CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
Wednesday, December 3, 2025, 6:00 P.M.
Council Chamber – City Hall – 300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA The Council will not begin consideration of any item on this agenda later than 10:00 p.m. unless such consideration is approved. Any items on this agenda not considered this evening will be continued to a future meeting.
Copies of the agenda packet are available for review at the Pacific Grove Library, in the Finance Department, and electronically at www.cityofpacificgrove.org/agendas. The most effective method of communication with the City Council is by sending an email to [email protected]. In order to allow the City Council adequate time to review communication related to an agenda item, it is recommended that the communication be sent no later than 9:00 AM on the day prior to the City Council meeting. Public comments received through this email address by noon on the day of the meeting will be posted with the corresponding agenda item.
Under the Brown Act, public comment for matters on the agenda must relate to that agenda item and public comments for matters not on the agenda must relate to the subject matter jurisdiction of this legislative body. This is a warning that if a member of the public attending this meeting remotely or in-person violates the Brown Act by failing to comply with these requirements of the Brown Act, then the Mayor or Chair may request that speaker be muted. If a member of the public attending this meeting in-person engages in disruptive behavior that disturbs the orderly conduct of the meeting, they may be removed from the meeting after a warning, pursuant to Council Policy 000-17.
PACIFIC GROVE COUNCIL MEETINGS ARE CONDUCTED IN PERSON AT CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBER AND VIRTUALLY.
PLEASE NOTE THE MEETING WILL PROCEED AS NORMAL EVEN IF THERE ARE TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES ACCESSING ZOOM.
THE CITY WILL DO ITS BEST TO RESOLVE ANY TECHNICAL ISSUES AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE.
THE PUBLIC MAY ALSO VIEW THE MEETING ON PENINSULA CHANNEL 25.
JOIN THE ZOOM WEBINAR TO PARTICIPATE LIVE AT:
https://www.cityofpacificgrove.org/Zoom_CC
Please click here for directions to dial into the meeting audio.
AGENDA
CALL TO ORDER
PGCC 12-3-25
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Pro Tem Amelio
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
2. PRESENTATIONS
3. COUNCIL AND STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS (City-Related Items Only) A. Other
4. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT
General Public Comment must deal with matters subject to the jurisdiction of the City and the Council that are not on the Regular Agenda. This is the appropriate place to comment as to items on the Consent Agenda, only if you do not wish to have the item pulled for individual consideration by the Council. Comments from the public will be limited to three minutes and will not receive Council action. Comments regarding items on the Regular Agenda shall be heard prior to Council’s consideration of such items at the time such items are called.
Whenever possible, written correspondence should be submitted to the Council in advance of the meeting, to provide adequate time for its consideration.
A. Written General Public Comment
CONSENT AGENDA
The Consent Agenda deals with routine and non-controversial matters, and may include action on resolutions, ordinances, or other public hearings for which testimony is not anticipated. The vote on the Consent Agenda shall apply to each item that has not been removed. Any member of Council, staff, or the public may remove an item from the Consent Agenda for individual consideration. When items are pulled for discussion, they will be automatically placed at the end of their respective section within the Regular Agenda. One motion shall be made to adopt all non-removed items on the Consent Agenda.
5. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
Items pulled from this section will be placed under 12. Unfinished and Ongoing Business A. Minutes of City Council November 5, November 12, and November 19, Special and Regular Meetings
Reference: Sandra Kandell, City Clerk PG 6
Recommended Action: Approve minutes.
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
6. RESOLUTIONS
Items pulled from this section will be placed under 12. Unfinished and Ongoing Business or 13. New Business PGCC 12-3-25
7. ORDINANCES
Items pulled from this section will be placed under 11. Public Hearings A. Second reading of an Ordinance to Amend the Salary Schedule (Minimum Wage) PG 22 Reference: Staphany Arriola, Management Analyst, Leticia Livian, Human Resources Director
Recommended Action: Hold second reading and adopt an ordinance to amend the salary classification schedule modifying salary ranges for Cashier, Intern, Lighthouse Docent Coordinator, and Recreation Assistant I.
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
8. REPORTS – INFORMATION ONLY
Items pulled from this section will be placed under 12. Unfinished and Ongoing Business or 13. New Business
9. REPORTS – REQUIRING ACTION
Items pulled from this section will be placed under 12. Unfinished and Ongoing Business or 13. New Business A. Legal Services Agreement with Fenton & Keller, LLP PG 26 Reference: Matthew Mogensen, City Manager
Recommended Action:
Approve legal services agreement with Fenton & Keller, LLP for City Attorney and Assistant City Attorney positions.
1. 2. Direct staff to take an alternative action.
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
B. Proposed Agreement for Legal Services with Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP PG 54 Reference: Matthew Mogensen, City Manager
Recommended Action: Motion to authorize the Mayor to execute the Proposed Agreement for Legal Services with Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP.
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
C. Amendment to Agreement with HdL for Cannabis Services PG 57 Reference: Joyce Halabi, Deputy City Manager
Recommended Action: Authorize an amendment to the agreement with HdL Companies for Cannabis Services increasing to increase the total contract amount by $26,000.
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
D. Agreement Amendment with Robert Half for Temporary IT Staffing PG 59 PGCC 12-3-25
Reference: Mohammed Khasimi, Chief Information Officer
Recommended Action: Staff recommends that the Council approve the amendment to increase the agreement with Robert Half Inc. by $60,000, extending temporary IT staffing services until March 31, 2026. If approved, the contract will be amended accordingly.
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
10. MEETING MINUTES OF COMMISSIONS, BOARDS, AND COMMITTEES Items pulled from this section will be placed under 13. New Business A. Recreation Board Meeting Minutes: June 26, 2025 and July 24, 2025 PG 61 Reference: Katie Clark, Recreation Manager
Recommended Action: Receive the minutes.
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
REGULAR AGENDA
11. PUBLIC HEARINGS
For public hearings involving a quasi-judicial determination by the Council, the proponent of an item may be given 10 minutes to speak and others in support of the proponent’s position may be given three minutes each. A designated spokesperson for opposition to the item may be given 10 minutes to speak and all others in opposition may be given three minutes each. Very brief rebuttal and surrebuttal may be allowed in the sole discretion of the Council. In public hearings not involving a quasi-judicial determination by the Council, all persons may be given three minutes to speak on the matter.
A. Pacific Grove 2023-2031 Housing Element Update PG 66 Reference: Community Development Director
Recommended Action:
1. Adopt the resolution of the City Council certifying the Final EIR, Adopt the resolution of the City Council approving the “Project’, which includes amending the text, policies, figures, and maps of the Pacific Grove General Plan to adopt the 2023-2031 Housing Element; amending the Land Use and Health and Safety Elements and the Land Use Map; adopting the CEQA Findings of Fact, including a Statement of Overriding Considerations; and adopting the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), and
2. 3. Request the City Attorney read the title of the ordinance;
4. Motion to waive further reading of the ordinance;
Introduce and hold first reading of an ordinance of the City Council adopting amendments to Title 23, Zoning, of the Pacific Grove Municipal Code and the Zoning Map.
5. Direct that publication of the ordinance will be satisfied by publication of a summary approved by the City Attorney.
6. CEQA: Environmental Impact Report
PGCC 12-3-25
12. UNFINISHED AND ONGOING BUSINESS
13. NEW BUSINESS
14. FULL PRESENTATIONS
15. CLOSED SESSION
ADJOURNMENT
NOTICE OF ADA COMPLIANCE: Pursuant to Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (Codified At 42 United States Code Section 12101 and 28 Code of Federal Regulations Part 35), and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the City of Pacific Grove does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, sex, disability, age or sexual orientation in the provision of any services, programs, or activities. The City of Pacific Grove does not discriminate against persons with disabilities. City Hall is an accessible facility. A limited number of assisted listening devices will be available at this meeting. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting or provide the requested agenda format.
PGCC 12-3-25
Agenda No. 5 A
CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Sandra Kandell, City Clerk/DEI Coordinator
MEETING DATE: December 03, 2025
SUBJECT: Minutes of City Council November 5, November 12, and November 19, Special and Regular Meetings
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
RECOMMENDATION
Approve the minutes.
Attachments
Draft Minutes 11-5-25
Draft Minutes 11-12-25
Draft Minutes 11-19-25
PGCC 12-3-25
DRAFT MEETING MINUTES
CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
SPECIAL STUDY SESSION
Wednesday, November 5, 2025, 4:00 P.M.
Council Chamber – City Hall – 300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA YOU MAY VIEW THE MEETING LIVE VIA ZOOM AT:
https://www.cityofpacificgrove.org/Zoom_CC
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Smith called the meeting to order at 4:01pm. Present in Chamber: Mayor Smith, Mayor Pro Tem Amelio, Councilmembers Garfield, McDonnell, Poduri, Rau, and Walkingstick.
REGULAR AGENDA
Upon Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Amelio and second by Councilmember Rau, Council voted 7-0, to approve the Special Study Session Agenda.
1. UNFINISHED AND ONGOING BUSINESS
A. 5 Year CIP & Identified Infrastructure Needs
Public comment received from Andy Kubica, Vincent Turminello, and Inge Lorentzen Daumer.
Action: Received report
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
DRAFT PGCC 12-3-25
DRAFT MEETING MINUTES
CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
CITY COUNCIL
SPECIAL CLOSED SESSION MEETING
Wednesday, November 5, 2025, 5:30 P.M.
Council Chamber – City Hall – 300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA Join the Zoom Meeting to participate live at:
https://www.cityofpacificgrove.org/Zoom_Closed
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Smith called the meeting to order at 5:31 p.m. Present in Chamber: Mayor Smith, Mayor Pro Tem Amelio, Councilmembers Garfield, McDonnell, Poduri, Rau, and Walkingstick.
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
Upon motion by Mayor Pro Tem Amelio and seconded by Councilmember Rau, Council voted 7-0 to approve the Special Meeting Agenda.
SPECIAL CLOSED SESSION MEETING
PUBLIC COMMENT ON SPECIAL CLOSED SESSION MEETING MATTERS Public comment received from Jane Haines.
A. Public Employee Appointment (Government Code § 54957) Title: City Attorney
DRAFT PGCC 12-3-25
DRAFT MEETING MINUTES
CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
Wednesday, November 5, 2025, 6:00 P.M.
Council Chamber – City Hall – 300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA JOIN THE ZOOM WEBINAR TO PARTICIPATE LIVE AT:
https://www.cityofpacificgrove.org/Zoom_CC
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Smith called the meeting to order at 6:15 p.m. Present in Chamber: Mayor Smith, Mayor Pro Tem Amelio, Councilmembers Garfield, McDonnell, Poduri, Rau, and Walkingstick.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Councilmember Walkingstick led the pledge of allegiance.
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Upon motion by Mayor Pro Tem Amelio and seconded by Councilmember Poduri, Council voted 7-0, to approve the Regular Meeting Agenda.
2. PRESENTATIONS
A. Safe Streets Together Monterey County Campaign
Action: Received a presentation.
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
3. COUNCIL AND STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS (City-Related Items Only) A. Council and staff made general announcements.
4. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT
General public comment received from Susan Goldbeck, Moe Ammar, Julia Chaland, Sally Moore, Sam, Jameson, Nina Bates, Colleen Ingram, Lisa Ciani, and Jane Haines.
A. Written General Public Comment
CONSENT AGENDA
Action: Upon motion by Mayor Pro Tem Amelio and seconded by Councilmember Poduri, Council voted 7-0 to approve the Consent Agenda.
5. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
A. Minutes of City Council October 15, 2025 Special and Regular Meetings Action: Approved the minutes.
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
DRAFT PGCC 12-3-25
B. Minutes of the October 28, 2025 City Council Special Meeting Action: Approved the minutes.
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
6. RESOLUTIONS
A. Proposed approval of a resolution establishing Council Policy 200-6M and 200- 6N, and repealing Council Policies 200-6B, 200-6K, 200-6 Action: Approved Resolution 25-024 establishing Council Policy 200-6M and 200-6N, and repealing Council Policies 200-6B, 200-6D, 200-6K.
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
B. League of California Cities Voting Delegate and Alternate(s) Policy 000-029 Action:
1. Adopted Resolution 25-025 amending City Council Policy 000-29 regarding League of California Cities Voting Delegate and Alternate(s); and
2. Approved Policy 000-29 amending the selection of the League of California Cities Voting Delegate and Alternate(s).
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
C. Allocation of available potable water from the Pacific Grove Local Water Project and the Pure Water Monterey Ground Water Replenishment Project.
Action: Adopted Resolution 25-026 allocating available potable water and noted that if changes to the allocation are desired or necessary in the future, staff will return to the City Council with a new resolution that assigns different amounts of water among the five categories.
CEQA: Categorical Exemption, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3)
7. ORDINANCES
A. Second Reading of Ordinance to Amend the Fiscal Year 25/26 Operating and Capital Improvement Budget
Action: Held second reading and adopted Ordinance 25-020 amending the operating and capital budget for the Fiscal Year 2025-26.
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
8. REPORTS – INFORMATION ONLY
A. Monterey-Salinas Transit Minutes for September 8, 2025 Action: Received minutes.
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
B. Summary of Cal Cities Conference Attendance
Action: Received the report.
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
DRAFT PGCC 12-3-25
C. 2025 CalCities Annual Conference Report
Action: Received the report.
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
9. REPORTS – REQUIRING ACTION
A. Approve an update to the Monterey Regional Storm Water Management Program (MRSWMP) Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with Monterey One Water
Action: Approved the City of Pacific Grove to execute the 2025 Monterey Regional Stormwater Management Program (MRSWMP) Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with Monterey One Water.
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
B. Police Department Building Roof Repairs
Action: Authorized an agreement with Premo Roofing for the removal of the existing roof and the re-roofing of the Pacific Grove Police Department building, for an amount of $58,940.00 plus a 15% contingency.
CEQA: Categorical Exemption, CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, Class I, Existing Facilities
C. Fire Station Alerting System
Action: Authorized an agreement with US Digital Designs by Honeywell International, Inc. for the purchase and installation of a new station alerting system in Fire Station 14, for an amount of $142,724.25.
CEQA: Categorical Exemption, CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, Class I, Existing Facilities
D. Contract Amendment No. 2 for Professional Services with Municipal Resource Group, LLC (MRG)
Action: Approved Amendment No. 2 to a Professional Services Agreement with Municipal Resource Group, LLC (MRG), increasing the current contract by $17,990.00 for a total not to exceed amount of $68,163.
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
10. MEETING MINUTES OF COMMISSIONS, BOARDS, AND COMMITTEES A. Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes: September 9, 2025 Action: Received the minutes.
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
B. Beautification and Natural Resources Commission Meeting Minutes: March 18, April 15, May 20, July 15, August 19, September 16, 2025 Action: Received the minutes.
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
DRAFT PGCC 12-3-25
C. Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Minutes: August 11, 2025 Action: Received the minutes.
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
D. Historic Resources Committee Meeting Minutes: May 28, June 25, July 23, and August 27, 2025
Action: Received the minutes.
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
REGULAR AGENDA
11. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Adoption of a Resolution Establishing Fees and Charges for Hearing Examiner Services, and Extending the Term of Water Entitlement Discounts through June 30, 2026
Public comment received from Inge Lorentzen Daumer.
Action: Upon motion by Councilmember Poduri and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Amelio, Council voted to adopt Resolution No. 25-027 Establishing Fees and Charges for Hearing Examiner Services and Extending the Term of Water Entitlement Discounts through June 30, 2026.
Motion carried 7-0 by the following vote:
Ayes: Mayor Smith, Mayor Pro Tem, Councilmembers Garfield, McDonnell, Poduri, and Walkingstick.
Noes: None.
Absent: None.
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
12. UNFINISHED AND ONGOING BUSINESS
A. Historic Resources Inventory and Issue of Property Owner Consent Public comment received from Lisa Ciani, and Inge Lorentzen Daumer.
Action: Upon motion by Councilmember Walkingstick and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Amelio, Council voted 6-1 to receive and file the agenda report regarding Historic Resources Inventory and Issue of Property Owner Consent.
Motion carried 6-1 with the following roll-call vote:
Ayes: Mayor Smith, Mayor Pro Tem Amelio, Councilmember, McDonnell, Poduri, Rau, and Walkingstick.
Noes: Councilmember Garfield.
Absent: None.
DRAFT PGCC 12-3-25
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
B. Combining the Architectural Review Board and Historic Resources Committee.
Public comment received from Lisa Ciani, Kim, Inge Lorentzen Daumer, and Arnaud Teil.
Action: Upon motion by Mayor Pro Tempore Amelio and seconded by Councilmember Rau, Council voted to concur with staff’s recommendation on the membership criteria for the combined Architectural Review Board (ARB) and Historic Resources Commission (HRC), subject to the following modifications and direction:
1. One member each from the construction and design trades categories (two total) are not required to be residents of Pacific Grove.
2. Include language in the introduction to the member criteria that underscores the importance of having members with experience or interest in historic preservation.
3. Designate the newly formed commission as the “Historic and Architectural Resources Commission” (HARC).
4. In conjunction with drafting the ordinances that establish the HARC, evaluate the process leading to the addition of a property on the Historic Resources Inventory (HRI) and identify how the process can be made consistent and streamlined.
Motion carried 5-2 with the following roll-call vote:
Ayes: Mayor Smith, Mayor Pro Tem Amelio, Councilmembers Garfield, Poduri, and Rau.
Noes: Councilmembers McDonnell and Walkingstick.
Absent: None.
CEQA: Categorical Exemption, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3)
13. NEW BUSINESS
14. FULL PRESENTATIONS
A. Flock Camera Presentation by Brian Anderson, Commander Public comment received from Debby Beck, and Colleen Ingram.
Action: Received report.
15. CLOSED SESSION
A. Conference with Legal Counsel – Anticipated Litigation This item was removed from the Agenda.
Significant exposure to litigation (Government Code §54956.9(d)(2)) Number of Cases: One Case
DRAFT PGCC 12-3-25
ADJOURNMENT
Council adjourned the regular meeting at 8:31p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Staphany Arriola, Management Analyst (Confidential) for Sandra Kandell, City Clerk
Approved by Mayor: _______________________________Date________________ Attest by City Manager: ____________________________Date________________ DRAFT PGCC 12-3-25
DRAFT MEETING MINUTES
CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
CITY COUNCIL
SPECIAL CLOSED SESSION MEETING
Wednesday, November 12, 2025, 6:00 P.M.
Council Chamber – City Hall – 300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA Join the Zoom Meeting to participate live at:
https://www.cityofpacificgrove.org/Zoom_Closed
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Smith called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Present in Chamber: Mayor Smith, Mayor Pro Tem Amelio, Councilmembers Garfield, McDonnell, Poduri and Walkingstick. Absent: Councilmember Rau.
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
Upon motion by Mayor Pro Tem Amelio and second by Councilmember Poduri, Council voted 6-0-1, Councilmember Rau absent, to approve the Special Closed Meeting Agenda.
SPECIAL CLOSED SESSION MEETING
PUBLIC COMMENT ON SPECIAL MEETING MATTERS
No public comment received.
A. Conference With Legal Counsel--Anticipated Litigation Initiation of litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 (d)(4) (One potential case)
ADJOURNMENT
Respectfully submitted,
Staphany Arriola, Management Analyst (Confidential) for Sandra Kandell, City Clerk
Approved by Mayor: _______________________________Date________________ Attest by City Manager: ____________________________Date________________ DRAFT PGCC 12-3-25
DRAFT MEETING MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL
SPECIAL MEETING
Wednesday, November 19, 2025, 5:00 P.M.
Council Chamber – City Hall – 300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA Join the Zoom Meeting to participate live at:
https://www.cityofpacificgrove.org/Zoom_Closed
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Smith called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Present in Chamber: Mayor Smith, Mayor Pro Tem Amelio, Councilmembers Garfield, McDonnell, Poduri, Rau and Walkingstick.
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
Upon motion by Mayor Pro Tem Amelio and seconded by Councilmember Rau, Council voted 7-0 to approve the Special Meeting Agenda.
SPECIAL MEETING
PUBLIC COMMENT ON SPECIAL MEETING MATTERS
No public comment received.
A. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8:
Property: City Parking Lot #4 located at168 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California Agency negotiator: City Manager Matt Mogensen Negotiating parties: Lisa Weiman
Under negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment for Lease of portion of the Property for outdoor dining area.
DRAFT PGCC 12-3-25
DRAFT MEETING MINUTES
CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
Wednesday, November 19, 2025, 6:00 P.M.
Council Chamber – City Hall – 300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA JOIN THE ZOOM WEBINAR TO PARTICIPATE LIVE AT:
https://www.cityofpacificgrove.org/Zoom_CC
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Smith called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Present in Chamber: Mayor Smith, Mayor Pro Tem Amelio, Councilmembers Garfield, McDonnell, Poduri, Rau, and Walkingstick.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Councilmember McDonnell led the pledge of allegiance.
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Upon motion by Mayor Pro Tem Amelio and seconded by Councilmember Poduri, Council voted 7-0 to approve the Regular Meeting Agenda.
2. PRESENTATIONS
A. Certificate of Recognition in Honor of Richard Stillwell Action: Presented certificate.
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
3. COUNCIL AND STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS (City-Related Items Only) A. Report on Closed Session by City Attorney
Conference With Legal Counsel--Anticipated Litigation Initiation of litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 (d)(4) (One potential case) City Attorney Brian Pierik reported on the above November 12, 2025 special meeting agenda item stating no reportable action was taken.
Conference with Real Property Negotiators Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8
Property: City Parking Lot #4 located at168 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California Agency negotiator: City Manager Matt Mogensen Negotiating parties: Lisa Weiman
Under negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment for Lease of portion of the Property for outdoor dining area.
City Attorney Brian Pierik reported no action was taken on this item.
DRAFT PGCC 12-3-25
B. Council and staff made general announcements.
4. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT
General public comment received from Jean Anton, Mike Gibbs, Andrew Kubica, and Lisa Ciani.
A. Written General Public Comment
CONSENT AGENDA
Action: Consent Agenda item 9B was pulled and considered immediately following the Consent Agenda.
Action: Upon motion by Mayor Pro Tem Amelio and seconded by Councilmember Walkingstick, Council voted 7-0 to approve the Consent Agenda as modified.
5. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
6. RESOLUTIONS
7. ORDINANCES
8. REPORTS – INFORMATION ONLY
A. Check Register and Interim Financial Report - October 2025 Action: Received the Check Register and Interim Financial Report.
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
B. FY26 Q1 Quarterly Treasurer's Report
Action: Received the report.
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
C. Community Human Services Highlights for October 16, 2025 Action: Received the highlights.
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
D. Monterey Salinas Transit Meeting Minutes for October 13, 2025 Action: Received minutes.
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
9. REPORTS – REQUIRING ACTION
A. Extension of Agreement with The Pun Group LLP for Independent Financial Audit Services
Action: Approved an Extension of Agreement with The Pun Group LLP for Independent Financial Audit Services for two additional Fiscal Years through March 31, 2028 CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines DRAFT PGCC 12-3-25
Section 15378
B. Cedar, Sunset & Congress Intersection Improvements Project Contract Amendments This item was pulled and considered immediately following the Consent Agenda.
Reference: Daniel Gho, Public Works Director/Deputy City Manager Recommended Action:
1. Authorized the execution of Amendment #1 with the
Transportation Agency for Monterey County (TAMC) to increase the funding agreement by
$137,961 for the Cedar, Sunset, and Congress Intersection Project.
2. Authorized the execution of Amendment #2 with GHD for an amount of $340,387 for the Cedar, Sunset and Congress Intersection Project, to continue with the Design Engineering Evaluation Report, for a roundabout at the intersection.
3. Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
10. MEETING MINUTES OF COMMISSIONS, BOARDS, AND COMMITTEES A. Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes: October 14, 2025.
Action: Received the minutes.
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
B. Library Board Regular Meeting Minutes: September 2, 2025 Action: Received the minutes.
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
C. Recreation Board Minutes: February 27, March 27, and April 34, 2025 Action: Received the minutes.
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
*****
9.B. Cedar, Sunset & Congress Intersection Improvements Project Contract Amendments This item was pulled and considered immediately following the Consent Agenda.
Public comment received from Beth Shammas, Susan Goldbeck, Mike Gibbs, Colleen Ingram, and Inge Lorentzen Daumer.
Action: A motion by Councilmember Walkingstick to disapprove authorizing the execution of Amendment #1 with the Transportation Agency for Monterey County (TAMC) to increase the funding agreement by $137,961 for the Cedar, Sunset, and Congress Intersection Project; disapprove authorizing the execution of Amendment #2 , and to discontinue with the Design Engineering Evaluation Report for a roundabout for the Cedar, Sunset and Congress Intersection Project died for lack of a second.
DRAFT PGCC 12-3-25
Action: Upon motion by Mayor Pro Tem Amelio and seconded by Councilmember Rau, the Council voted to
1. Authorize the execution of Amendment #1 with the Transportation Agency for Monterey County (TAMC) to increase the funding agreement by $137,961 for the Cedar, Sunset, and Congress Intersection Project; and
2. Authorize the execution of Amendment #2 with GHD for an amount of $340,387 for the Cedar, Sunset and Congress Intersection Project, to continue with the Design Engineering Evaluation Report, for a roundabout at the intersection.
Motion carried 6-1 by the following roll call vote.
Ayes: Mayor Smith, Mayor Pro Tem Amelio, Councilmembers Garfield, McDonnell, Poduri, and Rau.
Noes: Councilmember Walkingstick.
Absent: None.
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
REGULAR AGENDA
11. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Ordinance to Amend the Salary Schedule (Minimum Wage) No public comment received.
Action: Mayor Smith requested the City Attorney read the title of the ordinance.
Action: Upon motion by Councilmember Rau and seconded by Councilmember Rau, Council voted 7-0 to
2. Waived further reading of the ordinance;
3. Introduce and hold first reading of an ordinance to amend the salary classification schedule modifying salary ranges for Cashier, Intern, Lighthouse Docent Coordinator and Recreation Assistant I; and
4. Direct a summary of a proposed ordinance be published as approved by the City Attorney.
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
12. UNFINISHED AND ONGOING BUSINESS
13. NEW BUSINESS
A. Review of Five-Year Operating and Capital Forecast, Infrastructure Needs and Public Engagement Agreement
Public comment received from Beth Shammas, Mike Gibbs, Andrew Kubica, Inge Lorentzen Daumer, and Karl Lindstrom.
Action: Upon motion by Mayor Pro Tem Amelio and seconded by Councilmember Rau, DRAFT PGCC 12-3-25
Council voted 7-0 to approve a Professional Services Agreement with Props & Measures for ballot measure feasibility, preparation and outreach services in a not-to-exceed amount of $141,530.
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
B. Approval Of the California Employers’ Pension Prefunding Trust (CEPPT) Participation Agreement with CalPERS
Public comment received from Karl Lindstrom.
Action: Upon motion by Mayor Smith and seconded by Council Walkingstick, Council voted 7-0 to
1) Approve and adopt Resolution No. 25-025, authorizing establishment of the California Employer Pension Pre-funding Trust (CEPPT) Section 115 Trust; 2) Adopt and execute the CalPERS CEPPT Participation Agreement; 3) Adopt and Execute the CalPERS CEPPT Delegation of Authority document listing the City Manager and Administrative Services Director as authorized to request disbursements from the Trust; and
4) Adopt the Certification of Pre-Funding Policy designating the CEPPT Trust Fund be established with the Asset Allocation Strategy of Strategy 1.
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
14. FULL PRESENTATIONS
15. CLOSED SESSION
ADJOURNMENT
Council adjourned the regular meeting at 8:18 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Sandra Kandell
City Clerk
Approved by Mayor: _______________________________Date________________ Attest by City Manager: ____________________________Date________________ DRAFT PGCC 12-3-25
Agenda No. 7 A
CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM:
Staphany Arriola, Management Analyst, Leticia Livian, Human Resources Director
MEETING DATE: December 03, 2025
SUBJECT: Second reading of an Ordinance to Amend the Salary Schedule (Minimum Wage) CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
RECOMMENDATION
Hold second reading and adopt an ordinance to amend the salary classification schedule modifying salary ranges for Cashier, Intern, Lighthouse Docent Coordinator, and Recreation Assistant I.
DISCUSSION
There were no substantive changes between the first and second readings of this ordinance. The City Clerk caused a summary of the ordinance to be published on November 27, 2025.
The City salary classification schedule identifies the job classifications approved by Council (e.g., Office Assistant) and the hourly rates of pay for each classification at each step authorized by the Personnel Rules. Pursuant to Charter Article 25 and Pacific Grove Municipal Code (PGMC) Section
4.20.280, approval and amendment to the classification schedule must be adopted by the Council.
Increase to State Minimum Wage
Staff is proposing changes to the salary schedule to comply with an increase to California State Minimum Wage. California's minimum wage will increase from $16.50 to $16.90 per hour for all employers on January 1, 2026.
The salary ranges in the following classifications need to be adjusted to meet the State's minimum wage requirements:
Cashier
Intern
Lighthouse Docent Coordinator
Recreation Assistant I
The recommended approach is to increase the range of the entire classification, which preserves the City’s ability to hire personnel in the future at the lowest step, while complying with the new minimum wage law.
Proposed New Salary Ranges:
PGCC 12-3-25
Classifications Step
1A
Step
2B
Step
3C
Step
4D
Step
5E
Cashier 16.90 17.75 18.63 19.56 20.54
Intern 16.90 17.75 18.63 19.56 20.54
Lighthouse Docent
Coordinator
16.90 17.75 18.63 19.56 20.54
Recreation Assistant I 16.90 17.75 18.63 19.56 20.54
The requested change to the salary classification schedule will only impact the classifications listed in this agenda report. All other classification hourly salary ranges will remain the same. To view the entire salary schedule, please refer to the City’s website,
http://www.cityofpacificgrove.org/about-city/human-resources/salaries-benefits-and-mous.
OPTIONS
Provide alternative direction to staff.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
There is no financial impact since the minimum wage was taken into consideration for the following fiscal year.
FOCUSED PRIORITY AREA: Not Applicable.
Attachments
Proposed Ordinance
PGCC 12-3-25
1 ORDINANCE NO. 25-0XX
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC
GROVE AMENDING THE SALARY CLASSIFICATION SCHEDULE TO
COMPLY WITH CALIFORNIA MINIMUM WAGE
Findings
1. The State of California has increased minimum wage to $16.90 per hour effective January 1, 2026; and
2. Cashier, Intern, Lighthouse Docent Coordinator, and Recreation Assistant I, falls below the $16.90 per hour minimum requirement at the first step; and
3. Amending the salary schedule will meet the State requirements; and
4. Amending the salary schedule by adjusting the range preserves the City’s full flexibility for future hiring decisions and observes the intent of the state requirements; and
5. Amending the salary schedule avoids salary compaction issues; and
6. Amending the salary schedule will allow for the new salary rates to take effect; and
7. Amendment to the salary schedule classification plan must be adopted by the City Council pursuant to Pacific Grove Municipal Code (PGMC) Section 4.20.280; and
8. In the enactment of this ordinance, the City followed the guidelines adopted by the State of California and published in the California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000, et seq. Enactment of this ordinance action does not constitute a “project” as defined by California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it is an organizational or administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment pursuant Section 15378.
Ordinance
NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The foregoing findings of the City Council are incorporated into this Ordinance as if set forth in full.
SECTION 2. The position classification plan approved and adopted by the City Council pursuant to PGMC § 4.20.280 is amended for Cashier, Intern, Lighthouse Docent Coordinator, and Recreation Assistant I, classifications with the following salary schedule:
PGCC 12-3-25
2 Classifications Step 1A Step 2B Step 3C Step 4C Step 5E Cashier 16.90 17.75 18.63 19.56 20.54
Intern 16.90 17.75 18.63 19.56 20.54
Lighthouse Docent
Coordinator 16.90 17.75 18.63 19.56 20.54
Recreation Assistant I 16.90 17.75 18.63 19.56 20.54
SECTION 3. The City Manager is directed to execute all documents and to perform all other necessary City acts to implement this Ordinance.
SECTION 4. Upon approval at second reading, this ordinance shall be given an effective date of 12/21/2025.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE this 3rd day of December 2025, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT: APPROVED:
___________________________
ATTEST:
NICK SMITH, Mayor
DATED:
__________________________________
SANDRA KANDELL, City
Clerk APPROVED AS TO
FORM:
___________________________________
BRIAN PIERIK, City Attorney
PGCC 12-3-25
Agenda No. 9 A
CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM:
MEETING DATE: December 03, 2025
SUBJECT: Legal Services Agreement with Fenton & Keller, LLP CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
RECOMMENDATION
Approve legal services agreement with Fenton & Keller, LLP for City Attorney and Assistant City Attorney positions.
1. 2. Direct staff to take an alternative action.
DISCUSSION
The City has received City Attorney services from Brian Pierik with the firm of Burke, Williams & Sorensen (BWS) since July 2022. Recently, Mr. Pierik announced at a City Council Meeting that will be stepping back from the City Attorney role for the City of Pacific Grove.
On September 3, 2025, the City issued a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for City Attorney Services (see Attachment No. 1). Qualifications submissions were due on October 6, 2025.
City Attorney firm submissions were evaluated initially based on the following criteria:
Qualification of the City Attorney firm and the team proposed. Depth and breadth of prior experience and expertise of the proposed City Attorney and the supporting team in the practice of law, more specifically in those areas listed in this RFQ as well as those most often encountered in municipal government.
1. 2. Demonstrated understanding of municipal law and City needs.
Availability, experience, and knowledge of all subconsultants engaged by the City Attorney to complete the Scope of Services.
3. Knowledge of the unique issues facing local governments on the Monterey Peninsula and the City in particular.
4. 5. Availability and ability to be responsive to Council and staff inquiries.
6. Proactive approach to risk management and billing with transparency into invoices and reporting.
7. References of past or current municipal law clients or municipal practice.
8. Quality and completeness of submittal.
The City received a total of eight submittals in response to the RFQ. Based on this evaluation criteria and the experience demonstrated in the submittals, the top four qualified City Attorney firms were PGCC 12-3-25
invited to an interview with the City Council on Saturday, October 25, 2025. Following the careful review of qualifications, in-person interview and careful deliberation, the City Council chose Alex J.
Lorca and Emmanuel P. Jimenez with the Firm of Fenton & Keller as the next City Attorney and Assistant City Attorney, respectively, for the City of Pacific Grove.
Responsibilities of the City Attorney are specified in Charter Article 24 of and Municipal Code Chapter
2.07. The City Attorney is employed by the City Council and works alongside the City Manager.
OPTIONS
Do not approve the legal services agreement.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
General City Attorney Services, as described in Section 2 of the Legal Services Agreement(included as Attachment No. 2), will be billed at the rate of $325 per hour for shareholder attorneys, $300 per hour for Associate Attorneys and paralegals at $100 per hour. Additional charges for travel and expense reimbursement can be found in the agreement. The monthly cost of legal services is highly dependent on the volume of work. Sufficient funds to support this contract have been included in the Fiscal Year 25/26 Adopted Budget.
GOAL ALIGNMENT: Not Applicable.
Attachments
Attachment No. 1 Request for Qualifications
Attachment No. 2 Legal Services Agreement Fenton & Keller PGCC 12-3-25
1 City of Pacific Grove
Request for Qualifications
City Attorney Services
RFQ Issuance: September 3, 2025
Questions Due: September 17, 2025
Qualifications Submission Due: October 6, 2025
Contact:
Leticia Livian
Human Resources Director
City of Pacific Grove
300 Forest Avenue
Pacific Grove, CA 93950
[email protected]
PGCC 12-3-25
2 I. INTRODUCTION
The City of Pacific Grove invites qualified law firms to submit statements of qualifications to provide comprehensive City Attorney and General Counsel legal services. This RFQ seeks to identify experienced legal professionals with a demonstrated history of delivering responsive, effective, and ethical legal guidance in a municipal government context.
The selected firm will provide legal services to the City Council, City Manager, departments, commissions, and boards. Legal services must encompass both general counsel functions and specialized municipal legal expertise.
Award of contract will be to the firm whose qualifications best complies with the requirements of this RFQ and any attachments, is the best fit for the City Council, and provides the best solution for the City’s needs. The successful City Attorney will be required to enter into a Professional Services Agreement (“Agreement”) with the City.
II. CITY BACKGROUND
The City of Pacific Grove (the “City”) is located on California’s Central Coast, on the tip of the Monterey Peninsula, between the City of Monterey and Pebble Beach. The City is approximately 120 miles south of San Francisco and 334 miles north of Los Angeles. The City has a land area of 2.86 square miles and an active, diverse population of approximately 15,000.
The City was founded in 1875, incorporated in 1889, and became a Charter City on April 22, 1927. The City operates under the Council-Manager form of government, with seven total City Councilmembers including a directly elected Mayor. City Councilmembers are elected to four-year overlapping terms by districts (6 total) and the Mayor is elected atlarge to a two-year term. The City Council is the legislative body responsible for overall policy development and direction of the City. In addition, the City has a variety of citizen committees, boards, and commissions that provide input and help conduct City business.
The Council appoints the City Manager, who serves as the executive officer and is responsible for the day-to-day operations of the City. The Council appoints the City Attorney.
The City provides an extensive array of services including police, fire, public works, parks, recreation, a library, planning, housing programs, economic development, wastewater collection, a golf course, a cemetery, as well as all of the traditional internal management support functions. Several of these operations function as enterprises within the City organization. The City has a current annual operating and capital budget of approximately $35 million, and a regular staff of approximately 110 full-time equivalent employees.
PGCC 12-3-25
3 III. SCOPE OF SERVICES
The primary duties, functions, and services (the “Scope of Services” or “Services”) of the City Attorney may include, but are not limited to, the following:
• Providing prompt, responsive, clear and concise legal advice and consultation on a wide variety of municipal law matters as requested to the Council, City Manager, department heads and other City staff as needed.
• Attending and providing legal support at all regular and special City Council and upon request, City Boards and Commissions and other public meetings in addition to advising on agenda items and procedural matters.
• Ensuring compliance with the City’s Municipal Code, federal and state laws, the Brown Act, the Public Records Act, the Political Reform Act, and all applicable codes. • Providing training with regard to the Brown Act, AB 1234, CEQA, Political Reform Act, Public Records Act, Redevelopment Law, Prop 218 noticing, Voter Initiatives and City Ballot Measures, and other legal requirements imposed by statute and common law.
• Reviewing City documents, policies, procedures, forms and templates to ensure compliance with current laws.
• Drafting, reviewing or revising memos, contracts, ordinances, resolutions, policies and other legal documents.
• Recommend, assign, manage and administrative proceedings or managing outside counsel retained for these purposes.
• Representing the City in civil litigation or manage litigation as appropriate. • Representing the City in civil litigation and administrative proceedings or managing outside counsel retained for those purposes.
• Advising on land use, CEQA, planning, zoning, labor/employment, public contracting, utilities (electric and water), and code enforcement.
• Advising the City regarding election laws and assisting in review of election forms, filings, and coordinating with county, state, and federal election officials. • Alerting the City in a timely manner on new State or Federal legislation or judicial decisions that may impact the City and proposing appropriate actions to assure compliance.
PGCC 12-3-25
4 • Labor/employment, training and personnel investigations • Providing legal advice and assistance to Council and staff with regard to interaction with federal and agencies, special districts, public utilities, and other entities as requested by the City Council or City Manager.
• Providing designated office hours or times of availability, as agreed to with the City Manager and/or the City Council.
IV. MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS AND SPECIFIC LEGAL EXPERTISE Respondents must meet the following minimum qualifications:
1. Be licensed to practice law in the State of California and be in good standing with the California State Bar.
2. Have a minimum of ten (10) years of progressively responsible experience in the practice of municipal law.
3. Demonstrated experience serving as City Attorney, Assistant/Deputy City Attorney, or General Counsel for a California municipality or public agency.
In addition to general counsel expertise, respondents are encouraged to summarize qualifications in the following specialized areas of legal services which you would like to be considered (and other application areas of applicable expertise):
1. Elections, Records and other Municipal Matters
• Election law and procedures
• Federal and California Voting Rights Act
• Public Records Act
• Record Retention
• Litigation Requiring Specialized Counsel
• Public entity tort claims
• Writ litigation and appellate procedures
2. Public Finance and Revenue Law
• Bond and public financing counsel
• Proposition 218 compliance (e.g., utility rate increases) • Mitigation Fee Act and development impact fee issues
• Complex tax, fee, or revenue-related legal matters
3. Community Development, Coastal Act, Housing Law
• Land Use and California Law affecting local control
• California Coastal Act, Local Coastal Plans and Coastal Commission review • Affordable housing compliance and development agreements PGCC 12-3-25
5 • Housing Element program implementation matters
• Housing Element legal review and financing tools (e.g., HOME, CDBG) • Surplus Lands Act
• Code enforcement
• Historic Preservation Laws
4. Complex Environmental Compliance and Litigation
• Hazardous materials, remediation, or stormwater regulatory enforcement • Complex CEQA litigation (beyond normal project review support) • Regional water quality control and air quality compliance • Coastal issues including urban run off and NPDES requirements • Solid waste/recycling requirements
• Water use restrictions, regulations and local litigation issues
5. Franchise and Specialized Contract Negotiations
• Non-routine contract drafting or negotiation (e.g., cable, telecom, solid waste, franchise agreements)
• Review of non-standard or high-risk contracts outside normal templates • LAFCO proceedings and Interjurisdictional Legal Issues • Joint Powers Agreement formations and negotiations
6. Public Utilities Law
• Telecommunications (advisory and administrative proceedings) • Electric and water utility matters
7. Real Property and Land Transactions
• Property management and tenant disputes
• Lease negotiations
• Unlawful detainer/eviction (commercial)
• Complex real estate issues (e.g., CC&Rs, easements, title work) • Land acquisition, disposition, and pre-condemnation legal strategy • Public-private development negotiations
8. Advanced Labor and Employment Matters
• Labor and employment matters
• Public safety defense
• Labor/employment, training and personnel investigations • Police-specific litigation (e.g., Pitchess motions)
• Complex administrative hearings or arbitration proceedings • Labor negotiations or fact-finding proceedings
• Workers compensation (public entity employer)
• Disability issues/FEHA/ADA
9. Construction and Public Works Disputes
PGCC 12-3-25
6 • Bidding and Procurement
• Legal support for public construction contract disputes • Prevailing wage, change orders, and stop notice litigation
10. Bankruptcy and Creditor Representation
• Legal services related to bankruptcy proceedings affecting the City • Representation in insolvency matters (e.g., vendor bankruptcies, claims) V. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS
All responses must be submitted to the Human Resource Director by the deadline listed on the cover page. Submittals must include the following:
1. Cover Letter – A signed letter expressing interest in serving as City Attorney.
Describe why the City Attorney has an interest in this RFQ and why it would be the City’s best choice.
2. Firm/Individual Background – State the full legal name of the City Attorney’s business, including the state of incorporation, as applicable. State the number of years the City Attorney has been practicing law. List the names of principals or officers authorized to legally bind the City Attorney, including position titles, resumes, and hourly rates.
3. Statements of Qualifications – Provide information concerning the City Attorney’s experience and qualifications directly related to the Services set forth in this RFQ. The Statement of Qualifications should describe the services the firm proposes to provide, the firm’s overall experience with municipal law, any areas of specialty listed above, and any special qualifications that are believed to distinguish it from other law firms.
The Statement of Qualifications should include an indication of the commitment to provide the services by the attorney or attorneys with principal responsibility for providing services to the City. In this context, the words availability and commitment should be taken in their broadest meanings, incorporating time, flexibility in scheduling, office location of the attorney or attorneys, and firm or personal policies and practices with regard to returning calls and meeting deadlines.
Any significant time period required before beginning services should be noted.
A critical component is timely and effective communication. The Statement of Qualifications should clearly describe service levels including minimum response times for all inquiries / requests received from City Staff and City Council.
PGCC 12-3-25
7 The Statement of Qualifications should describe familiarity with unique issues facing local governments on the Monterey Peninsula and the City in particular.
Living experience on the Monterey Peninsula and in the City should be listed.
Define the experience of the primary lead counsel, other key personnel and subconsultants. Include resumes for all counsel and other key personnel, including subconsultants, who will comprise the City Attorney’s team. Demonstrate the relevant expertise and experience of each team member. The designated lead counsel shall be the primary contact with the City for the duration of the engagement. The City Attorney shall disclose in its submission all proposed subconsultants, including details regarding which tasks they would perform. The Qualifications should include information about the types of support staff, such as other attorneys, paralegals, interns and others in the firm who would be assigned to perform work for the City and whose time would be billed for such work. The response should include information about how the firm plans to utilize support staff within the City’s budget constraints.
Statements submitted in response to the Request for Qualifications may, but are not required to, provide additional information to assist a proper evaluation of the proposal.
4. Workplan – Describe how the firm would structure the working relationship between the City Attorney, City Council, City Manager, department directors, and other members of City staff, including a proposed process for transmitting requests and other material to the City Attorney. Provide a detailed description regarding the expected response time for inquiries made by the City Council/City Manager, and the established systems/mechanisms utilized by the City Attorney to ensure timely responses to the City Council, City Manager, and City staff. Any discussions relating to suggested strategies to reduce costs for outside legal services are appropriate in this section.
5. References – Provide a list of current and former public agency clients (especially cities). Provide a minimum of three (3) references for work similar to this Scope of Services that the firm has provided within the last Ten (10) years. Include a detailed description of the services, the agency or firm names, contact names, phone numbers, email addresses, and dates of services performed.
6. Conflict of Interest Disclosure – Identify all previous and current contracts with the City of Pacific Grove. Include contact name(s), description of services, and dates of services performed. List any political contributions of money, in-kind services, or loans made to any member of a City Council within the last (3) years by the City Attorney and the City Attorney’s attorneys, including the attorney being proposed to represent the City. List all public agency clients for which the City PGCC 12-3-25
8 Attorney currently provides services similar to the Services. List all public agencies for which contracts with 6 the City Attorney were terminated by the public agency in the last (5) years. Provide information on the potential conflicts of interests between other clients and the City of Pacific Grove and the proposed remedy.
Specify the City Attorney’s current or known future professional commitments, so that the City may evaluate the City Attorney’s continuing availability for providing Services to the City.
Reasonable diligence to identify and disclose potential conflicts is expected of all firms submitting a response to this Request for Qualifications. The proposal should also provide a statement or description of firm policy to address how conflicts of interest between two or more clients are avoided.
7. Professional Liability Insurance – Provide a copy of a certificate of insurance or summary of current coverage.
8. Malpractice Claims & Disciplinary Action Legal Disclosure – Provide detail on any criminal indictments or convictions brought against the firm or its attorneys or civil judgements against the same within the past ten years. Please describe in detail each such indictment, conviction, or judgement. Provide detail on any pending legal action, including disciplinary actions, alleging malpractice or violations of law against the firm or its attorneys. Please describe in detail each pending action and the potential liability of the firm or its attorneys. Also, provide information regarding any settlements or judgments involving malpractice or violations of law entered into by the firm or its attorneys within the past five years.
9. Cost Proposal – This section should include the following:
Pricing should include:
• Hourly bill rates for general City Attorney services. • Hourly rates for specialized services, with descriptions of what may be considered specialized service.
• Hourly rate for individuals from the firm, including staff attorneys, paralegal services and clerical staff.
• Include any services and/or items that are routinely performed at no cost, if any. • Include any other items related to the rates, fees and/or costs that may be pertinent to the City in consideration of the qualifications • An estimated range of anticipated monthly charges the City may expect to be billed is highly desirable.
VI. EVALUATION CRITERIA
PGCC 12-3-25
9 Qualifications submissions shall provide point-by-point response to all sections of the RFQ in a clear and concise manner. Submissions will be evaluated based on the responses to all provisions of this RFQ. The City may use some or all the following criteria in its evaluation and comparison of Qualifications submitted.
The City will evaluate each response based on the following criteria:
1. Qualification of the City Attorney firm and the team proposed. Depth and breadth of prior experience and expertise of the proposed City Attorney and the supporting team in the practice of law, more specifically in those areas listed in this RFQ as well as those most often encountered in municipal government.
2. Demonstrated understanding of municipal law and City needs.
3. Availability, experience, and knowledge of all subconsultants engaged by the City Attorney to complete the Scope of Services.
4. Knowledge of the unique issues facing local governments on the Monterey Peninsula and the City in particular.
5. Availability and ability to be responsive to Council and staff inquiries.
6. Proactive approach to risk management and billing with transparency into invoices and reporting.
7. References of past or current municipal law clients or municipal practice.
8. Quality and completeness of submittal.
The City Council will determine a procedure to review each submittal to this RFQ. Calls to submitting firms or attorneys and their references may be made to clarify material in the submittals. Based upon this review, the best qualified firms may be invited to a personal interview. Following the interviews, thorough background and reference interviews may be conducted.
VII. SUBMITTAL INFORMATION & INSTRUCTIONS
A. Tentative RFQ Schedule & Services Timeline
The following is a tentative schedule of the RFQ key dates. While the City will attempt to apply the necessary resources to maintain this schedule, the following dates are merely projections, and the City reserves the right to modify this schedule as needed to accommodate the completion of this RFQ process.
RFQ Published Wednesday September 3, 2025
Deadline to Submit Questions Wednesday September 17, 2025 @ 5 pm PGCC 12-3-25
10 Answers to Questions Published Wednesday September 24, 2025 Deadline to Submit Qualifications Monday October 6, 2025 @ 5 pm Evaluation of Qualifications October 2025
Interviews November 2025
Council Approval & Contract Award December 2025
B. Questions, Answers & Addendum to RFQ
All questions pertaining to this RFQ should be submitted directly to Human Resources Director Leticia Livian at [email protected]. until Wednesday September 17, 2025, at 5:00 PM PST. Responses to all questions submitted will be posted on City’s Bids and RFPs webpage at the address below on Wednesday September 24, 2025. Changes to the RFQ itself shall only be made by the City via a formal written addendum and shall become a part of the RFQ document.
https://www.cityofpacificgrove.gov/our_city/departments/administrative_se rvices/bids___rfps/index.php
C. Submittal Process
Qualifications are due to the Human Resources Director on Monday October 6, 2025, by 5:00 PM PST. Qualifications will only be accepted in Portable Document Format (PDF). No exceptions to this requirement will be considered. Qualifications submitted by any other method such as hard copy or by mail will be disqualified.
Failure to submit the required documents by the deadline shall result in disqualification for consideration. Qualifications may be submitted at any time prior to the RFQ submittal deadline.
VIII. TERMS & CONDITIONS
• The City of Pacific Grove reserves the right to accept or reject any or all submittals, waive any informalities or irregularities, and modify or cancel this RFQ in part or in its entirety at any time.
• The City reserves the right to request clarification, additional information, or supplemental materials from any respondent during the evaluation or selection process.
• All responses become the property of the City of Pacific Grove and are subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act.
PGCC 12-3-25
11 • Any costs incurred by respondents in preparing or submitting a response to this RFQ, including interviews, presentations, or contract negotiations, shall be borne solely by the respondent.
• Submittal of qualifications does not obligate the City to award a contract, nor will any respondent be entitled to claim any compensation for participation. • The City makes no guarantees regarding the amount of work or value of services to be awarded as a result of this RFQ. Award of a contract does not guarantee any minimum volume of services or exclusivity.
• In accordance with the City’s Municipal Code and applicable law, selection will be based on demonstrated competence and professional qualifications. Cost may be considered during contract negotiations, but it shall not be the sole or primary factor in the selection process.
• The City reserves the right to disqualify any respondent that is debarred, in litigation with the City, or has previously failed to perform under a contract with the City.
• The contract will be awarded for an initial period of three (3) years with two additional one-year periods unless terminated by either party. Annual reviews by the City Council will be performed and feedback on performance provided.
The City Attorney shall work at the pleasure of the City Council and nothing herein shall limit their ability to terminate the contract at will with no notice or penalty. • Submission of a response to this RFQ shall not create any legal or contractual rights for the respondent. Only execution of a formal agreement approved by the City Council shall bind the City.
• By submitting a response, the respondent certifies that its proposal is made without prior understanding, agreement, or connection with any other entity submitting a proposal for the same services, and that it is in all respects fair and without collusion or fraud
PGCC 12-3-25
13140666.1 PA028-001
LEGAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
FENTON & KELLER, LLP
This Legal Services Agreement ("Agreement") is entered into effective January 1, 2026 by and between the City of Pacific Grove, a municipal corporation, (hereinafter "City"), and Fenton & Keller, Attorneys at Law (hereinafter "Fenton & Keller"), collectively referred to herein as the "parties."
WHEREAS, the City wishes to engage Fenton & Keller to perform the services required by this Agreement; and,
WHEREAS, Fenton & Keller is willing to render such professional services, as hereinafter defined, on the following terms and conditions; and WHEREAS, Fenton & Keller represents that it is trained, experienced and competent and holds all necessary licenses and certifications to perform the services required by this Agreement.
WHEREAS, this Agreement is a written legal services agreement containing the terms under which Fenton & Keller has been retained by City to serve as its City Attorney.
WHEREAS, California Business and Professions Code section 6148 requires a written fee agreement between attorneys and their clients setting forth the scope of services and fees to be charged. When executed by City and Fenton & Keller, this Agreement will satisfy the requirements of Section 6148.
WHEREAS, by this Agreement, City appoints Fenton & Keller as City Attorney, and Fenton & Keller undertakes the responsibility of that appointment. Fenton & Keller will serve at the pleasure of the City Council and may be replaced at any time, with or without cause, without amending this Agreement. The designated City Attorney or an approved successor will be responsible for providing or causing to be provided the legal services contemplated by this Agreement.
WHEREAS, Alex J. Lorca (“Lorca”) will principally be perform the functions of Fenton & Keller as the City Attorney. No changes regarding this principal assignment to Lorca may be made without the consent of City. Fenton & Keller retains authority to assign from time to time such of its attorneys, paralegals, or law clerks as may be necessary to perform other legal services called for by this Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the terms and conditions herein contained, the parties hereby covenant and agree as follows and further agree that the foregoing Recitals are hereby incorporated by this reference:
1. SERVICES
A. General City Attorney Services
Fenton & Keller will perform the following General City Attorney Services to serve City: Attendance at Council meetings and closed sessions, Council subcommittee meetings, and Planning Commission meetings, as directed by the City; routine legal advice and PGCC 12-3-25
2 | P a g e
4929-9882-3547, v. 1
consultation; office hours at City Hall as requested by the City Council or City Manager, advice on the Brown Act, analysis of Public Records Act responses and conflicts of interest questions; assistance in the preparation of agenda items, staff reports, ordinances, and resolutions; review and preparation of orders, agreements, forms, notices, declarations, certificates, leases, and other documents as required by the City; routine personnel matters not considered Special Legal Services, and consultation with Council Members, the City Manager, and department heads regarding routine legal issues.
B. Special Legal Services
Services not defined as General City Attorney Services in Section 1 A will be considered "Special Legal Services" and will be undertaken as such upon agreement of Fenton & Keller and the City, through the majority of the City Council or City Manager.
Special Legal Services generally are complex in nature (as opposed to routine), and require significant amounts of work. Special Legal Services include, but are not limited to, all litigation, arbitration, and mediation activities (including all appellate work); complex construction; eminent domain; legal advice regarding and drafting of financing documents; legal analysis and advice regarding complex environmental matters, including Endangered Species Act issues, environmental permitting and regulatory issues, Clean Water Act compliance issues, NPDES compliance, and the application of and compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and National Environmental Policy Act; wage and hour determinations by the DIR; non-routine personnel matters including labor negotiations and personnel grievance issues, contested conflict of interest matters, including the preparation of FPPC or Attorney General advisory letters, and defense of public officials in response to FPPC investigations and charges. Special Legal Services also include legal advice or representation regarding any project or issue that is particularly complex and other duties as assigned by the City Council or City Manager as Special Legal Services.
2. COMPENSATION
A. City Attorney Services. For City Attorney Services, as described in Section 1 subsections A & B, the hourly rate of:
• $325.00 for Shareholder Attorneys;
• $300.00 for Associate Attorneys; and
• $100.00 for Paralegals.
Fenton & Keller may review and revise the hourly rates charged for attorneys, clerks, and paralegals, from time to time over the course of their representation. Any rate changes will be reflected in the billings submitted subsequent to the implementation of the change. Fenton & Keller will provide the City with advanced written notice of any such changes.
Fenton & Keller shall record and charge their time in increments of one-tenth (1/10) of one hour, rounded off for each particular activity to the next highest one-tenth (1/10) of one hour. The minimum time charged for any particular activity will be .2 of an hour even if the actual time is less.
Fenton & Keller will charge for all activities undertaken in providing legal services including, but not limited to, preparation for and participation at conferences, meetings, administrative hearings, and court sessions (if required); review and preparation of PGCC 12-3-25
3 | P a g e
4929-9882-3547, v. 1
correspondence and legal documents; legal research; factual investigation; telephone conversations; and travel and waiting time. Activities that require the presence of more than one attorney from their firm, including conferences among attorneys, will be charged for each such attorney’s time.
B. Travel Time. Fenton & Keller shall not charge City for travel by the City Attorney or the Assistant City Attorney for travel to the City for regularly scheduled City Council Meetings, special City Council meetings upon request of the City Manager and regularly scheduled office hours. There will be no travel charges for mileage, per diem or hotel expenses for regularly or specially scheduled City Council meetings.
C. Costs and Expense Reimbursement. In addition to payment of attorneys’ fees as set forth above, the City will reimburse Fenton & Keller for costs and expenses reasonably incurred by Fenton & Keller in performance of the services provided under this Agreement. City preauthorizes routine costs including but not limited to postage, courier services, copying charges, long distance telephone charges, cost of producing and reproducing photographs, and court, county, recording and other filing fees as contained in Fenton and Keller’s schedule of costs and charges.
D. Retainer. Fenton & Keller reserve the right at any time during their representation of the City to request a retainer. If requested, the City shall deposit within thirty (30) days of the request. Any retainer shall be held in a trust account and may be applied to any statement sent to the City, even if the statement relates to a different matter for the City.
If the retainer is applied and insufficient to settle the statement, the City will pay any additional balance due upon receipt of the revised statement and will also replenish the retainer if requested. At the conclusion of the matter, the retainer will be applied to the final statement, in which event the City will be responsible for any amount due over and above the retainer or be entitled to a refund of any amount remaining after the final statement is satisfied in full.
Depending on the future circumstances of City matters and/or if the matters turns to litigation, an additional retainer may be required and requested at a later date.
E. Reimbursable Extraordinary Expenses. In addition to payment of attorneys fees as set forth above, and with prior approval from the City Council or City Manager, City will reimburse other non-routine costs and expenses incurred by Fenton & Keller for or on behalf of, including but not limited to outside counsel, consultants, expert witnesses, travel outside Monterey County, and outside investigative services. Prior to retaining outside counsel, Fenton & Keller shall receive prior approval from the City Manager regarding the scope, duration, and estimated cost of retaining outside counsel.
F. Invoicing. Fenton & Keller shall submit to the City monthly written invoices to the City's Administrative Services Director. Upon receipt, invoices shall be reviewed and approved for payment by the City Manager. Invoices shall be prepared in a form satisfactory to the City, describing in detail the services rendered and associated costs for the period covered by the invoice. Upon the request of City Council, billing shall be provided to the City Council. The City shall provide invoicing format upon request.
Fenton & Keller shall not bill the City for duplicate services performed by more than one PGCC 12-3-25
4 | P a g e
4929-9882-3547, v. 1
person. Fenton & Keller's invoices shall include, but are not limited to, the following information:
i. Invoice number and date;
ii. A description of services performed; and
iii. The total amount due for the period covered by this invoice, including hourly rate, hours spent per type of service performed; and any reimbursable invoices.
The City shall make payment on each such invoice within thirty (30) days of receipt; provided, however, that if Fenton & Keller submits an invoice which is incorrect, incomplete, or not in accord with the provisions of this Agreement, the City shall not be obligated to process any payment to Fenton & Keller until thirty (30) days after a correct and complying invoice has been submitted by Fenton & Keller. Fenton & Keller agrees to remit and shall be responsible for all withholding taxes, income taxes, unemployment insurance deductions, and any other deductions required by applicable federal, state or local laws and regulations for Fenton & Keller, its employees, consultants and vendors of services or goods.
G. Audit and Examination of Accounts: Fenton & Keller shall keep and will cause any assignee or consultant under this Agreement to keep accurate books of records and accounts, in accordance with sound accounting principles, which pertain to services to be performed under this Agreement.
i. Any audit conducted of books of records and accounts shall be in accordance with generally accepted professional standards and guidelines for auditing.
ii. Fenton & Keller hereby agrees to disclose and make available any and all information, reports, books of records or accounts pertaining to this Agreement to the City and any city of the County of Monterey, or other federal, state, regional or governmental agency which provides funding for these Services.
iii. Fenton & Keller shall include the requirements of Section 2G, "Audit and Examination of Accounts", in all contracts with assignees or sub-consultants under this Agreement. iv. All records provided for in this Section are to be maintained and made available throughout the performance of this Agreement and for a period of not less than four (4) years after full completion of services hereunder. All records, which pertain to actual disputes, litigation, appeals or claims, shall be maintained and made available for a period of not less than four (4) years after final resolution of such disputes, litigation, appeals or claims.
3. AGREEMENT TERM
The work under this Agreement shall commence by January 1, 2026 and shall remain in force until January 1, 2029. This Agreement, in its entirety, will be automatically PGCC 12-3-25
5 | P a g e
4929-9882-3547, v. 1
extended for an additional two-year period, unless City Council specifically takes action by at least four Councilmembers not to renew this Agreement.
This Agreement may be terminated at any time pursuant to mutual agreement of the parties or terminated as provided by Section 13 of this Agreement.
4. FENTON & KELLER'S EMPLOYEES AND CONSULTANTS
A. Not an Agent of the City. Nothing in this Agreement shall be interpreted so as to render the City the agent, employer, or partner of Fenton & Keller, or the employer of anyone working for or subcontracted by Fenton & Keller, and Fenton & Keller must not do anything that would result in anyone working for or subcontracted by Fenton & Keller being considered an employee of the City. Fenton & Keller is not, and must not claim to be, an agent of the City.
B. Independent Contractor:
i. Fenton & Keller is an independent contractor. This Agreement does not create the relationship of employer and employee, a partnership, or a joint venture. The City shall not control or direct the details, means, methods or processes by which Fenton & Keller performs the Services. Fenton & Keller is responsible for performance of the Services and may not delegate or assign any Services to any other person except as provided for herein. Fenton & Keller shall be solely liable for the work quality and conditions of any partners, employees and consultants.
ii. No offer or obligation of permanent employment with the City or particular City department or agency is intended in any manner, and Fenton & Keller shall not become entitled by virtue of this Agreement to receive from the City any form of employee benefits including but not limited to sick leave, vacation, retirement benefits, workers' compensation coverage, insurance or disability benefits. Fenton & Keller shall be solely liable for and obligated to pay directly all applicable taxes, including federal and state income taxes and social security, arising out of Fenton & Keller's performance of Services under this Agreement. In connection therewith, Fenton & Keller shall defend, indemnify and hold the City harmless from any and all liability, which the City may incur because of Fenton & Keller's failure to pay such taxes.
5. REPRESENTATIVES AND COMMUNICATIONS
A. City's Representative. The City appoints the City Manager as the City's Representative for the purposes of this Agreement ("City's Representative").
The City may unilaterally change its representative upon notice to Fenton & Keller.
B. Fenton & Keller's Representative. Fenton & Keller appoints Lorca as Fenton & Keller's representative for the purposes of this Agreement ("Fenton & Keller's Representative")
C. Meet and Confer. Fenton & Keller agrees to meet and confer with the City's Representative, its agents or employees with regard to Services as set forth PGCC 12-3-25
6 | P a g e
4929-9882-3547, v. 1
herein as may be required by the City to insure timely and adequate performance of this Agreement.
D. Communications and Notices. All communications between the City and Fenton & Keller regarding this Agreement, including performance of Services, shall be between the City's Representative and Fenton & Keller's Representative. Any notice, report, or other document that either party may be required or may wish to give to the other must be in writing and shall be deemed to be validly given to and received by the addressee, if delivered personally, on the date of such personal delivery, if delivered by email, on the date of transmission, or if by mail, seven (7) calendar days after posting.
6. INDEMNIFICATION
Fenton & Keller hereby agrees to the following indemnification clause:
To the fullest extent permitted by law Fenton & Keller shall defend (with legal counsel reasonably acceptable to the City), indemnify and hold harmless the City and its officers, designated agents, departments, officials, representatives and employees (collectively "Indemnitees") from and against claims, loss, cost, damage, injury expense and liability (including incidental and consequential damages, Court costs, reasonable attorneys' fees as may be determined by the Court, litigation expenses and fees of expert consultants or expert witnesses incurred in connection therewith and costs of investigation) to the extent they arise out of, pertain to, or relate to, the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of Fenton & Keller, any consultant or contractor, anyone directly or indirectly employed by them, or anyone that they control (collectively "Liabilities"). Such obligations to defend, hold harmless and indemnify any Indemnitee shall not apply to the extent that such Liabilities are caused in part by the active negligence or willful misconduct of such Indemnitee.
7. INSURANCE
Fenton & Keller shall submit and maintain in full force all insurance as described herein. Without altering or limiting Fenton & Keller's duty to indemnify, Fenton & Keller shall maintain in effect throughout the term of this Agreement a policy or policies of insurance with the following minimum limits of liability:
A. Commercial General Liability Insurance including but not limited to premises, personal injuries, bodily injuries, property damage, products, and completed operations, with a combined single limit of not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence and $2,000,000 in the aggregate.
B. Professional Liability Insurance, including errors and omission coverage, with limits of not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence or claim and $2,000,000 in the aggregate. Fenton & Keller will either maintain or cause to be maintained professional liability coverage in full force or obtain extended reporting (tail) coverage (with the same liability limits) for at least three years following the City's acceptance of the work.
PGCC 12-3-25
7 | P a g e
4929-9882-3547, v. 1
C. Automobile Liability Insurance covering all automobiles, including owned, leased, non-owned, and hired automobiles, used in providing Services under this Agreement, with a combined single limit of not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence.
D. Workers' Compensation Insurance. If Fenton & Keller employs others in the performance of this Agreement, Fenton & Keller shall maintain Workers' Compensation insurance in accordance with California Labor Code section 3700 and with a minimum of $1,000,000 per occurrence.
E. Other Insurance Requirements:
i. All insurance required under this Agreement must be written by an insurance company either:
a. admitted to do business in California with a current A.M.
Best rating of no less than A:VI; or
b. an insurance company with a current A.M. Best rating of no less than A:VII. Exception may be made for the State
Compensation Insurance Fund when not specifically rated. ii. Each insurance policy required by this Agreement shall not be canceled, except with prior written notice to the City. iii. The general liability and auto policies shall:
a. Provide an endorsement naming the City of Pacific Grove, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers as additional insureds. General liability coverage can be provided in the form of an endorsement to the Fenton & Keller's insurance (at least as broad as ISO Form CG 20 10 11 85 or both CG 20 10 and CG 23 37 forms if later revisions used) or CG 20 26 04 13 or HG 00 01 0916.
b. Provide that such Fenton & Keller's insurance is primary as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City of Pacific Grove shall be excess to the Fenton & Keller's insurance and shall not contribute with it.
c. Contain a "Separation of Insureds" provision substantially equivalent to that used in the ISO form CG 00 01 10 01 or HG 00 01 09 16 or their equivalent.
d. Provide for a waiver of any subrogation rights against the City via an ISO CG 24 01 10 93 or HG 00 01 09 16 or its
equivalent, for all coverages required in this agreement. iv. Prior to the start of work under this Agreement, Fenton & Keller shall file certificates of insurance and endorsements evidencing the coverage required by this Agreement with the City. Fenton & Keller shall file a new or amended certificate of insurance promptly after any change is insurance policy which would alter the information on the certificate then on file.
v. Neither the insurance requirements hereunder, nor acceptance or approval of Fenton & Keller's insurance, nor whether any claims are PGCC 12-3-25
8 | P a g e
4929-9882-3547, v. 1
covered under any insurance, shall in any way modify or change Fenton & Keller's obligations under the indemnification clause in this Agreement, which shall continue in full force and effect. All coverage available to the Fenton & Keller as named insured shall also be available and applicable to the additional insured. Notwithstanding the insurance requirements contained herein, Fenton & Keller is financially liable for its indemnity obligations under this Agreement. vi. All policies shall be written on a first dollar coverage basis or contain a deductible provision. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions ("SIR") must be declared to and approved by the City. At the option of the City, either: the insured shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or SIR as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers; or Fenton & Keller shall provide a financial guarantee satisfactory to the City guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration, and defense expenses. In no event shall any SIR or insurance policy contain language, whether added by endorsement or contained in the policy conditions, that prohibits satisfaction of any self-insured provision or requirement by anyone other than the named insured, or by any means including other insurance, or which is intended to defeat the intent or protection of an additional insured.
vii. City reserves the right to modify these requirements, including limits, based on the nature of the risk, prior experience, insurer, coverage, or other special circumstances.
viii. Fenton & Keller shall require and verify that all sub-consultants and subcontractors maintain insurance meeting all the requirements stated herein.
8. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
A. Fenton & Keller warrants that Fenton & Keller and Fenton & Keller's agents, employees, and consultants performing Services under this Agreement are specially trained, experienced, and competent and have the degree of specialized expertise contemplated within California Government Code Section 37103, and further, are appropriately licensed to perform the work and deliver the Services required under this Agreement.
B. Fenton & Keller, its agents, employees, and consultants shall perform all Services in a safe and skillful manner consistent with the highest standards of care, diligence and skill ordinarily exercised by attorneys in similar fields in accordance with sound professional practices. All work product of Fenton & Keller shall comply with all applicable laws, rules, regulations, ordinances and codes. Fenton & Keller also warrants that it is familiar with all laws that may affect its performance of this Agreement and shall advise City of any changes in any laws that may affect Fenton & Keller's performance of this Agreement. All Services performed under this Agreement that are required by law to be performed or supervised by licensed personnel shall be performed in accordance with such licensing requirements.
PGCC 12-3-25
9 | P a g e
4929-9882-3547, v. 1
C. Fenton & Keller shall furnish, at its own expense, all materials, equipment and personnel necessary to carry out the terms of this Agreement. Fenton & Keller shall not use the City premises, property (including equipment, instruments, or supplies) or personnel for any purpose other than in the performance of its obligations under this Agreement.
D. Fenton & Keller agrees to perform all work under this Agreement to the satisfaction of the City Council and as specified herein. The City Council shall perform an evaluation of the work. If the quality of work and/or the invoicing is not satisfactory to the City, the City, through the Mayor, or his/her designee, may meet with Fenton & Keller to review the quality of work and/or the amount of work being invoiced and resolve the matters of concern. The City Council may schedule annual review of the City Attorney work as performed by Fenton & Keller.
E. Fenton & Keller shall receive their direction regarding specific City Attorney work from the majority of the City Council members.
9. CITY INFORMATION AND RESOURCES
A. Available Information. The City shall make available to Fenton & Keller all relevant information, plans, maps, reports, specifications, standards and pertinent data which is in the hands of the City and is required by Fenton & Keller to perform the Services. Fenton & Keller shall be entitled to rely upon the accuracy and completeness of such information and data furnished by the City, except where it is stated otherwise or unreasonable.
B. City Resources. The City acknowledges that Fenton & Keller's ability to provide the Services in accordance with this Agreement may be dependent on the City providing available information and resources in a prompt and timely manner as reasonably required by Fenton & Keller. To the extent that the City fails to provide City resources, Fenton & Keller shall not be liable for any resulting delay in the Services, but in no event shall such delay or failure to provide City resources constitute a breach of this Agreement by the City, nor shall Fenton & Keller be entitled to extra compensation for same.
C. Obligations of Fenton & Keller. No reviews, approvals, or inspections carried out or supplied by the City shall derogate from the duties and obligations of Fenton & Keller, and all responsibility related to performance of the Services shall be and remain with Fenton & Keller.
10. CONFIDENTIALITY
A. No Disclosure. Fenton & Keller shall keep confidential and shall not disclose, publish or release any information, data, or confidential information of the City to any person other than representatives of the City duly designated for that purpose in writing by the City. Fenton & Keller shall not use for Fenton & Keller's s own purposes, or for any purpose other than those of the City, any information, data, or confidential information Fenton & Keller may acquire as a result of the performance of the Services under this Agreement. Fenton & Keller shall promptly transmit to the City any and all requests for PGCC 12-3-25
10 | P a g e
4929-9882-3547, v. 1
disclosure of any such confidential information or records. The obligations under this Section shall survive the expiration or earlier termination of this Agreement.
B. California Public Records Act. Fenton & Keller acknowledges that the City is subject to the California Public Records Act (Government Code Section 6250 et seq.), known as the "PRA", and agrees to any disclosure of information by the City as required by law. Fenton & Keller further acknowledges that it may have access to personal information as defined under the PRA, and Fenton & Keller shall not use any such personal information for any purposes other than for the performance of Services under this Agreement without the advance written approval of the City.
11. CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Fenton & Keller is required to file a Form 700 in compliance with the City's Conflict of Interest Code unless a written determination by the City Manager is made modifying or eliminating said requirement, or unless otherwise exempted by law.
In addition, Fenton & Keller, Fenton & Keller's employees, and consultants agree as follows:
A. That they shall conduct their duties related to this Agreement with impartiality, and shall, if they exercise discretionary authority over others in the course of those duties, disqualify themselves from dealing with anyone with whom a relationship between them could bring the impartiality of Fenton & Keller or its employees into question;
B. Shall not influence, seek to influence, or otherwise take part in a decision of the City knowing that the decision may further their private interests; C. Shall not accept any commission, discount, allowance, payment, gift, or other benefit connected, directly or indirectly, with the performance of Services related to this Agreement, that causes, or would appear to cause, a conflict of interest; D. Shall have no financial interest in the business of a third party that causes, or would appear to cause, a conflict of interest in connection with the performance of the Services related to this Agreement, and if such financial interest is acquired during the term of this Agreement, Fenton & Keller shall promptly declare it to the City, and; E. Shall not, during the term of this Agreement, perform a service for, or provide advice to, any person, firm, or corporation, which gives rise to a conflict of interest between the obligations of Fenton & Keller under this Agreement and the obligations of Fenton & Keller to such other person, firm or corporation.
12. DISPUTE RESOLUTION
A. Dispute Resolution Procedures. The parties shall make reasonable efforts to promptly resolve any dispute, claim, or controversy arising out of or related to this Agreement ("Dispute") using the Dispute Resolution Procedures set forth in this Section.
PGCC 12-3-25
11 | P a g e
4929-9882-3547, v. 1
B. Negotiations. First, the City's Representative and Fenton & Keller's Representative shall make reasonable efforts to resolve any Dispute by amicable negotiations and shall provide frank, candid, and timely disclosure of all relevant facts, information, and documents to facilitate negotiations. Should these negotiations be unsuccessful in resolving the Dispute, the matter shall be promptly referred to the Mayor, or his/her designee, and Fenton & Keller's Representative, who shall meet and confer, in good faith, to resolve the Dispute to mutual satisfaction of the parties.
C. Mediation. If all or any portion of a Dispute cannot be resolved by good faith negotiations as set forth above within thirty (30) days of the date that the matter was referred to the Mayor pursuant to subsection B above, either party may, by notice to the other party, submit the Dispute for formal mediation to a mediator selected mutually by the parties from the Monterey Superior Court's Court-Directed Mediator Panel list. The duration of any such mediation shall not exceed 2 hours unless otherwise agreed to by the parties. The cost of the mediation (including fees of mediators) shall be borne equally by the parties, and each party shall bear its own costs of participating in mediation. The mediation shall take place within or in close proximity to the City of Pacific Grove.
In any mediation conducted pursuant to this section, the provisions of California Evidence Code section 1152 shall be applicable to limit the admissibility of evidence disclosed by the parties in the course of the mediation. In the event the parties are unsuccessful in resolving the dispute through the mediation process, then the parties agree that the dispute shall be submitted to Binding Arbitration to a single Arbitrator in accordance with the existing Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services, Inc. (JAMS) within thirty (30) days of the close of mediation as declared by the mediator.
D. Arbitration. The submission to Mediation and Arbitration in accordance with the requirements of this section of any and all agreements, differences, or controversies that may arise hereunder is made a condition precedent to the institution of any action or appeal at law or in equity with respect to the controversy involved. The award by the arbitrator shall have the same force and effect and may be filed and entered, as a judgment of the Superior Court of the State of California and shall be subject to appellate review upon the same terms and conditions as the law permits for judgments of Superior Courts. A "Prevailing Party" shall be determined in the Arbitration, and the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees and costs incurred, and accrued interest on any unpaid balance that may be due. Costs shall include the cost of any expert employed in the preparation or presentation of any evidence. All costs incurred and reasonable attorney fees shall be considered costs recoverable in that proceeding, and be included in any award.
13. TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT
A. Termination for Cause or Default. The City reserves the right to immediately terminate this Agreement, in whole or in part, if Fenton & Keller or any Fenton & Keller consultant defaults or fails to deliver the Services in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. Such termination shall be in writing, shall set forth the effective date of termination, shall not result in any penalty or other charges to the City, and may be issued without any prior notice. Without limitation, Fenton & Keller is in default of its obligations contained in this Agreement if Fenton & Keller or any consultant:
i. Fails to perform the required Services within the term and/or in the manner provided under this Agreement;
PGCC 12-3-25
12 | P a g e
4929-9882-3547, v. 1
ii. Fails to supply sufficient, properly skilled workers or proper Workmanship, products, material, tools and equipment to perform the Services;
iii. Fails to observe or comply with all laws, ordinances, including all requirements of governmental or quasi-governmental
authorities, including federal, state, and local government enactments, bylaws, and other regulations now or, following the date of this Agreement, in force that pertain to;
iv. Fails to observe or comply with the City's reasonable instructions; v. Breaches the Conflict of Interest provisions of this Agreement; or vi. Otherwise violates any provision of this Agreement.
B. Termination for Without Cause. This Agreement may be terminated by either party, without cause, or for convenience, by giving thirty (30) days written notice to the other to terminate.
C. Steps after Termination:
i. Upon termination of this Agreement, the City shall pay Fenton & Keller for satisfactorily performed Services
incurred by Fenton & Keller to the date of termination
pursuant to this Agreement.
ii. Upon receipt of written notice of termination of this Agreement by the City for any reason, Fenton & Keller shall:
a. Promptly cease all Services, including Services provided by any sub-consultant, unless otherwise directed by the City; and
b. Deliver to the City any Materials, such as draft
resolutions, ordinances, contracts, et al, prepared by
Fenton & Keller for the City in connection with this
Agreement.
14. LEGAL ACTION / VENUE
A. Should either party to this Agreement bring legal action against the other, the validity, interpretation and performance of this Agreement shall be controlled by and construed under the laws of the State of California, excluding California's choice of law rules.
B. Venue for any such action relating to this Agreement shall be in Monterey County.
C. If any legal action or proceeding, including action for declaratory relief, is brought for the enforcement of this Agreement or because of an alleged dispute, breach, default or misrepresentation in connection with this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorneys' fees as may be determined by the Arbitrator, experts' fees, and other costs, in addition to any other relief to which the party may be entitled.
15. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
PGCC 12-3-25
13 | P a g e
4929-9882-3547, v. 1
A. Non-discrimination. During the performance of this Agreement, Fenton & Keller, and its consultants, shall not unlawfully discriminate against any person because of race, religious creed, color, sex, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, marital status, age, or sexual orientation, either in Fenton & Keller's employment practices or in the furnishing of services to recipients. Fenton & Keller further acknowledges that harassment in the workplace is not permitted in any form, and will take all necessary actions to prevent such conduct.
B. Acceptance of Services Not a Release. Acceptance by the City of the Services to be performed under this Agreement does not operate as a release of Fenton & Keller from professional responsibility for the Services performed.
C. Headings. The headings appearing herein shall not be deemed to govern, limit, modify, or in any manner affect the scope, meaning or intent of the provisions of this Agreement. The headings are for convenience only.
D. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties hereto with respect to the terms, conditions, and Services and supersedes any and all prior proposals, understandings, communications, representations and agreements, whether oral or written. Any Amendment to this Agreement will be effective only if it is in writing and signed by both parties hereto and shall prevail over any other provision of this Agreement in the event of inconsistency between them.
E. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, and may be signed in counterparts, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same Agreement.
F. Multiple Copies of Agreement. Multiple copies of this Agreement may be executed, but the parties agree that the Agreement on file in the office of the City's City Clerk is the version of the Agreement that shall take precedence should any difference exist among counterparts of this Agreement.
G. Authority. Any individual executing this Agreement on behalf of the City or Fenton & Keller represents and warrants hereby that he or she has the requisite authority to enter into this Agreement on behalf of such party and bind the party to the terms and conditions of this Agreement.
H. Severability. If any of the provisions contained in this Agreement are held illegal, invalid or unenforceable, the enforceability of the remaining provisions shall not be impaired thereby. Limitations of liability and indemnities shall survive termination of the Agreement for any cause. If a part of the Agreement is valid, all valid parts that are severable from the invalid part remain in effect. If a part of this Agreement is invalid in one or more of its applications, the part remains in effect in all valid applications that are severable from the invalid applications.
I. Non-exclusive Agreement. This Agreement is non-exclusive and both the City and Fenton & Keller expressly reserve the right to enter into agreements with others for the same or similar services, or may have its own employees perform the same or similar services.
PGCC 12-3-25
14 | P a g e
4929-9882-3547, v. 1
J. Assignment of Interest. The duties under this Agreement shall not be assignable, delegable, or transferable without the prior written consent of the City. Any such purported assignment, delegation, or transfer shall constitute a material breach of this Agreement upon which the City may terminate this Agreement and be entitled to damages.
K. Laws. Fenton & Keller agrees that in the performance of this Agreement it will reasonably comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California and the City of Pacific Grove.
L. Conflict of Interest. There are no known conflicts of interest that involve Fenton & Keller providing City Attorney services to the City of Pacific Grove.
M. Notices. Notices required under this Agreement must be given by personal service or by first class mail, postage prepaid, and addressed as follows:
To Fenton & Keller:
Fenton & Keller,
2801 Monterey-Salinas Highway
Post Office Box 791
Monterey California 93942-0791
Attn: Alex J. Lorca
To City:
City of Pacific Grove
300 Forest Ave
Pacific Grove, CA 93950
Attn: Matthew Mogensen, City Manager
Service of notice by personal service is deemed to be given as of the date of service. Notices by mail are deemed to have been given two consecutive business days after deposit into the U.S. Postal Service. Either party may, from time to time, by written notice to the other, designate a different address or person to be substituted for that specified above.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties enter into this Agreement effective January 1, 2026 in Pacific Grove, California.
PGCC 12-3-25
15 | P a g e
4929-9882-3547, v. 1
CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
___________________________ ____________________
Nick Smith – Mayor Date
ATTEST:
__________________________________ ____________________ City Clerk Date
FENTON AND KELLER
A Professional Corporation
___________________________ ____________________
Alex J. Lorca Date
PGCC 12-3-25
Agenda No. 9 B
CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Matthew Mogensen, City Manager
MEETING DATE: December 03, 2025
SUBJECT: Proposed Agreement for Legal Services with Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
RECOMMENDATION
Motion to authorize the Mayor to execute the Proposed Agreement for Legal Services with Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP
DISCUSSION
There is an item on the City Council Agenda for December 3, 2025 proposing a contract with the law firm of Fenton & Keller (“Fenton”) to serve as the City Attorney commencing January 1, 2026.
Burke, Williams & Sorensen (“Burke”) has served as the City Attorney for the City since July 1, 2022 and Burke will continue to serve as the City Attorney through December 31, 2025.
Since there are a number of matters in which Burke has been assisting the City that are in progress, the recommendation is to authorize the Mayor to execute the proposed Agreement for Legal Services with Burke to serve as special counsel for the City commencing January 1, 2026; to assist with the transition to Fenton and Keller firm to the position of City Attorney and to provide other legal services as requested by the City.
OPTIONS
1. Take alternative action related to this subject.
2. Take no action.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Covered by the Budget for Fiscal Year 2025/2026
FOCUSED PRIORITY AREA: Community Development
Attachments
Proposed Agreement for Legal Services with BWS, LLP
PGCC 12-3-25
AGREEMENT FOR LEGAL SERVICES
This Agreement for Legal Services (“Agreement”) is entered into by the City of Pacific Grove (“City”), a municipal corporation and Charter City, and the law firm of Burke, Williams & Sorensen LLP (“Burke”) and shall be effective as of January 1, 2026.
1. CONDITIONS. This Agreement will not take effect, and Burke will have no obligation to provide legal services, until City returns to Burke a signed copy of this Agreement. The effective date of this Agreement will be January 1, 2026. The City and Burke agree that the current Legal Services Agreement for City Attorney services by Burke for the City will no longer be in effect as of December 31, 2025.
2. SCOPE OF SERVICES. Burke will provide legal services to the City on municipal law matters as assigned by the City Manager including assisting with transition to the law firm of Fenton & Keller as City Attorney, completion of legal work in progress and other municipal law matters as assigned.
3. LEGAL FEES AND COSTS. Legal fees for services rendered to the City by Burke shall be charged at the hourly rate of $325 for partner, $300 for associates and $155 for paralegals. City agrees to pay by the hour at these hourly rates for all time spent on City’s matters by Burke’s legal personnel. City also agrees to reimburse Burke for out-of-pocket costs incurred in the course of Burke’s representation of the City. There will be no legal fees or costs charged for travel time, mileage, meals or lodging.
4. BILLING STATEMENTS. Burke will send City monthly statements for fees and costs incurred. Each statement will be payable within 30 days of its mailing date. The statements shall include the time in 1/10 of an hour increments, amount, rate and a description of services.
5. DISCHARGE AND WITHDRAWAL. Either party may terminate this Agreement without cause at any time upon written notice the other party. The decision to terminate this Agreement by the City may be made by the City Manager and will be effective immediately upon sending of the notice. Termination of the Agreement by Burke will be effective thirty (30) calendar days after sending of the notice. When Burke’s services conclude, all unpaid charges will become due and payable.
6. DISCLAIMER OF GUARANTEE AND ESTIMATES. Nothing in this Agreement and nothing in Burke’s statements to City will be construed as a promise or guarantee about the outcome of the matter.
7. MEDIATION/ARBITRATION; WAIVER OF JURY TRIAL. If a dispute arises out of or relating to any aspect of this Agreement between City and Burke, or the breach thereof, and if the dispute cannot be settled through negotiation, Burke and City agree to discuss in good faith the use of mediation before resorting to arbitration, litigation, or any other dispute resolution procedure. Nothing herein shall limit or otherwise affect the City’s right under Sections 6200- 6206 of the California Business and Professions Code to request arbitration of any fee dispute by an independent, impartial arbitrator or panel of arbitrators through a bar association program PGCC 12-3-25
created solely to resolve fee disputes between lawyers and clients. However, should discussions, mediation or the non-binding arbitration provided through a local bar association program not resolve the dispute, the dispute shall be determined by binding arbitration before the American Arbitration Association under its then prevailing commercial arbitration rules, except that discovery may be taken in that arbitration pursuant to the California Code of Civil Procedure.
The claims or controversies subject to this provision shall include, without limitation, any claim of professional negligence or malpractice. The arbitration shall be held in the County of Monterey, California, unless we mutually select another venue, and judgment may be entered upon the arbitrator’s award by any court having jurisdiction. Should you refuse or neglect to appear or participate in the arbitration proceedings, the arbitrator is empowered to decide the claim or controversy in accordance with the evidence presented. You should realize that by accepting the arbitration provision, YOU WILL WAIVE YOUR RIGHT TO A JURY TRIAL AND THE RIGHT, EXCEPT UNDER LIMITED CIRCUMSTANCES, TO APPEAL THE ARBITRATOR’S DECISION.
________(City Initial Here) _____(Burke Initial Here)
8 INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. Burke and the City agree that Burke is an independent contractor in carrying out and complying with the terms of this Agreement.
9. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Agreement contains the entire agreement of the parties.
No other agreement, statement, or promise made on or before the effective date of this Agreement will be binding on the parties.
10. SEVERABILITY IN EVENT OF PARTIAL INVALIDITY. If any provision of this Agreement is held in whole or in part to be unenforceable for any reason, the remainder of that provision and of the entire Agreement will be severable and remain in effect.
11. MODIFICATION BY SUBSEQUENT AGREEMENT. This Agreement may be modified by subsequent agreement of the parties only by an instrument in writing signed by both of them, or an oral agreement only to the extent that the parties carry it out.
THE PARTIES HAVE READ AND AGREE TO THE FOREGOING TERMS.
DATED: _______________ CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE By ___________________________
Nick Smith, Mayor
DATED: _______________ BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN
By _____________________________
John Welsh, Managing Partner
PGCC 12-3-25
Agenda No. 9 C
CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Joyce Halabi, Deputy City Manager
MEETING DATE: December 03, 2025
SUBJECT: Amendment to Agreement with HdL for Cannabis Services CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
RECOMMENDATION
Authorize an amendment to the agreement with HdL Companies for Cannabis Services increasing to increase the total contract amount by $26,000.
DISCUSSION
At the December 18, 2024 meeting, the City Council authorized an agreement with HdL Companies for cannabis business permitting and inspection services not to exceed $24,000.
The scope of work for the executed agreement is outlined below. Some tasks, such as establishing user fees and developing application procedures, have already been completed. However, a major component of the scope, review of the submitted applications, is still in progress and is the primary reason for the proposed amendment.
The original agreement assumed no more than five applications would be submitted. However, 10 applications were received during the application window which ran from September 15 – October 15, 2025, requiring an adjustment to cover the additional review beyond the originally anticipated five applications.
This proposed amendment, authorizing an additional $26,000 to the total contract amount, will increase the contract amount from $24,000 to not to exceed $50,000.
Please note that the application fees, set by City Council on July 16, 2025, were designed to fully cover review costs by the applicant. Therefore, although the contract amount is proposed to increase, there is no fiscal impact to the City because user fees were set to fund all application processing and related expenses.
This contract amendment will allow the City to continue with Cannabis Business License process and complete the application reviews at a flat rate of $3,500 per application ($35,000 total). It also provides additional funding for technical assistance, if needed, which would be billed at the consultant’s hourly rate as the permitting process continues. The City will only be billed for services provided.
PGCC 12-3-25
Agreement Scope of Work:
Review and revise the application process and develop the procedures for a quality assurance pass/fail evaluation for the City to be sure only well qualified applicants are included in the lottery drawing to select the sole cannabis business operator.
Develop cost-recovery fees for the initial application process.
Conduct quality assurance application reviews to ensure all applicants meet state and federal regulations.
Background checks.
Site plan evaluations.
Pre-license site visits.
40-hours of general subject matter expertise, which would be used in part to provide for reviewing and revising the application process as described in the first bullet above.
NEXT STEPS
Application review is currently underway. It is anticipated that the review process will continue through December and into early January. Updated information on the cannabis lottery process will be available in the new year following completion of the review process.
Interested parties are encouraged to subscribe for notifications to the City’s Cannabis Webpage at cityofpacificgrove.gov/cannabis to be notified of updates as they become available.
OPTIONS
1. Authorize the amendment
Do not authorize the amendment. Failure to authorize the amendment would halt the application review process.
2. FINANCIAL IMPACT:
As noted above, application fees, set by City Council on July 16, 2025, were designed to fully cover review costs by the applicant. Therefore, although the contract amount is proposed to increase, there is no fiscal impact to the City because user fees were set to fund all application processing and related expenses. A total of $92,724.80 of revenue was generated from the intake of the 10 retail cannabis business license applications.
As of this writing, $5,700 has been expended under the agreement. As noted above, a bulk on the remaining costs will occur during the application review phase, which alone is estimated at $35,000.
Any additional work will be billed at the consultants' hourly rate on an as-needed basis and only for services actually provided.
FOCUSED PRIORITY AREA: Financial Sustainability
PGCC 12-3-25
Agenda No. 9 D
CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Mohammed Khasimi, Chief Information Officer
MEETING DATE: December 03, 2025
SUBJECT: Agreement Amendment with Robert Half for Temporary IT Staffing CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Council approve the amendment to increase the agreement with Robert Half Inc. by $60,000, extending temporary IT staffing services until March 31, 2026. If approved, the contract will be amended accordingly.
DISCUSSION
The City’s Information Technology Division within Administrative Services consists of three full-time staff who collectively manage an extensive range of functions. These include support for city departments, technology equipment, software systems, IT infrastructure, network administration, telecommunications, service desk operations, public meetings, technology support, cybersecurity, data management, compliance, enterprise applications, geographic information systems (GIS), data management, data recovery, and technology procurement. Losing even one staff member represents a one-third reduction in staffing capacity, which severely impacts operations across all of these areas.
To mitigate the impact of this vacancy and maintain continuity of services, the City executed an initial agreement with Robert Half Inc. for $39,900 beginning in October 2026. Temporary staff from Robert Half was brought in to support critical service desk operations, while the City’s IT Support Specialist has been working Out-of-Class to assume some of the IT Management Analyst responsibilities.
The initial agreement for $39,900 was executed with the expectation that the normal recruitment process would fill the vacancy by mid-December. However, recruitment efforts to fill the vacant IT Management Analyst position are currently on hold while the City undergoes a comprehensive IT Assessment through a third party firm. The assessment will provide staffing level recommendations before recruitment resumes. Staff is requesting an amendment to increase the agreement by an additional $60,000, which will extend services until approximately the end of March 2026.
Having temporary support dedicated to service desk operations is critical for the daily functioning of the division. Without this support, existing staff would be required to absorb analyst and service PGCC 12-3-25
desk responsibilities in addition to their current duties, which is not sustainable. The temporary staff member will continue to provide frontline IT support, while the IT Support Specialist working Out of Class ensures coverage of higher?level analyst responsibilities during the IT Assessment.
This contract position is funded through salary savings resulting from the vacated and unfilled IT Management Analyst position. The Administrative Services Department has verified that salary savings will cover the cost of the contract, and the use of these funds will have no long-term impact on the permanent position.
OPTIONS
Approve the Amendment as Recommended
Increase the agreement with Robert Half Inc. by $60,000.
Extend temporary IT support services through March 31, 2026.
Maintain continuity of service desk operations while the IT Assessment is completed and staffing recommendations are provided.
Approve a Modified Amendment
Authorize a smaller or larger increase than $60,000.
Adjust the service period to end earlier or later than March 31, 2026.
Provide flexibility to align with Council’s budgetary priorities or anticipated recruitment timelines.
Do Not Approve the Amendment
Allow the current $39,900 agreement to run out of funds by mid-December.
IT Support Specialist would continue Out-of-Class duties, but IT support services would be severely impacted.
Risk of reduced IT support for city departments, public meetings, cybersecurity, and infrastructure until recruitment resumes after the IT Assessment.
Direct Staff to Explore Alternatives
Seek other temporary staffing vendors or consultants.
Reallocate internal resources to cover service desk operations.
Consider interim measures until the IT Assessment is complete and recruitment resumes.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The estimated expense for the temporary staff member for 40 hours per week is approximately $4,000 per week. With the current agreement of $39,900, services are covered until mid-December.
The proposed amendment of $60,000 will extend services through the end of March 2026. If approved, the total contract amount will be $99,900.
If the vacancy remains unfilled after March, staff will either resume recruitment efforts following the IT Assessment or return to the Council to renew this agreement with Robert Half Inc. or another qualified consultant.
FOCUSED PRIORITY AREA: Not Applicable.
PGCC 12-3-25
Agenda No. 10 A
CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Katie Clark, Recreation Program Manager
MEETING DATE: December 03, 2025
SUBJECT: Recreation Board Meeting Minutes: June 26, 2025 and July 24, 2025 CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
RECOMMENDATION
Receive the minutes.
Attachments
Recreation Board Minutes June 26, 2025
Recreation Board Minutes July 24, 2025
PGCC 12-3-25
RECREATION BOARD
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
Thursday, June 26, 2025, 4:00 P.M.
Council Chamber – City Hall – 300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA JOIN THE ZOOM WEBINAR TO PARTICIPATE LIVE AT:
https://www.cityofpacificgrove.org/Zoom_RB
Please click here for directions to dial into the meeting audio.
AGENDA
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 4:02 pm by Jay Tulley, Recreation Board Chair. A roll call was conducted with the following members present in person: Gamble, Lehman, Tulley, and O’Sullivan.
Member White was absent.
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Action: Action: Upon motion by Chair Tulley with a second by Member Lehman, the Recreation Board voted 4-0-1 to approve the agenda. Member white absent.
3. BOARD AND STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS (City-Related Items Only) Board Members - announcements received from Chair Tulley.
City Staff - announcements received from Recreation Manger, Katie Clark.
4. COUNCIL LIAISON ANNOUNCEMENTS
Council member - announcements were received from Council Member Amelio. 0HHWLQJ0LQXWHV
&LW\RI3DFLILF*URYH
PGCC 12-3-25
5. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT
No public comments were received.
A. Written General Public Comment - No public comments were received.
6. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES
A. Recreation Board Draft Minutes April 24, 2025
Action: Upon motion by Chair Tulley, and seconded by with a second by Member Lehman, approve the Recreation Board Draft Minutes for April 24, 2025. Member White absent.
7. REGULAR AGENDA
A. Parks and Recreation Day 2025
Action: Received report for discussion.
B. Needs Assessment Survey
Action: Received report for discussion.
8. NEXT MEETING – July 24, 2025
9. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned by Chair Tulley at 4:42 pm.
PGCC 12-3-25
RECREATION BOARD
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
Thursday, July 24, 2025, 4:00 P.M.
Council Chamber – City Hall – 300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA JOIN THE ZOOM WEBINAR TO PARTICIPATE LIVE AT:
https://www.cityofpacificgrove.org/Zoom_RB
Please click here for directions to dial into the meeting audio.
AGENDA
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 4:00 pm by Jay Tulley, Recreation Board Chair. A roll call was conducted with the following members present in person: White, Tulley, and Lehman.
Members Gamble and O’Sullivan absent.
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Action: Upon motion by Member Lehman, with a second by Member White, the Recreation Board voted 3-0-2 to approve the agenda. Members Gamble and O’Sullivan absent.
3. BOARD AND STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS (City-Related Items Only) Board Members - announcements received from Chair Tulley.
City Staff - announcements received from Recreation Manger, Katie Clark and Public Works Director, Dan Gho.
4. COUNCIL LIAISON ANNOUNCEMENTS - No announcements received. &LW\RI3DFLILF*URYH
0HHWLQJ0LQXWHV
PGCC 12-3-25
5. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT
No public comments were received.
A. Written General Public Comment
No public comments were received.
6. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES
No minutes received.
7. REGULAR AGENDA
A. Parks Day & Needs Assessment
Action: Report received for discussion.
B.
Recreation Department Metrics
Action: Upon motion by Chair Tulley, with a second by Member White, the Recreation Board voted 3-0-2 to make a recommendation to City Council to have a set of 10 metrics tracked by the Recreation Staff and reported to the Recreation Board on a quarterly basis. Members Gamble and O’Sullivan absent.
8. NEXT MEETING - August 28, 2025
9. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned by Chair Tulley at 5:20 pm.
PGCC 12-3-25
Agenda No. 11 A
CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Jon Biggs
MEETING DATE: December 03, 2025
SUBJECT: Pacific Grove 2023-2031 Housing Element Update CEQA: Environmental Impact Report
RECOMMENDATION
1. Adopt the resolution of the City Council certifying the Final EIR, Adopt the resolution of the City Council approving the “Project’, which includes amending the text, policies, figures, and maps of the Pacific Grove General Plan to adopt the 2023-2031 Housing Element; amending the Land Use and Health and Safety Elements and the Land Use Map; adopting the CEQA Findings of Fact, including a Statement of Overriding Considerations; and adopting the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), and
2. 3. Request the City Attorney read the title of the ordinance;
4. Motion to waive further reading of the ordinance;
Introduce and hold first reading of an ordinance of the City Council adopting amendments to Title 23, Zoning, of the Pacific Grove Municipal Code and the Zoning Map.
5. Direct that publication of the ordinance will be satisfied by publication of a summary approved by the City Attorney.
6. DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND
The Pacific Grove Housing Element is a State mandated component of Pacific Grove’s General Plan that outlines how the community will meet its current and future housing needs. It includes an assessment of housing needs for all income levels, identification of suitable sites for new housing, and a program of actions to achieve housing goals like development, preservation, and rehabilitation.
Each local government must have a Housing Element and they are required to be updated every eight years.
There has been a multi-year effort to update the Pacific Grove General Plan 6th Cycle, 2023-2031 Housing Element (HE) Update (HE Update). The City Council is now holding a public hearing on the HE Update and the Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) that has been prepared to assess the potential environmental impacts of the HE Update and associated policy and code amendments necessary to implement the HE.
In addition to the update to the HE, the policy and regulatory documents that are proposed to be amended to implement the goals, policies, and programs reflected in the HE include:
Land Use Element, Chapter 2 of the Pacific Grove General Plan PGCC 12-3-25
Land Use Element, Chapter 2 of the Pacific Grove General Plan Health and Safety Element, Chapter 10 of the Pacific Grove General Plan.
Title 23, Zoning, of the Pacific Grove Municipal Code.
Land Use Map of the Pacific Grove General Plan; and
Zoning Map of Pacific Grove.
These documents, along with the update to the HE itself, are collectively referred to as “the Project.” The Project itself does not develop housing. Rather, it is a plan to provide for the possibility of housing, supported by appropriate land use policies and zoning standards.
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on this at its regular meeting of November 13, 2025 and adopted a resolution recommending the Project to the City Council. In summary, the Resolution of the Planning Commission recommends City Council approval of:
A resolution of the City Council certifying the Final EIR, A resolution of the City Council approving the “Project’, which includes amending the text, policies, figures, and maps of the Pacific Grove General Plan to adopt the 2023-2031 Housing Element; amending the Land Use and Health and Safety Elements and the Land Use Map; adopting the CEQA Findings of Fact, including a Statement of Overriding Considerations; and adopting the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), and § An ordinance of the City Council adopting amendments to Title 23, Zoning, of the Pacific Grove Municipal Code and the Zoning Map.
This agenda report includes the following documents, some, due to their size, are accessed on-line by a link provided in the body of this report and are identified by an * in the list below; others are included as attachments to this report:
1. Draft City Council Certifying Final EIR
2. Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR)*
3. Draft EIR Appendices*
4. Final EIR, Response to Comments
5. Draft City Council Resolution Approving Project
6. CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Consideration
7. Draft Housing Element*
8. Draft Pacific Grove Land Use Element (tracked version)
9. Draft Pacific Grove Land Use Element (clean version)
10. Draft Land Use Map (City Wide)
11. Draft Land Use Map Low Density Residential
12. Draft Land Use Map Medium Density Residential
13. Draft Land Use Map High Density Residential
14. Draft Land Use Map Commercial
15. Draft Health and Safety Element (tracked version)
16. Draft Health and Safety Element (clean version)
17. Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
18. Draft City Council Ordinance Amending Title 23, Zoning
19. Draft Amendments to Zoning Code Sections (tracked version)
20. Draft Amendments to Zoning Code Sections (clean version)
21. Draft Zoning Map
22. Planning Commission Resolution of Recommendation to the City Council Copies of Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Draft EIR Appendices, and Draft Housing Element, along with all the documents referenced above, can also be viewed at the following PGCC 12-3-25
Element, along with all the documents referenced above, can also be viewed at the following link: Housing Element Documents for December 3, 2025 City Council Meeting.
DISCUSSION
Environmental Review
An analysis of the Project’s potential to cause adverse environmental impacts was conducted through the preparation of a Draft EIR. The Draft EIR sufficiently analyzed the Project’s potential for significant environmental impacts, and it evaluated a reasonable range of Project alternatives.
A “significant effect” as defined by the CEQA Guidelines Section 15382:
“…means a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the Project, including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance. An economic or social change by itself shall not be considered a significant effect on the environment. A social or economic change related to a physical change may be considered in determining whether the physical change is significant.”
In the Draft EIR, the assessment of the Project’s potential to result in a significant adverse environmental impact begins with a discussion of the environmental setting related to a variety of environmental resources, which is followed by analyses of potential impacts to those resources. In each of the impact analysis sections, the first subsection identifies all assumptions made, methodologies used and “significance thresholds” applied, which are thresholds and other criteria adopted by the City and other agencies, universally recognized, or developed specifically for the analysis. The next subsection contains the actual impact analysis and describes each potential impact of the proposed Project, identifies mitigation measures needed to help avoid or reduce potentially significant impacts, and makes determinations regarding the level of significance of all potentially significant impacts after mitigation.
Ultimately, the Draft EIR makes one of the following four conclusions, reflected in bold, for all the Project’s potential impacts:
No Impact. This conclusion states that the proposed Project would have no adverse effect on environmental conditions, which could include beneficial environmental impacts. Table ES-2 (found in the executive summary section of the Draft EIR and as modified in Section 3.1 of the Response to Comments document) provides a summary of the environmental impacts and related mitigation measures, where feasible.
Less than Significant. This conclusion refers to an impact that may be adverse but does not exceed the applicable threshold of significance and thus does not require mitigation measures.
However, measures that could further lessen the adverse but less than significant environmental effect may be suggested if readily available and easily achievable.
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. This conclusion refers to an impact that may be potentially significant that can be reduced to below the threshold of significance through implementation of the feasible mitigation measures identified. Such an impact requires findings if the Project is approved under CEQA Guidelines Section 15091.
Significant and Unavoidable. This conclusion refers to a potentially significant adverse impact that cannot be reduced to below the applicable threshold of significance even with implementation of all feasible mitigation measures. Such an impact requires a Statement of Overriding Considerations to be issued if the Project is approved pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093.
The Draft EIR determined that mitigation measures were required and that the measures identified would mitigate potentially significant impacts to a less than significant level for the following resource areas:
Air Quality
Biological Resources
PGCC 12-3-25
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources (archaeological resources)
Geology and Soils
Noise (vibration)
Utilities
Service Systems
The Draft EIR further concluded that despite the incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures, the proposed Project would nonetheless result in significant and unavoidable impacts relating to:
Cultural Resources (historical resources)
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Noise (construction and operational traffic noise)
CEQA Findings and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program have been prepared for all the impacts analyzed in the EIR and must be adopted as part of any project approval. Further, as noted earlier; to approve a project with significant and unavoidable impacts, a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be adopted and so the City Council is being asked to adopt CEQA Findings that include such a Statement of Overriding Considerations because of the three significant and unavoidable impacts referenced above. A Statement of Overriding Considerations is a statement by the lead agency's decision making body identifying the Project’s benefits that, in the decision makers opinion, override and outweigh the Project's significant and unavoidable impacts, making them acceptable in light of those benefits. CEQA permits a broad range of economic, legal, social, technological or other Project benefits as permissible reasons for a Statement of Overriding Considerations. Some of the benefits to the City listed in the Statement of Overriding Consideration that are part of the CEQA Findings for this Project include:
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 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 City provided Notice of Availability of the Draft EIR to the public on June 30, 2025, and the Draft EIR was circulated for a 46-day public review comment period from June 30, 2025, to August 15, 2025.
During the public review and comment period, the City received 11 written comment letters on the Draft EIR and received an acknowledgment from the State Clearinghouse that the City has complied with CEQA environmental review requirements.
PGCC 12-3-25
On November 3, 2025, the City released its Responses to Comments document, which consists of all written comment letters received on the Draft EIR, written responses to all written comment letters received on the Draft EIR, minor revisions to the Draft EIR, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). The MMRP is a document that will be adopted as part of any Project approval and used thereafter as a tool to track and monitor to ensure that all the mitigation measures imposed on the Project are being implemented and complied with.
The combination of the Draft EIR, its appendices, and the Responses to Comments document constitute the Final EIR. For a useful overview of the Draft EIR and its analysis plus conclusions, staff recommends reviewing at the Executive Summary Section, which begins at page ES-1 of the Draft EIR.
Housing Element Update
Pacific Grove’s Draft 2023–2031 Housing Element provides capacity to meet the City's Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) of 1,125 units across all income levels. This includes planning for 362 very-low, 237 low, 142 moderate, and 384 above-moderate income units for the 2023-2031 planning period. The Housing Element outlines a comprehensive strategy to accommodate this growth through updated policies, programs, and detailed sites inventory.
The updated housing element introduces multiple programs to facilitate housing development and preservation. For example, Program 1 (Housing Preservation and Rehabilitation) continues the City’s loan program to assist low-income residents with home repairs. Other programs encourage accessory dwelling unit (ADU) development, incentivize affordable housing, and streamline permitting. In addition, programs commit to pursuing funding and partnerships for affordable housing, updating development standards, and removing governmental constraints to meet state housing law requirements.
The updated housing element also provides an inventory of vacant and underutilized sites that can accommodate the RHNA plus a buffer. These housing opportunity sites are distributed throughout the City, focusing on infill locations near transit, services, and along commercial corridors. Notably, the plan relies on underused commercial parcels (Downtown and Forest Hill areas) being rezoned for mixed-use housing, as well as some City-owned or underdeveloped parcels. The draft element demonstrates that Pacific Grove can accommodate its RHNA of 1,125 units through the sites inventory and planned zoning changes.
The sites inventory provides data on each site’s potential unit yield, factoring in realistic development probabilities. In total, the identified sites (plus expected ADUs and pipeline projects) furnish a capacity above the RHNA – roughly on the order of 1,350+ units, which includes a buffer beyond 1,125 to account for contingencies. The State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) recommends a buffer of 15-30% in order to comply with State law including the "no net loss" requirements. The element also analyzes population and employment trends for 2031, forecasting that if the housing goals are met, Pacific Grove ’s housing stock and population will modestly increase to support local workforce and family needs. Importantly, the City has verified that infrastructure (water supply, sewer, etc.) can support the additional housing growth within this cycle, and it has included programs to monitor infrastructure capacity and pursue improvements if needed.
Consistent with state law, the Housing Element incorporates an analysis for Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH), which examines fair housing issues and access to housing opportunities in Pacific Grove. It evaluates factors such as segregation patterns, income disparities, and displacement risk. The sites selected for new housing are dispersed in a manner to promote fair housing choice – for instance, higher-density sites are not concentrated in one neighborhood but in various parts of the City, including high resource areas. The Housing Element includes programs to advance fair housing, such as outreach and education for tenants and landlords, continued support for the regional fair housing service provider, and annual monitoring of potential housing discrimination or displacement. These actions are PGCC 12-3-25
intended to ensure the City ’s housing growth is equitable and inclusive, aligning with state and federal fair housing requirements.
Overall, the Housing Element’s revisions are geared toward creating opportunities for housing at all income levels through proactive rezoning, development incentives, and removal of barriers, while ensuring consistency with State housing laws and affirmatively furthering fair housing in the community.
On July 10, 2025, the City received a letter of conditional approval 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.
Land Use Element Amendments
To maintain internal consistency with the updated Housing Element, Pacific Grove’s Land Use Element of the General Plan is being amended with targeted changes to land use designations, density standards, and maps. The draft revisions focus on enabling higher density residential development in appropriate areas and reflect the new housing sites in the City’s long-range land use policy framework. Key amendments include:
Land Use Designation Changes: Certain General Plan land use categories are being updated or added to accommodate housing. For example, areas that were previously designated purely for commercial use (such as the Downtown and Forest Hill commercial districts) will be amended to allow mixed-use that allows residential uses by right. These changes ensure the General Plan land use map mirrors the Housing Element’s strategy of siting new housing in commercial corridors and other underutilized sites.
The City is also proposing to remove or modify outdated designations that conflict with housing goals – for instance, if a prior designation prohibited residential use in an area now targeted for housing, it will be amended or replaced. All told, the Land Use Element amendments will ensure zoning and land use designations are consistent with the Housing Element’s policies and the rezonings it calls for. In conclusion, the narrative text of the Land Use Element is being updated to describe these new categories and their purpose in meeting housing needs.
Density and Intensity Standards: The draft revisions adjust certain development intensity standards to support higher density housing development. For residential land use classifications, the allowable densities (dwelling units per acre) are being increased in line with Housing Element programs. As an example, the maximum density in the High-Density Residential category may be raised (e.g. from around 20–30 units/acre up to a higher figure that qualifies as suitable for affordable housing development under state law). Similarly, new Mixed-Use designations will stipulate residential density ranges to accommodate multi-story mixed-use projects. These changes are aimed at achieving “default” densities that the state deems appropriate for lower-income housing (often 20 or 30 units/acre in smaller cities). The Land Use Element change also incorporates needed policy language to support these density increases – for instance, emphasizing infill development, transit-oriented development in mixed-use areas, and the allowance of multi-family housing in zones that were formerly commercial-only. By updating density standards, Pacific Grove’s General Plan will be consistent with the rezoning/ upzoning efforts driven by the Housing Element, thereby legitimizing higher-density projects envisioned for the 2023–2031 period.
General Plan Map Updates: An updated General Plan Land Use Map will reflect changes to the allowed land use in two areas to accommodate higher density residential development that is also facilitated by changes to the zoning designation for these sites. These map changes make the General Plan a true blueprint of the City’s intended land uses, clearly identifying where higher-density housing is expected.
The revised maps will be an important reference that will assist in understanding where new housing PGCC 12-3-25
potential exists.
Zoning Code Updates
A critical component is a rezoning program to create capacity for new housing. The draft Housing Element calls for amending the zoning code for the Commercial Downtown and Commercial Forest Hill districts, to allow higher-density residential or mixed-use development. These zoning amendments will establish “by-right” housing opportunities at target densities sufficient for lower-income housing (in line with state default density standards). Development standards such as height limits, floor-area ratios, and parking requirements (see Municipal Code Section 23.31.040 for amendments to site development standards in the commercial and industrial zoning districts) are proposed to be updated to facilitate multi-family and mixed-use projects. These modifications to the Zoning Code achieve required minimum densities and comply with recent State housing mandates (e.g. laws on accessory dwelling units, low-barrier navigation centers, and objective design standards).
HCD has provided a preliminary review of the proposed zoning code amendments. They recommended that language be added to Section 23.31.040, Commercial and Industrial Zoning District Development Standards, that clarifies 50% of the floor area of mixed-use development projects on sites within C-1, C-2, C-D and C-FH districts identified in the 6th Cycle Housing Element Site Inventory for lower-income households be dedicated to residential use. This language has been included as End Note Number 7 to Section 23.31.040. Although the comments from HCD followed the Planning Commission meeting of November 13, 2025, the added language carries forward the applicable state law requirements and clarifies standards in and does not amend the zoning ordinance recommended by the Planning Commission.
Health and Safety Element Updates
Pacific Grove’s Health and Safety Element is being comprehensively updated to address contemporary hazards and meet new state requirements. The draft Health and Safety Element revisions add updated data, maps, and policies on emergency preparedness, natural disasters, and climate resilience. In particular, the City is aligning the Health and Safety Element with State regulations that mandate new considerations for evacuation routes and climate adaptation. Major areas of revision include:
Evacuation Planning and Emergency Access: The Health and Safety Element now includes detailed information on the City’s evacuation routes and procedures for emergency evacuation. In compliance with State regulations, the City has identified residential areas in hazard zones that have only a single evacuation route and evaluated how to improve emergency access in those neighborhoods.
The element maps out primary evacuation corridors (such as major roads out of Pacific Grove) and discusses their capacity and potential choke points. Pursuant to State regulations, an evacuation route analysis was conducted – assessing the safety, capacity, and viability of evacuation routes under scenarios like wildfires or tsunamis. The Health and Safety Element outlines evacuation plans for various disasters, designates evacuation centers, and includes policies to ensure routes remain passable (e.g. vegetation management along roadways and inter-agency coordination to handle traffic during an evacuation). The update places new emphasis on maintaining at least two emergency egress routes for all large residential developments, or, where that is not feasible due to geography, enhancing the existing route ’s resiliency and communication systems. Overall, residents will find clearer guidance on evacuation zones and the City’s commitment to improve emergency access, consistent with state law mandates.
Wildfire Hazard Updates: The revised Health and Safety Element addresses wildfire risks using the latest data and mapping from state and regional authorities. It recognizes that while Pacific Grove is largely urbanized, there are interfaces with the forested areas (such as the Del Monte Forest area near the City’s boundary) that pose wildfire danger. Updated text describes the Fire Hazard Severity Zones affecting parts of Pacific Grove and the frequency of wildland fires in the region. New policies call for PGCC 12-3-25
enforcing defensible space around structures, supporting vegetation management in high-risk open space (in coordination with CalFire and neighboring jurisdictions), and ensuring adequate water pressure for firefighting. The element also highlights evacuation considerations for wildfire specifically – identifying neighborhoods adjacent to wildland areas that might need special evacuation plans. For example, wooded upland areas on the outskirts are noted as having elevated wildfire risk, and plans are included to conduct community outreach on wildfire preparedness in those areas. By integrating the Monterey Peninsula Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan findings, the Health and Safety Element ensures consistency with broader wildfire mitigation efforts.
Tsunami and Coastal Hazards: Given Pacific Grove’s coastal location, the Health and Safety Element now contains an updated section on tsunami hazard and coastal storm flooding. According to mapping by the California Geological Survey, most of Pacific Grove’s shoreline lies within a designated Tsunami Hazard Area. The new draft includes the official tsunami inundation map for the City, showing areas that could be flooded in a worst-case scenario. It discusses warning systems (sirens, emergency alerts) and evacuation routes for low-lying neighborhoods (for instance, routing evacuees to higher ground inland or to specified safe zones). Policies are introduced to continue public education on tsunami response and to coordinate with the National Weather Service’s Tsunami Warning Center for early alerts. Additionally, the Health and Safety Element covers coastal erosion and sea-level rise threats (which can exacerbate storm surge and high tide flooding). While Pacific Grove’s cliffs provide some protection, certain beach areas and infrastructure are identified as vulnerable to future sea-level rise. The updated element recommends monitoring erosion rates and planning for shoreline protection or managed retreat where applicable. By addressing tsunami and coastal storm hazards with current data and clear policies, the Health and Safety Element ensures the City’s emergency planning is robust for these low-probability but high-impact events.
Climate Change Vulnerability: In line with State requirements, the Health and Safety Element now integrates a Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment and corresponding adaptation strategies. The City evaluated how climate change may intensify local hazards – including increased wildfire risk from hotter, drier conditions; greater coastal flooding from sea-level rise; and potential stress on water and power systems from extreme heat or drought. The element summarizes key findings (for example, identifying which neighborhoods or critical facilities are most vulnerable to these climate-related hazards). It then lays out climate adaptation policies to build resilience. These include actions such as incorporating sea-level rise projections into future land use decisions along the coast, expanding green infrastructure to manage stormwater from intense rain events, improving the grid’s resilience to heatwaves (through backup generators or microgrids for emergency facilities), and partnering with regional agencies on climate mitigation and adaptation efforts. The updated policies also cross-reference the City ’s Climate Action Plan and the regional hazard mitigation plan to ensure consistency. By doing this, Pacific Grove ’s General Plan will meet State requirements and formally address climate adaptation. In summary, the Health and Safety Element commits the City to continuous monitoring of climate vulnerabilities and implementing strategies to protect the community’s safety in the face of long-term climatic changes.
New and Revised Safety Policies: Throughout the Health and Safety Element, many policies and implementation measures have been added or strengthened to reflect current best practices and legal mandates. For example, new policies require regular updates to the City’s Emergency Operations Plan and conducting periodic multi-agency evacuation drills for scenarios like wildfire and tsunami. There are policies ensuring that new development in high hazard areas (fire zones, flood zones) include adequate emergency access and construction standards for resilience. The element also includes commitments to coordinate with neighboring jurisdictions (Monterey, Pebble Beach/County) for emergency response, recognizing that disasters don’t stop at City limits. Another set of policies is aimed at community education and warning systems – supporting programs like Community Emergency PGCC 12-3-25
Response Team (CERT) training for residents, maintaining sirens and alert systems, and ensuring residents (especially vulnerable populations) are aware of evacuation procedures. By aligning these policies with state laws, the Health and Safety Element revisions bring Pacific Grove’s General Plan into compliance with the latest safety requirements. The result is a more robust, proactive plan that enhances public safety and emergency preparedness for the City.
General Plan Land Use and Zoning Map Amendments
This Project includes amendments to the General Plan Land Use and Zoning Maps for two areas. The first is an area identified as the Dennett, Sinex, and Grove Acre Neighborhood and the second is the church site on Sunset Drive. The land use designation changes from 8.7 to 29.0 dwelling units per acre (dua) and 17.4 to 29.0 dua respectively. The zoning changes from R-2-B-3 to R-3 and from R-2 to R-3 respectively for the sites. A third site in the Del Monte Park Neighborhood is having its General Plan Land Use Map designation changed from NC (neighborhood commercial) to MDR 9.7 (medium density residential) and reflects the actual use of the property and not a change that would allow an increase in the residential density of the site.
AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION REVIEW
The Housing Element Update, along with the updates to the Land Use Element, Safety Element, Health and Safety Element, Zoning Code, plus the Land Use and Zoning Maps, has been reviewed by the County of Monterey Airport Land Use Commission. At its meeting on November 17, 2025, the Commission found that the updates to these documents are consistent with the 2019 Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Monterey Regional Airport.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
At its regularly scheduled meeting of November 13, 2025, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed project. Following presentations by staff and the consultant team, in person and on-line public comment, and debate, the Commission voted 5-0 to adopt a resolution recommending approval of the project along with certification of the EIR to the City Council. A copy of the Planning Commission’s resolution is included with this agenda report as Attachment No. 22 to this agenda report.
The Planning Commission’s discussion on the Housing Element Update focused primarily on the proposed amendments to the Pacific Grove Municipal Code (PGMC) related to “by right” housing development. The amendments to the PGMC to implement the Housing Element include a new Section
23.70.020(b)(10) which provides:
“Projects which meet the following requirements are entitled to review as a use by-right:
(1) Project is located on a site suitable for residential development as defined in California Government Code Section 65583.2 and identified for lower-income households in the adopted 6th Cycle Housing Element Site Inventory that are shown to be the following:
(i) Vacant and listed in the Site Inventory of two or more consecutive Housing Elements; or (ii) Non-vacant and listed in the Site Inventory of a previous Housing Element. (2) The project is proposed to include 20 percent of the total number of housing units available to lower-income households.”
In addition, this language was added to PGMC Section 23.70.020(e):
“Appeals of Determinations. For appeals of these determinations, see PGMC 23.74.020(a). (1) Projects pursuant to California Government Code Section 65583.2 may be appealed to the Planning Commission only by the applicant or the owner of the subject property.” PGCC 12-3-25
These sections implement Government Code Section 65583.2(c), which requires that for sites included in the Housing Element identified to accommodate lower income RHNA residential use by right has to be allowed for projects that include 20% of the units as affordable to lower income households for:
Vacant sites that have been included in two or more consecutive prior housing element cycles, and Non-vacant sites that were included in one prior housing element cycle. “Use by right” is defined in Government Code Section 65583.2(i) to mean that the City's review of the owner-occupied or multifamily residential use may not require a conditional use permit, planned unit development permit, or other discretionary local government review or approval that would constitute a “project” for purposes of CEQA. A local ordinance may provide that “use by right” does not exempt the use from design review. However, that design review shall not constitute a “project” for purposes of CEQA. However, “any subdivision of the sites shall be subject to all laws, including, but not limited to, the local government ordinance implementing the Subdivision Map Act. Use by right for “all rental multifamily residential housing” must be provided in accordance with subdivision (f) of Government Code Section 65589.5 (the Housing Accountability Act), which imposes substantial additional limitations on local government review processes.
The Commission raised concerns regarding potential procedural due process implications related to ministerial or by-right approvals that don’t require notice and an opportunity for members of the public, particularly, neighbors of the proposed project, to provide input. As part of this discussion, one member of the Commission raised the California Supreme Court’s decision in Horn v. County of Ventura, 24 Cal. 3d 605 (1979). The Court in the Horn case described that procedural due process principles apply to governmental decisions which are adjudicative in nature and not legislative. Id. at 612. The Court noted that subdivisions are subject to environmental evaluation under CEQA and went on to determine that procedural due process applies to subdivision approvals because they involve the “… exercise of judgement, and the careful balancing of conflicting interests, the hallmark of the adjudicative process.” Id. at 615. This is in contrast to “ministerial” acts that require no notice or opportunity for hearing. Id.
Here, the California legislature had determined that certain housing projects must be processed ministerially or “by-right.” By definition, this means that the projects can not be submitted for discretionary review and in making a determination on such projects only objective standards can be applied. The legislature has also clearly stated that certain housing projects, including projects described above under Government Code Section 65583.2(c), CEQA does not apply.”
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Prior to taking actions that on a project, it is a best practice to adopt/certify the environmental review conducted for that project. For this reason, staff recommends, in concert with the recommendation of the Planning Commission, that the City Council take the following actions, with a decision on the certification of the EIR being determined first, in the order that they appear below:
1. Adopt the resolution of the City Council certifying the Final EIR, Adopt the resolution of the City Council approving the “Project’, which includes amending the text, policies, figures, and maps of the Pacific Grove General Plan to adopt the 2023-2031 Housing Element; amending the Land Use and Health and Safety Elements and the Land Use Map; adopting the CEQA Findings of Fact, including a Statement of Overriding Considerations; and adopting the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), and
2. Introduce an ordinance of the City Council adopting amendments to Title 23, Zoning, of the Pacific Grove Municipal Code and the Zoning Map.
3. OPTIONS
PGCC 12-3-25
Agree with the recommendation of the Planning Commission and staff and adopt/introduce the resolutions and ordinance associated with the update to the Pacific Grove Housing Element.
1. Decline adoption of the resolutions and ordinance associated with the update to the Pacific Grove Housing Element.
2. Refer back to staff for evaluation of subjects identified by the City Council and continue consideration of this item to a specific date.
3. FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Approximately $1,314,835.20 has been budgeted for the Consulant work on the Update to the Housing Element. This does not include time staff and the City Attorney's Office has devoted to this update.
FOCUSED PRIORITY AREA: Community Development
Attachments
1. Draft CC Resolution Certifying EIR
4. Final EIR Responses to Comments
5. Draft CC Resolution Approving Project
6. Draft CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
8. Draft Pacific Grove Land Use Element - Tracked
9. Draft Pacific Grove Land Use Element - Clean
10. Draft Land Use Map
11. General Plan Land Use Map Low Density Residential
12. General Plan Land Use Map Medium Density Residential
13. General Plan Use Map High Density Residential
14. General Plan Land Use Map Commercial
15. Draft Health and Safety Element - Tracked
16. Draft Health and Safety Element - Clean
17. Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
18. Draft City Council Ordinance Amending Title 23, Zoning
19. Draft Zoning Code Amendments - Tracked
20. Draft Zoning Code Amendments - Clean
21. Draft Zoning Map
22.Final PC Resolution
PGCC 12-3-25
RESOLUTION NO. 25 - ____
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC
GROVE CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT (SCH #2024010897) FOR THE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE,
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS, AND GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENTS
Whereas, the proposed 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, the proposed Housing Element Update 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 proposed Housing Element; and
Whereas, the Land Use Element of the General Plan and Land Use Map would be updated for consistency with the Housing Element Update and Zoning Amendments; and Whereas, the Health and Safety Element of the General Plan 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, the project involves certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR); adoption of the 2023-2031 Housing Element and amendments to the Land Use Element, Land Use Map, and Health and Safety Element of the General Plan; and approval of amendments to zoning regulations, including rezoned sites and amendments to the City’s zoning map; and Whereas, pursuant to Section 21067 of the Public Resources Code, and Section 15367 of the State California Environmental Quality Act (“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, the City evaluated the project and determined that an EIR should be prepared because the project may have a significant effect on the environment; and Whereas, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15082, on January 29, 2024, the City sent to the California Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation (formerly the Office of Planning and Research) and each responsible and trustee agency a Notice of Preparation (“NOP”) PGCC 12-3-25
stating that an Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse Number # 2024010897) would be prepared; and
Whereas, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.9 and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15082(c) and 15083, the City held a duly-noticed Scoping Meeting on February 15, 2024, to solicit comments on the scope of the environmental review of the proposed project; and Whereas, comments were received from 16 individuals, organizations, and/or agencies in response to the NOP; and
Whereas, pursuant to Assembly Bill 52 and Senate Bill 18, the City sent notification of the project via certified mail to nine Native American tribes affiliated with the project area and received no requests for consultation; and
Whereas, a Draft Environmental Impact Report (“Draft EIR”) was prepared, incorporating comments received in response to the NOP; and
Whereas, the Draft EIR determined that mitigation measures were required to mitigate impacts to a less than significant level for the following resource areas: Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources (archaeological resources), Geology and Soils, Noise (vibration), and Utilities and Service Systems; and
Whereas, the Draft EIR further concluded that despite the incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures, the proposed project would nonetheless result in significant and unavoidable impacts relating to Cultural Resources (historical resources), Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Noise (construction and operational traffic noise); and Whereas, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15085, a Notice of Completion was prepared and filed with the Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation on June 30, 2025; and Whereas, as required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15087(a), the City provided Notice of Availability of the Draft EIR to the public in accordance with all legal requirements at the same time that the City sent a Notice of Completion to the Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation, on June 30, 2025; and
Whereas, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15087(e), the Draft EIR was circulated for a 46-day public review comment period from June 30, 2025, to August 15, 2025; and Whereas, during the public review and comment period, the City consulted with and requested comments from all responsible and trustee agencies, other regulatory agencies, and other interested parties pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15086; and Whereas, the City received 11 written comment letters on the Draft EIR and also received an acknowledgement from the State Clearinghouse that the City has complied with CEQA environmental review requirements; and
Whereas, on November 3, 2025, the City released its Responses to Comments document, which consists of all written comment letters received on the Draft EIR, written responses to all written comment letters received on the Draft EIR, revisions to the Draft EIR, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and
Whereas, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092.5, the City provided copies of its responses to commenting public agencies on November 3, 2025, at least ten (10) days prior to the City’s consideration of the Final EIR on December 3, 2025; and PGCC 12-3-25
Whereas, the “Final EIR” consists of the Draft EIR and its appendices, and the Responses to Comments document. The Final EIR is on file with the City and is hereby incorporated by reference; and
Whereas, all potentially significant adverse environmental impacts were sufficiently analyzed in the Final EIR; and
Whereas, all of the requirements of the Public Resources Code and the CEQA Guidelines have been satisfied by the City in connection with the preparation of the Final EIR, which is sufficiently detailed so that all of the potentially significant environmental effects of the project have been adequately evaluated; and
Whereas, the Final EIR prepared in connection with the project sufficiently analyzes the project’s potentially significant environmental impacts, and the Final EIR analyzes a range of feasible alternatives capable of reducing these effects to a lesser level of significance; and Whereas, prior to taking action, the City has heard, been presented with, reviewed and considered all of the information and data in the administrative record, including but not limited to the Final EIR, and all oral and written evidence presented to it during all meetings and hearings; and
Whereas, the Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City and is deemed adequate for purposes of making decisions on the merits of the project; and Whereas, no comments made in the public hearings conducted by the City, no additional information submitted to the City, and nothing in the Response to Comments document have produced substantial new information requiring recirculation of the Final EIR or additional environmental review of the project under Public Resources Code Section 21092.1 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5; 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 a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and Whereas, on December 3, 2025, the City conducted a duly-noticed public hearing on the certification of the Final EIR and approval of the project, at which time all persons wishing to testify were heard and the project was fully considered; and Whereas, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE:
1. The City Council determines that each of the Recitals set forth above are true and correct, and by this reference incorporates those Recitals as an integral part and findings of this Resolution.
2. The City Council hereby finds that it has been presented with the Final EIR, which it has reviewed and considered, and further finds that the Final EIR is an accurate and objective statement that has been completed in full compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. The City Council finds that the Final EIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City. The City Council declares that no evidence of new significant PGCC 12-3-25
impacts or any new information of “substantial importance” as defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5, has been received by the City after circulation of the Draft EIR that would require recirculation. Therefore, the City Council hereby certifies the Final EIR based on the entirety of the record of proceedings.
3. 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.
PASSED AND ADOPTED AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE this 3rd day of December, 2025 by the following vote:
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
Housing Element Update, Zoning Ordinance
Amendments, and General Plan Amendments
Responses to Comments
SCH #2024010897
prepared by
City of Pacific Grove
Department of Community Development
300 Forest Avenue, 2nd Floor
Pacific Grove, California 903950
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
Table of Contents
Responses to Comments i
Table of Contents
1 Introduction................................................................................................................................1-1
1.1 Contents..........................................................................................................................1-1
1.2 Draft EIR Public Review Process......................................................................................1-1
1.3 Revisions to the Draft EIR................................................................................................1-2
1.4 Final EIR...........................................................................................................................1-2
1.5 Project Decision Process.................................................................................................1-3 2 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR..................................................................................2-1
2.1 Commenters on the Draft EIR.........................................................................................2-1
2.2 Responses to Public Comments......................................................................................2-1 3 Revisions to the Draft EIR ...........................................................................................................3-1
3.1 Revisions to the Draft EIR................................................................................................3-1 4 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program..........................................................................4-1 PGCC 12-3-25
City of Pacific Grove
Housing Element Update, Zoning Ordinance Amendments, and General Plan Amendments ii
This page left intentionally blank.
PGCC 12-3-25
Introduction
1.1 Contents
This Responses to Comments document has been prepared by the City of Pacific Grove (City) to address comments received on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) for the proposed Housing Element Update, Zoning Ordinance Amendments, and General Plan Amendments (hereinafter referred to as the “project” or “proposed project”).
As prescribed by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Sections 15088 and 15132, the lead agency, the City, is required to evaluate comments on environmental issues received from persons who have reviewed the Draft EIR and to prepare written responses to those comments. This document and the Draft EIR (incorporated by reference) comprise the Final EIR for this project. This document includes individual responses to each letter received during the public review period for the Draft EIR. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15088(c), the written responses describe the disposition of significant environmental issues raised.
The City has provided a good faith effort to respond to all significant environmental issues raised by the comments. This document also includes amendments to the Draft EIR consisting of changes suggested by certain comments, as well as minor clarifications, corrections, or revisions to the Draft EIR. The Responses to Comments document includes the following contents:
Chapter 1: Introduction
Chapter 2: Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR, which also includes a list of all commenters and public comment letters
Chapter 3: Revisions to the Draft EIR
Chapter 4: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
1.2 Draft EIR Public Review Process
In accordance with Sections 15087 and 15105 of the CEQA Guidelines, the Draft EIR was circulated for public review and comment to responsible agencies and interested parties as well as members of the public, for a period of 46 days (June 30, 2025, through August 15, 2025). Comment letters received on the Draft EIR and responses to each of the comments are provided in their entirety in Chapter 2, Responses to Comments.
CEQA requires a lead agency that has prepared a Draft EIR to consult with and obtain comments from responsible and trustee agencies that have jurisdiction by law with respect to the project, and to provide the public with an opportunity to comment on the Draft EIR (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15086 and 15087).
Sections 15088(a) and (c) of the CEQA Guidelines also require a lead agency to evaluate comments on environmental issues received from persons who reviewed the Draft EIR and to prepare written responses to comments raising significant environmental issues. This Responses to Comments document is the mechanism for responding to these comments. Responses are not required for comments regarding the merits of the proposed project or regarding issues not related to the project’s environmental impacts. Several of the comments on the Draft EIR state the commenter’s preferences regarding the content or approval of the proposed project, potential economic impacts, PGCC 12-3-25
or provide general statements concerning the content of the Draft EIR. Detailed responses are not warranted or required by CEQA for comments that do not address environmental issues related to the proposed project. Such instances are noted in the responses. The City will review all comments received, including those that do not warrant a response under CEQA, before considering certification of the Final EIR or approval of the proposed project.
Each comment letter has been reproduced in full, with individual comments within those comment letters bracketed generally by topic area covered and/or environmental issue raised and numbered according to the type of commenter (agency, organization, and individual) with responses following each comment.
1.3 Revisions to the Draft EIR
Portions of a few of the sections of the Draft EIR have been revised since the Draft EIR was circulated for public review and as these responses to the comments on the Draft EIR were prepared (see Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR). None of the changes constitute “significant new information,” which would require recirculation of the Draft EIR. “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; therefore, recirculation is not required. Instead, the changes to the Draft EIR were made merely to clarify or amplify information in the Draft EIR.
1.4 Final EIR
The Draft EIR, Responses to Comments, and associated appendices and documents are available for review online at:
https://www.cityofpacificgrove.gov/our_city/departments/community_development/programs___ proj ects/ceqa.php and at the following physical locations:
Pacific Grove City Hall
300 Forest Avenue, 2nd Floor
Pacific Grove, California 93950
Pacific Grove Public Library
550 Central Avenue
Pacific Grove, California 93950
PGCC 12-3-25
As required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15088(b), at least 10 days before consideration of the Final EIR for certification, the City will provide written response to each public agency that submitted written comments on the Draft EIR.
1.5 Project Decision Process
This Response to Comments document and the Draft EIR, as revised through the changes described in Chapter 1.3, Revisions to the Draft EIR, res, together constitute the Final EIR, which will be considered by the City prior to a decision on whether to approve the project. If the City decides to approve the project, the City, as required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15090, must first certify that the Final EIR was completed in compliance with the requirements of CEQA, was reviewed and considered by the City, and reflects its independent judgment and analysis. The City would then be required to adopt findings of fact on the disposition of each significant environmental impact, as required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, and a statement of overriding considerations, as required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 for any significant and unavoidable impacts. A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, which is required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(d), has been included as part of Chapter 4, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, of this document and will be adopted by the City of Pacific Grove City Council in conjunction with any project approval.
PGCC 12-3-25
This page intentionally left blank.
PGCC 12-3-25
Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
This section includes comments received during public circulation of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the City of Pacific Grove Housing Element Update, Zoning Ordinance Amendments, and General Plan Amendments.
The Draft EIR was circulated for a 46-day public review period that began on June 30, 2025 and ended on August 15, 2025. The City of Pacific Grove received 11 comment letters on the Draft EIR.
2.1 Commenters on the Draft EIR
Table 2-1 presents the list of commenters, including the numerical designation for each comment letter received, the author of the comment letter, and the date of the comment letter. Comment letters have been ordered according to the type of commenter (i.e., Governments, Agencies and Individuals) and then numbered in the chronological order (by date) they were received by the City of Pacific Grove, and then alphabetically.
Table 2-1 Comment Letters Received
Letter/Comment No. Commenter Date
Agencies
A1 Monterey-Salinas Transit August 7, 2025
A2 California Department of Fish & Wildlife August 18, 2025 Individuals
I1 Jane Haines July 15, 2025
I2 Steven Lilley August 6, 2025
I3 Arnoud Tiel August 7, 2025
I4 Bill Frederickson August 12, 2025
I5 Emily Miller August 12, 2025
I6 Fred Ballerini August 15, 2025
I7 Jane Haines August 15, 2025
I8 Andrew Kubica August 15. 2025
I9 Lori McDonnell August 15. 2025
2.2 Responses to Public Comments
The comment letters and responses follow. The comment letters are numbered sequentially and each separate issue raised by the commenter, if more than one, has been assigned a number. The responses to each comment identify first the number of the comment letter, and then the number assigned to each issue (Response I1.1, for example, indicates that the response is for the first issue raised in Comment Letter I1).
Where a comment resulted in a change to the Draft EIR text, a notation is made in the response indicating that the text is revised. Changes in text are signified by strikeout font (strikeout font) where text was removed and by underlined font (underlined font) where text was added. These changes in text are also included in Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR.
PGCC 12-3-25
August 7, 2025
Community Development Department
City of Pacific Grove
300 Forest Avenue
Pacific Grove, CA 93950
RE: Draft Environmental Impact Report
(DEIR) for the Housing Element Update,
Zoning Amendments, and General Plan
Amendments Project
Dear Mr. Sidor:
Monterey-Salinas Transit District (MST) supports the City’s efforts to expand access to housing while aligning with state mandates through the Housing Element Update, Zoning Code amendments and General Plan revisions. MST also commends the City’s efforts to address significant and unavoidable impacts brought on by greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and views Mitigation Measures GHG-1(a) and GHG-1(b) as important measures towards addressing the project’s climate impacts.
After reviewing Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), MST offers the following comments in response to the DEIR’s finding that Impact GHG-1 would remain significant and unavoidable.
Existing Transit Service
MST operates two (2) routes within the City of Pacific Grove. Lines 1 and 2 travel between the Monterey Transit Plaza and Pacific Grove via Asilomar and David Avenue. Daily service for these routes is available every 30 minutes starting at 6:45 AM and ending at 7:41 PM. MST also operates the RIDES ADA Paratransit Program, offering curb-to-curb service for eligible riders.
More information is available at mst.org and mstmobility.org.
Transit Coordination and VMT Reduction
Transit use is a proven GHG reduction strategy that directly reduces vehicle miles traveled (VMT). While the DEIR identifies two mitigation measures to address GHG impacts, neither includes public transit. MST recommends adding a third mitigation measure:
A1.1
A1.2
A1.3
A1.4
Letter A1
PGCC 12-3-25
c) Coordinate with Monterey-Salinas Transit to incorporate public transit into project features, where feasible, to help reduce GHG impacts. Some 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.
The following MST services are available to support VMT reduction:
• Travel Training: MST offers free fixed-route travel training to teach interested individuals, groups, and organizations how to ride the MST bus network safely and independently. Training involves a brief classroom session and/or a bus ride accompanied by a travel trainer.
• Group Discount Program: Provides 31-Day MST GoPasses at a substantially reduced price, if bus passes are purchased in bulk. Discounts are available for residential developments that serve the elderly, people with disabilities and low-income populations.
• Commute with Enterprise & MST: MST has partnered with Enterprise to provide vanpooling options for commuters who travel to the same area in Monterey County.
MST’s Vanpool Program provides commuters with an innovative and sustainable shared mobility option through subsidized vanpooling. Employers can support their employees by contributing to the cost and making vanpooling an even more attractive option for their workforce.
First-Mile-Last-Mile Gaps
The DEIR’s transportation analysis finds that all proposed housing sites are within 0.5 mile of transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities, “encouraging alternative transportation and providing access to multiple transportation options.” While proximity to transit is an important consideration, safe and reliable first-mile/last-mile access is essential for making transit a viable alternative to driving.
Substantial first-mile/last-mile improvements are needed throughout the city so residents and workers can safely access transit facilities, such as bus stops. Several proposed housing sites lack adequate pedestrian infrastructure connecting them to nearby transit stops. For example:
• Site #23 (1107, 1117, and 1123 Forest Ave.) lacks continuous sidewalks to the closest bus stops.
• Site #40 (710 and 720 Grove Acre Avenue) is ideally located only 0.1 miles (or a 3- minute walk) to an MST bus stop, but Grove Acre Avenue does not have an ADAcompliant sidewalk for individuals to safely access the bus stop. • Sunset Drive, between 17 Mile Drive and Congress Avenue, lacks a sidewalk on the north side of the street, which precludes installation of bus stops to the area; this is a missed opportunity for housing sites #49, 50, and 55.
A1.4
Cont.
A1.5
A1.6
PGCC 12-3-25
As future projects are built through this Housing Element, MST respectfully encourages the City of Pacific Grove to invest in ADA-compliant sidewalks and other safe access features. These investments support increased transit use, reduce GHG emissions, and lower parking demand.
Closing
Coordination with MST is a feasible, cost-effective strategy that aligns with goals already identified in the City’s Housing Element, including reducing GHG emissions, increasing access to opportunity, and affirmatively furthering fair housing. If you have any questions about the above comments, please do not hesitate to contact me at [email protected] or 831-264-9288.
Sincerely,
Emma Patel
Planning Manager
A1.7
A1.8
PGCC 12-3-25
Letter A1
COMMENTER: Emma Patel, Planning Manager, Monterey Salinas Transit DATE: August 7, 2025
Response A1.1
The commenter supports the City’s efforts to expand access to housing and commends the City’s efforts to address significant and unavoidable impacts related to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
This comment is introductory and does not raise any environmental issues or contain a substantive comment on the Draft EIR. No further response is required.
Response A1.2
The commenter states their following comments are in response to the Draft EIR’s finding that GHG1 would remain significant and unavoidable.
This comment is introductory and does not in and of itself raise any environmental issues or contain a substantive comment on the Draft EIR. No further response is required. Refer to Responses A1.3 through A1.8.
Response A1.3
The commenter provides information on existing transit service within Pacific Grove.
This comment does not raise any environmental issues or contain a substantive comment on the Draft EIR. No further response is required.
Response A1.4
The commenter states that transit is a proven method for reducing GHG emissions, and suggests adding a mitigation measure that incorporates public transit strategies to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and GHG emissions.
The following revisions have been made to the Draft EIR.
Page ES-31 in the Executive Summary:
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-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.
PGCC 12-3-25
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.
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-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.
Response A1.5
The commenter provides a list of services provided by MST to reduce VMT including travel training, group discounts, and vanpooling.
This comment does not raise any environmental issues or contain a substantive comment on the Draft EIR. No further response is required.
Response A1.6
The commenter expresses the importance of safe and reliable first-mile and last-mile access and suggests various improvements, including completing continuous sidewalks to connect housing sites to nearby transit stops. The commenter provides a list of suggested improvements for sidewalks near some of the housing sites.
This comment is noted and will be provided to decision-makers for consideration prior to approval and certification of the EIR. Future development projects will require project- and site-specific planning and environmental review, at which point consideration of details noted by the commenter would be appropriate. This comment does not raise any environmental issues or contain a substantive comment on the Draft EIR and no further response is required.
PGCC 12-3-25
Response A1.7
The commenter encourages the City to invest in ADA-compliant sidewalks and other safe access features.
This comment is noted and will be provided to decision-makers for consideration prior to approval and certification of the EIR. Future development projects will require project- and site-specific planning and environmental review, at which point consideration of details noted by the commenter would be appropriate. This comment does not contain a substantive comment on the Draft EIR and no further response is required.
Response A1.8
The commenter summarizes their comments and encourages collaboration with MST.
This comment is conclusory and does not in and of itself raise any environmental issues or contain a substantive comment on the Draft EIR. No further response is required.
PGCC 12-3-25
State of California – Natural Resources Agency GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE CHARLTON H. BONHAM, Director Central Region
1234 East Shaw Avenue
Fresno, California 93710
(559) 243-4005
www.wildlife.ca.gov
Conserving California’s Wildlife Since 1870
August 15, 2025
Joe Sidor, Contract attSenior Planner
City of Pacific Grove
300 Forest Avenue, 2nd Floor
Pacific Grove, California 93950
[email protected]
(831) 648-3192
Subject: Pacific Grove Housing Element Update, Zoning Amendments, and General Plan Amendments (Plan)
Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR)
SCH No.: 2024010897
Dear Joe Sidor:
The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) received a DEIR from the City of Pacific Grove for the Plan pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments and recommendations regarding those activities involved in the Plan that may affect California fish and wildlife. Likewise, we appreciate the opportunity to provide comments regarding those aspects of the Plan that CDFW, by law, may be required to carry out or approve through the exercise of its own regulatory authority under the Fish and Game Code.
CDFW ROLE
CDFW is California’s Trustee Agency for fish and wildlife resources and holds those resources in trust by statue for all the people of the State (Fish & Game Code, Section 711.7, subd. (a) & 1802; Pub. Resources Code, Section 21070; CEQA Guidelines Section 15386, subd. (a)). CDFW, in its trustee capacity, has jurisdiction over the conservation, protection, and management of fish, wildlife, native plants, and habitat necessary for biologically sustainable populations of those species (Id., Section 1802).
Similarly, for purposes of CEQA, CDFW is charged by law to provide, as available, biological expertise during public agency environmental review efforts, focusing specifically on projects and related activities that have the potential to adversely affect fish and wildlife resources.
DocusignEnvelopeID:318CBDE1-A73D-41F9-9715-CD7660F0B463 A2.1
A2.2
Letter A2
PGCC 12-3-25
Joe Sidor, Contract Senior Planner
City of Pacific Grove
August 15, 2025
CDFW is also submitting comments as a Responsible Agency under CEQA (Pub.
Resources Code, Section 21069; CEQA Guidelines, Section 15381). CDFW expects that it may need to exercise regulatory authority as provided by the Fish and Game Code. As proposed, for example, future projects tiered from this Plan may be subject to CDFW’s lake and streambed alteration regulatory authority (Fish & Game Code, Section 1600 et seq.). Likewise, to the extent implementation of future projects tiered from this Plan may result in “take” as defined by State law of any species protected under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) (Fish & Game Code, Section 2050 et seq.), related authorization as provided by the Fish and Game Code may be required.
Fully Protected Species: CDFW has jurisdiction over fully protected species of birds, mammals, amphibians and reptiles, and fish, pursuant to Fish and Game Code sections 3511, 4700, 5050, and 5515. Fully protected species may not be taken or possessed at any time and no licenses or permits may be issued for their take except as follows:
• Take is for necessary scientific research,
• Efforts to recover a fully protected, endangered, or threatened species, live capture, and relocation of a bird species for the protection of livestock, or • They are a covered species whose conservation and management is provided for in a Natural Community Conservation Plan (Fish & G. Code, §§ 3511, 4700, 5050, & 5515).
Additionally, specified types of infrastructure projects may be eligible for an incidental take permit (ITP) for unavoidable impacts to fully protected species if certain conditions are met (see Fish & G. Code §2081.15). Project proponents should consult with CDFW early in the project planning process if an ITP may be pursued for a project.
PLAN DESCRIPTION SUMMARY
Proponent: City of Pacific Grove
Objective: The proposed Plan consists of the following components: 1) Housing Element update, which includes 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. The zoning amendments would include modifications to the Zoning Code to meet target densities as well as compliance with State housing laws as identified in the Housing Element. The Land Use Element would be updated for consistency with the Housing Element Update and Zoning Amendments. The Health and Safety Element would involve updated information, policies, and implementation measures consistent DocusignEnvelopeID:318CBDE1-A73D-41F9-9715-CD7660F0B463 A2.3
A2.4
A2.5
PGCC 12-3-25
Joe Sidor, Contract Senior Planner
City of Pacific Grove
August 15, 2025
with the current requirements of state law. This includes additional details related to evacuation routes and emergency access.
Location: The City of Pacific Grove
COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CDFW offers the following comments and recommendations to assist the City of Pacific Grove in adequately identifying and/or mitigating the Plan’s significant, or potentially significant, direct and indirect impacts on fish and wildlife (biological) resources.
Editorial comments or other suggestions may also be included to improve the CEQA document prepared for this Plan.
Based on aerial imagery and species occurrence records from the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) (CDFW 2025), the proposed Plan area is known to and/or has the potential to support special-status species, and these resources need to be evaluated and addressed prior to any approvals that would allow ground-disturbing activities.
Currently, the DEIR acknowledges that the Plan area is within the geographic range of several special-status animal species and provides specific recommendations and measures for future projects tiered from this Plan to incorporate within their CEQA analyses. CDFW has concerns about the ability of some the proposed mitigation measures to reduce impacts to less than significant and avoid unauthorized take of several special-status species, including the State candidate Crotch’s Bumble Bee (Bombus crotchii), State fully protected white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus), and the State special animal and federally proposed threated, monarch butterfly, California overwintering population (Danaus Plexippus Plexippus pop. 1). CDFW also has concerns about the ability of some of the proposed mitigation measures to reduce impacts to less significant and avoid unauthorized take of special-status plant species.
Additionally, CDFW is concerned about maintaining sufficient buffers between cleanup and staging areas and adjacent streams to protect these resources.
Crotch’s Bumble Bee (CBB)
The DEIR’s Biological Resources section does not include Crotch’s bumble bee (CBB).
The City of Pacific Grove is within the known range of CBB, and potentially suitable CBB habitat is present within the Plan area. As such, CDFW recommends the DEIR analyze potential impacts to CBB from Plan implementation and including CBB within the “Special-Status Wildlife Species in the Regional Vicinity of the Project Site” chart to ensure that future projects associated with this Plan consider its potential occurrence.
DocusignEnvelopeID:318CBDE1-A73D-41F9-9715-CD7660F0B463 A2.5
Cont.
A2.6
A2.7
A2.9
A2.8
PGCC 12-3-25
Joe Sidor, Contract Senior Planner
City of Pacific Grove
August 15, 2025
White-tailed kite (WTKI)
BIO-1(h) Nesting Bird Surveys
The DEIR’s BIO-1(h), requires nesting bird surveys to cover the disturbance area plus a 200-foot buffer around the site, where feasible, and a 500-foot buffer for raptors.
CDFW would like to note that the City of Pacific Grove lies within the range of the WTKI and these survey and buffer distances may not be sufficient to avoid potentially significant impacts to WTKI and their nests. Therefore, the CDFW recommends that BIO-1(h) be revised to specify that a qualified avian biologist will conduct surveys for fully protected nesting raptors, including nesting white-tailed kites, prior to beginning project-related activities, and that these surveys will incorporate a ½-mile buffer around project activities. CDFW also recommends that a minimum no-disturbance buffer of ½ mile shall be established around active fully protected raptor nests (including white-tailed kite nests) until the breeding season ends or a qualified biologist confirms that fledging has occurred, and the birds no longer depend on the nest or parental care for survival. CDFW advises against reducing this buffer for any fully protected bird species without compelling biological or ecological justification.
Further consultation with CDFW is recommended to ensure appropriate project implementation and take avoidance.
Monarch Butterfly (MOBU)
BIO-1(g) Monarch Butterfly Avoidance and Minimization
The DEIR’s BIO-1 (g) states that, if construction occurs during the monarch butterfly (MOBU) overwintering season and butterflies are present, a City of Pacific Grove approved biologist would establish a protective buffer of 100 to 300 feet around roosting sites, based on their proximity and disturbance risk. This buffer would be clearly marked on-site, and no construction or equipment staging would be allowed within it. If work within the buffer is necessary, the biologist would monitor to ensure MOBU are not disturbed and has the authority to halt and resume activities as needed. The biologist may also adjust the buffer size within the 100- to 300-foot range depending on butterfly location and disturbance levels.
CDFW concurs with having an appropriate buffer if MOBU overwintering sites are found during surveys or activities associated with projects tiered from this Plan.
However, CDFW recommends increasing that buffer to 500 feet from the outer edge of the overwintering habitat, consistent with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Western Monarch Butterfly Conservation Recommendations (USFWS 2023). CDFW recommends that any proposed modifications to this buffer be coordinated with both the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and CDFW to evaluate DocusignEnvelopeID:318CBDE1-A73D-41F9-9715-CD7660F0B463 A2.10
A2.11
PGCC 12-3-25
Joe Sidor, Contract Senior Planner
City of Pacific Grove
August 15, 2025
whether a reduction is feasible without causing disturbance to the overwintering population.
Special-Status Plant Species
BIO-1(a) Special-Status Plant Species Surveys
The DIER’s BIO-1(a) states, “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.” While CDFW concurs that special-status plant surveys should be updated following a significant lapse in time, CDFW recommends that the timing of surveys be adjusted based on the type of habitat present within the project site and whether the target special-status plant species are identifiable every year. Certain plant species may not be detected in a given year and several consecutive years of surveys may be required. CDFW recommends referencing the “Protocols for surveying and evaluating impacts to special-status native plant populations and sensitive natural communities” (California Department of Fish and Wildlife 2018) when determining when to update floristic survey efforts.
BIO-3(b) Waters and Wetlands Impact Avoidance and Minimization The DEIR’s BIO-3(b) states that “all refueling, cleaning, and maintenance of equipment shall occur at least 100 feet from jurisdictional areas.” CDFW recommends increasing this buffer to 150 feet to provide greater protection to streams and their associated hydrologic features and minimize potential impacts.
EDITORIAL COMMENTS AND/OR SUGGESTIONS
Lake and Stream Alteration (LSA)
Reasonably foreseeable future projects tiered from this Plan may be subject to CDFW’s regulatory authority pursuant to Fish and Game Code section 1600 et seq. Fish and Game Code section 1602 requires project proponents to notify CDFW prior to commencing any activity that may (a) substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow of any river, stream, or lake; (b) substantially change or use any material from the bed, bank, or channel of any river, stream, or lake; or (c) deposit debris, waste or other materials that could pass into any river, stream, or lake. “Any river, stream, or lake” includes those that are ephemeral or intermittent as well as those that are perennial in nature. For additional information on notification requirements, please contact our staff in the LSA Program at (559) 243-4593, or [email protected].
DocusignEnvelopeID:318CBDE1-A73D-41F9-9715-CD7660F0B463 A2.11
Cont.
A2.12
A2.13
A2.14
PGCC 12-3-25
Joe Sidor, Contract Senior Planner
City of Pacific Grove
August 15, 2025
CDFW therefore recommends that the DEIR for this Plan include information related to these requirements of Fish and Game code and advise that projects tiered from this Plan retain a qualified biologist to determine if potential impacts to streams may require the need to obtain a 1600 Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement (LSAA).
Federally Listed Species
CDFW recommends consulting with the USFWS on potential impacts to federally listed species. Take under the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) is more broadly defined than CESA; take under the ESA also includes significant habitat modification or degradation that could result in death or injury to a listed species by interfering with essential behavioral patterns such as breeding, foraging, or nesting. Consultation with the USFWS to comply with the ESA is advised well in advance of any ground disturbing activities.
California Natural Diversity Database
Please note that the CNDDB is populated by voluntary submissions of species detections. As a result, species may be present in locations not depicted in the CNDDB but where there are suitable habitats and features capable of supporting species. A lack of an occurrence record in the CNDDB does not mean a species is not present. In order to adequately assess any potential project-related impacts to biological resources, surveys conducted by a qualified biologist/botanist during the appropriate survey period(s) and using the appropriate protocol survey methodology are warranted in order to determine whether or not any special-status species are present at or near the Project area.
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA
CEQA requires that information developed in environmental impact reports and negative declarations be incorporated into a database which may be used to make subsequent or supplemental environmental determinations. (Pub. Resources Code, Section 21003, subd. (e).) Accordingly, please report any special-status species and natural communities detected during surveys to the CNDDB. The CNDDB field survey form can be found at the following link:
https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Submitting-Data. The completed form can be mailed electronically to CNDDB at the following email address:
[email protected]. The types of information reported to CNDDB can be found at the following link: https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Plants-and-Animals.
DocusignEnvelopeID:318CBDE1-A73D-41F9-9715-CD7660F0B463 A2.14
Cont.
A2.15
A2.16
A2.17
PGCC 12-3-25
Joe Sidor, Contract Senior Planner
City of Pacific Grove
August 15, 2025
FILING FEES
The Plan, as proposed, would have an impact on fish and/or wildlife, and assessment of filing fees is necessary. Fees are payable upon filing of the Notice of Determination by the Lead Agency and serve to help defray the cost of environmental review by CDFW.
Payment of the fee is required in order for the underlying Plan approval to be operative, vested, and final. (Cal. Code Regs, tit. 14, Section 753.5; Fish & G. Code, Section 711.4; Pub. Resources Code, Section 21089.)
CONCLUSION
CDFW appreciates the opportunity to comment on the DEIR to assist the City of Pacific Grove in identifying, analyzing, and mitigating the implementation of the Plan’s impacts on biological resources.
More information on survey and monitoring protocols for sensitive species can be found at CDFW’s website (https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Survey-Protocols).
Questions regarding this letter or further coordination should be directed to Evelyn Barajas-Perez, Environmental Scientist, at (805) 503-5738 or evelyn.barajas[email protected].
Sincerely,
Julie A. Vance
Regional Manager
ec: State Clearinghouse
Governor’s Office of Planning and Research
[email protected]
DocusignEnvelopeID:318CBDE1-A73D-41F9-9715-CD7660F0B463 A2.18
A2.19
PGCC 12-3-25
Joe Sidor, Contract Senior Planner
City of Pacific Grove
August 15, 2025
REFERENCES
California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2025. Biogeographic information and observation system (BIOS). https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/BIOS. Accessed July 2025.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2023. Western Monarch butterfly conservation recommendations. Sacramento, California, USA.
DocusignEnvelopeID:318CBDE1-A73D-41F9-9715-CD7660F0B463 PGCC 12-3-25
Letter A2
COMMENTER: Julie A. Vance, Regional Manager, California Department of Fish and Wildlife DATE: August 18, 2025
Response A2.1
The commenter expresses appreciation for the opportunity to provide feedback.
This comment is introductory and does not contain a substantive comment on the Draft EIR. No further response is required.
Response A2.2
The commenter describes CDFW’s role as a Trustee Agency for fish and wildlife resources in accordance with California state law and CEQA.
This comment does not contain a substantive comment on the Draft EIR. No further response is required.
Response A2.3
The commenter describes the CDFW’s role as a Responsible Agency under CEQA and notes that CDFW may need to exercise regulatory authority for impacts to resources within their jurisdiction.
Consultation with CDFW would be conducted for future development facilitated by the proposed project, if it is determined that a project could impact resources subject to CDFW’s jurisdiction or result in take of threatened or endangered species. .
Response A2.4
The commenter summarizes the regulatory process governing take of protected species and encourages early consultation with CDFW in the project planning process for projects that may require incidental take permits for state-listed species.
Consultation with CDFW would be conducted for future development facilitated by the proposed project to determine the required permits, if it is determined that project could impact state-listed threatened or endangered species.
Response A2.5
The commenter summarizes the proposed project.
The commenter’s summary of the proposed project is accurate. This comment does not contain a substantive comment on the Draft EIR. No further response is required.
Response A2.6
The commenter states that the project area has the potential to support special-status species that must be evaluated before any ground-disturbing activities begin.
As discussed in Section 4.3, Biological Resources, of the Draft EIR, there is a potential for specialstatus plant and wildlife species to occur in undeveloped areas of the City and on parcels where PGCC 12-3-25
natural vegetation occurs. Mitigation Measures BIO-1(a) through BIO-1(i) require special-status plant surveys and pre-construction wildlife surveys for individual development projects facilitated by the proposed project to confirm the presence of special-status species. These measures also require implementation of avoidance measures and compensatory mitigation, should it be determined that a development project has the potential to impact a special-status species.
Response A2.7
The commenter expresses concern about the ability of the proposed mitigation measures to reduce impacts to special status species to less than significant levels, and their ability to avoid unauthorized take of special-status species including Crotch’s bumble bee, white-tailed kite, and monarch butterfly.
Responses to the commenter’s specific comments raised in their letter are addressed in Responses A2.9 through A2.11, below.
Response A2.8
The commenter introduces and summarizes their comments and expresses concern about the ability of the proposed mitigation measures to avoid unauthorized take, avoid significant impacts to special-status plant species, and to maintain buffers between construction areas and adjacent streams.
Responses to the commenter’s specific comments raised in their letter are addressed in Responses A2.12 and A2.13, below.
Response A2.9
The commenter recommends that impacts to Crotch’s bumblebee be analyzed in the Draft EIR, because the City of Pacific Grove lies within the known range of Crotch’s bumble bee and potentially suitable habitat exists within the City.
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 California Natural Diversity Database (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 Crotch’s 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 Crotch’s bumble bee to be present within the City and housing sites is low and mitigation is not necessary.
The following revision has been made to the Draft EIR on pages 4.3-4 and 4.3-5 in Section 4.3, Biological Resources.
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)… PGCC 12-3-25
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 and therefore has a low potential to occur.
It should also be noted that the Draft EIR evaluates development facilitated by the project at a programmatic level. Future development facilitated by the project would require additional projectlevel review, including a consideration of potential impacts to biological resources such as bumble bees if present in any of the housing sites, upzoning areas, or additional parcels.
Response A2.10
The commenter recommends that Mitigation Measure BIO-1(h) be revised to increase the survey and buffer distances for nesting birds (200 feet for general nesting birds and 500 feet for raptors) to
0.5 mile for nesting raptors, including white-tailed kite. The commenter also recommends a nondisturbance buffer of 0.5 mile around active white-tailed kite nests.
PGCC 12-3-25
White-tailed kite and other raptors which may nest within the City and housing sites would be generally habituated to the existing levels of disturbance due to urban development, and are not likely to be disturbed by development facilitated by the proposed project. Additionally, the limitations around surveying private property in residential areas, combined with the City’s varied topography that restricts clear lines of sight to work areas, make implementing a 0.5 mile buffer for nesting bird surveys impractical. Accordingly, a minimum buffer of 50 feet for non-raptor bird species and 200 feet for raptor species is sufficient to avoid disturbance. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure BIO-1(h) on page 4.3-20 of Section 4.3, Biological Resources, of the Draft EIR, larger buffers may be required depending on the status of the nest and the construction activities occurring near the nest. The avoidance buffer would be established by the City-approved biologist on a case-bycase basis based on the species and site conditions.
Response A2.11
The commenter recommends that Mitigation Measure BIO-1(g) be revised to increase the protective buffers around Monarch butterfly overwintering sites from a range of 100 to 300 feet to 500 feet.
Given the urban nature of the project sites, and their proximity to public roads and private property, a buffer of 100 to 300 feet is adequate to mitigate impacts to Monarch butterfly. Sites 42 and 43 are separated from the overwintering site at George Washinton Park by approximately 200 feet of residential development and paved roads. The sites consist of a vacant lot with a grass lawn and two coast live oak trees, and do not provide significant nectar, hydration, or microclimate protection for the overwintering site. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure BIO-1(g), as shown on page 4.3-20 of Section
4.3, Biological Resources, of the Draft EIR, the qualified biologist may increase these buffers, if necessary, on a case-by-case basis to protect overwintering Monarch butterflies.
Response A2.12
The commenter recommends that Mitigation Measure BIO-1(a) be revised to adjust the timing of the special-status plant species survey based on habitat type and whether the species is identifiable each year.
Mitigation Measure BIO-1(a), as shown on page 4.3-16 of Section 4.3, Biological Resources, of the Draft EIR, already includes this requirement. Specifically, Mitigation Measure BIO-1(a) states that 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 surveys shall be timed to coincide with when the target species would be present.
Response A2.13
The commenter recommends that Mitigation Measure BIO-3(b) be revised to increase the buffer for equipment refueling, cleaning, and maintenance near jurisdictional areas from 100 feet to 150 feet to better protect streams and associated hydrologic features.
Given the urban nature of the project sites, and their proximity to public roads and private property, a buffer of 100 feet is adequate to avoid impacts associated with pollutant runoff.
PGCC 12-3-25
Response A2.14
The commenter notes that individual projects facilitated by the proposed project are required to notify CDFW if they would alter rivers, streams, or lakes, and provides a link for the notification requirements.
CDFW would be notified on a project-by-project basis if future development facilitated by the proposed project would require a Lake and Stream Alteration Agreement.
Response A2.15
The commenter recommends consulting with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding potential impacts to federally listed species.
Consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would be conducted for future development facilitated by the proposed project, if it is determined that the project may impact federally-listed threatened or endangered species.
Response A2.16
The commenter notes that the CNDDB may not reflect all areas where special-status species are present and that surveys are warranted to accurately determine the presence of special-status species.
Mitigation Measures BIO-1(a), BIO-1(e), BIO-1(f), BIO-1(g), and BIO-1(h) in Section 4.3, Biological Resources, of the Draft EIR require special-status plant surveys and pre-construction wildlife surveys for individual development projects facilitated by the proposed project to confirm the presence of special-status species.
Response A2.17
The commenter requests that special status species and natural communities detected during surveys be submitted to the CNDDB.
Due to the programmatic nature of the Draft EIR, biological surveys were not conducted and therefore no submittals to the CNDDB are warranted at this time. However, Mitigation Measures BIO-1(a), BIO-1(e), BIO-1(f), BIO-1(g), and BIO-1(h) in Section 4.3, Biological Resources, of the Draft EIR require special-status plant surveys and pre-construction wildlife surveys for individual development projects facilitated by the proposed project to confirm the presence of special-status species. If special-status species are detected during the surveys, the results would be submitted to CNDDB by the project proponent for that development project.
Response A2.18
The commenter states that payment of CDFW fees is required.
If the project is approved, the City will pay the required CDFW fees at the time the Notice of Determination for the Final EIR is filed with the Monterey County Clerk.
PGCC 12-3-25
Response A2.19
The commenter thanks the City for the opportunity to comment on the Draft EIR and provides links to additional information and contact information.
This comment concludes the letter and does not contain a substantive comment on the Draft EIR.
No further response is required.
PGCC 12-3-25
Kayleigh Limbach
From: Aaron Campbell <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2025 4:52 PM
To: Megan Jones; Kayleigh Limbach
Cc: Joe Sidor; Jon Biggs; Velyvis, Stephen E.; Wagner, Mary A.
Subject: [EXT] FW: Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for Pacific Grove's Housing Element
Attachments: PastedGraphic-1.pdf; Sen. Weiner.pdf
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 Kayleigh and Megan,
See below (with attachments) - Jane Haines’ comment on the Draft EIR.
Have a great week!
Aaron Campbell
Principal 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: Jane Haines <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2025 4:06 PM
To: Housing <[email protected]>
Cc: Planning Commission <[email protected]>; Pierik, Brian A. <[email protected]> Subject: Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for Pacific Grove's Housing Element [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.] Dear Housing Element Team,
The most significant environmental consequences of the proposed Housing Element stem from unexamined secondary effects of converting four existing public parking lots in downtown Pacific I1.1
Letter I1
PGCC 12-3-25
Grove into housing sites. The Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) repeatedly and improperly characterizes the resulting loss of parking as a mere social inconvenience, thereby failing to meet CEQA’s obligation to analyze foreseeable secondary physical impacts on the environment.
1. LEGAL BASIS FOR CEQA REVIEW OF PARKING IMPACTS
As established by the California Court of Appeal in San Franciscans Upholding the Downtown Plan v.
City and County of San Francisco (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 656 and reaffirmed in Save Our Access – San Gabriel Mountains v. Watershed Conservation Authority, CEQA requires analysis of environmental impacts that are secondary to social effects—specifically including traffic congestion and air quality degradation from insufficient parking. The San Franciscans decision makes this clear:
“The social inconvenience of having to hunt for scarce parking spaces is not an environmental impact; the secondary effect of scarce parking on traffic and air quality is.” Quantified Parking Loss and Secondary Environmental Impacts Appendix A of the Housing Element proposes housing development at four downtown parking lots:
Site 1 (161 Fountain Ave / 148 15th St): 24 spaces lost, 16 units added Site 5 (168 Forest Ave): 29 spaces lost, 14 units added Site 8 (601 Lighthouse Ave): 80 spaces lost, 39 units added Site 9 (Movie theater site): 109 spaces lost, 48 units added Together, these projects would eliminate 242 existing public parking spaces and add 117 units, likely requiring at least 117 additional parking spaces. This results in a net parking deficit of 359 spaces, or approximately 25% of the City’s 1,461 public downtown parking spaces (based on the City’s 2019 parking map - attached below as “PastedGraphic-1.pdf").
This substantial reduction in public parking will have significant environmental consequences:
Increased Vehicle Idling and Emissions: A typical vehicle searching for parking emits approximately 4 pounds of CO₂ per hour. If 359 drivers spend 15 minutes daily seeking parking, this equates to over 1,430 pounds of CO₂ emissions per day, directly conflicting with CEQA’s air quality objectives.
Spillover into Sensitive Areas: Overflow parking will intrude into residential streets, shoreline areas, and public open space near environmentally sensitive habitats—impacting monarch butterfly and harbor seal zones, which require limited human intrusion. Loss of Economic Base Supporting Environmental Programs: With over $415 million in annual retail sales—much of it generated by car-borne tourism—Pacific Grove’s economy funds essential environmental programs. A reduction in tourist access caused by inadequate parking could decrease business revenue, undermining programs like the Monarch Butterfly Sanctuary and harbor seal protections.
I1.1
cont.
I1.2
I1.3
I1.4
PGCC 12-3-25
CEQA Requires Contextual Review
Save Our Access emphasized that the environmental context of parking loss matters. Unlike urban areas with transit alternatives, Pacific Grove is a coastal town heavily reliant on automobile access.
The DEIR must be revised to assess the cumulative parking deficit in this local context, consistent with the holding in Taxpayers for Accountable School Bond Spending v. San Diego Unified School District (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 1013, which required CEQA review of parking-related traffic spillover and safety hazards.
2. INADEQUATE ALTERNATIVES ANALYSES: OVERLOOKING SECOND HOME
CONVERSIONS AND PGUSD COLLABORATION FOR EMPLOYEE HOUSING Chapter 6 of the DEIR fails to consider a potentially environmentally superior and feasible alternative:
reducing the need for new housing construction by converting second homes into full-time residences. Table 1-15 of the Housing Element shows that 885 housing units—more than 10% of the City's total housing stock—are recreational-use second homes.
As outlined in my attached May 14, 2025 letter to Senator Scott Wiener (copying the mayors of Pacific Grove and Carmel), five actionable state and local policy solutions could facilitate the conversion of second homes into affordable housing:
A local second home tax (via the City’s charter status), State-authorized vacancy or second home taxes,
Voluntary conversion incentives for second home owners, Strengthening of short-term rental (STR) regulations, and RHNA credit for permanent conversions to full-time residential use.
A second home tax could fund a Community Land Trust, which could acquire second homes and convert them to deed-restricted affordable housing. This alternative would reduce physical environmental impacts while helping meet the City’s RHNA goal.
Omitted Alternative: Hinton Field PGUSD Housing Partnership The DEIR also fails to analyze a potentially feasible partnership with the Pacific Grove Unified School District (PGUSD) to build employee housing on its property known as “Hinton Field,” adjacent to Robert Down Elementary School. Unlike other PGUSD parcels removed from the Housing Element due to deed restrictions or community opposition, Hinton Field has no such barriers, as confirmed in PGUSD’s June 23, 2025 letter responding to my Public Records Act request for deed restrictions or other hindrances to use of the Robert Down School setting.
A housing development at Hinton Field would be walkable for most school staff, serve local housing needs, and avoid downtown infrastructure trade-offs such as parking loss. Excluding this site from CEQA alternatives analysis due to its “unclassified” zoning contradicts the flexible planning intent of CEQA, especially since its exclusion was politically—not environmentally—motivated.
3. MITIGATIONS TO LESSEN NOISE IMPACTS FROM PENDING NOISE ORDINANCE
AMENDMENT
Pending Noise Ordinance Amendment
I1.5
I1.6
I1.7
I1.8
PGCC 12-3-25
The DEIR must also address the environmental implications of the City Council’s March 19, 2025 directive to increase maximum allowable noise levels in commercial zones from 70 dB to 80 dB (PGMC § 23.64.290). Twenty-eight of the DEIR’s housing sites are located in commercial districts. If the ordinance is adopted, residents of those units may be subject to harmful noise exposure. Minutes of the March 19 meeting state: "Upon motion by Councilmember Rau and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Amelio,
Council voted to direct the City Attorney to return to Council with an ordinance to modify Pacific Grove Municipal Code Section 23.64.290 and other sections of the Pacific Grove Municipal Code as it pertains to sound amplification; increasing 70 decibels to 80 decibels and leave the hour limitations; and limiting to the commercial districts. Motion carried 4-2-1…" The DEIR must:
Analyze the effect of the proposed noise level increase on housing in upzoned commercial districts.
Propose mitigation measures to protect future residents from those noise impacts.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The DEIR must be revised to:
Analyze secondary environmental impacts of eliminating 359 downtown parking spaces, including emissions, traffic congestion, economic decline, and encroachment into sensitive areas;
Evaluate the feasibility of a second home conversion alternative, including the use of a second home tax to fund a community land trust;
Incorporate analysis of the Hinton Field PGUSD employee housing alternative, and Address the environmental impact of the proposed noise ordinance amendment, and identify appropriate mitigation measures.
Sincerely, Jane Haines
Appended: Letter from Jane Haines to Senator Scott Wiener, dated May 14, 2025, proposing policy mechanisms to convert second homes into affordable primary residences:
I1.8
Cont.
I1.9
I1.10
PGCC 12-3-25
May 14, 2025
Senator Scott Weiner
California State Capital
1021 O Street, Suite 8620
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Senator Wiener,
Thank you for your leadership and effective efforts to address California’s housing crisis. I am writing to offer suggestions on how the state can help coastal towns with high numbers of second homes, such as Pacific Grove and Carmel, convert those properties into much-needed primary residences for local residents.
In Pacific Grove, for example, the city's Sixth Cycle RHNA allocation is 1,125 housing units by 2031. According to its Draft Housing Element (Table 1-15), there are approximately 885 second homes in the city. If even a portion of those were converted into long-term rentals or sold to local residents as primary residences, the city could satisfy up to 79% of its RHNA obligation without extensive new development.
Similarly, Carmel-by-the-Sea has a RHNA target of 349 units, while its Housing Element (Figure 5) identifies 763 second homes—more than twice what is needed to meet its RHNA obligation.
To facilitate such conversions, I urge you to consider the following policy approaches:
• Statewide Vacancy or Second Home Tax
A modest tax on vacant or non-primary residences could discourage speculative ownership while generating revenue to support affordable housing programs or incentives for long-term rentals.
• Voluntary Incentive Programs
Offer tax reductions, permit streamlining, or one-time grants to second-home owners who commit to leasing their properties long-term to local residents, especially low- and moderate-income tenants.
Jane Haines
601 OCEAN VIEW BOULEVARD, APT.1
PACIFIC GROVE, CA 93950
[email protected]
PGCC 12-3-25
• Strengthening and Reforming STR Regulations
Encourage local jurisdictions to tighten short-term rental (STR) policies while providing assistance to STR owners willing to transition their properties into long-term housing.
• Support for Community Land Trusts and Nonprofits
Empower and fund community land trusts and housing nonprofits to acquire second homes and convert them into deed-restricted affordable or workforce housing.
• RHNA Credit for Permanent Conversions
Amend state law to allow partial RHNA credit for second homes that are permanently converted into primary residences, especially when used as long-term rentals or sold to local buyers.
While second-home ownership is a personal choice, public policy can help ensure that these homes contribute to solving, rather than exacerbating, the housing shortage. With the right tools and incentives, we can make better use of existing housing stock and reduce displacement, overcrowding, and homelessness.
Thank you for considering these recommendations. I would welcome the opportunity to provide further input or data.
Sincerely,
Jane Haines
Copies: Pacific Grove Mayor Nick Smith
Carmel Mayor Dale Byrne
PGCC 12-3-25
16TH
17TH
19TH
18TH
CENTRAL
12TH
FOUNTAIN
GRAND
13TH
14TH
RICKETTS ROW
20TH
ALLEY
19TH
14TH
GROVE
PARK
13TH
CARMEL
14TH
CALEDON
CYPRESS
SHORT
FOREST
LAUREL
LIGHTHOUSE
CONGRESS PINE
LOBOS
15TH
CENTRAL
18TH
PARK
FOUNTAIN
13TH
GRAND
16TH
CYPRESS
LAUREL
14TH
17TH
15TH
LIGHTHOUSE
CONGRESS
18TH
17TH
FOREST
12TH
THEATRE
CITY HALL
GROVE MARKET
FIRE STATION
HOLMAN BUILDING
U.S. POST OFFICE
PACIFIC GROVE LIBRARY
NATURAL HISTORY MUSEUM
ROBERT H. DOWN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
Proposed Parking Restrictions (Quantity)
20 Minute(77)
90 Minute (45)
2 Hour (290)
3 Hour (344)
24 Hour (85)
Loading Zone (24)
Handicap (22)
Passenger Loading Zone (4)
Reserve - Permit Parking M-F 8-6 (20)
Parking with No Restrictions (696)
Business Improvement District
Lots with Proposed Parking Restriction Change PRINT DATE:
SCALE:
1:930 ´
8/10/2015
FILE: Proposed Changes to DP with halo
0 0.0075 0.015 0.03Miles
0 0.0075 0.015 0.03
Kilometers
City of PG CDD
Source:
1 inch equals 78 feet
SCALE:
PINE
2-27
PGCC 12-3-25
Letter I1
COMMENTER: Jane Haines
DATE: July 15, 20251
Response I1.1
The commenter expresses concern regarding the secondary effects of the loss of parking. The commenter refers to a 2002 California Court of Appeals decision that determined the social inconvenience of looking for parking is not an environmental impact, but the secondary effect on traffic and air quality is. The commenter identifies housing sites that may result in the elimination of existing parking and states that the loss of parking would have significant environmental consequences discussed in the following comments.
As stated in San Franciscans Upholding the Downtown Plan v. City & County of San Francisco (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 656 at 697, “The social inconvenience of having to hunt for scarce parking spaces is not an environmental impact; the secondary effect of scarce parking on traffic and air quality is.
Under CEQA, a project's social impacts need not be treated as significant impacts on the environment. An EIR need only address the secondary physical impacts that could be triggered by a social impact.” Parking scarcity alone does not constitute a significant impact on the environment.
Instead, projects must be analyzed on a case-by-case basis to determine whether there are secondary impacts related to scarcity of parking (see Save Our Access-San Gabriel Mountains v.
Watershed Conservation Authority (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 8).
Secondary impacts to air quality associated with vehicle travel were evaluated in Section 4.2, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR. As discussed under Methodology on pages 4.2-14 and 4.2-15, operational sources of pollutant emissions, including mobile sources like vehicles, were estimated using CalEEMod. Estimated vehicle trips were derived from the Transportation Memorandum prepared by Kimley-Horn (Appendix E of the Draft EIR) and used to estimate mobile source emissions. As discussed under Impact AQ-2 on pages 4.2-20 and 4.2-21 in Section 4.2 of the Draft EIR, the daily air pollutant emissions associated with total buildout of the project (Table 4.2-10) and emissions associated with a sample individual project (Table 4.2-11) would not exceed the Monterey Bay Air Resources District’s regional thresholds for criteria air pollutants. Further, as discussed on page 4.2- 19 in Section 4.2, development facilitated by the project would consist of some mixed-use developments. Mixed-use developments promote mobility between different land uses, such as homes and retail shopping, through active transportation modes like walking and bicycling. This reduces the need for personal vehicle trips, resulting in less VMT and less associated demand for parking. Individual projects facilitated by the project, as they are proposed, would also be required to comply with parking requirements for different zoning designations as specified in Title 23, Zoning, of Pacific Grove Municipal Code. Accordingly, the secondary impacts to air quality associated with vehicle travel generated by the project were considered in the Draft EIR and were determined to be less than significant.
1 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 I7. 2-29 PGCC 12-3-25
Response I1.2
The commenter states that the loss of parking would result in increased CO2 emissions, and provides a calculation estimating CO2 emissions associated with idling vehicles searching for parking.
As described in Section 2.6.1 in Chapter 2, Project Description, of the Draft EIR, 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. However, for the purposes of this CEQA analysis, the Draft EIR analyzes all the possible potential growth facilitated by the project. For the purposes of responding to this comment and to verify its veracity, it is conservatively assumed that Sites 1, 5, 8, and 9 (the sites with existing parking identified by the commenter in Comment I1.1) are all developed with housing. An air quality emissions estimation was performed using the California Air Resources Board’s Emissions Factor (EMFAC) modeling software.
EMFAC data for Monterey County provides an estimate of emissions associated with idling vehicles (in terms of grams of CO2 per day) and daily trip counts associated with each class of vehicle (e.g., light duty automobiles, heavy duty trucks). Dividing the amount of idling vehicle emissions by the number of daily trips results in an average idling emissions rate per vehicle trip, which captures the average amount of time each vehicle would be idling as the driver searches for parking per trip.
EMFAC also provides annual VMT and trip data for Monterey County, which were used to calculate the average length of each vehicle trip. This average was applied to the projected daily VMT in Pacific Grove (300,662; see Table 4.2-9 in Section 4.2, Air Quality) to estimate daily trips. Multiplying the estimated trips by the idling vehicle emissions rates results in total daily idling emissions for all idling vehicles in Pacific Grove. The estimation is summarized in the table below.
Idling Vehicles Emissions Estimation
Parameter Value Units Source/Calculation
Total idling emissions (Monterey County) 45,938 Grams CO2/day/vehicle EMFAC1 Total daily trips (Monterey County) 1,645,006 Trips/day EMFAC1 Average idling emissions per trip 0.027 Grams CO2/trip Total idling emissions divided by total daily trips
Total Daily VMT (Monterey County) 9,244,112 Vehicle miles/day EMFAC1 Average trip length 6 Miles/trip EMFAC1
Projected daily VMT (Pacific Grove) 300,622 Vehicle miles/day Transportation Memorandum (Appendix E)
Estimated daily trips 50,069 Trips/day Average trip length divided by projected daily VMT
Total idling emissions (Pacific Grove) 1,398 Grams CO2/day Estimated daily trips multiplied by average idling
emissions per trip
Total idling emissions (Pacific Grove) 3.08 Pounds CO2/day Conversion of grams CO2/day to pounds CO2/day
Annual idling emissions 0.51 Metric tons CO2/year Conversion of pounds CO2/day to metric tons
CO2/year
1 California Air Resources Board. 2025. EMFAC. https://www.arb.ca.gov/emfac/ (accessed October 2025).
PGCC 12-3-25
As shown in the table above, the anticipated amount of idling emissions in Pacific Grove associated with project buildout would be approximately three pounds of CO2 per day, and not 1,430 pounds of CO2 per day as the commenter speculates. The commenter does not provide a source for their emissions estimate, so it is not possible to verify the basis of their calculation or its accuracy compared to the methodology and calculation presented above.
As shown in the table above, the estimated daily idling emissions within the project area would amount to approximately 0.51 metric tons of CO₂ per year. As shown in Table 4.7-5 in Section 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of the Draft EIR, the total net mobile emissions associated with the project are 5,971 metric tons of CO₂ annually. In comparison, idling emissions account for less than
0.01 percent of total project-related mobile emissions, making their contribution negligible. As such, emissions from vehicles idling while searching for parking are not a significant source of CO₂ emissions, and the overall impact from vehicle travel remains less than significant.
Response I1.3
The commenter opines, without providing any substantial evidence or supporting documentation, that overflow parking in residential, shoreline, and open space areas could impact monarch butterfly and harbor seals.
Impacts to biological resources are discussed in Section 4.3, Biological Resources, of the Draft EIR. As discussed throughout this section, operational impacts of development facilitated by the project would be less than significant. Specifically, as discussed on page 4.3-16, no operational impacts to monarch butterfly are anticipated due to existing protections in the City’s Municipal Code for overwintering groves at the Pacific Grove Monarch Butterfly Sanctuary and George Washington Park. Further, as discussed on page 4.3-27, marine areas are sufficiently distanced from individual development sites such that no impacts to Pacific harbor foraging and pupping sites would occur.
Impacts to monarch butterfly, harbor seal, and other wildlife in Pacific Grove would primarily result from habitat modification, which the Draft EIR evaluates at a programmatic level for development facilitated by the project. It is speculative to assume that vehicles would park in areas outside of existing city streets and established parking areas, such as shoreline and open space areas. As such the commenter’s alleged impact are too speculative for evaluation, further discussion is not provided, consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15145.
Response I1.4
The commenter expresses concern that parking constraints and decreased parking availability could result in a decrease in tourism and business revenue. The commenter states a reduction in tourism could affect programs such as the Monarch Butterfly Sanctuary and harbor seal protections.
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15131, economic or social effects of a project shall not be treated as a significant effect on the environment. In addition, the commenter does not provide evidence to support the claim that the project’s potential effects on parking would affect tourism and business revenue or explain how any such potential economic effects could lead to adverse environmental impacts. As such an impact is too speculative for evaluation, further discussion is not provided, consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15145. For these reasons, analysis of economic or social impacts is not appropriate.
PGCC 12-3-25
Response I1.5
The commenter provides an opinion regarding the automobile-dependent nature of Pacific Grove and requests that the Draft EIR be revised to evaluate the indirect cumulative environmental impacts associated with parking-related traffic circulation and public safety hazards. The commenter references the decision in Taxpayers for Accountable School Bond Spending v. San Diego Unified School District (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 1013, which they suggest requires CEQA review of parkingrelated traffic spillover and safety hazards here.
Regarding the commenter’s reference to Taxpayers for Accountable School Bond Spending v. San Diego Unified School District (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 1013, the circumstances of that case are materially different and do not establish a precedent requiring CEQA analysis of parking-related traffic spillover or safety hazards in the context of the Pacific Grove Housing Element Update, Zoning Ordinance Amendments, and General Plan Amendments. In Taxpayers, the court considered whether the installation of stadium lighting and other improvements at a high school could result in significant environmental impacts, including increased nighttime events that might lead to overflow parking on narrow residential streets. The court took into consideration the fact that the specific events and estimated attendees for those events, as well as the potential spill-over effects from those events, were known. The court found that substantial evidence supported a fair argument that such impacts could be significant, particularly due to the localized nature of the project and its potential to directly affect nearby residents through increased traffic, lighting, and noise.
In contrast, the project does not propose stadium lighting or authorize any other individual developments that would generate site-specific parking or circulation impacts. As discussed in Chapter 1, Introduction, as a programmatic document, the Draft EIR presents and discloses a regionwide assessment of environmental impacts associated with the proposed project and potential buildout as a whole. Future development projects would be subject to CEQA analysis and required to consider the known potential impacts specific to those projects. Moreover, the Draft EIR appropriately evaluates transportation impacts using VMT, consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, which explicitly states that automobile delay and congestion, including parking-related congestion, are not considered significant environmental impacts under CEQA. Therefore, the localized concerns addressed in Taxpayers, which involved a specific, operational school facility project with foreseeable and concentrated impacts, do not apply to the broader, policy-level nature of the Housing Element Update.
Response I1.6
The commenter requests consideration of an alternative that involves increasing housing stock by converting second homes into full-time residences. The commenter suggests policies for this alternative such as a second home tax, voluntary conversion incentives, strengthening short-term rental regulations, and awarding a Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) credit to units that convert to full-time residential use.
The commenter’s suggested alternative will be provided to City decision-makers for consideration.
As discussed in Chapter 6, Alternatives, of the Draft EIR, an EIR “shall describe a range of reasonable 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” pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6. Chapter 6, Alternatives, examines three alternatives to the proposed project that would attain most of the basic project objectives but would avoid or substantially lessen significant PGCC 12-3-25
adverse impacts associated with the proposed project, including the No Project, Reduced Density, and Fewer Sites Alternatives. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(a), “an EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project.” Alternatives that do not clearly provide any environmental advantages compared to the proposed project, do not meet basic proposed project objectives, or are not feasible to implement were not considered further.
Accordingly, the Draft EIR will not be revised to consider an alternative that involves increasing housing stock by converting second homes into full-time residences because of the alternative’s infeasibility. As discussed in Chapter 2, Project Description of the Draft EIR and shown in Table 2-2 in Chapter 2, the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments adopted a RHNA plan that allocated 1,125 housing units to Pacific Grove. As shown in Table 2-3 in Chapter 2, when accounting for pending and approved projects and estimated accessory dwelling unit development in Pacific Grove, the City has a remaining RHNA of 891 units. In addition to the RHNA, Program 10 (Enhanced Housing Mobility Options) and Program 21 (Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing) of the proposed Housing Element Update have the objective to facilitate the development of 75 and 25 additional residential units, respectively, not included in units needed to meet the RHNA. These programs are required by the California Department of Housing and Community Development. Therefore, for any alternative to be feasible, the alternative must facilitate development of 891 units required by the RHNA plus 100 units required by Programs 10 and 21, for a total of 991 housing units.
The commenter’s suggested methods to facilitate conversion of second homes into affordable housing include local and state second home taxes, voluntary conversion incentives, strengthening short-term rental regulations, and issuing RHNA credits for permanent second home conversions.
Because some of these methods are incentive-based or voluntary, the effectiveness of this alternative depends in part on participation by property owners. The City cannot compel such conversions at a scale that would reliably facilitate conversion of second homes to result in the development of at least 991 housing units, which would be required to meet the RHNA. It is possible that the City could implement a local second home tax, which would be mandatory, but this would require a vote of Pacific Grove voters to approve. As discussed in Response I1.7 below, and in Section 6.1.2, Alternatives Considered and Rejected, on page 6-2 of Chapter 6, Alternatives, of the Draft EIR, an alternative requiring voter approval would be infeasible. Further, the issuance of RHNA credits for existing housing stock is not a mechanism recognized by the California Department of Housing and Community Development. The issuance of credits towards a jurisdiction’s RHNA is limited to new or permitted housing units that were approved, permitted, and/or built since the start date of the RHNA projection period, or in this case 2023 to 2031.2 Because second homes are existing housing units, conversions would not increase the City’s overall housing supply and therefore would not qualify toward the RHNA allocation.
Therefore, consideration of this alternative or similar alternatives in the EIR is not required because they would not be feasible.
2 California Department of Housing and Community Development. 2025. Building Blocks. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-andcommunity-development/housing-elements/building-blocks (accessed October 2025).
PGCC 12-3-25
Response I1.7
The commenter requests consideration of an alternative that involves a partnership with the Pacific Grove Unified School District. This alternative would involve developing employee housing on a site adjacent to Robert Down Elementary School. The commenter opines that this alternative was excluded because the site is zoned as “Unclassified,” but that this alternative would reduce potential impacts associated with infrastructure and the loss of parking in other areas of the city.
As discussed in Section 6.1.2, Alternatives Considered and Rejected, under the heading “Housing Sites Located in Unclassified Or Open Space Districts” on page 6-2 of Chapter 6, Alternatives, of the Draft EIR, this alternative was considered but ultimately rejected from consideration. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(c) allows alternatives to be excluded from detailed analysis if they: (1) fail to meet most of the basic project objectives, (2) are infeasible, or (3) do not avoid significant environmental impacts.
The Housing Sites Located in Unclassified or Open Space Districts Alternative was rejected for all three reasons. First, for reasons discussed in greater detail below, this alternative would not provide capacity to meet the state-required RHNA. It also would not ensure growth is achievable; enable the development of additional housing units; encourage the development of by-right housing; or be located in a site with the appropriate zoning required to accommodate housing development.
Accordingly, this alternative would fail to meet five of the ten project objectives.
Second, as discussed in Response I1.6, any feasible alternative must facilitate development of 991 housing units to meet the City’s RHNA for the 2023–2031 planning period. Due to the need for voter approval and the lack of guaranteed rezoning, this alternative cannot ensure that the required number of units would be developed, rendering it infeasible.
Lastly, this alternative would not substantially reduce the significant impacts that would result from the project, including those related to biological and cultural resources, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, and transportation. Unclassified and Open Space district sites are generally not fully developed and consist of open space, meaning development would require new site disturbance such as grading and infrastructure installation. These activities could result in greater impacts to biological and cultural resources, hydrology and water quality, and localized air quality than infill development on already urbanized parcels. Additionally, residential use on these sites would still generate vehicle trips, contributing to VMT, and would not reduce operational noise or greenhouse gas emissions. As such, this alternative would not avoid significant environmental impacts.
For these reasons, this alternative was considered but ultimately rejected from further consideration, consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(c).
Response I1.8
The commenter requests that the Draft EIR address the environmental impact of raising allowable noise levels in commercial zones, and that there should be mitigation measures proposed to protect future residents from noise impacts.
The project does not include amending the City’s noise ordinance or altering acceptable noise levels in commercial zones. As these noise ordinance revisions are not part of the project, they are not considered in the Draft EIR. In addition, as an amended noise ordinance has not been adopted by the City, the Draft EIR evaluates noise levels using existing noise levels and noise thresholds that exist that the time of release of the Notice of Preparation, or January 2024.
PGCC 12-3-25
Response I1.9
The commenter provides a summary of their comments and suggested revisions to the Draft EIR.
Refer to Responses I1.1 through I1.8.
Response I1.10
The commenter appends a letter addressed to Senator Scott Wiener.
The appended letter does not address the sufficiency of the Draft EIR analysis or CEQA process for the proposed project. No further response is required.
PGCC 12-3-25
August 6, 2025
City of Pacific Grove
Community Development Department
300 Forest Avenue, 2nd Floor
Pacific Grove, CA 93950
Attention: Joe Sidor, Contract Senior Planner
These comments address the Housing Element Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) prepared by Rincon Consultants, Inc., in June 2025.
This DEIR is a very extensive, well-prepared document, and Rincon and our staff should be recognized. Further, the long length and detailed analysis in this document also point out the need for recently enacted estate legislation reforming the California Environmental Quality Act and exempting “infill” housing projects. Since Pacific Grove is a “built out” community, it would appear that legal counsel should determine the need for this DEIR before we proceed.
In reviewing the Housing Element and DEIR, one is struck by the length and breadth of both documents. Because so much is covered, it is understandable that changes also would be in order.
Further, because Housing Element and DEIR are linked, what generally applies to one also applies to the other. Consequently, while this letter mainly addresses the DEIR, the listed proposed changes apply to both documents. Reference, comment, and proposals are listed below. DEIR Executive Summary, BIO-1, BIO-2, BIO-3, BIO-5, CUL-2, GEO-9, GHG-1, NOI-1, NOI-2, and UTIL-2 list mitigation measures for several impacts (pages ES-14 thru ES-40).
It should be apparent that the proposed mitigation measures may go beyond current City policy in those respective categories. For example, CUL-2 would potentially implement provisions of the draft Cultural Resources and Tribal Monitoring Compliance Protocol. NOI-1(b) describes established noise standards in the General Plan Health and Safety Element.
Therefore:
o The Planning Commission and City Council should carefully review the language in the listed mitigation measures to ensure that they are consistent with either current or proposed City policy. In some situations, it may well be appropriate to substitute the following language, “The City will comply with federal and state statutes and regulations in mitigating this issue.”
A net increase of 2,335 new housing units is analyzed in the DEIR (pages ES-9 and ES-10).
These numbers would be accomplished in several neighborhood districts, including the Downtown, Central-Earley Commercial, Forest Hill, Dennett Street, Sinex Avenue, Grove Acre Avenue, and other areas.
Letter I2
I2.1
I2.2
I2.3
PGCC 12-3-25
Documentation on three important issues is either missing or not immediately apparent. First, what communications have occurred from staff/Rincon with the owners of properties that are proposed for zoning changes? This question, of course, raises the question about whether or not the Housing Element is even achievable. Second, there is continual reference to density and density bonuses, as well as the need to rezone or upzone properties throughout the DEIR.
How do these changes impact parking, viewshed, etc? Lastly, City downtown parking lots are proposed for housing. Does this mean the elimination of downtown parking on those sites – which is essential to our business community? Therefore:
o Copies of letters to property owners, as well as their responses, if any, should be made available.
o A table should be prepared showing the proposed properties with the current and proposed zoning, density, and height limits, so that the public understands what is proposed in the Housing Element. For example, potential development in the coastal zone Central-Eardley Commercial District can negatively impact public view areas along upper Lighthouse Avenue.
o As for the downtown parking lots, the City should adopt language that guarantees that housing is placed above municipal parking in lots proposed for housing. In other words, the City should ensure that housing proposals preserve existing downtown parking, as well as make additional parking available for new residents on the affected sites. Pacific Grove, in adopting the Housing Element and DEIR, needs additional housing.
Therefore, to facilitate the development of housing, ordinances addressing the following issues should be written and enacted:
o There should be no development or planning fees charged by the City for housing constructed or made available in the proposed Housing Element. o There should be time clocks on all projects subject to discretionary review. For example, a project would be deemed approved if a public hearing at the appropriate committee is not held within 90 days of designation of a complete application.
Overall, this Housing Element, as currently proposed, would change the character of our community. It would make permissible zoning changes that will increase building heights, density, and traffic. Our community simply was not designed for the “one-size fits all” changes this plan would bring.
I appreciate the opportunity to comment. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Steven Lilley
Steven Lilley
Planning Commission Chair, 2021-2024
I2.3
cont.
I2.4
I2.5
I2.6
I2.7
I2.8
I2.9
PGCC 12-3-25
Letter I2
COMMENTER: Steven Lilley
DATE: August 6, 2025
Response I2.1
The commenter refers to recent CEQA legislation and suggests that the City’s legal counsel should consider the need for the EIR.
It is assumed that the commenter is referring to Assembly Bill (AB) 130 and Senate Bill (SB) 131.
Effective June 30, 2025, both AB 130 and SB 131 provide new opportunities to exempt or streamline CEQA review for housing projects. Among other changes, AB 130 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 to name just a few. SB 131 complements AB 130 by creating or expanding CEQA exemptions for a range of project types, including advanced manufacturing facilities on industrialzoned land, broadband infrastructure in public rights-of-way, updates to climate adaptation plans, High-Speed Rail maintenance facilities, and – most relevant to the proposed project – local rezoning actions that implement Housing Element commitments. It also introduces a new review pathway for projects that narrowly fail to qualify for a CEQA exemption due to a single disqualifying condition.
While portions of the proposed project could qualify for an exemption, such as the rezoning for the Housing Element, once it has been adopted and the California Department of Housing and Community Development has determined that it substantially complies with Housing Element Law, other portions of the project such as the general plan amendments still require full CEQA review. In addition, with respect to the Zoning Ordinance Amendments that are required to provide capacity to meet the City’s RHNA, those rezonings must be completed before the California Department of Housing and Community Development will find the City’s adopted Housing Element in substantial compliance with Housing Element Law. Further, while some housing projects facilitated by the proposed project could possibly be exempt from CEQA or qualify for streamlining provisions under this new legislation, other projects would likely still require environmental review. For example, some of the sites are located on environmentally sensitive sites (e.g., fire hazard severity zones, hazardous waste sites, or sensitive areas in the coastal zone) that require environmental review. As such, preparation of an EIR is the appropriate CEQA pathway for the proposed project.
To acknowledge this new legislation, following text was added to Section 4.10.2, Regulatory Setting, Subsection a, State Regulations, on page 4.10-3 of Section 4.10, Land Use, in the Draft EIR:
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 PGCC 12-3-25
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, High-Speed 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.
Response I2.2
The commenter refers to several mitigation measures identified in the Draft EIR and recommends that the City review the measures to determine their consistency with City policy. The commenter suggests it may be sufficient to eliminate the mitigation measure and state instead that the City would comply with federal and state statutes and regulations related to the issue.
As discussed throughout Chapter 4, Environmental Impact Analysis, of the Draft EIR, the project would result in potential environmental impacts even with compliance with existing federal, state, and local statutes and regulations. Thus, mitigation measures are required to reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels. To address the specific examples the commenter provides, Mitigation Measure CUL-2 would indeed implement provisions of the City’s draft Cultural Resources and Tribal Monitoring Compliance Protocol. However, because this protocol is still in draft form and has not been formally adopted by the City, Mitigation Measure CUL-2 is required to reduce potential impacts to cultural resources to a less than significant level. In addition, the commenter is correct that Mitigation Measure NOI-1(b) uses established noise standards from the City’s General Plan.
However, this mitigation measure goes beyond what is required by the General Plan and requires the implementation of on-site noise reduction measures for development facilitated by the project that exceeds these noise standards. The mitigation measures intend to reduce potentially significant impacts in terms of CEQA thresholds, which are separate and distinct from standards established in federal, state, and local statutes and regulations.
PGCC 12-3-25
Response I2.3
The commenter states that the housing sites analyzed in the Draft EIR would be located across several properties in different neighborhood districts. The commenter inquires about communications that have occurred between the City and owners of these properties, and requests an analysis of how increased population density could impact parking and the aesthetic character of Pacific Grove, and considerations regarding the replacement of public parking structures with housing.
This comment is introductory, with detailed comments to follow. Refer to Response I2.4 for a discussion about correspondence between property owners of rezoned parcels and the City. Refer to Responses I1.1 through I1.4 for responses to comments regarding parking, the secondary effects of parking, and economic or social impacts related to parking. Impacts related to the aesthetic character of Pacific Grove are evaluated in Section 4.1, Aesthetics, of the Draft EIR.
Response I2.4
The commenter requests that correspondence between property owners and the City be made available.
Although not required, the City notified property owners of housing sites proposed for rezoning in 2024. Community engagement and outreach efforts undertaken by the City for the Housing Element Update are discussed on page B-4 of the Draft Housing Element Update. Additional information is provided in Appendix D, Public Engagement Input Summary, of the Draft Housing Element Update.
This comment does not contain a substantive comment on the Draft EIR and no further response is required.
Response I2.5
The commenter requests the addition of a table to the Draft EIR that shows the current and proposed zoning, density, and height limits of housing sites to demonstrate what changes are proposed.
Tables 2-4 through 2-9 in Chapter 2, Project Description, of the Draft EIR detail the current and proposed zoning for each of the proposed housing sites. Table 2-10 provides a summary of proposed zoning changes. Potential impacts to public views are evaluated in Section 4.1, Aesthetics, of the Draft EIR.
Response I2.6
The commenter requests that the City requires future housing development to preserve existing downtown parking and make additional parking available.
This comment is noted and will be provided to decision-makers for consideration. Refer to Response I1.1 for a discussion about parking-related impacts in the context of CEQA. This comment does not contain a substantive comment on the Draft EIR and no further response is required.
Response I2.7
The commenter requests that there be no development or planning fees charged by the City of Pacific Grove for future housing development.
PGCC 12-3-25
This comment is noted and shall be provided to decision-makers for consideration prior to approval and certification of the EIR. This comment does not contain a substantive comment on the Draft EIR and no further response is required.
Response I2.8
The commenter suggests that there should be a time limit for the City to approve projects subject to discretionary review.
This comment is noted and shall be provided to the City and decision-makers for consideration prior to approval and certification of the EIR. This comment does not contain a substantive comment on the Draft EIR and no further response is required.
Response I2.9
The commenter opines that the project would change the character of Pacific Grove by including zoning changes that would increase building heights and density and increase traffic.
Potential impacts to the visual character of Pacific Grove from implementation of the proposed project, including potential impacts due to height and density increases, are evaluated in Section
4.1, Aesthetics, of the Draft EIR. In terms of traffic, CEQA requires analysis of impacts related to VMT and does not require analysis of traffic congestion. Specifically, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 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.
It should be clarified that 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 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.
PGCC 12-3-25
Kayleigh Limbach
From: Joe Sidor <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2025 8:40 AM
To: Kayleigh Limbach
Cc: Jon Biggs; Aaron Campbell; Kassandra Gale; Leeza Segal Subject: [EXT] Fw: Query re Revisions to the 3rd Draft Housing Element 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,
Please address the email below as a DEIR public comment.
Thanks,
Joe
Joseph Sidor, Contract Senior Planner
for the City of Pacific Grove
From: Arnaud Teil <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, August 7, 2025 4:38 PM
To: Joe Sidor <[email protected]>
Cc: Jon Biggs <[email protected]>; Aaron Campbell <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Query re Revisions to the 3rd Draft Housing Element [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.] Thank you very much Joe.
On page D-29 of Appendix D
Programs Revised 4th
Draft
Comment:
Comment expressing concern regarding
drainage and water quality issues
associated with upzoning of R-1 zoned
parcels within the City’s Area of Special
Biological Significance watershed area.
I3.1
Letter I3
PGCC 12-3-25