller within 40 feet of
fragile historical resources or 25 feet of
any other structure
 Use of a dozer or other large earthmoving
equipment within 20 feet for a fragile
historical structure or 15 feet of any other
structure
Prepare groundborne noise and
vibration analysis.

Prior to the
issuance of building
permits.

Once. City of Pacific
Grove; project
proponent
Verify implementation of
vibration reduction measures as
specified in the measure.

Routinely
throughout
construction.

Routinely as
needed.

Conduct construction vibration
monitoring as necessary.

During
construction.

Ongoing during
construction.

PGCC 12-3-25

Page 200 ends

Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required Timing
Monitoring
Requirements
Responsible
Agency
Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments
This noise and vibration analysis shall be
conducted by a qualified and experienced
acoustical consultant or engineer. The
groundborne noise and vibration analysis
shall include measures to ensure that
vibration levels shall not exceed FTA
architectural damage thresholds (e.g., 0.12
in/sec PPV for fragile or historical resources,

0.2 in/sec PPV for non-engineered timber and
masonry buildings, and 0.3 in/sec PPV for
engineered concrete and masonry). If
vibration levels would exceed this threshold,
alternative uses such as drilling piles as
opposed to pile driving, static rollers as
opposed to vibratory rollers, and lower
horsepower earthmoving equipment shall be
used. If necessary, construction vibration
monitoring shall be conducted to verify FTA
vibration thresholds are not exceeded.

Utilities and Service Systems
UTIL-2 Water Supply Verification
Sufficient water supply availability must be
verified for all projects under the City of
Pacific Grove Housing Element Update,
Zoning Ordinance Amendments, and General
Plan Amendments. The City shall not issue
any building permits for development
projects requiring potable water until a Water
Verification Report has been issued by the
Monterey Peninsula Water Management
District (MPWMD) confirming sufficient water
supply is available for the project. Project
applicants shall submit a detailed accounting
of all project water demands to MPWMD, for
consideration in issuing a Water Verification
Report. Projects meeting the definition of a
Confirm that sufficient water
supply is available for each
development project.

Prior to the
issuance of building
permits.

Once. City of Pacific
Grove; project
proponent
PGCC 12-3-25

Page 201 ends

Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required Timing
Monitoring
Requirements
Responsible
Agency
Com-
pliance
Verifi-
cation
Initial
Com-
pliance
Verifi-
cation
Date
Com-
pliance
Verifi-
cation
Comments
“Project” under California Water Code (CWC)
Section 10912 must be evaluated in a Water
Supply Assessment (WSA) in accordance with
CWC Section 10910(f), subject to review and
approval by MPWMD. Projects that are not
subject to CWC Section 10912 must be
evaluated in a Residential Water Release
Form & Water Permit Application, subject to
review and approval by MPWMD. Water
Verification Reports issued by MPWMD shall
be informed by project-specific demand
information provided in the respective WSA
or Residential Water Release Form & Water
Permit Application. The Water Verification
Report shall identify whether the proposed
project requires additional water credits to
meet project demands, in addition to any
existing water credits that may be associated
with the project site(s).

PGCC 12-3-25

Page 202 ends

This page intentionally left blank.

PGCC 12-3-25

Page 203 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 25-____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC

GROVE ADOPTING ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS PURSUANT TO

THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FOR THE

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, ZONING ORDINANCE

AMENDMENTS, AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS, ADOPTING

THE STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND

ADOPTING THE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING

PROGRAM, AND AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN TO ADOPT THE
2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT, AMEND THE LAND USE ELEMENT

AND LAND USE MAP, AND AMEND THE HEALTH AND SAFETY

ELEMENT

RECITALS
Whereas, Government Code Section 65300, et seq., requires each city to adopt a comprehensive, long-term General Plan for the physical development of each city; and Whereas, on October 5, 1994, the City Council of the City of Pacific Grove ("City") adopted a city-wide General Plan ("General Plan") pursuant to California Planning, Zoning and Development law; and
Whereas, there is a statutory recognition that the availability of housing is a matter of statewide importance and that cooperation between government and the private sector is critical to attainment of the State’s housing goals; and
Whereas, California Government Code Section 65588(b) requires the City to periodically prepare an update to the Housing Element of its General Plan; and Whereas, pursuant to Government Code Section 65302(g), the City must update its Safety Element concurrently with the update to the Housing Element to address risk of flood and fire, an assessment of climate change vulnerability, strategies for climate change adaptation and resilience, and emergency evacuation routes; and
Whereas, on August 17, 2022, the City Council by motion and unanimous vote (7 - 0), authorized and directed City staff to initiate a focused general plan update to meet the minimum requirements in connection with the 2023-2031 6th Cycle Housing Element Update; and Whereas, the Housing Element Update, Zoning Ordinance Amendments, and General Plan Amendments Project (“project”) includes the following components: 1) 2023-2031 Housing Element, which includes, among other things, a program to upzone sites in the Downtown Commercial and Forest Hill Commercial Districts and rezone sites in the Dennett, Sinex, and Grove Acre District; 2) Zoning Amendments to implement Housing Element Programs, including updates to the zoning map; and 3) associated General Plan Amendments to the Health and Safety Element, the Land Use Element, and the Land Use Map; and Whereas, beginning in April, 2022, the City conducted more than 19 public meetings before either the Planning Commission or the City Council to provide information, obtain public comment, seek direction from elected and appointed officials, and consider the Housing Element Update project; and
PGCC 12-3-25

Page 204 ends

Whereas, the draft Housing Element was made available for public review and comment in accordance with Government Code Section 65585 and submitted to the California Housing and Community Development (HCD) for review on November 2, 2023; December 20, 2024; and May 21, 2025; and
Whereas, the zoning amendments to Title 23 (Zoning) of the Pacific Grove Municipal Code and the Zoning Map would include, among other things, modifications to meet target densities as well as compliance with State housing laws as identified in the Housing Element; and Whereas, certain property zoning classifications will be reclassified as follows:
a. From R-2-B-3 to R-3: 611 Dennett Street (Assessor’s Parcel Number [APN] 006-572- 012); 637 Dennett Street (APN 006-572-011); 659 Dennett Street (APN 006-572-009); 679 Dennett Street (APN 006-572-008); 1110 Sinex Avenue (APN 006-572-015); 1114 Sinex Avenue (APN 006-572-016); 1120 Sinex Avenue (APN 006-572-006); 1126 Sinex Avenue (APN 006-572-007); 702 Grove Acre Avenue (APN 006-572-001); 706 Grove Acre Avenue (APN 006-572-002); 708 Grove Acre Avenue (APN 006-572- 003); 710 Grove Acre Avenue (APN 006-572-004); 720 Grove Acre Avenue (APN 006- 572-013); and 726 Grove Acre Avenue (APN (006-572-014); and b. From R-2 to R-3: 915 Sunset Drive (APN 007-101-007); and Whereas, the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Land Use Map would be updated for consistency with the Housing Element Update and Zoning Amendments; and Whereas, certain property land use designations will be redesignated as follows:
a. From Medium Density Residential (MDR) 8.7 to High Density Residential (HDR)

29.0: 611 Dennett Street (Assessor’s Parcel Number [APN] 006-572-012); 637 Dennett Street (APN 006-572-011); 659 Dennett Street (APN 006-572-009); 679 Dennett Street (APN 006-572-008); 1110 Sinex Avenue (APN 006-572-015); 1114 Sinex Avenue (APN 006-572-016); 1120 Sinex Avenue (APN 006-572-006); 1126 Sinex Avenue (APN 006-572-007); 702 Grove Acre Avenue (APN 006-572-001); 706 Grove Acre Avenue (APN 006-572-002); 708 Grove Acre Avenue (APN 006-572-003); 710 Grove Acre Avenue (APN 006-572-004); 720 Grove Acre Avenue (APN 006-572-013); and 726 Grove Acre Avenue (APN (006-572-014); and
b. From MDR 17.4 to HDR 29.0: 915 Sunset Drive (APN 007-101-007); and c. From Neighborhood Commercial (NC) to MDR 9.7: 1142 Buena Vista Avenue (APN 007-562-015) and 1204 Shafter Avenue (APN 007-562-016); and Whereas, the Health and Safety Element of the General Plan would involve updated information, policies, and implementation measures consistent with the current requirements of state law, including additional details related to evacuation routes and emergency access; and Whereas, the project area includes the entirety of Pacific Grove and includes identified housing sites, upzoning and rezoning areas, and additional parcels primarily located in the Downtown Commercial and Forest Hill Commercial Districts and in the Dennett, Sinex, and Grove Acre District; and
Whereas, in accordance with Government Code Section 21676 the proposed amendments to the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance were submitted to the Airport Land Use Commission for a determination of consistency with the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for Monterey PGCC 12-3-25

Page 205 ends

Regional Airport; and
Whereas, the draft Health and Safety Element was submitted to the California Geological Survey of the Department of Conservation, the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection, and to every local agency that provides fire protection to territory in the City in accordance with Government Code Section 65302.5; and
Whereas, on July 10, 2025, the City received a letter of conditional approval from HCD indicating the revised 2023-2031 Housing Element is in substantial compliance with state Housing Element Law following adoption of the changes and submittal of the final document to HCD; and Whereas, pursuant to Section 21067 of the Public Resources Code, and Section 15367 of the State CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., Title 14, § 15000, et seq.), the City of Pacific Grove is the lead agency for the proposed project; and
Whereas, on November 13, 2025, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing and adopted Resolution No. 25-001 recommending that the City Council certify the Final EIR, adopt amendments to the City’s General Plan, Land Use Map, Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map, and make CEQA Findings of Fact, and adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations; and Whereas, the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the project was certified by the City of Pacific Grove City Council on December 3, 2025, as set forth in Resolution No. 25- ____; and
Whereas, pursuant to this Resolution, the City is making certain findings of fact, as set forth in Attachment A to this Resolution, based upon the oral and written evidence presented to it as a whole and the entirety of the administrative record for the project, which are incorporated herein by this reference; and
Whereas, the City finds that certain environmental impacts identified in the EIR are less than significant and do not require mitigation as described in the EIR; and Whereas, the City finds that certain environmental impacts identified in the EIR are less than significant with incorporation of mitigation measures as described in Section 4.2 of Attachment A; and
Whereas, the City finds that even with the incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures, certain environmental impacts identified in the EIR remain significant and unavoidable as described in Section 4.3 of Attachment A; and
Whereas, the potential significant irreversible environmental changes that would result from the proposed project identified in the EIR and set forth herein, are as described in Section 4.3 of Attachment A; and
Whereas, alternatives to the proposed project that may reduce the significant and unavoidable environmental impacts are as described in Section 5 of Attachment A; and Whereas, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the City has prepared a Statement of Overriding Considerations that notes that although the EIR identifies significant and unavoidable impacts in the categories of Cultural Resources, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Noise, the City finds that there are overriding considerations that provide specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including region-wide or statewide environmental benefits, that outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects. The project’s Statement of PGCC 12-3-25

Page 206 ends

Overriding Considerations are set forth in Section 6 of Attachment A to this Resolution; and Whereas, all the mitigation measures identified in the EIR and necessary to reduce the potentially significant impacts of the proposed project to a level of less than significant, or to reduce significant and unavoidable impacts to the extent feasible, are set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) in Attachment F to this Resolution, attached hereto and incorporated herein; and
Whereas, pursuant to Government Code Sections 65090, 65091, 65355, and 65856, on November 20, 2025, at least 10 days before the public hearing date, notice of the hearing before the City Council was published in the Monterey County Weekly and Monterey Herald, posted at City Hall, mailed to affected owners of the subject real property and property owners within 300’ of the subject real property, posted on-site at each affected property, posted on the City’s Community Development Department and Housing Element webpages, and emailed to a list of interested parties; and
Whereas, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, pursuant to PGMC Section 23.84.060, Findings, in consideration of the proposed amendments, the City Council considered the entirety of the record, including the Final Environmental Impact Report, the draft amendment documents, the agenda report, written and oral testimony, and administrative record as a whole and, on that basis, the City Council of the City of Pacific Grove finds that:

General Plan Amendments

1. The proposed General Plan amendments are internally consistent with all other provisions of the General Plan; and

2. The proposed General Plan amendments would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the city; and

3. The sites are physically suitable (including access, provision of utilities, compatibility with adjoining land uses, and absence of physical constraints) for the requested and anticipated land uses.

Zoning Ordinance Amendments

1. The proposed amendment is consistent with the general plan and the certified local coastal program; and

2. The proposed amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the city; and

3. The proposed amendment is internally consistent with applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance.

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

1. The City Council determines that each of the Recitals, Facts, and Findings set forth above is true and correct, and by this reference incorporates those Recitals, Facts, and Findings as an integral part of this Resolution. All Attachments hereto are hereby incorporated by reference.

2. The City Council finds, based on substantial evidence contained in the 2023–2031 Housing PGCC 12-3-25

Page 207 ends

Element, that the existing uses on nonvacant sites identified to accommodate lower-income housing needs do not constitute an impediment to additional residential development during the planning period. Evidence supporting this finding includes:
a) Local redevelopment trends demonstrate redevelopment or reuse of commercial buildings on commercially zoned sites with mixed-use projects at high densities. b) Regional development trends in other cities in the Monterey Peninsula demonstrate redevelopment of nonvacant parcels for residential and mixed-use projects. c) The nonvacant sites follow site selection criteria identifying nonvacant parcels with characteristics that support the likelihood of redevelopment during the planning period, including underutilized surface parking lots, vacant buildings, single-story commercial structures, buildings over 30 years old, parcels with high land-toimprovement value ratios, sites developed at less than 50 percent of the maximum allowable Floor Area Ratio, redevelopment interest from property owners or developers, and City-owned or partially City-owned properties.

3. The City Council hereby adopts the CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations, which were prepared in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 and which are attached hereto as Attachment A, and finds that each and every one of the overriding considerations individually outweighs each and every one of the project’s potentially significant and unavoidable impacts.

4. The General Plan is hereby amended to repeal the 2015-2023 Housing Element in its entirety and replace it with the 2023-2031 Housing Element (Attachment B).

5. The Land Use Element of the General is hereby amended as set for in Attachment C.

6. The Land Use Map of the General Plan is hereby amended as set forth in Attachment D.

7. The Health and Safety Element of the General Plan is hereby amended as set forth in Attachment E.

8. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, the City Council hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached hereto as Attachment F and incorporated herein by this reference. Implementation of the Mitigation Measures contained in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is hereby made a condition of approval of the project. In the event of any inconsistencies between the Mitigation Measures set forth in the EIR or the Findings of Fact and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program shall control.

9. The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which this Resolution has been based are located at, and under the custodianship of the Community Development Department, City Hall, 300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA 93950. This information is provided pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081.6.

10. City staff shall cause a Notice of Determination to be filed and posted with the County Clerk and the State Clearinghouse within five working days of the adoption of this Resolution.

11. This Resolution shall become effective immediately following passage and adoption thereof.

PASSED AND ADOPTED AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE on this 3rd day of December, 2025 by the following vote:

PGCC 12-3-25

Page 208 ends

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

APPROVED:
______________________________
NICK SMITH, Mayor
ATTEST:

DATED:
______________________________
SANDRA KANDELL, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________
BRIAN A. PIERIK, City Attorney
PGCC 12-3-25

Page 209 ends

Housing Element Update, Zoning Ordinance
Amendments, and General Plan Amendments
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations SCH #2024010897
prepared by
City of Pacific Grove
Department of Community Development
300 Forest Avenue, 2nd Floor
Pacific Grove, California 90395
Contact: Joe Sidor, Contract Senior Planner
prepared with the assistance of
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
80 Garden Court, Suite 240
Monterey, California 93940
November 2025
PGCC 12-3-25

Page 210 ends

2 Table of Contents
1 Introduction....................................................................................................................................... 1 2 Project Description.............................................................................................................................3 3 Project Objectives.............................................................................................................................. 5 4 Findings of Fact.................................................................................................................................. 6

4.1 Environmental Effects Found Not to be Significant................................................................. 6

4.2 Findings for Significant but Mitigable Effects.......................................................................... 6

4.3 Findings for Significant and Unavoidable Effects...................................................................23 5 Project Alternatives..........................................................................................................................29

5.1 Alternative 1: No Project....................................................................................................... 29

5.2 Alternative 2: Reduced Density............................................................................................. 30

5.3 Alternative 3: Fewer Sites...................................................................................................... 31 6 Statement of Overriding Considerations..........................................................................................33 7 Statement of Location and Custodian of Documents...................................................................... 35 PGCC 12-3-25

Page 211 ends

Table of Contents
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations This page intentionally left blank.

PGCC 12-3-25

Page 212 ends

Findings of Fact
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 1 Introduction
A Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) was prepared for the City of Pacific Grove Housing Element Update, Zoning Ordinance Amendments, and General Plan Amendments and was made available for public and local and State agency review on June 30, 2025. Copies of the Notice of Availability (NOA) of the Draft EIR were mailed to a list of interested parties, groups, and public agencies; filed with the State Clearinghouse; filed with the Monterey County Clerk; and published in the Monterey County Weekly on June 26, 2025 and in the Monterey County Herald on June 30, 2025. The Draft EIR and an announcement of its availability were posted electronically on the project website at
https://www.cityofpacificgrove.gov/our_city/departments/community_development/housing/hous ing_element.php. Physical copies were also available at the following locations:
 City of Pacific Grove Community Development Department, 300 Forest Avenue, 2nd Floor, Pacific Grove, California 93950
 Pacific Grove Public Library, 550 Central Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950 The local review period and state review period began on June 30, 2025, and ended on August 15, 2025. The public was encouraged to submit written comments to Joe Sidor, City of Pacific Grove, Community Development Department, at the email: [email protected].

After close of the Draft EIR public review and comment period, a Responses to Comments document was prepared for the City of Pacific Grove (City) City Council. The Responses to Comments document consists of an introduction; responses to comments on the Draft EIR, including a list of all commenters and copies of all their public comment letters; a summary of revisions to the Draft EIR; and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. The Draft EIR and Responses to Comments together comprise the Final EIR. On December 3, 2025, the City Council, at a public hearing, is expected to consider whether to certify the Final EIR and to approve the project. The public hearing will be simultaneously held virtually and in person.

The Findings of Fact (Findings) and Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC) presented herein address the environmental effects associated with the project that are described and analyzed within the Final EIR, and reflect the Council’s determinations about feasible mitigation measures and the adequacy of the Final EIR. These Findings have been made pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; California Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.), specifically Public Resources Code Section 21081 and 21081.6, as well as the CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR 15000 et seq.) Sections 15091 and 15093.

Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 require that the City, as the Lead Agency for this project, prepare written findings for any identified significant environmental effects along with a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. Specific findings under CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a) are:
(1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Draft EIR. (2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency.

PGCC 12-3-25

Page 213 ends

Findings of Fact
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations (3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Draft EIR.

Furthermore, in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, whenever significant effects cannot be mitigated to below a level of significance, the City as the decision-making agency is required to balance, as applicable, the benefits of the project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the benefits of a project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse effects may be considered “acceptable,” in which case the lead agency must adopt a formal statement of overriding considerations.

The Draft EIR identified potentially significant environmental effects that could result from the project but could be reduced to a less than significant level through implementation of mitigation measures. Those effects were related to air quality (impacts related to construction emissions), biological resources (impacts related to special status species, sensitive natural communities, wetlands, and policy consistency), cultural resources (impacts related to archaeological resources), geology and soils (impacts to paleontological resources), noise (impacts related to construction phase groundborne vibration), and utilities and service systems (impacts related to water supply).

Significant and unavoidable (unmitigable) impacts associated with cultural resources (impacts related to historical resources), greenhouse gas emissions (impacts related to conflicts with applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing greenhouse gas emissions), and noise (impacts related to construction and operational noise) were identified because mitigation measures would not reduce impacts to a less than significant level, and thus a statement of overriding considerations is required.

PGCC 12-3-25

Page 214 ends

City of Pacific Grove
Housing Element Update, Zoning Ordinance Amendments, and General Plan Amendments 3 2 Project Description
This proposed project is the Pacific Grove Housing Element Update, Zoning Ordinance Amendments, and General Plan Amendments. The following is a summary of the full project description, which can be found in Chapter 2, Project Description, of the Draft EIR. The proposed project consists of the following components:
 Updating and adopting the City’s Housing Element
 Amending the City’s Zoning Code and zoning map to:
 Increase the maximum allowed development density and establish a minimum residential density of the Downtown Commercial (C-D) Zoning Districts and Forest Hill Commercial (CFH) Zoning Districts (“upzoning”)  Remove the requirement that maximum allowed development density in C-1 and C-2 zones outside the Coastal Zone are equal to that of the nearest General Plan residential land use category (“upzoning”)
 Rezone the Dennett, Sinex, and Grove Acre District to allow higher density residential development (“rezoning”)
 Rezone one housing site (Site 50) to allow higher density residential development (“rezoning”)
 Update the mixed-use and residential development standards which constrain housing from meeting maximum densities (e.g., reduce parking requirements for multi-family housing and establish appropriate development standards to achieve the increased maximum allowable densities in the C-D and C-FH Zoning Districts)
 Include objective design standards for multi-family residential and mixed-use development  Address administrative provisions including amendments to permitting processes to support residential streamlining requirements including establishing a process to allow for by right processing of projects that include a specified number of affordable housing units  Incorporate state mandated affordable housing requirements including use requirements for single room occupancy housing, parking standards for supportive housing and emergency shelters, use requirements for low barrier navigation centers, compliance standards for employee housing, use standards for large residential care facilities, and objective standards for reasonable accommodation
 Update development standards for accessory dwelling units (ADU) to comply with state ADU law
 Develop a local density bonus program to offer incentives beyond those required by state density bonus law
 Amend the City’s General Plan Land Use Element and land use map to ensure consistency with the Housing Element Update and zoning amendments
 Amend the City’s Health and Safety Element to comply with recent state legislation The proposed project includes updates to zoning regulations, modifications to residential and mixed -use development standards, and implementation of state-mandated housing policies. Specific changes include reducing parking requirements for multi-family housing, streamlining permitting processes, and incorporating objective design standards for new residential projects. Additional PGCC 12-3-25

Page 215 ends

Findings of Fact
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations amendments address ADU regulations, density bonus incentives, and compliance with state affordable housing laws. These updates aim to enhance housing opportunities, increase residential density, and align local policies with state housing requirements.

The project in and of itself does not develop housing. It is a plan to provide for the possibility of housing, supported by consistent zoning standards. It is assumed that not all housing would realistically be built, based on previous development history in Pacific Grove, as housing development is mainly accomplished by the private sector and depends upon factors the City does not control, including financial resources, market trends, and other factors. However, the programlevel Draft EIR analyzes all of the possible, potential and reasonably foreseeable growth facilitated by the project.

PGCC 12-3-25

Page 216 ends

City of Pacific Grove
Housing Element Update, Zoning Ordinance Amendments, and General Plan Amendments 5 3 Project Objectives
The City has established the following objectives for the proposed project:
 Provide capacity to meet the state-required Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for the 6th Cycle Housing Element planning period of 2023-2031, including providing a buffer of 20 percent of the remaining RHNA for lower-1 and moderate-income units to ensure no net loss.  Ensure that the growth facilitated by the Housing Element is achievable, through associated amendments to the Zoning Code and/or Land Use Element of the General Plan.  Disperse housing sites throughout the City to ensure that no single neighborhood or area is overburdened or impacted.
 Preserve historic, single-family neighborhoods.
 Improve fair housing conditions in the city by implementing meaningful actions. Provide for fair and equal housing opportunities for all persons, regardless of protected characteristics, including but not limited to, age, ancestry, sex, gender, gender expression, sexual orientation, religion, disability, family status, race, creed, color, or national origin.  Continue existing and develop new programs and policies to meet the projected affordable housing need of extremely low, very low, low, and moderate-income households.  Bring the General Plan into conformance with recently enacted state housing law, including Assembly Bill (AB) 1398, AB 747, Senate Bill (SB) 99, and SB 379; as well as update the City’s Health and Safety Element to meet state requirements for general plan safety elements.  Identify housing policies and programs that enable the development of additional units and the preservation of existing units, that reduce governmental constraints to building housing, and that affirmatively further fair housing.
 Encourage the development of by-right low-income housing for 6th Cycle housing sites proposed for rezoning and existing 4th and 5th Cycle housing sites that are reused in the 6th Cycle, increasing the overall availability of affordable housing.  Identify appropriate housing sites and provide housing development opportunities in specified areas that have the potential to accommodate additional housing; are proximate to jobs, transportation, shopping and schools; and have the accompanying zoning required to accommodate housing development.
1 “Lower-income” includes both the very low and low income categories.

PGCC 12-3-25

Page 217 ends

Findings of Fact
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 4 Findings of Fact
Having received, reviewed, and considered the information in the Draft EIR and in the Responses to Comments document (together comprising the Final EIR) for this project, as well as the supporting administrative record, the City of Pacific Grove makes findings pursuant to, and in accordance with, Sections 21081, 21081.5, and 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code.

4.1 Environmental Effects Found Not to be 4.1
Significant
Through project scoping and the environmental analysis contained within the Draft EIR, it was determined that the project would not result in potentially significant effects on the environment with respect to the following environmental topics:
 Aesthetics
 Air Quality (plan consistency, emissions of criteria air pollutants, and objectionable odors)  Biological Resources (wildlife movement and plan consistency)  Cultural Resources (human remains)
 Energy
 Geology and Soils (all seismic and soil hazards)
 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
 Hydrology and Water Quality
 Land Use and Planning
 Noise (airport noise)
 Population and housing
 Public Services and Recreation
 Transportation
 Tribal Cultural Resources
 Utilities and Service Systems (expansion or construction of utility services and solid waste generation)
 Wildfire
Mitigation measures are not needed and no further findings are required for these subject areas.

4.2 Findings for Significant but Mitigable 4.2
Effects
The following findings are hereby made by the City of Pacific Grove for the significant but mitigable environmental effects identified in the Draft EIR related to:
 Air Quality (toxic air contaminants)
 Biological Resources (special-status species, sensitive natural communities, wetlands, and policy consistency)
PGCC 12-3-25

Page 218 ends

City of Pacific Grove
Housing Element Update, Zoning Ordinance Amendments, and General Plan Amendments 7  Cultural Resources (archaeological resources)
 Geology and Soils (paleontological resources)
 Noise (vibration)
 Utilities and Service Systems (water supply)
Air Quality – Impact AQ-3
Development facilitated by the proposed project would not increase carbon monoxide concentrations such that it would create carbon monoxide hotspots. While the project is not considered a land use that would generate emissions of substantial toxic air contaminants, emissions within 1,000 feet of a sensitive receptor could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. With the implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-3(a) and AQ-3(b), the project’s potentially significant construction impacts on sensitive receptors would be reduced to a less than significant level.

Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR (Section 15091[a][1]). Implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-3(a) and AQ-3(b) would reduce impacts related to health risks associated with exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations to a less than significant level by requiring the use of Tier 4 Final construction equipment, alternative fuels, and extensive dust control measures.

Explanation
Construction and operation of development facilitated by the project could expose sensitive receptors to elevated concentrations of toxic air contaminants, including diesel particulate matter.

Mitigation Measures AQ-3(a) and AQ-3(b) would reduce these impacts by requiring Tier 4 Final construction equipment, alternative fuels, and dust control practices recommended by the Monterey Bay Air Resources District. These measures significantly reduce DPM and PM10 emissions, with watering alone reducing dust by up to 61 percent.

Operational impacts would be minimized through compliance with Monterey Bay Air Resources District Rule 1000, the implementation of which would ensure health risks remain below regulatory thresholds. Traffic volumes in the project area are well below the California Air Resources Board’s thresholds, and land uses are not expected to generate substantial TAC emissions. Therefore, implementation of mitigation would reduce potential air quality impacts to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measures
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, the following mitigation measures have been included in a MMRP that is to be adopted concurrently with these findings.

AQ-3(A) CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS
Prior to construction activity and issuance of grading permits for development facilitated by the project, the City Building Official shall confirm that the grading plan, building plans, and specifications stipulate the following measures shall be implemented:

PGCC 12-3-25

Page 219 ends

Findings of Fact
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations  All mobile off-road equipment (wheeled or tracked) used during construction activities shall meet USEPA Tier 4 Final standards. Tier 4 certification can be for the original equipment or equipment that is retrofitted to meet the Tier 4 Final standards.  Alternative fuel (natural gas, propane, electric, etc.) construction equipment shall be incorporated where available or necessary to reduce TAC emissions. These requirements shall be incorporated into the contract agreement with the construction contractor. A copy of the equipment’s certification or model year specifications shall be available upon request for all equipment on-site.
 Electricity shall be supplied to the site from the existing power grid to support the electric construction equipment. If connection to the grid is determined to be infeasible for portions of the project, a non-diesel fueled generator shall be used.

AQ-3(B) MBARD FUGITIVE DUST REDUCTION MEASURES
The City shall require the implementation of the following MBARD fugitive dust reduction measures, where applicable, to reduce PM10 emissions generated by dust during the construction phase of development facilitated by the project:
 Water all active construction areas at least twice daily. Frequency should be based on the type of operation, soil, and wind exposure.
 Prohibit all grading activities during periods of high wind (over 15 mph).  Apply chemical soil stabilizers on inactive construction areas (disturbed lands within construction projects that are unused for at least four consecutive days).  Apply non-toxic binders (e.g., latex acrylic copolymer) to exposed areas after cut and fill operations and hydro seed area.
 Haul trucks shall maintain at least 2'0" of freeboard.  Cover all trucks hauling dirt, sand, or loose materials.  Plant tree windbreaks on the windward perimeter of construction projects if adjacent to open land.
 Plant vegetative ground cover in disturbed areas as soon as possible.  Cover inactive storage piles.
 Install wheel washers at the entrance to construction sites for all exiting trucks.  Pave all roads on construction sites.
 Sweep streets if visible soil material is carried out from the construction site.  Post a publicly visible sign which specifies the telephone number and person to contact regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond to complaints and take corrective action within 48 hours. The phone number of the Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District shall be visible to ensure compliance with Rule 402 (Nuisance).  Limit the area under construction at any one time.

PGCC 12-3-25

Page 220 ends

City of Pacific Grove
Housing Element Update, Zoning Ordinance Amendments, and General Plan Amendments 9 Biological Resources - Impact BIO-1
Development facilitated by the project could disturb known special-status species or their associated habitat, including through habitat modifications, on a species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Development facilitated by the project during the nesting bird season could directly and/or indirectly affect nesting birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code Section 3503. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Draft EIR (Section 15091[a][1]). Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1(a) through BIO-1(i) would reduce potential impacts to species identified as a candidate, sensitive, and special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations to a less than significant level by implementing avoidance measures, conducting special status species surveys, and avoiding the introduction of invasive species.

Explanation
Development facilitated by the project could impact special-status plant and wildlife species, sensitive habitats, and native ecosystems. Construction activities such as grading, vegetation removal, equipment staging, and building may disturb biological resources, while operational activities such as landscaping, site maintenance, and long-term land use may affect habitat quality and species movement.

Mitigation Measures BIO-1(a) through BIO-1(i) reduce these impacts by requiring pre-construction biological surveys, species-specific avoidance and relocation protocols, seasonal restrictions for sensitive species such as monarch butterflies and nesting birds, habitat restoration through a Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan, and invasive species prevention during and after construction. These measures ensure that biological resource impacts are avoided or minimized, reducing them to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measures
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, the following mitigation measures have been included in a MMRP that is to be adopted concurrently with these findings.

BIO-1(A) SPECIAL-STATUS PLANT SPECIES SURVEYS
A City-approved biologist shall complete surveys for special-status plants in undeveloped areas at Sites 47, 49, 50, and 55, and additional parcels A1, A3, and A4 prior to any vegetation removal, grubbing, or other construction activity (including staging and mobilization). The surveys shall be floristic in nature and shall be seasonally timed to coincide with the target species. All plant surveys shall be conducted by a City-approved biologist during the blooming season, and during development application processing yet prior to development permit approval. All special-status plant species identified on each site shall be mapped onto a site-specific aerial photograph or topographic map with the use of Global Positioning System unit. Surveys shall be conducted in accordance with the most current protocols established by the CDFW, USFWS, and the local jurisdictions if said protocols exist. A report of the survey results shall be submitted to the City, and PGCC 12-3-25

Page 221 ends

Findings of Fact
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations the CDFW and/or USFWS for state or federally listed plants, as appropriate, for review and/or approval. If project construction does not occur within three years of the initial special-status plant survey, additional floristic surveys shall be repeated.

If special-status plants are not found during special-status plant surveys, no further action is required. If federally- and/or state-listed individuals and/or CRPR 1B or 2 plant populations are found during special-status plant surveys, then Mitigation Measures BIO-1(b) and BIO-1(c) shall be implemented.

BIO-1(B) SPECIAL-STATUS PLANT SPECIES AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION, AND MITIGATION If federally-listed and/or state-listed individuals, and/or CRPR 1B or 2 plant populations are found during special-status plant surveys [pursuant to Mitigation Measure BIO-1(a)], and would be directly impacted by development, then the project shall be re-designed to avoid impacting listed plant species or CRPR 1B or 2 populations, where feasible and compatible with project design. Rare and listed plant occurrences that are not within the immediate disturbance footprint but are located within 50 feet of disturbance limits shall have bright orange protective fencing installed at least 30 feet beyond their extent, or other distance as approved by a City-approved biologist based on species location in relation to the construction area and level of disturbance from construction activities, to protect them from harm. Prior to initiation of construction activities the project proponent shall submit a site plan depicting the location(s) of special-status plants and avoidance buffers to the City for review and verification. The City-approved biologist(s) shall possess a degree in biology, ecology, botany, or a related field, and have demonstrated knowledge and experience with native plant and wildlife species of the region, their habitats, and applicable environmental regulations. The biologist shall have prior experience conducting pre-construction surveys, construction monitoring, and implementing mitigation measures and permit conditions similar to those required for this project. If special-status plants can be avoided, no further action is required.

If federally- and/or state-listed individuals and/or CRPR 1B or 2 plant populations cannot be avoided, then Mitigation Measure BIO-1(c) shall be implemented.

BIO-1(C) HABITAT MITIGATION AND MONITORING PLAN
If federally- and/or state-listed plants, non-listed special-status plant populations, sensitive natural communities, or waters of the US and/or State cannot be avoided and will be impacted by development, all impacts shall be mitigated by the implementing entity at a minimum ratio of 1:1 for occupied habitat area as a component of habitat restoration or through compensatory mitigation. A habitat mitigation and monitoring plan (HMMP) shall be prepared by a City-approved biologist and submitted by the project proponent to the City for review and verification prior to the issuance of building permits. The project proponent shall also obtain all necessary permits from USFWS and/or CDFW and provide proof of take authorization, if required, to the City for verification prior to issuance of any permits for ground disturbing activities. The HMMP shall include, at a minimum, the following components:

1. Description of the project/impact site (i.e., location, responsible parties, areas to be impacted by habitat type).

2. Goal(s) of the compensatory mitigation project (type[s] and area[s]) of habitat to be established, restored, enhanced, and/or preserved; specific functions and values of habitat type[s] to be established, restored, enhanced, and/or preserved).

3. Description of the proposed compensatory mitigation site (location and size, ownership status, existing functions, and values).

PGCC 12-3-25

Page 222 ends

City of Pacific Grove
Housing Element Update, Zoning Ordinance Amendments, and General Plan Amendments 11 4. Implementation plan for the compensatory mitigation site (rationale for expecting implementation success, responsible parties, schedule, site preparation, planting plan).

5. Maintenance activities during the monitoring period, including weed removal as appropriate (activities, responsible parties, schedule).

6. Monitoring plan for the compensatory mitigation site, including no less than quarterly monitoring for the first year (performance standards, target functions and values, target acreages to be established, restored, enhanced, and/or preserved, annual monitoring reports).

7. Success criteria based on the goals and measurable objectives; said criteria to be, at a minimum, at least 80 percent survival of container plants and 30 percent relative cover by vegetation type or other industry standards as determined by a qualified restoration specialist.

8. An adaptive management program and remedial measures to address any shortcomings in meeting success criteria.

9. Notification of completion of compensatory mitigation and agency confirmation.

10. Contingency measures (initiating procedures, alternative locations for contingency compensatory mitigation, funding mechanism).

11. All nursery plants used in restoration shall be inspected for sudden oak death.

Within 30 days of completion of monitoring, a final monitoring report shall be submitted to the City for review and verification, documenting compliance with the HMMP and achievement of success criteria.

BIO-1(D) WORKER ENVIRONMENTAL AWARENESS PROGRAM
Prior to initiation of construction activities at Site 49, 42, 43, 47, 50, 55, and additional parcels A1, A3, and A4 (including staging and mobilization), the project proponent for development shall arrange for all personnel associated with project construction for the applicable phase to attend Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) training, conducted by a City-approved biologist, to aid workers in recognizing special-status biological resources that may occur in the construction area. The specifics of this WEAP shall include identification of the sensitive species and habitats, a description of the regulatory status and general ecological characteristics of sensitive resources, and review of the limits of construction and mitigation measures required to reduce impacts to biological resources within the work area. A fact sheet conveying this information shall also be prepared for distribution to all contractors, their employers, and other personnel involved with construction. All employees shall sign a form provided by the trainer indicating they have attended the WEAP training and understand the information presented to them. The form shall be submitted to the City to document compliance prior to the initiation of ground disturbing activities, and as new personnel are added to the construction site.

BIO-1(E) NORTHERN CALIFORNIA LEGLESS LIZARD AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION A pre-construction clearance survey shall be conducted in undeveloped areas of Sites 47, 49, 50, and 55, and additional parcels A1, A3, and A4 for Northern California legless lizard by a Cityapproved biologist within 48 hours prior to the start of construction (including staging and mobilization). The survey shall cover the entire disturbance footprint within suitable habitats with moist loose soil, plus a minimum 100-foot buffer, where permissible, and should identify all specialstatus wildlife species observed on the project site. During the pre-construction survey the biologist PGCC 12-3-25

Page 223 ends

Findings of Fact
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations shall inspect under logs, leaf litter, or other suitable refuge. If Northern California legless lizards are identified, individuals shall be relocated by a biologist to suitable cover with loose soils a minimum of 500 feet from the project site, as accessible. A written report demonstrating compliance with the pre-construction clearance survey requirement, including a description of all individuals identified and relocated during the survey, shall be submitted to the City for review and verification prior to the start of construction.

BIO-1(F) PRE-CONSTRUCTION BAT SURVEYS AND MATERNITY ROOST AVOIDANCE Prior to project activities at Sites 47, 49, 50, and 55, and additional parcels A1, A3, and A4, a qualified, City-approved bat specialist shall conduct a habitat assessment to determine if bat roosting habitat occurs in or near the project area. Bat specialists shall be knowledgeable in bat ecology and identification, and shall have demonstrated experience conducting pre-construction surveys, monitoring construction activities, and implementing mitigation measures for bats on projects similar in scope and setting. If it is determined that the project area may contain or occur within 100 feet of potential day roosting habitat or 300 feet of potential maternity roosting habitat, a qualified bat specialist shall conduct a focused bat emergence survey within these areas at least 30 days prior to construction or vegetation removal (plus a 100-foot buffer as access allows). The survey shall be conducted at least 1 hour before sunset and up to 3 hours after sunset, at a minimum. Acoustic recognition technology (such as SonoBat software or similar technology) shall be used during the survey to maximize detection of bats. The qualified bat specialist shall identify and demarcate habitat (i.e., trees or structures) containing daytime and/or nighttime roosts, and any maternity roosts. Survey results, including negative findings, shall be provided to the City within 30 days of completion of the survey.

Depending on the survey results, a qualified bat specialist shall identify potentially significant effects of the project on bats and determine which measures below are necessary to reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level. A report of the survey results and proposed minimization measures shall be submitted to the City for review and verification. Measures to avoid and minimize impacts to bats may include the following:
 If maternity roosts are observed, work shall be scheduled between October 1 and February 28, outside of the maternity roosting season when young bats are present but are ready to fly out of the roost (March 1 to September 30). If tree removal is required during the maternity roosting season, trees potentially supporting an active maternity roost shall be closely inspected by a qualified bat specialist to determine the presence or absence of roosting bats. Inspection of each tree shall occur no more than 7 days prior to tree disturbance, and inspection results, including negative findings, shall be provided to the City within 7 days of completion of the inspection. Trees determined to be supporting maternity roosts shall be left in place until the end of the maternity season. Work shall not occur within 300 feet of or directly under or adjacent to an active maternity roost, and the non-disturbance buffer shall only be reduced at the discretion of a qualified bat specialist based on species location in relation to the construction area and level of disturbance from construction activities. The minimum buffer shall not be less than 50 feet. Work shall not occur between 30 minutes before sunset and 30 minutes after sunrise.
 If the removal of a tree containing potential roosting habitat for leaf dwelling bat species is required, the tree shall be pushed down using heavy machinery rather than felling with a chainsaw. To ensure the optimum warning for any roosting bats that may be present, the tree shall be gently nudged two or three times, with a pause of approximately 30 seconds between each nudge to allow bats to become active. The tree shall then be pushed to the ground slowly PGCC 12-3-25

Page 224 ends

City of Pacific Grove
Housing Element Update, Zoning Ordinance Amendments, and General Plan Amendments 13 and remain in place until it is inspected by a qualified bat specialist. If it is determined that the removed tree contains a bat roost, the tree shall not be immediately bucked or mulched. A period of at least 24 to 48 hours shall elapse prior to such operations to allow bats to escape.  If the removal of a tree containing potential roosting habitat for trunk or crevice dwelling bat species is required, the tree shall be removed under the direction of a City-approved bat specialist using a two-step tree removal process conducted over two consecutive days. On the first day, the tree’s non-habitat branches shall be trimmed using handheld equipment only (no heavy machinery), such as chainsaws. The noise and vibration disturbance, together with the visible alteration of the tree, is effective in causing bats that emerge nightly to feed to not return to the roost. The remainder of the tree shall be removed on the second day.  If the alteration or removal of structures (i.e., buildings) containing potential roosting habitat for bats is required, a qualified bat specialist shall conduct a survey of all structures no more than 14 days prior to demolition. If no signs of bat roosting activity are observed, no further actions shall be required. If bats or signs of bat roosting activity are observed, a City-approved bat specialist shall prepare specific recommendations for and the project proponent shall implement the recommended methods of humane eviction such as partial dismantling to allow bats to abandon the roost, or installation of one-way doors. Removal of structures containing potential roosting habitat shall be monitored for compliance with the recommended methods and success of eviction by a City-approved bat specialist. If bats are not successfully evicted, the bat specialist shall stop work, reassess exclusion methods, and demolition may not continue until bats have been successfully evicted.
 If a roost is observed being used by many bats (large hibernaculum), bat boxes shall be installed near the project site. The number of bat boxes installed shall depend on the size of the hibernaculum and shall be determined through consultation with CDFW.  A monitoring report shall be submitted to the City within seven days of activities requiring potential roost removal. The report shall include a summary of dates of monitoring, methods used, findings (including species observed, if known, and roost activity), and confirmation of compliance with applicable avoidance and minimization measures.

BIO-1(G) MONARCH BUTTERFLY AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION
Project construction activities at Sites 42 and 43, including equipment staging, grading, and construction, shall be avoided during the monarch butterfly overwintering season between October 15 through March 15, if practicable. In the event project construction activities cannot be avoided during the overwintering season, the project proponent shall retain a City-approved biologist to conduct a survey for roosting monarch butterflies within seven days prior to initiation of construction activities to determine their presence/absence.

If no monarch butterflies are observed during pre-construction surveys, no further actions are necessary. In the event construction pauses for a period of 7 days or more, if construction is planned to restart during the monarch butterfly overwintering season (October 15 through March 15), the project proponent shall retain a City-approved biologist to conduct a new survey in accordance with the requirements of this mitigation measure.

If construction activities occur during the overwintering season and monarch butterflies are present, the City-approved biologist shall establish a protective buffer, ranging from 100 to 300 feet from the roosting site in which monarch butterflies are aggregating based on species location in relation to the construction area and level of disturbance from construction activities. The buffer shall be delineated on site by the biologist with flagging or staking visible by construction personnel. The PGCC 12-3-25

Page 225 ends

Findings of Fact
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations construction contractor shall ensure no construction occurs within the protective buffer, including staging of equipment or stopping or idling in the buffer, during the overwintering season. In the event construction activities, or other use of equipment, is needed to work within the buffer, the City-approved biologist shall be present on site to monitor construction activities and determine if the work is disturbing the aggregated butterflies (e.g., aggregations begin to disperse in response to noise or vibration from construction). If the biologist determines the work is disturbing the butterflies at any time, the biologist shall stop work within the protective buffer. The biologist shall have the authority to direct construction activities and can reinitiate construction activities when the butterflies no longer show signs of being disturbed. In addition, due to the regular movement of the butterflies and locations of the aggregations, the biologist shall have the discretion to adjust the protective buffers within the 100- to 300-foot required buffer range, as necessary, based on species location in relation to the construction area and level of disturbance from construction activities.

BIO-1(H) NESTING BIRD AVOIDANCE
Ground disturbance and vegetation removal activities shall be restricted to the non-breeding season for birds (September 16 to January 31), when feasible. For ground disturbance and vegetationremoval activities occurring during the bird nesting season (February 1 to September 15), general pre-construction nesting bird surveys shall be conducted by a City-approved biologist not more than seven days prior to construction activities involving ground clearing, vegetation removal/trimming, or building demolition. The surveys shall include the disturbance area plus a 200-foot buffer around the site, where feasible, and a 500-foot buffer for raptors. If active nests are located, an appropriate avoidance buffer shall be established within which no work activity would be allowed that would impact these nests. The avoidance buffer shall be established by the City-approved biologist on a case-by-case basis based on the species and site conditions. In no case shall the buffer be smaller than 50 feet for non-raptor bird species, or 200 feet for raptor species. Larger buffers may be required depending on the status of the nest and the construction activities occurring near the nest.

The buffer area(s) shall be closed to all construction personnel and equipment until juveniles have fledged and until the nest is inactive. A City-approved biologist shall confirm that breeding/nesting is completed and young have fledged the nest prior to removal of the buffer. If there are delays in onsite activities for more than 14 days during the breeding season, an additional survey shall be required prior to the start of work. A report of the survey results and any proposed avoidance buffers shall be submitted to the City for review and verification prior to the initiation of construction activities.

BIO-1(I) INVASIVE WEED PREVENTION
For individual development projects where activity would occur in undeveloped areas at Sites 47, 49, 50, and 55, and additional parcels A3 and A4, landscape plans approved by the City Community Development Department as part of a development permit applications shall not include noxious, invasive, and/or non-native plant species that are recognized on the federal Noxious Weed List, California Noxious Weeds List, and/or California Invasive Plant Council Moderate and High Risk Lists.

During construction the project proponent shall:
 Limit site access and parking, equipment storage and stationary construction activities to the designated staging areas to the maximum extent feasible.  Prior to staging equipment on-site, clean all equipment caked with mud, soils, or debris from off -site sources or previous project sites to avoid introducing or spreading invasive exotic plant PGCC 12-3-25

Page 226 ends

City of Pacific Grove
Housing Element Update, Zoning Ordinance Amendments, and General Plan Amendments 15 species. When feasible, remove invasive exotic plants from the individual project site. All equipment used on the premises should be cleaned prior to leaving the site for other projects.  All disturbed areas requiring hydroseeded stabilization shall utilize a mix of locally native species, as feasible, upon completion of work in those areas.  In areas where construction is ongoing, hydroseeding shall occur where no construction activities have occurred within six weeks since ground disturbing activities ceased.  If exotic species invade these areas prior to hydroseeding, weed removal shall occur in consultation with a City-approved biologist and the City.

Within 30 days of project completion, a report shall be submitted to the City for review and verification documenting compliance with the invasive weed prevention measures above.

Biological Resources - Impact BIO-2
Development facilitated by the project could have a substantial adverse effect on a sensitive natural communities and riparian habitat identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Draft EIR (Section 15091[a][1]). Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1(a), BIO-1(b), BIO-1(c), and BIO-1(i) would reduce potential impacts to sensitive communities and habitats to a less than significant level by implementing avoidance measures, conducting special status species surveys, and avoiding the introduction of invasive species.

Explanation
Development facilitated by the project could impact sensitive natural communities and riparian habitat. In particular, development facilitated by the project could result in direct and indirect impacts to sensitive Monterey pine communities and riparian habitat within undeveloped areas of Sites 47, 49, 50, and 55, and additional parcels A1, A3, and A4.

Mitigation Measures BIO-1(a), BIO-1(b), BIO-1(c), and BIO-1(i) reduce these impacts by requiring pre -construction biological surveys, species-specific avoidance and relocation protocols, habitat restoration through a Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan, and invasive species prevention during and after construction. These measures ensure that biological resource impacts are avoided or minimized, reducing them to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measures
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, the following mitigation measures have been included in a MMRP that is to be adopted concurrently with these findings.

BIO-1(A) SPECIAL-STATUS PLANT SPECIES SURVEYS
Refer to Impact BIO-1, above.

PGCC 12-3-25

Page 227 ends

Findings of Fact
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations BIO-1(B) SPECIAL-STATUS PLANT SPECIES AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION, AND MITIGATION Refer to Impact BIO-1, above.

BIO-1(C) HABITAT MITIGATION AND MONITORING PLAN
Refer to Impact BIO-1, above.

BIO-1(I) INVASIVE WEED PREVENTION
Refer to Impact BIO-1, above.

Biological Resources - Impact BIO-3
Development facilitated by the project could have a substantial adverse effect on state- or federallyprotected wetlands. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Draft EIR (Section 15091[a][1]). Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1(c), BIO-3(a), and BIO-3(b) would reduce potential impacts to wetlands by conducting jurisdictional delineation surveys, implementing avoidance measures, and restoring habitat.

Explanation
Development facilitated by the project could impact potentially jurisdictional waterways in the project area, in particular at Site 49 and additional parcels A3 and A4. These features, and any associated riparian corridor, may be waters of the United States and/or State, and fall under the jurisdiction of the United States Army Corps of Engineers, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and/or the Regional Water Quality Control Board.

Mitigation Measures BIO-1(c), BIO-3(a), and BIO-3(b) reduce these impacts by requiring habitat restoration through a Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan, implementation of jurisdictional delineation surveys, and implementation of waters and wetlands impacts avoidance and minimization measures. These measures ensure that biological resource impacts are avoided or minimized, reducing them to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measures
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, the following mitigation measures have been included in a MMRP that is to be adopted concurrently with these findings.

BIO-1(C) HABITAT MITIGATION AND MONITORING PLAN
Refer to Impact BIO-1, above.

BIO-3(A) JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION
Prior to issuance of grading permits, a City-approved biologist shall complete a jurisdictional delineation of wetland features at Site 49 and additional parcels A3 and A4. The jurisdictional delineation shall determine the extent of the jurisdiction for CDFW, USACE, and/or RWQCB, and shall be conducted in accordance with the requirements set forth by each agency. The result shall PGCC 12-3-25

Page 228 ends

City of Pacific Grove
Housing Element Update, Zoning Ordinance Amendments, and General Plan Amendments 17 be a preliminary jurisdictional delineation report that shall be submitted to the city. The delineation shall be used to inform design development in a manner that avoids impacts to jurisdictional waters to the maximum extent practicable. If jurisdictional waters are identified within 100 feet of proposed limits of work, Mitigation Measure BIO-3(b) shall be required. If jurisdictional waters are identified within proposed limits of work and cannot be avoided, Mitigation Measure BIO-1(c) shall be required. The project proponent shall also be required to apply for and obtain applicable federal and State permits for impacting jurisdictional waters, and shall implement all conditions of such permit(s).

BIO-3(B) WATERS AND WETLANDS IMPACT AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION To avoid and/or minimize potential indirect impacts to jurisdictional waters and water quality, the City shall require following BMPs to be implemented by the project proponent during construction within 100 feet of jurisdictional areas at Site 49 and additional parcels A3 and A4:
 Any material/spoils generated from project activities shall be located away from jurisdictional areas or special-status habitat and protected from storm water run-off using temporary perimeter sediment barriers such as berms, silt fences, fiber rolls (non- monofilament), covers, sand/gravel bags, and straw bale barriers, as appropriate.  All vehicles and equipment shall be in good working condition and free of leaks. The contractor shall prevent oil, petroleum products, or any other pollutants from contaminating the soil or entering a watercourse (dry or otherwise). When vehicles or equipment are stationary, mats or drip pans shall be placed below vehicles to contain fluid leaks.  All re-fueling, cleaning, and maintenance of equipment shall occur at least 100 feet from jurisdictional areas.
 Materials shall be stored on impervious surfaces or plastic ground covers to prevent any spills or leakage from contaminating the ground and generally at least 50 feet from the top of bank.  Prevent the discharge of silt or pollutants off the site when working adjacent to jurisdictional areas. Install BMPs (i.e., silt barriers, sand bags, straw bales) as appropriate.  Any spillage of material shall be stopped if it can be done safely. The contaminated area shall be cleaned and any contaminated materials properly disposed. For all spills, the project foreman or designated environmental representative shall be notified.  Work during times of precipitation shall be avoided to the maximum extent possible.

Within 30 days of completion, a report shall be submitted to the City for review and verification, documenting compliance with the above measures and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit.

Biological Resources - Impact BIO-5
Development facilitated by the project would be subject to the City’s policies and requirements protecting biological resources, including environmentally sensitive habitat areas and protected trees. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Page 229 ends

Findings of Fact
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 15091[a][1]). Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1(i) would reduce potential impacts to wetlands by implementing avoidance measures.

Explanation
Development facilitated by the project could impact environmentally sensitive habitat areas located throughout the project area by accidentally introducing invasive plant species during construction activities. Mitigation Measures BIO-1(i) reduces this impact by requiring invasive species prevention during and after construction. This measure ensures that biological resource impacts are avoided or minimized, reducing them to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measure
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, the following mitigation measure has been included in a MMRP that is to be adopted concurrently with these findings.

BIO-1(I) INVASIVE WEED PREVENTION
Refer to Impact BIO-1, above.

Cultural Resources - Impact CUL-2
Ground-disturbing activities associated with development facilitated by the project could result in disturbance or damage to archaeological resources. This impact would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Draft EIR (Section 15091[a][1]). Implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-2(a) and CUL-2(b) would reduce potential impacts to archaeological resources to a less than significant level by requiring site-specific assessments prior to ground disturbance and protocols for the protection and treatment of any inadvertent discoveries.

Explanation
Ground-disturbing activities associated with development facilitated by the project could result in disturbance or damage to archaeological resources. Mitigation Measure CUL-2(a) requires a preliminary review of site conditions and, if necessary, a formal archaeological assessment conducted by a qualified professional prior to construction.

Mitigation Measure CUL-2(b) establishes procedures for the inadvertent discovery of archaeological resources during construction, including halting work, evaluating the find, and implementing data recovery or avoidance strategies if the resource is determined to be significant. Culturally affiliated tribes are notified in the event of prehistoric discoveries, and all work follows professional standards for documentation and reporting.

Mitigation Measures
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, the following mitigation measures have been included in a MMRP that is to be adopted concurrently with these findings.

PGCC 12-3-25

Page 230 ends

City of Pacific Grove
Housing Element Update, Zoning Ordinance Amendments, and General Plan Amendments 19 CUL-2(A) ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND PROTECTION For specific development projects involving ground disturbance on identified housing sites, in upzoning areas, or on additional parcels, the project proponent shall retain a City-approved consultant to conduct a preliminary review to determine the need for a formal archaeological assessment. The preliminary review shall include a review of available information regarding previous disturbance, the presence of fill, and previous cultural resources studies on file with the City. If it can be determined that all proposed ground disturbance will occur in documented nonnative fill or that the project site has been previously disturbed and subject to cultural resources review with negative findings, no further review will be required. If preliminary review suggests the project may impact native soils that have not been previously subject to cultural resources study, the project proponent shall retain a City-approved archaeologist to prepare an archaeological resources assessment. The archaeological assessment shall be conducted by a qualified archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s PQS in prehistoric or historic archaeology (NPS 2025). Archaeological assessments shall include a records search at the Northwest Information Center, pedestrian survey of the individual development site, and preparation of a technical report to be submitted to the City for review and approval. The archaeological assessment shall include recommendations for additional study or mitigation, if necessary, which may include, but would not be limited to: subsurface testing, designing and implementing a worker environmental awareness program, construction monitoring by a qualified archaeologist, avoidance of sites, or preservation in place. Recommended mitigation measures shall be consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3).

CUL-2(B) INADVERTENT DISCOVERY OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES If evidence of any prehistoric or historic-era subsurface archaeological features or deposits are discovered during construction-related earthmoving activities (e.g., ceramics, trash scatters, lithic scatters), all ground-disturbing activity within a minimum of 50 feet shall be halted until a qualified archaeologist can assess the significance of the find. The work exclusion area may be reduced or expanded as directed by the qualified archaeologist. If the archaeologist determines that the find does not meet the CRHR standards of significance for cultural resources, construction may proceed.

If the archaeologist determines that further information is needed to evaluate significance, a testing plan shall be prepared and implemented. If the find is determined to be significant by the qualified archaeologist (i.e., because the find is determined to constitute either an historical resource or a unique archaeological resource), the archaeologist shall work with the City to avoid disturbance to the resources. If complete avoidance is not feasible in light of project design, economics, logistics, and/or other factors, the archaeologist shall recommend additional measures such as the preparation and implementation of a data recovery plan. All cultural resources work shall follow accepted professional standards in recording any find including submittal of standard Department of Parks and Recreation Primary Record forms and location information to the Northwest Information Center. If the find is a prehistoric archaeological site, the culturally affiliated California Native American tribe shall be notified and afforded the opportunity to monitor mitigative treatment. During evaluation or mitigative treatment, ground disturbance and construction work may continue in other parts of the project area that are distant enough from the find not to impact it, as determined appropriate by the qualified archaeologist.

Geology and Soils - Impact GEO-9
Development facilitated by the proposed plan has the potential to impact paleontological resources.

Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

PGCC 12-3-25

Page 231 ends

Findings of Fact
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR (Section 15091[a][1]). Implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-9 would reduce potential impacts to paleontological resources to a less than significant level by requiring site-specific assessments, monitoring, and treatment protocols for fossil discoveries in geologically sensitive areas.

Explanation
Development facilitated by the proposed project has the potential to impact paleontological resources, particularly in areas underlain by geologic units with high paleontological sensitivity.

Mitigation Measure GEO-9 requires a Qualified Professional Paleontologist to conduct a paleontological resources assessment (PRA) prior to ground disturbance. If sensitive sediments are present, the PRA outlines appropriate mitigation, including construction worker training, paleontological monitoring, and procedures for fossil discovery and recovery. In the event of a fossil find, construction within 50 feet of the discovery must halt until the resource is evaluated. If deemed scientifically significant, the fossil must be salvaged, prepared, and curated in accordance with Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards.

Potential impacts to paleontological resources would be less than significant with implementation of mitigation measure GEO-9.

Mitigation Measure
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, the following mitigation measure has been included in a MMRP that is to be adopted concurrently with these findings.

GEO-9 PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES ANALYSIS
The City of Pacific Grove shall require the following specific requirements for projects that could disturb geologic units with high paleontological sensitivity (i.e., Quaternary alluvial fan deposits or Quaternary marine terrace deposits), including Sites 3, 6, 7, 10-19, 20-22, 24-28, 30-37, 42-46, 51, 52, 57, A2, A7, A9, and A11:

1. Prior to initial ground disturbance, the project applicant shall retain a Qualified Professional Paleontologist, as defined by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP 2010), to conduct a paleontological resources assessment (PRA), which may be part of a future project-specific environmental review document or a stand-alone report. The PRA shall determine the potential for the project to impact paleontologically sensitive sediments and the paleontological resources that may be contained therein. The PRA shall be reviewed by the City to ensure the project’s compliance with this mitigation measure, SVP Guidelines, and MGMC Chapter 23.76.

2. If the PRA identifies no potential impacts to paleontological resources, then no further paleontological mitigation would be required. If the project could have a significant impact on paleontological resources, the PRA shall outline mitigation measures to reduce impacts by ensuring that all scientifically significant paleontological resources potentially encountered during construction are collected and preserved in a paleontological repository meeting SVP (2010) standards. These measures would be overseen by a Qualified Professional Paleontologist and may include, but would not be limited to: training of construction personnel, paleontological monitoring, and procedures for an unanticipated paleontological resource discovery.

PGCC 12-3-25

Page 232 ends

City of Pacific Grove
Housing Element Update, Zoning Ordinance Amendments, and General Plan Amendments 21 If construction personnel training is required, the Qualified Professional Paleontologist or their designee shall conduct a paleontological Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) training for construction personnel regarding the appearance of fossils and the procedures for notifying paleontological staff should fossils be discovered by construction personnel.

Paleontological monitoring would be required for excavations, grading, trenching, or boring/drilling greater than 2 feet in diameter that occurs within previously undisturbed sediments with high paleontological sensitivity. Paleontological monitoring shall be conducted by an individual meeting the SVP (2010) definition of a Paleontological Resources Monitor. The Qualified Professional Paleontologist may recommend that monitoring be reduced in frequency or ceased entirely based on geologic observations. Such decisions shall be subject to review and approval by the City. Upon completion of ground-disturbing activities (or laboratory preparation and curation of fossils, if necessary), the Qualified Professional Paleontologist shall prepare a final report describing the results of the paleontological monitoring efforts. The report shall include a summary of the field and laboratory methods employed; an overview of project geology; and, if fossils were discovered, an analysis of the fossils, including physical description, taxonomic identification, and scientific significance. The report shall be submitted to the City and, if fossil curation occurred, the designated scientific institution.

In the event of a fossil discovery by the paleontological monitor or construction personnel, all construction activity within 50 feet of the find shall cease, and the Qualified Professional Paleontologist shall evaluate the find. If the fossil(s) is (are) not scientifically significant, then construction activity may resume. If it is determined that the fossil(s) is (are) scientifically significant, then they shall be salvaged, prepared to a curation-ready condition, and curated in a paleontological repository per SVP (2010) standards.

Noise - Impact NOI-2
Construction of individual development facilitated by the project could temporarily generate groundborne vibration, potentially affecting adjacent sensitive land uses. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.

Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR (Section 15091[a][1]). Implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-2 would reduce potential impacts from construction-related groundborne vibration to a less than significant level by requiring site-specific vibration analysis and mitigation for sensitive structures.

Explanation
Construction of individual development projects facilitated by the proposed plan could temporarily generate groundborne vibration, particularly from activities such as pile driving, vibratory rolling, and use of heavy earthmoving equipment. These vibrations could affect nearby sensitive land uses, including fragile historical structures and residential buildings.

Mitigation Measure NOI-2 requires a groundborne noise and vibration analysis prior to construction in proximity to sensitive structures. The analysis must be conducted by a qualified acoustical consultant and ensure vibration levels do not exceed Federal Transit Administration (FTA) damage thresholds. If thresholds are likely to be exceeded, alternative construction methods—such as PGCC 12-3-25

Page 233 ends

Findings of Fact
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations drilling instead of pile driving or using lower-impact equipment—must be implemented. Vibration monitoring may also be required to verify compliance during construction.

These measures ensure that vibration impacts are identified, evaluated, and mitigated, reducing potential effects to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measure
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, the following mitigation measure has been included in a MMRP that is to be adopted concurrently with these findings.

NOI-2 MEASURES TO REDUCE CONSTRUCTION VIBRATION
Prior to issuance of a building permit for development facilitated by the project requiring any of the following activities, the project applicant shall prepare a groundborne noise and vibration analysis to assess and mitigate potential noise and vibration impacts related to these construction activities.  Pile driving during construction within 135 feet of fragile structures such as historical resources.  Pile driving during construction within 100 feet of non-engineered timber and masonry buildings (e.g., most residential buildings).
 Pile driving during construction within 75 feet of engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster).  Use of a vibratory roller within 40 feet of fragile historical resources or 25 feet of any other structure.
 Use of a dozer or other large earthmoving equipment within 20 feet for a fragile historical structure or 15 feet of any other structure.

This noise and vibration analysis shall be conducted by a qualified and experienced acoustical consultant or engineer. The groundborne noise and vibration analysis shall include measures to ensure that vibration levels shall not exceed FTA architectural damage thresholds (e.g., 0.12 in/sec PPV for fragile or historical resources, 0.2 in/sec PPV for non-engineered timber and masonry buildings, and 0.3 in/sec PPV for engineered concrete and masonry). If vibration levels would exceed this threshold, alternative uses such as drilling piles as opposed to pile driving, static rollers as opposed to vibratory rollers, and lower horsepower earthmoving equipment shall be used. If necessary, construction vibration monitoring shall be conducted to verify FTA vibration thresholds are not exceeded.

Utilities and Service Systems – Impact UTIL-2
Development facilitated by the project would increase demand for water supply from Cal-Am’s Monterey Main System. Sufficient water supply would be available to meet all demands during normal, single-dry, and multiple dry year conditions with operation of the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Ocean Desalination Plant, anticipated to be online in 2030. To address any potential shortfalls that may occur prior to operation of the Ocean Desalination Plant, Mitigation Measure UTIL-1 requires that city approval of future development under the proposed project would be contingent upon project-specific water supply verification, ensuring that projects would not be implemented without sufficient available water supply. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.

Page 234 ends

City of Pacific Grove
Housing Element Update, Zoning Ordinance Amendments, and General Plan Amendments 23 15091[a][1]). Implementation of Mitigation Measure UTIL-1 would reduce potential impacts to water supply availability to a less than significant level by requiring project-specific verification of water availability prior to development approval.

Explanation
Development facilitated by the project would increase demand for potable water from California American Water’s Monterey Main System. While long-term water supply is expected to be sufficient with the anticipated operation of the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Ocean Desalination Plant in 2030, short-term supply constraints may occur prior to its completion.

Mitigation Measure UTIL-1 requires that no building permits be issued for development projects until the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District confirms sufficient water supply through a Water Verification Report. Depending on project size and type, applicants must submit either a Water Supply Assessment or a Residential Water Release Form and Water Permit Application. The verification process ensures that each project has adequate water credits or identifies the need for additional credits before proceeding.

This measure ensures that development does not outpace available water resources, reducing potential water supply impacts to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measure
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, the following mitigation measure has been included in a MMRP that is to be adopted concurrently with these findings.

UTIL-2 WATER SUPPLY VERIFICATION
Sufficient water supply availability must be verified for all projects under the City of Pacific Grove Housing Element Update, Zoning Ordinance Amendments, and General Plan Amendments. The City shall not issue any building permits for development projects requiring potable water until a Water Verification Report has been issued by the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (MPWMD) confirming sufficient water supply is available for the project. Project applicants shall submit a detailed accounting of all project water demands to MPWMD, for consideration in issuing a Water Verification Report. Projects meeting the definition of a “Project” under California Water Code (CWC) Section 10912 must be evaluated in a Water Supply Assessment (WSA) in accordance with CWC Section 10910(f), subject to review and approval by MPWMD. Projects that are not subject to CWC Section 10912 must be evaluated in a Residential Water Release Form & Water Permit Application, subject to review and approval by MPWMD. Water Verification Reports issued by MPWMD shall be informed by project-specific demand information provided in the respective WSA or Residential Water Release Form & Water Permit Application. The Water Verification Report shall identify whether the proposed project requires additional water credits to meet project demands, in addition to any existing water credits that may be associated with the project site(s).

4.3 Findings for Significant and Unavoidable 4.3
Effects
Public Resources Code 21081 and 21081.5, and CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, require that the City of Pacific Grove balance the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental effects when determining to approve a project. If PGCC 12-3-25

Page 235 ends

Findings of Fact
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse effects may be considered “acceptable.” The following findings are hereby made by the City of Pacific Grove for the significant and unavoidable environmental effects identified in the Draft EIR related to:
 Cultural resources (historical resources)
 Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (conflicts with applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions)
 Noise (construction noise and operational traffic noise) The following findings and statement of overriding considerations outline the specific reasons to support the City of Pacific Grove Department of Community Development recommendation for approval.

Cultural Resources - Impact CUL-1
Development facilitated by the project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. This impact would be significant and unavoidable.

Finding
The project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts to historical resources under CEQA due to the potential for demolition, substantial alteration, or other physical changes to properties that may qualify as historical resources and the unavailability/infeasibility of mitigation measures to reduce this impact to a less than significant level.

Explanation
While the City of Pacific Grove has adopted robust historic preservation regulations, including permitting procedures, design guidelines, and assessment protocols, these measures cannot fully eliminate the risk of materially impairing the significance of known or potential historical resources.

Many properties within the project area have not yet been evaluated but meet the age threshold for consideration as historical resources. Although the City’s regulations aim to reduce impacts through conformance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and require mitigation measures when feasible, they do not prohibit demolition or guarantee preservation. Therefore, because development facilitated by the project could result in the destruction or alteration of historical resources such that their significance is lost, impacts to historical resources are conservatively considered significant and unavoidable.

Mitigation Measures
As discussed in Section 4.4, Cultural Resources, of the Draft EIR, the City’s adopted policies and guidelines, including the Guidelines for Historic Assessments, establish a process for identifying, evaluating, and mitigating impacts to historical resources. This includes requiring a professional assessment and, where applicable, implementation of feasible mitigation measures such as design modifications, documentation, or relocation. While development facilitated by the project may still have the potential to damage, alter, or destroy known or unknown historical resources, no additional mitigation beyond what is already required by City policy is available or feasible.

Therefore, no further mitigation measures are identified.

PGCC 12-3-25

Page 236 ends

City of Pacific Grove
Housing Element Update, Zoning Ordinance Amendments, and General Plan Amendments 25 Greenhouse Gas Emissions - Impact GHG-1
Construction and operation of the proposed project would generate GHG emissions, and the project would incorporate features that align with the goals of the applicable plans, policies, and regulations related to the reduction of GHG emissions. However, even with the implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1, individual projects could face challenges that hinder their ability to implement Mitigation Measure GHG-1 and thus not be consistent with the 2022 Scoping Plan. Therefore, impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR (Section 15091[a][1]). Implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1 would reduce GHG emissions associated with development facilitated by the project by requiring electrification and EV infrastructure. However, due to potential implementation challenges at the individual project level, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.

Explanation
The proposed project would facilitate denser infill development across designated housing sites, supporting state and regional climate goals by promoting compact, transit-accessible growth.

Development would be subject to General Plan policies encouraging renewable energy use and would incorporate GHG reduction actions consistent with the 2022 Scoping Plan, including allelectric building design and Tier 2 EV charging infrastructure.

However, individual projects may face technical or economic constraints that limit full implementation of these measures. For example, natural gas connections may still be permitted where renewable alternatives are infeasible, resulting in inconsistency with Scoping Plan building decarbonization goals. Additionally, while EV infrastructure is required, some projects may not meet Tier 2 standards due to site limitations or cost, leading to partial compliance with transportation electrification targets. These limitations result in inconsistency with key thresholds for GHG reduction and climate plan alignment. Despite implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1, the potential for inconsistent application across individual projects means that GHG emissions could exceed thresholds aligned with state climate targets. Therefore, impacts related to GHG emissions during operation are conservatively considered to be significant and unavoidable.

Mitigation Measure
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, the following mitigation measure has been included in a MMRP that is to be adopted concurrently with these findings.

GHG-1 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS
Development facilitated by the proposed project shall incorporate GHG emissions reduction actions to demonstrate consistency with the 2022 Scoping Plan for residential and mixed-use developments. Specifically, individual projects shall incorporate the following actions, which shall be verified by the City prior to issuing a building permit for an individual project:
a) Future mixed use residential and commercial developments shall be designed to support all- a) electric buildings and electric appliances. Natural gas connections and activation shall be permitted when alternative renewable energy sources are demonstrably infeasible for a PGCC 12-3-25

Page 237 ends

Findings of Fact
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations permitted use. Compliance shall be verified by City staff on building plans prior to granting building permits.
b) Provide EV charging infrastructure that, at minimum, meets California Green Building b) Standards Code Tier 2 voluntary measures at the time of project approval. c) Project proponents shall coordinate with Monterey-Salinas Transit to incorporate public c) transit into project features, where feasible. Project features could include bus stop passes for residents of future housing units, participation in the vanpool program, and installation of new bus stops where appropriate.

Noise - Impact NOI-1
Construction of individual development facilitated by the project would temporarily produce high noise levels, potentially affecting nearby noise-sensitive land uses. Operation of development facilitated by the project would also increase transportation noise. Impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR (Section 15091[a][1]). Implementation of Mitigation Measures NOI-1(a) and NOI-1(b) would reduce construction and operational noise impacts to the extent feasible. However, due to the proximity of sensitive receptors and the nature of urban development, residual noise impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.

Explanation
Construction noise levels associated with development projects facilitated by the proposed project may exceed the daytime Federal Transit Administration (FTA) construction noise threshold of 80 dBA Leq for an 8-hour period at residential uses and other noise-sensitive receivers, resulting in potentially significant impacts. Therefore, Mitigation Measure NOI-1(a) has been incorporated into this EIR. This measure would reduce construction noise impacts by requiring noise abatement strategies such as properly maintained mufflers, use of electric tools, smart backup alarms, and temporary noise barriers. It also includes operational protocols such as equipment staging and designation of a noise disturbance coordinator to respond to complaints. However, due to the temporary nature of construction and the proximity of sensitive land uses, noise levels may still exceed applicable thresholds. Construction noise impacts would remain significant and unavoidable, and no additional feasible mitigation is available to fully reduce this impact.

Operational noise impacts from stationary sources may also affect nearby sensitive land uses.

Mitigation Measure NOI-1(b) requires project applicants to evaluate and reduce stationary operational noise for developments located within 50 feet of sensitive receptors. If noise levels are anticipated to exceed thresholds established in the City’s General Plan, applicants must implement noise reduction measures such as quiet equipment, enclosures, and operational restrictions. While Mitigation Measure NOI-1(b) would reduce these impacts, no feasible mitigation is available to fully eliminate long-term operational noise increases. Operational noise impacts would remain significant and unavoidable, and no additional feasible mitigation is available to fully reduce this impact.

PGCC 12-3-25

Page 238 ends

City of Pacific Grove
Housing Element Update, Zoning Ordinance Amendments, and General Plan Amendments 27 Mitigation Measures
NOI-1(A) MEASURES TO REDUCE CONSTRUCTION NOISE
To minimize noise during construction facilitated by the project, the City of Pacific Grove shall require construction contractors to implement the as many of the following measures for construction activities conducted within the City as feasible. Construction plans submitted to the City shall include construction noise analysis and identify these measures on demolition, grading, and construction plans submitted to the City. The City of Pacific Grove Building Division shall verify that grading, demolition, and/or construction plans submitted to the City include these notations prior to issuance of demolition, grading and/or building permits.  Mufflers. During excavation and grading construction phases, all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be operated with closed engine doors and shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers consistent with manufacturers’ standards.  Stationary Equipment. All stationary construction equipment shall be placed so that emitted noise is directed away from the nearest sensitive receivers.  Equipment Staging Areas. Equipment staging shall be located in areas that will create the greatest distance feasible between construction-related noise sources and noise-sensitive receivers.
 Smart Back-up Alarms. Mobile construction equipment shall have smart back-up alarms that automatically adjust the sound level of the alarm in response to ambient noise levels.

Alternatively, back-up alarms shall be disabled and replaced with human spotters to ensure safety when mobile construction equipment is moving in the reverse direction in compliance with applicable safety laws and regulations.
 Electrically-Powered Tools and Facilities. Electrical power shall be used to run air compressors and similar power tools and to power any temporary structures, such as construction trailers or caretaker facilities.
 Noise Disturbance Coordinator. The project applicant shall designate a “noise disturbance coordinator” responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator shall determine the cause of any noise complaint and shall require that reasonable measures be implemented to correct the problem. A telephone number for the disturbance coordinator and the City shall be posted at the construction site.  Temporary Noise Barriers. Erect temporary noise barriers when construction noise is predicted to exceed the acceptable standards (e.g., 80 dBA Leq at residential receivers, schools or other sensitive receptors during the daytime) or when the anticipated construction duration is greater than is typical (e.g., two years or greater) and there are sensitive receptors within 500 feet of the construction site. Temporary noise barriers shall be constructed with solid materials (e.g., wood) with a density of at least 1.5 pounds per square foot with no gaps from the ground to the top of the barrier. If a sound blanket is used, barriers shall be constructed with solid material with a density of at least 1 pound per square foot with no gaps from the ground to the top of the barrier and be lined on the construction side with acoustical blanket, curtain or equivalent absorptive material rated sound transmission class 32 or higher.

NOI-1(B) EVALUATE AND REDUCE STATIONARY OPERATIONAL NOISE The City shall require applicants of development projects facilitated by the project and located within 50 feet of noise-sensitive uses (including but not limited to residences, schools, and medical care facilities) to evaluate potential on-site operational noise impacts on nearby noise-sensitive PGCC 12-3-25

Page 239 ends

Findings of Fact
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations uses. The project applicant shall be required to implement stationary operational noise reduction measures if noise generated by operation of the project is anticipated to exceed the following noise levels established by the City’s General Plan Health and Safety Element:
 An hourly Leq of 50 dB or greater between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.  An hourly Leq of 45 dB or greater between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.  A maximum sound level of 70 dB or greater between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.  A maximum sound level of 65 dB or greater between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.

Examples of measures to reduce on-site noise include, but are not limited to, operational restrictions, selection of quiet equipment, equipment setbacks, enclosures, silencers, and/or acoustical louvers. Measures to reduce stationary operational noise shall be submitted to the City prior to issuance of building permits. Projects that are not anticipated to exceed the above noise levels shall not be required to implement stationary operational noise reduction measures.

PGCC 12-3-25

Page 240 ends

City of Pacific Grove
Housing Element Update, Zoning Ordinance Amendments, and General Plan Amendments 29 5 Project Alternatives
Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines states the following:

An EIR shall describe a reasonable range of alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project.

Rather it must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision making and public participation. An EIR is not required to consider alternatives which are infeasible. The lead agency is responsible for selecting a range of project alternatives for examination and must publicly disclose its reasoning for selecting those alternatives. There is no ironclad rule governing the nature or scope of the alternatives to be discussed other than the rule of reason.

As described in Section 4.3, above, the City of Pacific Grove has determined that, even after the adoption of all feasible mitigation measures, the project would still cause one or more significant environmental impacts that cannot be avoided or lessened to below a level of significance.

Therefore, the City of Pacific Grove must determine if there is a project alternative that is both environmentally superior and feasible. An alternative may be “infeasible” if it fails to achieve the most basic project objectives identified within the EIR. Further, “feasibility” under CEQA encompasses the desirability of the project “based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological factors” of a project (City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego [1982], 133 Cal.App.3d at p. 417; see also Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. V. City of Oakland [1993], 23 Cal.Ap.4th at p. 715).

The Draft EIR determined that the project would have significant and unavoidable impacts associated with cultural resources (impacts related to historical resources), GHG emissions (impacts related to conflicts with applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions), and noise (impacts related to construction noise and increased traffic). The alternatives analyzed in the Final EIR and described below are therefore discussed below in terms of their potential ability to avoid or reduce these impacts.

5.1 Alternative 1: No Project 5.1
Alternative 1 assumes that the proposed Housing Element Update would not occur, and that development within the project area would be limited by the existing zoning and land use designations of individual parcels.

Finding
The No Project Alternative would not fulfill most of the project objectives because under this alternative, development within the City of Pacific Grove would be limited by existing zoning and land use designations. The Housing Element Update, zoning amendments, and General Plan amendments would not be adopted or implemented, and no changes would occur to the City’s Land Use Element or Health and Safety Element. Future development would be constrained to existing policies and densities, allowing for a maximum of approximately 356 housing units and a population increase of about 755 people.

PGCC 12-3-25

Page 241 ends

Findings of Fact
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations This alternative would not provide sufficient housing capacity to meet the City’s 6th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), nor would it implement zoning and land use changes necessary to facilitate that growth. It would also fail to bring the General Plan into compliance with recent state legislation (AB 747, SB 99, and SB 379), and would not advance fair housing goals, climate resilience planning, or the identification of appropriate housing sites near jobs, transit, and services. While the No Project Alternative would continue existing affordable housing programs and preserve historic single-family neighborhoods, it would not achieve the broader housing, equity, and climate-related objectives of the proposed project.

The No Project Alternative would result in reduced development potential and therefore would have lesser impacts than the proposed project in areas such as aesthetics, air quality, GHG emissions, hydrology and water quality, noise, public services, transportation, and utilities. It would avoid the significant and unavoidable GHG and noise impacts of the proposed project but would not avoid the significant and unavoidable cultural resources impacts. Overall, the No Project Alternative was found to be the environmentally superior alternative due to its avoidance of certain significant impacts. However, it is considered infeasible because it would not meet the City’s legal obligations or fulfill the project’s core objectives.

The findings for the proposed project set forth in this document and the overriding social, economic, and other considerations described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations support selection of the proposed project and elimination of the No Project Alternative from further consideration.

5.2 Alternative 2: Reduced Density 5.2
Under Alternative 2, the City would adopt the Housing Element Update, General Plan amendments, and Zoning Code amendments, but would reduce the residential density allowed on housing sites, upzoning areas, and additional parcels to accommodate only the minimum number of housing units required to meet the City’s 6th Cycle RHNA allocation. This alternative would facilitate development of approximately 991 housing units, 200 fewer jobs, and a population increase of approximately 2,101 people, 2,849 fewer than the proposed project. Unlike the proposed project, Alternative 2 would not include a 20 percent buffer of additional housing units, which is commonly used to ensure compliance with the “No Net Loss” law (Government Code Section 65863).

Alternative 2 would also reduce the amount of commercial development compared to the proposed project, assuming only half the commercial square footage would be built. However, all other components of the proposed project would be implemented.

Finding
Alternative 2 would fulfill most of the project objectives, including meeting the RHNA allocation, updating the General Plan to comply with recent state laws (AB 747, SB 99, and SB 379), improving fair housing conditions, and identifying appropriate housing sites near transit, jobs, and services.

However, it would not fulfill the objective of providing a 20 percent housing buffer, which supports long-term compliance with state housing mandates and provides flexibility in accommodating future housing needs.

This alternative would require implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1(a–i), CUL-2(a–b), GEO9, GHG-1, HAZ-6, NOI-1(a–b), NOI-2, TCR-1, and UTIL-1, similar to the proposed project.

Alternative 2 would result in similar impacts to the proposed project in areas such as air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, GHG emissions, hazards and hazardous PGCC 12-3-25

Page 242 ends

City of Pacific Grove
Housing Element Update, Zoning Ordinance Amendments, and General Plan Amendments 31 materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, population and housing, public services and recreation, transportation, tribal cultural resources, and utilities and service systems.

Due to reduced development intensity, Alternative 2 would have lesser impacts in areas such as GHG emissions, noise, and public services, and would avoid the significant and unavoidable GHG and noise impacts of the proposed project. However, it would not avoid the significant and unavoidable cultural resources impacts.

While Alternative 2 would reduce certain environmental impacts and fulfill most project objectives, it would not provide the housing buffer needed to ensure long-term compliance with state housing laws and may limit the City’s flexibility in responding to future housing needs. For these reasons, Alternative 2 is less desirable than the proposed project in terms of meeting the full scope of project objectives and thus infeasible.

The findings for the proposed project set forth in this document and the overriding social, economic, and other considerations described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations provide support for selection of the proposed project and the elimination of Alternative 2 from further consideration.

5.3 Alternative 3: Fewer Sites 5.3
This alternative assumes that the Housing Element Update, zoning amendments, and General Plan amendments are adopted and implemented, but that the Housing Element Update would include fewer housing sites than the proposed project. Under this alternative, housing units would be concentrated in fewer overall housing sites, and housing sites kept in the inventory would be located in more densely-developed commercial areas (such as the Downtown District, CentralEardley Commercial District, Forest Hill Commercial District, and the Dennett and Sinex District).

Other more dispersed or currently undeveloped sites, except for those that can accommodate lowincome housing, would be eliminated from the site inventory under this alternative. While the Fewer Sites Alternative would involve removing several sites from the project housing site inventory, most of the housing sites included in the Alternative 3 site inventory (excluding Sites 1, 2, 5, 7, 35, and 36) can accommodate low-income housing.

Finding
Alternative 3 assumes adoption and implementation of the Housing Element Update, General Plan amendments, and zoning amendments, but with a substantially reduced housing site inventory, eliminating development from 47 sites than would be included in the proposed project.

Development would be concentrated on 22 sites, primarily located in already urbanized, commercial areas such as the Downtown, Central-Eardley Commercial, Forest Hill Commercial, and Dennett and Sinex Districts.

This more compact development pattern would reduce the overall scale and geographic footprint of new construction, resulting in fewer new structures, less ground disturbance, and reduced exposure to wildfire risk. By avoiding development on sites located in FHSZs and in areas with greater potential for biological, hydrological, and aesthetic sensitivity, Alternative 3 would reduce impacts related to wildfire, erosion, stormwater runoff, habitat disruption, and visual character. Additionally, the lower buildout would accommodate 2,849 fewer residents and 1,344 fewer housing units, reducing demand for public services, utilities, and transportation infrastructure, and lowering emissions and energy use.

PGCC 12-3-25

Page 243 ends

Findings of Fact
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations While Alternative 3 would not eliminate any significant and unavoidable impacts of the project (those related to cultural resources, GHG emissions, and noise), it would reduce the severity of these impacts compared to the proposed project. It would also meet most of the project’s objectives, though it would not fully achieve the goals of encouraging by-right development on existing 4th and 5th Cycle housing sites or dispersing housing sites throughout the city to avoid overconcentration.

If the No Project Alternative (Alternative 1) is determined to avoid or reduce more impacts than any other alternative, CEQA requires that the EIR identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[e]). Of the other alternatives evaluated in this EIR, Alternative 3 (Fewer Sites) would be environmentally superior. Because this alternative would generate fewer residents within the Housing Element area, impacts to traffic noise would also be reduced compared to the proposed project and would be less than significant.

While Alternative 3 would reduce certain environmental impacts and fulfill most project objectives, it would not fully achieve the goal of encouraging by-right development on existing 4th and 5th Cycle housing sites because it would exclude some previously identified housing sites. This alternative would also not achieve the goal of dispersing housing sites throughout the city to avoid overconcentration, as it would concentrate housing in more urbanized and commercial areas.

Further, Alternative 3 would not provide the housing buffer needed to ensure long-term compliance with state housing laws and may limit the City’s flexibility in responding to future housing needs. For these reasons, Alternative 3 would not meet the full scope of project objectives and is therefore considered infeasible, as it would not support housing development with the capacity and flexibility needed to effectively meet the City’s RHNA allocation and comply with State housing law. The findings for the proposed project set forth in this document and the overriding social, economic and other considerations set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations provide support for selection of the proposed project and the elimination of this alternative from further consideration.

PGCC 12-3-25

Page 244 ends

City of Pacific Grove
Housing Element Update, Zoning Ordinance Amendments, and General Plan Amendments 33 6 Statement of Overriding
Considerations
As described in the Final EIR for the City of Pacific Grove Housing Element Update, Zoning Ordinance Amendments, and General Plan Amendments, the EIR finds that all potential impacts from adoption of the project and from physical changes that could potentially occur due to adoption of the project can be feasibly mitigated to a level that is less than significant, with the following exceptions: Impact CUL-1, impacts to historic resources; Impact GHG-1, conflicts with applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions; and Impact NOI-1, construction noise and operational traffic noise impacts from new development.

In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the City Council has, in determining whether to approve the project, balanced the economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits of the project against the potentially unavoidable environmental impacts, and has found that the benefits of the project outweigh the potentially unavoidable environmental effects, for the reasons set forth below. The following statements specify the reasons why, in the City Council’s judgement, the benefits set forth below constitute a separate and independent ground for finding that the benefits of the project outweigh the risks of their potential significant adverse environmental impacts. The City Council also finds that any one of the following reasons for approval cited below is sufficient to justify approval of the project. The substantial evidence supporting the City Council’s findings and the benefits described below can be found in the record of proceedings.  The adoption of the project would bring the City’s Housing Element into compliance with current State law for the 6th Housing Element Cycle, and would facilitate sufficient development at all income levels to meet the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation, supporting new housing for low- and moderate-income households.
 The adoption of the project would ensure consistency between the City’s Housing Element and Land Use Element by amending General Plan land use designations to meet future housing needs.
 The adoption of the project would bring the City’s Health and Safety Element into compliance with current State law, including Assembly Bill 747 and Senate Bill 99, by amending the Health and Safety Element to identify evacuation routes and capacity, safety, and viability under a range of emergency scenarios.
 The adoption of the project is necessary to bring the City into good-faith compliance with State housing laws and to remedy its current noncompliance under Housing Element law. Without adoption of the project, the City risks significant legal and financial consequences, including exposure to enforcement actions, loss of eligibility for critical State funding programs, and potential referral to the Attorney General’s Office with possible court-imposed penalties of up to $100,000 per month.
 The adoption of the project would enable the City to maintain local control over land use and development by achieving Housing Element compliance, thereby avoiding the imposition of “Builder’s Remedy” projects that could bypass local zoning standards and community planning objectives.
 The adoption of the project would ensure that the City avoids potential enforcement actions and financial penalties from the California Department of Housing and Community PGCC 12-3-25

Page 245 ends

Findings of Fact
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Development by demonstrating good-faith compliance with State housing laws and addressing statutory requirements.
 The adoption of the project would ensure consistency with the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation by identifying sufficient sites and rezoning and upzoning areas in the City to accommodate housing needs across all income levels.
 The adoption of the project would provide a 20 percent buffer of the remaining Regional Housing Needs Allocation for lower- and moderate-income units to facilitate compliance with the “No Net Loss” law, or Government Code Section 65863.  Adoption of the rezoning included in the project will facilitate additional housing and additional affordable housing in the community, including housing to meet a broader range of housing needs and housing that is appropriate to and accessible for a broader range of household types.  The adoption of the project would create expanded economic opportunity for the City through the creation of jobs for construction and new businesses.

Any one of these reasons is sufficient to support adoption of the City of Pacific Grove Housing Element Update, and to outweigh the identified significant and unavoidable environmental effects that might occur due to adoption of the project. On balance, in light of the benefits to the City and the local community identified above, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15903, the City Council finds that these overriding considerations, as identified in conjunction with the environmental review of impacts stemming from adoption of the City of Pacific Grove Housing Element Update outweigh the potentially significant and unavoidable environmental impacts identified in the Draft EIR, rendering those impacts acceptable under the circumstances.

PGCC 12-3-25

Page 246 ends

City of Pacific Grove
Housing Element Update, Zoning Ordinance Amendments, and General Plan Amendments 35 7 Statement of Location and Custodian
of Documents
Public Resources Code Section 21081.6(a)(2) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(e) require that the City of Pacific Grove as the Lead Agency, specify the location and custodian of the documents of other materials that constitute the record of proceedings upon which the decision has been based.

The following location is where review of the record may be performed:

City of Pacific Grove
Department of Community Development
300 Forest Avenue, 2nd Floor
Pacific Grove, California 90395
The City of Pacific Grove has relied on all of the documents contained within the record of proceedings in reaching its decision on the project.

PGCC 12-3-25

Page 247 ends

The Pacific Grove General Plan 1
2 Land Use
PGCC 12-3-25

Page 248 ends

Land Use, Chapter 2
2 The Pacific Grove General Plan
Land use is a major focus of the General Plan. Pacific
Grove’s landusepatterniswell establishedandunlikely to
has not had any major changes since the adoption of the 1994 General Plan. This chapter describes the history of land use planning in Pacific Grove, discusses the major issues that face the city, and presents the goals, policies, and programs that will determine how land use and
growth will be managed in Pacific Grove between 1994
and 2010.

2.1 HISTORY OF LAND USE

PLANNING IN PACIFIC GROVE
Pacific Grove was founded in 1875 as the Methodist
Seaside Retreat. In evolving into a predominantly singlefamily community, the town retained the natural qualities that originally contributed to its charm, beauty, and
popularity.

In 1883, the Methodists sold the Retreat property to the Pacific Improvement Corporation (PIC), a subsidiary of
the Southern Pacific Railroad. By then, much of the
property had been divided into small lots meant to
accommodate the tents of seasonal visitors. On July 16, 1889, Pacific Grove incorporated. Over the next few
decades, a number of areas were added to the city, and the Victorian homes that came to define Pacific Grove’s
residential character were built.
(For a more complete history of the area and the city, see Chapter 7, Section 7.1,“A BriefHistory of Pacific Grove.”) Municipal land use planning in Pacific Grove dates from 1919, when Samuel F. B. Morse reorganized the PIC into
Del Monte properties and sold much of its land including waterfront property⎯to Pacific Grove. In so doing, Morse declared that the waterfront “should be forever restricted against building or use other than what would be
desirable tothe citizens ofPacificGrove.” This declaration, along with others advocating the retention of the city’s natural beauty and encouraging architectural control of its development, marked the beginning of a history of
conscientious land use planning.

The City’s first planning commission was created in 1929.

Thirty years later, Pacific Grove’s first “Master Plan” was adopted (1958). In 1971, the City established a planning department, and a new General Plan was adopted in
1973. The 1973 General Plan remained in effect⎯with
additions along the way⎯until the adoption of this
General Plan in 1994with additions along the way ⎯ until the adoption of the 1994 General Plan, which set forth
updated land use policies intended to guide community
growth and development. Since the adoption of the 1994
General Plan, various elements of the General Plan
required periodic updates to identify and prioritize a
response to evolving local needs and demonstrate
compliance with new State planning laws.

2.2 CITIZEN INITIATIVES AFFECTING

PLANNING
Several provisions have become part of the City’s Zoning Ordinance through the initiative process. This section
summarizes initiatives passed since 1948. Provisions
approved by initiative restrict certain types of multiple- unit developments, the development of motels, the use of George Washington Park, and the rezoning of land zoned either “U” (Unclassified) or “O” (Open Space).

The initiative restricting the use of Washington Park was approved in 1948. It provides that the park is to be used only for recreation and pleasure purposes, and prohibits trailer camps, campgrounds, and public or private businesses.

A 1955 initiative created the R-3-M zoning district, and confined motels to this zone.

In 1978, in response to an initiative petition, the City Council rezoned the R-3-A District bounded by Lighthouse Avenue, the easterly city limits, PineAvenue, and 15th Street to R-2.

The initiative that regulates multiple-unit developments involving condominiums and planned unit de- velopments
(PUDs) was passed in 1982. Its intent was to assure that condominium and PUD developments conform with land use
and zoning standards applicable to single-family uses. It restricts condominium and PUD densities (number of
dwelling units per acre) to no more than 125 percent of the density of the nearest single- family residential district. In order “to avoid the conversion and loss of the city’s
residential stock and character,” the initiative also
prohibited time-share projects in Pacific Grove.

A 1986 initiative prohibits the development of hotels and motels in all but existing R-3-M districts. It also prohibits the establishment of any new R-3-M districts, and sets the
density of R-3-M uses at a minimum of 2,500 square feet of land for each family unit and hotel or motel unit.

PGCC 12-3-25

Page 249 ends

Land Use, Chapter 2
The Pacific Grove General Plan 3
Another initiative measure passed in 1986 requires that all property within the city zoned “O” or “U” as of July 14, 1986, must retain such zoning until an ordinance to
change the zoning is approved by the voters. The parcels affected include parks and recreation areas, Pacific Grove Unified School District properties, and municipal
properties.

In 1994, the Ccity Ccouncil placed a measure on the ballot.

The measure to allow condominiums and hotel use in the
Holman’s block of the Downtown was passed by the city’s voters.

In 2011, Measure U was adopted, which updated the prior restrictions for existing hotels and motels in the R-3-M district. This measure allowed for renovations and the
construction of up to 79 additional units. The goal was to allow for existing establishments to expand and renovate for continued tourist attraction to the area.

Measure F was an initiative adopted by City Council in
2012 that rezoned the Holman building downtown to C1-T. The measure allowed for the development of the Holman building into a mixed-use space. This rezoning
was part of a broader effort to revitalize the Downtown, encouraging tourism and increasing commercial activity
while preserving the historical significance of the Holman building as a community landmark.

In 2016, Measure X addressed the development of the
former American Tin Cannery, a previous industrial
facility in Pacific Grove. The measure provided specific guidelines for the redevelopment of the American Tin
Cannery site, permitting a mix of uses that included
commercial, retail, and tourism-related activities. The initiative sought to revitalize the underused property and create a new, attractive destination within Pacific Grove.

Measure M, which was adopted in 2018, established
regulations for Short Term Rental units (STRs). With the popularization of vacation rental sites, such as Airbnb and Vrbo, Measure M established rules that govern the
number and location of STRs. This measure also included the types of properties eligible as rentals, and operational guidelines to ensure that short-term rentals did not
negatively impact the character and livability of
residential neighborhoods, while balancing the need for visitor accommodations.

In 2022, Measure M, adopted new regulations for the
commercial cannabis industry in the city. The measure
allowed for continued operation of cannabis-related
businesses, while operating within the land use
framework provided by the initiative. This included
buffers from sensitive areas such as schools and parks.

In 2024, Measure Q was adopted by City Council. The
measure updated the definition of timeshares and added
fractional ownership as a prohibited land use within
certain zones. The measure aimed to limit the conversion of existing properties into timeshare units and decrease
residential housing availability.

2.3 RECENT ANNEXATION HISTORY

AND POLICY
By 1964, the city’s land area totalledtotaled 1,368 acres.

After the Monterey County Local Agency Formation
Commission (LAFCO) was established in 1964, Pacific Grove annexed 11 areas totaling 462 acres (see Figure 2-1).

The most recent Later(and second largest) additions was included the Asilomar annexation, which was the second
largest annexation of 131 acres in 1979. Most recently, the City annexed the former site of the Mission Linen facility. The

2.99-acre property was the last section of Monterey County land within the City’s Sphere of Influence and was identified to accommodate residential development. As of 19942025, the city’s total area was 1,830 1,795 acres.

Figure 2-1
Annexations, 1964–2025
Area Date Acres
David Avenue School March 1964 16.49
Congress Avenue March 1964 0.03
Point Pinos May 1966 84.00
Del Monte Park September 1972 195.00
Thornton February 1974 0.28
Sunset March 1975 14.81
Alston-Lee March 1975 0.24
Forest Grove No. 1 January 1976 3.00
Forest Grove No. 2 November 1976 17.11
Winslow’s Addition December 1976 0.10
Asilomar October 1979 130.70
Mission Linen March 2021 2.99
Total 1964–2025 464.75
Source: City of Pacific Grove, 2025.

PGCC 12-3-25

Page 250 ends

Pacific Grove City CouncilDecember 3, 2025

Pacific Grove City Council
December 3, 2025