Pacific Grove City Council
February 4, 2026

CITY COUNCIL

REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
Wednesday, February 4, 2026, 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
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Councilmember Poduri

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 11. Unfinished and Ongoing Business A. Minutes of the January 21, 2026 City Council Regular Meeting Reference: Sandra Kandell, City Clerk
Recommended Action: Approve the 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 11. Unfinished and Ongoing Business or 12. New Business

7. ORDINANCES

7. ORDINANCES
Items pulled from this section will be placed under 10. Public Hearings A. Second reading of an ordinance to amend the City Salary Classification Schedule Range for Code Compliance Officer
Reference: Leticia Livian, Human Resources Director
Recommended Action: Hold second reading and adopt an ordinance to amend the salary classification schedule salary range for Code Compliance Officer.

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 11. Unfinished and Ongoing Business or 12. New Business

9. REPORTS – REQUIRING ACTION
Items pulled from this section will be placed under 11. Unfinished and Ongoing Business or 12. New Business A. FY24/25 Street Rehabilitation Project
Reference: Daniel Gho, Public Works Director/Deputy City Manager Recommended Action:

Authorize an agreement with Kraemer Engineering for the FY24/25 Street Rehabilitation Project on 19th Street, Alder Street and the Alley between 2nd & 4th Street in an amount not to exceed $1,030,963 plus a 15% contingency.

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

CEQA: Categorical Exemption, CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, Class I, Existing Facilities B. Prescott Lane Sidewalk Improvement Project– Award of Contract Reference: Daniel Gho, Public Works Director/Deputy City Manager Recommended Action:

Award an agreement with NXP Engineering in an amount not to exceed $172,915 plus a 15% contingency for the Prescott Lane Sidewalk Improvement Project

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

CEQA: Categorical Exemption, CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, Class I, Existing Facilities C. Appointment of City Manager Pro Tempore
Reference: Matthew Mogensen, City Manager
Recommended Action: Appoint Joyce Halabi, Deputy City Manager, as City Manager pro tempore, effective February 5, 2026.

CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
D. Contract Extension with Access Media Productions (AMP) for Video Production and Broadcast Services for City's Public Meetings.

Reference: Contract Extension with Access Media Productions (AMP) for Video Production and Broadcast Services for City's Public Meetings
Recommended Action: Staff recommends that the City Council approve a three-year extension to the City’s contract with Access Media Productions (AMP) for video production and broadcasting services, with an optional two-year extension exercisable at the City’s discretion.

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 12. New Business

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. Appeal of Architectural Permit (AP) and Coastal Development Permit (CDP) 24-0044 for 685 Mermaid Avenue (APN 006-085-003-000)
Reference: Garrett McCown, Associate Planner
Recommended Action: Deny the appeal and affirm the Planning Commission approval of Architectural Permit (AP) and Coastal Development Permit (CDP) 24-0044, based on findings, conditions of approval, and Class 1 and 31 Categorical Exemptions (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15301, Existing Facilities, and 15331, Historical Resource Restoration and Rehabilitation).

CEQA: Categorical Exemption, CEQA Guidelines 15331, Historical Resources Restoration/Rehabilitation
B. Proposed Urgency Ordinance Repealing and Replacing Chapter 11.72 (Aircraft Landing) Regulating Aircraft Launch and Landing, and to Prohibit Recreational UAS Reference: Matthew Mogensen, City Manager
Recommended Action:

Discuss proposed Urgency Ordinance Repealing and Replacing Chapter 11.72 (Aircraft Landing) Regulating Aircraft Launch and Landing, and to Prohibit Recreational UAS.

1. 2. Request the City Attorney to read the title of the Urgency Ordinance

3. Motion to waive further reading of the ordinances.

Motion Adopt Urgency Ordinance Repealing and Replacing Chapter 11.72 (Aircraft Landing) Regulating Aircraft Launch and Landing, and to Prohibit Recreational UAS.

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

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

12. UNFINISHED AND ONGOING BUSINESS

13. NEW BUSINESS
A. Discussion and possible direction regarding regulation of electric bikes and other electric mobility devices
Reference: Matthew Mogensen, City Manager
Recommended Action:

Receive a presentation regarding the regulatory landscape of human powered bicycles, e-bikes, and other electric mobility devices.

1. Discuss and provide direction to staff regarding amendments, if any, to the existing ordinance.

2. Provide direction to staff whether the amended ordinance should be presented to the Traffic Safety Committee for review and recommendation to the City Council.

3. CEQA: Proposed Ordinance not subject to CEQA based on Guideline Sections: 15060(c)(3) and 15378; 15060(c)(2); 15061(b)(3); and 150308
B. Discussion regarding Chautauqua Hall ownership, uses and responsibilities Reference: Cynthia Garfield
Recommended Action:

Direct staff to investigate and document ownership, rights, allowable activities, and responsibilities for the use of Chautauqua Hall.

1. Direct staff to return to a future City Council Meeting with updates to City Council Policy 100-1 Chautauqua Hall Building, and any necessary recorded document amendments proposed to manage the future use of Chautauqua Hall.

2. CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
C. Recreation Board Committee Recommendation, Metrics Request Reference: Daniel Gho, Public Works Director/Deputy City Manager Recommended Action:

Receive the recommendation report prepared by the Recreation Board and provide direction to staff.

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

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

14. FULL PRESENTATIONS

15. CLOSED SESSION

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

Agenda No. 5 A

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Sandra Kandell, City Clerk/DEI Coordinator
MEETING DATE: February 04, 2026
SUBJECT: Minutes of the January 21, 2026 City Council Regular Meeting CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

RECOMMENDATION
Approve the minutes.

Attachments
Draft Minutes 1-21-26
1 DRAFT MEETING MINUTES

CITY COUNCIL

REGULAR MEETING
Wednesday, January 21, 2026, 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, Councilmembers Garfield, McDonnell, Poduri, Rau and Walkingstick. Absent: Mayor Pro Tem Amelio.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Smith led the pledge of allegiance.

1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Upon motion by Councilmember Rau and seconded by Councilmember Poduri, Council voted 6-0-1, Mayor Pro Tem Amelio absent, to approve the Regular Meeting Agenda.

2. PRESENTATIONS
A. Pacific Grove Rotary Club Presentation by Arlene Hardenstein Action: Council received the presentation.

B. The Little Car Show Presentation by John Moulton
Action: Council received the presentation.

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 Jean Anton, Sally Moore, Jane Haines, Nina Beety, Mike Gibbs, and Carmelita Garcia.

A. Written General Public Comment

CONSENT AGENDA
Action: Upon motion by Councilmember Poduri and seconded by Councilmember McDonnell, Council voted 6-0-1, Mayor Pro Tem Amelio absent, to approve the Consent Agenda, except Consent Agenda item 7B.

Action: Councilmembers Poduri and Rau recused themselves for the vote on Consent Agenda item 7B.

DRAFT
2 Action: Upon motion by Councilmember McDonnell and seconded by Councilmember Garfield, Council voted 4-0-1-2, Mayor Pro Tem Amelio absent, Councilmembers Poduri and Rau recused, to approve Consent Agenda item 7B.

5. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
A. Minutes of the December 17, 2025 City Council Regular Meeting Action: Approved minutes.

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

6. RESOLUTIONS
A. Comment Letter and Resolution Opposing Offshore Drilling and Seabed Mining, and participation in the Local Government Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Coordination Program and Coalition
Action:

1. Submit a letter from the City of Pacific Grove Opposing New and Existing Offshore Oil and Gas Drilling and Seabed Mining.

2. Adopted Resolution No. 26-001 Opposing New and Existing Offshore Oil and Gas Drilling and Seabed Mining.

3. Discussed joining the Local Government OCS Coalition, a coordinated effort among California’s coastal cities and counties to oppose new offshore oil and gas drilling and related threats.

4. Directed staff to return to City Council with an agenda item detailing the Local Government OCS Coalition with an MOU to join the group and collaborate with coalition representatives to ensure timely engagement in federal and state processes affecting offshore drilling and deep-sea mining.

CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
B. Resolution Authorizing Submittal of a 2025 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Application
Action: Adopted Resolution No. 26-002 Authorizing Submittal of a 2025 CDBG Grant Application.

CEQA: Categorical Exemption, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3)

7. ORDINANCES
A. Second reading of an Ordinance to Amend the Salary Schedule (Minimum Wage) Action: Held second reading and adopted Ordinance No. 26-001 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
B. Second reading of ordinances adopting amendments to certain sections and chapters, except for Chapter 23.31, of Title 23, Zoning, of the Pacific Grove Municipal Code and the Zoning Map and amending Chapter 23.31, Commercial and Industrial Zoning Districts, of Title 23, Zoning, of the Pacific Grove Municipal Code.

Action: With recusals by Councilmembers Poduri and Rau, held second reading and DRAFT
3 adopted Ordinance No. 26-002 of the City Council adopting amendments to certain sections and chapters, except for Chapter 23.31, of Title 23, Zoning, of the Pacific Grove Municipal Code and the Zoning Map.

Action: With recusals by Councilmembers Poduri and Rau, held second reading and adopted Ordinance No. 26-003 of the City Council amending Chapter 23.31, Commercial and Industrial Zoning Districts, of Title 23, Zoning, of the Pacific Grove Municipal Code.

CEQA: Environmental Impact Report

8. REPORTS – INFORMATION ONLY
A. Boards Commissions and Committees Quarterly Reports
Action: Received Quarterly Reports from Boards, Commissions and Committees.

CEQA: Proposed Ordinance not subject to CEQA based on Guideline Sections:
15060(c)(3) and 15378; 15060(c)(2); 15061(b)(3); and 150308 B. Monterey Salinas Transit Meeting Minutes of November 10, 2025 and December 8, 2025 Action: Received the minutes.

CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
C. Core Fund Summary and Check Registers - November and December 2025 Action: Received the Check Registers and Core Fund Summary.

CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
D. Quarterly Update to 2025-2027 Community Goals and Workplan Action: Received and filed the 2025-2027 Community Goals and Workplan Matrix Quarterly Update.

CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
E. Report on the December 10, 2026 City/PGUSD Joint Staff Meeting Action: Received and Filed a Summary Meeting Update regarding a December 10, 2026 City/PGUSD Joint Staff Meeting
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

9. REPORTS – REQUIRING ACTION
A. Appointments to City Boards, Committees, Commissions, and Task Force Action: Approved appointments to City Boards, Committees, Commissions, and Task Force as follows:

Charter committees
• Planning Commission - Eugene Loh, Machell Sterbick
Ordinance committees
• Architectural Review Board - Sarah Boyle, Patrick Dennis Carr • Beautification & Natural Resources Commission - Jennifer Gorman, Karen Gunby, DRAFT
4 Patrick Nevis
• Historic Resources Committee - Jean Anton, Steve Covell, Kate Disney, Glynnis Greening
• Task Force on DEI - Kim Bui, Bruce Doneux, Donna Fisher • Traffic Safety Commission - Annie Berlin, Peter Berridge, Jason Collins, Anthony Greening
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
B. Pacific Grove Golf Links Amendment #2, CourseCo
Action: Authorized the execution of Amendment #2, amending the lease agreement for the maintenance and operations of Pacific Grove Golf Links, between the City of Pacific Grove and CourseCo.

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: November 12, 2025 Action: Received the minutes.

CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
B. Library Board Meeting Minutes: November 4, 2025
Action: Received the minutes.

CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
C. Task Force on Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Meeting Minutes: October 13, 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. First reading of an ordinance to amend the City Salary Classification Schedule No public comment received.

Action: Councilmember Garfield requested the City Attorney read the title of the ordinance.

Action: Upon motion by Councilmember Rau and seconded by Councilmember Garfield, Council voted 6-0-1, Mayor Pro Tem Amelio absent, to

2. Waive further reading of the ordinance.

3. Introduce and hold first reading of an ordinance to amend the salary classification schedule salary range for Code Compliance Officer and approve the amendment.

4. Direct that 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 DRAFT
5 Guidelines Section 15378
B. Proposed Ordinances (Regular and Urgency) Amending Chapter 11.72 (Aircraft Landing) And Adding Chapter 9.50 (Regulation Of Uncrewed Aircraft Systems) To The Municipal Code, Regulating Uncrewed Aircraft Systems (UAS) Public comment received from Bill Sherrod, Vicki Pearse, Inge Lorentzen Daumer, and Kim Akeman.

Action: Council discussed proposed Ordinances Amending Chapter 11.72 (Aircraft Landing) And Adding Chapter 9.50 (Regulation Of Uncrewed Aircraft Systems) To The Municipal Code, Regulating Uncrewed Aircraft Systems (UAS).

Action: Upon motion by Councilmember McDonnell and seconded by Councilmember Walkingstick, to waive further reading of the ordinances, introduce and hold first reading of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 11.72 (Aircraft Landing) And Adding Chapter 9.50 (Regulation Of Uncrewed Aircraft Systems) To The Municipal Code, Regulating Uncrewed Aircraft Systems (UAS) with modifications to D as presented on the slide, and direct that publication of the ordinances will be satisfied by publication of a summary approved by the City Attorney;
Motion failed 2-4-1 by the following roll call vote:

Ayes: Councilmembers McDonnell and Walkingstick.

Noes: Mayor Smith, Councilmembers Garfield, Poduri, and Rau.

Absent: Mayor Pro Tem Amelio.

Upon motion by Councilmember McDonnell and seconded by Councilmember Walkingstick, to adopt an Urgency Ordinance Amending Chapter 11.72 (Aircraft Landing) And Adding Chapter 9.50 (Regulation Of Uncrewed Aircraft Systems) To The Municipal Code, Regulating Uncrewed Aircraft Systems (UAS), with modifications by Councilmember McDonnell;
Motion failed 2-4-1 by the following roll call vote:

Ayes: Councilmembers McDonnell and Walkingstick.

Noes: Mayor Smith, Councilmembers Garfield, Poduri, and Rau.

Absent: Mayor Pro Tem Amelio.

Upon motion by Councilmember Rau and seconded by Councilmember Garfield, the Council voted to direct staff to return to Council at its next regular meeting with an urgency ordinance to ban recreational drones.

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

Ayes: Mayor Smith, Councilmembers Garfield, McDonnell, Poduri, Rau, and Walkingstick.

Noes: None.

Absent: Mayor Pro Tem Amelio.

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

12. UNFINISHED AND ONGOING BUSINESS
A. Review the City’s 5-Year General Fund and Infrastructure Needs and the Professional Services Agreement with Props and Measures Public comment received from Christie Italiano Thomas, Carmelita Garcia, Kris Lindstrom, Inge Lorentzen Daumer, Mike Gibbs, and Sally Moore.

Action: Upon motion by Mayor Smith, and seconded by Council Garfield, Council voted 6- 0-1, Mayor Pro Tem Amelio absent, to

1. Review the City’s 5-Year General Fund and Infrastructure Needs.

2. Review the Professional Service Agreement with Props and Measures Scope of Work.

3. Direct staff to proceed with the Professional Services Agreement with Props and Measures as described on November 19, 2025, and return after Phase 1 for further authorization.

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

13. NEW BUSINESS
A. Chautauqua Hall Architectural Award and Funding Agreement Public comment received from Inge Lorentzen Daumer and Christie Italiano Thomas.

Action: Upon motion by Councilmember Garfield and seconded by Councilmember Rau, Council voted 6-0-1, Mayor Pro Tem Amelio absent, to

1. Enter into an agreement with Hunter Porter Eldridge Architecture for Chautauqua Hall Architectural Services in an amount not to exceed $176,608 plus a 10% contingency.

2. Authorize the execution of a funding agreement between the Heritage Society of Pacific Grove and the City for the reimbursement for Architectural Services for Chautauqua Hall.

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
B. Annual Financial Reports and Audit
No public comment received.

Action: Council received the reports noted in this report.

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

14. FULL PRESENTATIONS

15. CLOSED SESSION
DRAFT
7 ADJOURNMENT
Council adjourned the regular meeting at 9:18 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted,
Sandra Kandell
City Clerk
Approved by Mayor: _____________________________________________Date________________ Attest by City Manager: ___________________________________________Date________________ DRAFT
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: Leticia Livian, Human Resources Director
MEETING DATE: February 04, 2026
SUBJECT: Second reading of an ordinance to amend the City Salary Classification Schedule Range for Code Compliance Officer
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 salary range for

DISCUSSION
No substantive changes were made between the first and second readings of this ordinance. The City Clerk caused a summary of this ordinance to be published on January 29, 2026.

The City’s salary schedule identifies job classifications that have been approved by Council (e.g., Administrative Technician) and the hourly rates of pay for each classification at each step authorized by the Personnel Rules.

Pursuant to Charter Article 25 and the Pacific Grove Municipal Code (PGMC) Section 4.20.280, approval and amendment to the salary schedule must be adopted by the Council.

Due to an administrative error, the Code Compliance Officer classification was not updated to reflect the 3% cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) approved for classifications represented by the General Employees Association (GEA). This change was effective the first full pay period of Fiscal Year 25/26. This ordinance corrects the salary schedule accordingly and retroactively for the Code Compliance Officer classification.

The requested change to the salary schedule is for Code Compliance Officer only. All other classifications in the salary schedule remain the same. To view the entire salary schedule, please refer to the City’s website, https://www.cityofpacificgrove.gov/our_city/departments/human_resources/index.php.

The corrected salary range for Code Compliance Officer is listed below.

Classification Step Step Step Step Step Step Step Step
Code Compliance Officer 1A 2B 3C 4D 5E 6F 7G 8H
Hourly Rate 36.62 38.46 40.38 42.40 44.52 45.63 46.77 47.94

OPTIONS
Provide alternative direction to staff.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact as this COLA was budgeted for FY 25/26 FOCUSED PRIORITY AREA: Not Applicable.

Attachments
Proposed Ordinance
ORDINANCE NO. 26-________

ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE

AMENDING THE CLASSIFICATION SCHEDULE FOR CODE COMPLIANCE

OFFICER
Findings

1. City Council approved the General Employees Association (GEA) 3% cost of living adjustment (COLA) for FY 25/26; and

2. Due to an administrative error, the Code Compliance Officer classification was not updated to reflect the COLA; and

3. The COLA is effective July 6, 2025 for GEA classifications; and

4. This ordinance corrects the salary schedule accordingly and retroactively for the Code Compliance Officer classification; and

5. Amendment to the classification plan must be adopted by the City Council pursuant to Charter Article 25 and Pacific Grove Municipal Code (PGMC) Section 4.20.280; and

6. 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 Charter Article 15 and PGMC § 4.20.280 is amended for the Code Compliance Officer classification with the following salary schedule:

Step Step 1A Step 2B Step 3C Step 4D Step 5E Step 6F Step 7G Step 8H Hourly
Rate 36.62 38.46 40.38 42.40 44.52 45.63 46.77 47.94
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. In accord with Article 15 of the City Charter, this ordinance shall become effective on July 6, 2025.

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE this day of February 2026, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

APPROVED:
________________________
NICK SMITH, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
SANDRA KANDELL, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________________
ALEX LORCA, City Attorney
Agenda No. 9 A

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Daniel Gho, Public Works Director/Deputy City Manager MEETING DATE: February 04, 2026
SUBJECT: FY24/25 Street Rehabilitation Project
CEQA: Categorical Exemption, CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, Class I, Existing Facilities

RECOMMENDATION
Authorize an agreement with Kraemer Engineering for the FY24/25 Street Rehabilitation Project on 19th Street, Alder Street and the Alley between 2nd & 4th Street in an amount not to exceed $1,030,963 plus a 15% contingency.

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

DISCUSSION
The FY24/25 Street Rehabilitation Project was approved as part of the FY24/25 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) to address the aging road infrastructure network on:
· 19th Street, from Sunset to Sinex (PCI 3) (Base bid)
· Alder Street between Pine and Short Street (PCI 0) (bid additive) · Alley between 2nd Street and 4Th Street (PCI 0) (bid additive) These segments were selected for rehabilitation based on a thorough review of the City’s Pavement Management Program, existing road conditions, and in-field observations.

Existing Conditions
None of these road segments have ever received a formal rehabilitation treatment for the last 30 or more years; they are all in a failed state and in dire need of replacement. All these roads have significantly deteriorated and need immediate attention.

Engineering Process
During the engineering phase, underground infrastructure was CCTV videoed to assess existing sewer main line conditions. It was anticipated, based on the age of the lines and construction records, that some of the segments of the sewer infrastructure would need to be replaced. As such, the project budget included Sewer Enterprise Funds to address this anticipated need.

While videoing, staff discovered that portions of the sewer lines on 19th Street is in a deteriorated state and needs replacement. Only 30 feet of sewer line needs to be replaced, but the City will add a manhole at the end of the line and remove and reconstruct another manhole on 19th Street. at the end of the line and remove and reconstruct another manhole on 19th Street.

Competitive Bidding Process
Construction documents were completed in November of 2025 and a request for proposals was issued.

On January 8, 2026 the bid period closed. Seven (7) bids were received:

Contractor Base Bid
Kraemer Engineering $750,778.00
Spektren Engineering $776,214.29
Precision Grade $795,177.00
Coastal Paving & Excavating $803,830.00
Monterey Peninsula Engineering $814,695.00
McKim Corporation $830,017.00
Don Chapin 1,031,905.00
Kraemer Engineering has been qualified as the lowest, responsible bidder. Their base bid was competitive and is below the engineer's estimate, which is $821,500. Kraemer is well qualified to perform this work. In addition to the base bid, 19th Street drainage and sewer improvements, which is the price noted above, the City incorporated two bid additives to the project. Alder between Pine and Short and the alley between 2nd and 4th Street. In the bidding documents, the City specified that the award of the contract is based on the Base Bid proposal cost. The received base bid from Kraemer is within our budget thresholds and well within the allocated funds for the project, which allows the City to also award bid for the two additional road segments. Kraemer’s total bid, including the two bid additives, is $1,030,963.

Scope of Work
The scope of work for the FY24/25 Street Rehabilitation Project bid includes:
· Reconstruction of 26,700 SF of deteriorated pavement
· 2.5-inch overlay on 19th street equating to 850 tons of asphalt · Construction of 9 curb ramps
· Reconstruction of 950 SF of sidewalk
· Construction of 90 LF of curb and gutter
· Replacement of 30 LF of sewer main line
· Reconstruction of 2 manholes
· Reconstruct 117 LF of storm drain
Agreement
If awarded, Staff will begin collecting the necessary insurance documents and prepare the agreement, harnessing the standard construction contract approved by the City’s insurer, California Joint Powers Insurance Authority (CJPIA).

Construction Schedule
Following contract execution, a pre-construction meeting will be held to determine a project schedule.

It is anticipated that work will commence shortly after contract execution.

OPTIONS
· Authorize the agreement
· Authorize the agreement
· Do not authorize the agreement.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

The total approved project budget is $1,716,065, derived from the Capital Improvement Fund, Measure X, Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA), and the Sewer Fund as specified below.

To date, approximately $142,116 has been spent on engineering and CCTV, derived from Fund 63, leaving $1.57 million of construction funding.

There is sufficient funding to allow for the road improvements.

Funding Source Approved Budget Funding Needed for Construction Fund 63 – Capital Improvement Fund $300,000 15% Contingency $154,644 Fund 17 – Measure X $730,000 $706,703
Fund 47- RMRA (SB1) $386,065 $280,185
Fund 76- Sewer Fund $300,000 $44,075
TOTAL $1,716,065 Total plus 15% $1,187,607
FOCUSED PRIORITY AREA: Infrastructure
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: Daniel Gho, Public Works Director/Deputy City Manager MEETING DATE: February 04, 2026
SUBJECT: Prescott Lane Sidewalk Improvement Project– Award of Contract CEQA: Categorical Exemption, CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, Class I, Existing Facilities

RECOMMENDATION
Authorize an agreement with Kraemer Engineering for the FY24/25 Street Rehabilitation Project on 19th Street, Alder Street and the Alley between 2nd & 4th Street in an amount not to exceed $1,030,963 plus a 15% contingency.

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

DISCUSSION
As part of the FY25/26 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), the City Council approved ADA Mandated sidewalk projects on Prescott Lane and at Lovers Point Park (CIP 26-02) with an initial budget of $450,000 funded from the General Fund and Fund 17, Measure X. City staff had to separate the two projects as the Lovers Point portion requires a Coastal Development Permit (CDP), which City Staff is in the process of obtaining through the CDP process. Once Staff has the permit for the Lovers Point Sidewalk we will issue an RFP for that portion of sidewalk. City staff is only bringing forward the Prescott Lane portion of the project with this bid award.

This Prescott Lane project aims to infill sidewalks and improve pedestrian safety along Prescott Lane, between Divisadero Street and Forest Avenue, on both the South and North sides of Prescott. Prescott Lane is a heavily trafficked roadway and provides access to the local schools, residences, and commercial areas.

In November of 2025, the City issued a call for bids for the installation of sidewalks along Prescott Lane. The bidding period closed on January 8, 2026, and 13 bids were received:

Contractor Bid Amount
NPX Engineering $172,915.00
Spektren Engineering $211,575.00
FBD Vanguard Construction, Inc $214,770.00
Kraemer Engineering $215,475.00
JMS Cement $228,650.00
Precision Grade, Inc. $261,650.00
Golz Construction $264,481.05
RS Milestone General Engineering $273,300.00
Monterey Peninsula Engineering $275,135.00
Don Chapin Company $322,945.00
Coastal Paving & Excavation $355,250.00
BNO Builders $418,054.89
Anderson Pacific $427,750.00
NPX Engineering has qualified as the lowest responsible bidder.

SCOPE OF WORK
The scope of work includes:
· Installation of 2150 SF of sidewalk
· Installation of 95 LF of curb and gutter
· Installation and/or reconstruction of 4 driveway approaches · Construction of 3 curb ramps

AGREEMENT
If approved, the City’s standard construction agreement template will be used. This agreement has been approved by the California Joint Powers Authority (CJPIA) and the City Attorney’s Office.

CONSTRUCTION TIMING & UPDATES
If the contract is awarded, the agreement will be executed, and construction will begin promptly.

Regular updates will be shared in the City Manager’s Report.

OPTIONS

1. Authorize the agreement

2. Do not approve the agreement
FINANCIAL IMPACT:

The Sidewalk Project on Prescott Lane and Lovers Point Park(CIP26-02) was approved in the FY25/26 CIP with a budget from the General Fund (Fund 63) of $200,000, with an additional $250,000 derived from Measure X (Fund 17). There is ample funding to complete the Prescott Lane Project, and it is anticipated that the Lovers Point project will be able to be completed within the allocated funds for CIP 26-02. City staff will release the RFP for Lovers Point Sidewalk once the CDP is issued, which should be in March of 2026.

FOCUSED PRIORITY AREA: Infrastructure
Agenda No. 9 C

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Matthew Mogensen, City Manager
MEETING DATE: February 04, 2026
SUBJECT: Appointment of City Manager Pro Tempore
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

RECOMMENDATION
Appoint Joyce Halabi, Deputy City Manager, as City Manager pro tempore, effective February 5, 2026.

DISCUSSION
If there is no Assistant City Manager, Article 20 of the Charter requires the Council to appoint a City Manager pro tempore to act in the absence from the City of the City Manager, or in the event the City Manager becomes temporarily disabled.

Ms. Halabi has worked for the City of Pacific Grove since June 2017. Prior to May of 2025, Ms. Halabi was the Deputy Public Works Director for the City. This position held a great deal of responsibility in the City’s largest department. This experience allowed her to have exposure and experience working with all other departments in the City. In the Deputy City Manager role, Ms. Halabi has already become a central member of the City’s leadership team and is involved in much of the everyday business of the City. She has also earned her Master of Public Affairs from UC Berkeley.

The key ability for the City Manager pro tempore is to be able to assume the duties of the City Manager, working with staff and the Council to address situations as they arise, and resolve them for the benefit of the community. Good judgment, knowledge of the City, and an ability to receive conflicting advice, weigh their relative merits, and make the best possible decision under conditions of uncertainly, are all relevant criteria. Based on these criteria, Ms. Halabi is a great candidate among the City staff.

OPTIONS

1. Do nothing. Not recommended given the Charter requirement.

2. Appoint someone else.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

There is no financial impact as a result of this item. Should the City Manager Pro Tempore assume the There is no financial impact as a result of this item. Should the City Manager Pro Tempore assume the duties of the City Manager for the reasons outlined in this report, there is an already established salary schedule in place that will apply.

FOCUSED PRIORITY AREA: Not Applicable.

Attachments
Written public comment
Outlook
Public Comment: Agenda Item 9C – February 4, 2026 CC Meeting From Luke Coletti <[email protected]>
Date Sat 1/31/2026 6:36 AM
To City Council Members <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]> Cc Matthew Mogensen <[email protected]>; Alex J. Lorca <[email protected]> [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.] Greetings -
I appreciate the Council’s action and note that it addresses the concern I raised in my July 23, 2025 correspondence regarding compliance with the City Charter.

Thank you.

Luke Coletti
On Jul 23, 2025, at 6:48 PM, Luke Coletti <[email protected]> wrote:

Brian  -
The City is not in compliance with City Charter Article 20 - the City does not currently have an Assistant City Manager and no active City employee has been appointed by the City Council to serve as the City Manager pro tempore.

Thank you.

Luke Coletti
https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/PacificGrove/#!/PacificGroveCH.html#Article20 Article 20 City Manager Pro Tempore
In case of the absence from the City of the City Manager, or the City Manager’s temporary disability to act as such, the Council shall appoint a City Manager pro tempore who shall possess the powers and discharge the duties of the City Manager during such absence or disability only; provided, however, that a City Manager pro tempore shall have no authority to appoint or remove any City officer or employee; provided that the Assistant City Manager (if any) shall be the City Manager pro tempore. If there is no Assistant City Manager, then the Council shall appoint a City Manager pro tempore as provided above. (Amended in the November 6, 1990 general election).

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:

MEETING DATE: February 04, 2026
SUBJECT: Contract Extension with Access Media Productions (AMP) for Video Production and Broadcast Services for City's Public Meetings.

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

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council approve a three year contract extension with Access Media Productions (AMP) for continued video production and meeting broadcasting services, with an optional two year extension exercisable at the City’s discretion. This action will ensure uninterrupted coverage of City Council meetings and maintain the City’s commitment to transparency and public accessibility.

DISCUSSION
Access Media Productions (AMP) has provided the City with professional video production, televised meeting broadcasting, and related media services for many years. AMP plays a key role in supporting the City’s transparency and public engagement efforts by ensuring that City Council meetings, commission meetings, and other public events are reliably recorded, broadcast, and archived for community access. The City's agreement with AMP expired in July 2025.

Staff recommends continuing with Tier 3 services, consistent with the level previously selected and approved by the City Council. Tier 3 provides comprehensive coverage and best supports the City’s ongoing communication and transparency objectives.

Tier 3 Services – $52,000 Annually
Production and coverage of all City Council meetings and special events (up to 35 per year) Broadcast of City Council meetings on the Peninsula Channel Live-streaming of meetings to the City’s designated online platforms Delivery of meeting files for video on demand (VOD) use Frequent replays of meetings on the Peninsula Channel, along with the ability to broadcast other City's authorized programming.

OPTIONS

1. Approve the contract extension (recommended).

2. Direct staff to issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) for video production services.

Take no action, which would result in the expiration of the current contract and potential disruption to meeting broadcasting services.

3. FINANCIAL IMPACT:

The annual cost for Tier 3 services is $52,000, consistent with prior years and funded through the State Franchise PEG Fund in the adopted budget. No additional appropriations are required at this time. If the City elects to exercise the optional two-year extension, the necessary funding will be incorporated into future budget cycles.

GOAL ALIGNMENT: Not Applicable.

Attachments
Professional Services Agreement - AMP - Draft -012626 - MK Exhibit A - Scope of Services - AMP - Draft - 012626 - MK Exhibit B - Broadcast packages & pricing - AMP - 012626 - MK Professional Services Agreement 07.19.2022

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
This PROFESSIONAL SERVICE AGREEMENT (“PSA”) FOR NON-CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS (“Agreement”), is made and effective as of August 1, 2025, between the City of Pacific Grove (“City”), a municipal corporation and Access Media Production (AMP), (“CONSULTANT”).

In consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows:

1. TERM
This Agreement shall commence on February 5, 2026, and shall remain and continue in effect until the tasks described herein are completed, but in no event later than June 30, 2028, with an option to renew for additional two years, unless sooner terminated pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement.

2. SCOPE OF WORK
CONSULTANT shall perform the tasks and services (“Services”) described and set forth in Exhibit A, Scope of Services, attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full.

CONSULTANT shall complete the tasks according to the schedule of performance which is also set forth in Exhibit A. To the extent that Exhibit A is a proposal from CONSULTANT, such proposal is incorporated only for the description of the Scope of Services and no other terms and conditions from any such proposal shall apply to this Agreement unless specifically agreed to in writing.

3. PERFORMANCE
CONSULTANT shall at all times faithfully, competently and to the best of their ability, experience, and talent, perform all Services described herein. CONSULTANT shall employ, at a minimum, generally accepted standards and practices utilized by persons engaged in providing similar services as are required of CONSULTANT hereunder in meeting their obligations under this Agreement.

4. CITY MANAGEMENT
The City Manager, or their designee, shall represent City in all matters pertaining to the administration of this Agreement, review and approval of all products submitted by CONSULTANT, but not including the authority to enlarge the Scope of Work or change the compensation due to CONSULTANT. The City Manager shall be authorized to act on City’s behalf and to execute all necessary documents that enlarge the Scope of Work or change CONSULTANT’s compensation, subject to Section 6 hereof.

5. PAYMENT
a. The City agrees to pay CONSULTANT monthly, in accordance with the payment rates and terms and the Payment Schedule as set forth in Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full, based upon actual time spent on the above

Professional Services Agreement 07.19.2022
tasks. This amount shall not exceed $52,000 annually for the Tier 3 plan for total term of the Agreement unless additional payment is approved as provided in this Agreement. b. The City Manager’s contract authority is limited to $39,999.99, which includes all costs.

Contracts, including any contract amendments that exceed the total threshold, require City Council approval. Any contracts, including contract amendments that exceed the total threshold, which do not have City Council approval, shall be void. c. CONSULTANT shall not be compensated for any Services rendered in connection with its performance of this Agreement that are in addition to those set forth herein, unless such additional services are authorized in advance and in writing by the City Manager or the City Council. CONSULTANT shall be compensated for any additional services in the amounts and in the manner as agreed to by City Manager and CONSULTANT at the time City’s written authorization is given to CONSULTANT for the performance of said services. d. CONSULTANT shall submit invoices monthly for actual Services performed. Invoices shall be submitted on or about the first business day of each month, or as soon thereafter as practical, for Services provided in the previous month. Payment shall be made within thirty (30) days of receipt of each invoice as to all non-disputed fees. If the City disputes any of CONSULTANT’s fees it shall give written notice to CONSULTANT within thirty (30) days of receipt of an invoice of any disputed fees set forth on the invoice. Any final payment under this Agreement shall be made within forty-five (45) days of receipt of an invoice therefore.

6. INSPECTION
City shall at all times have the right to inspect the work and materials. CONSULTANT shall furnish all reasonable aid and assistance required by City for the proper examination of the work and all parts thereof. Such inspection shall not relieve CONSULTANT from any obligation to perform said work strictly in accordance with the specifications or any modifications thereof and in compliance with the law.

7. SUSPENSION OR TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT WITHOUT CAUSE a. The City may at any time, for any reason, without cause, suspend or terminate this Agreement, or any portion hereof, by serving upon CONSULTANT at least thirty (30) days prior written notice. Upon receipt of said notice, CONSULTANT shall immediately cease all Services under this Agreement, unless the notice provides otherwise. If the City suspends or terminates a portion of this Agreementsuch suspension or termination shall not make void or invalidate the remainder of this Agreement. b. In the event this Agreement is terminated pursuant to this Section, the City shall pay to CONSULTANT the actual value of the Services performed up to the time of termination, provided that the Services performed are of value to the City. Upon termination of the Agreement pursuant to this Section, CONSULTANT will submit an invoice to the City pursuant to Section 6.

Professional Services Agreement 07.19.2022

8. DEFAULT OF CONSULTANT
a. CONSULTANT’s failure to comply with the provisions of this Agreement shall constitute a default. In the event that CONSULTANT is in default for cause under the terms of this Agreement, City shall have no obligation or duty to continue compensating CONSULTANT for any Services performed after the date of default and can terminate this Agreement immediately by written notice to the CONSULTANT. If such failure by the CONSULTANT to make progress in the performance of Services hereunder arises out of causes beyond the CONSULTANT’s control, and without fault or negligence of the CONSULTANT, it shall not be considered a default.
b. If the City Manager or designee determines CONSULTANT is in default in the performance of any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement, they shall cause to be served upon CONSULTANT a written notice of the default. The CONSULTANT shall have ten (10) days after service upon it of said notice in which to cure the default by rendering a satisfactory performance. In the event CONSULTANT fails to cure its default within such period of time or fails to present City with a written plan for the cure of the default, City shall have the right, notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, to terminate this Agreement without further notice and without prejudice to any other remedy to which it may be entitled at law, in equity or under this Agreement.

9. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS
a. CONSULTANT shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to sales, costs, expenses, receipts, and other such information required by City that relate to the performance of Services under this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall maintain adequate records of Services provided in sufficient detail to permit an evaluation of Services. All such records shall be maintained in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and shall be clearly identified and readily accessible. CONSULTANT shall provide free access to the representatives of City or its designees at reasonable times to such books and records; shall give City the right to examine and audit said books and records; shall permit City to make transcripts or copies therefrom as necessary; and shall allow inspection of all work, data, documents, proceedings, and activities related to this Agreement. If there is a substantial billing deviation adverse to City, then the cost of an audit shall be borne by CONSULTANT. Such records, together with supporting documents, shall be maintained for a period of five (5) years after receipt of final payment. b. Upon completion of, or in the event of termination or suspension of this Agreement, all original documents, designs, drawings, maps, models, computer files, surveys, notes, and other documents prepared in the course of providing the Services to be performed pursuant to this Agreement shall become the sole property of City and may be used, reused, or otherwise disposed of by City without the permission of CONSULTANT. With respect to computer files, CONSULTANT shall make available to City, at CONSULTANT’s office and upon reasonable written request by City, the necessary computer software and hardware for purposes of accessing, compiling, transferring, copying and/or printing computer files.

CONSULTANT hereby grants to City all right, title, and interest, including any copyright, in and to the documents, designs, drawings, maps, models, computer files, surveys, notes,

Professional Services Agreement 07.19.2022
and other documents prepared by CONSULTANT in the course of providing the Services under this Agreement.

10. RECORD AUDIT
In accordance with Government Code, Section 8546.7, for expenditures of greater than $10,000, records of both City and CONSULTANT shall be subject to examination and audit by the Auditor General for a period of three (3) years after final payment.

11. INDEMNIFICATION AND DEFENSE
Indemnity
To the fullest extent permitted by law, CONSULTANT shall indemnify and hold harmless City and any and all of its officers, employees and agents (“Indemnified Parties”) from and against any and all losses, liabilities, damages, costs and expenses, including legal counsel’s fees and costs, caused in whole or in part by the negligent or wrongful act, error or omission of CONSULTANT, its officers, agents, employees or subconsultants (or any City or individual that CONSULTANT shall bear the legal liability thereof) in the performance of Services under this Agreement. CONSULTANT’s duty to indemnify and hold harmless City shall not extend to the City’s sole or active negligence.

Duty to defend
In the event City, its officers, employees, agents and/or volunteers are made a party to any action, lawsuit, or other adversarial proceeding arising from the performance of the Services encompassed by this Agreement, and upon demand by City, CONSULTANT shall defend City at CONSULTANT’s cost or at City’s option, to reimburse City for its costs of defense, including reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred in the defense of such matters to the extent the matters arise from, relate to or are caused by CONSULTANT’s negligent acts, errors or omissions. Payment by City is not a condition precedent to enforcement of this indemnity. In the event of any dispute between CONSULTANT and City, as to whether liability arises from the sole or active negligence of the City or its officers, employees, or agents, CONSULTANT will be obligated to pay for City’s defense until such time as a final judgment has been entered adjudicating the City as solely or actively negligent. CONSULTANT will not be entitled in the absence of such a determination to any reimbursement of defense costs including but not limited to attorney’s fees, expert fees and costs of litigation.

12. INSURANCE
CONSULTANT shall maintain prior to the beginning of and for the duration of this Agreement insurance coverage as specified in Exhibit C attached to and part of this Agreement.

13. INDEPENDENT CONSULTANT
a. CONSULTANT is and shall at all times remain as to City a wholly independent consultant and/or independent contractor. The personnel performing the Services under this Agreement on behalf of CONSULTANT shall at all times be under

Professional Services Agreement 07.19.2022
CONSULTANT’s exclusive direction and control. Neither City nor any of its officers, employees, or agents shall have control over the conduct of CONSULTANT or any of CONSULTANT’s officers, employees, or agents, except as set forth in this Agreement.

CONSULTANT shall not at any time or in any manner represent that it or any of its officers, employees, or agents are in any manner officers, employees, or agents of City.

CONSULTANT shall not incur or have the power to incur any debt, obligation, or liability whatever against City, or bind City in any manner. b. No employee benefits shall be available to CONSULTANT in connection with the performance of this Agreement. Except for the fees paid to CONSULTANT as provided in the Agreement, City shall not pay salaries, wages, or other compensation to CONSULTANT for performing Services hereunder for City. City shall not be liable for compensation or indemnification to CONSULTANT for injury or sickness arising out of performing Services hereunder.

14. LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES
CONSULTANT shall keep itself informed of State and Federal laws and regulations that in any manner affect those employed by it or in any way affect the performance of its Services pursuant to this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall at all times observe and comply with all such laws and regulations. City, and its officers, employees, and agents shall not be liable at law or in equity occasioned by failure of the CONSULTANT to comply with this Section.

15. UNDUE INFLUENCE
CONSULTANT declares and warrants that no undue influence or pressure was used against or in concert with any officer, employee or agent of City in connection with the award, terms or implementation of this Agreement, including any method of coercion, confidential financial arrangement, or financial inducement. No officer, employee or agent of City has or will receive compensation, directly or indirectly, from CONSULTANT, or from any officer, employee or agent of CONSULTANT, in connection with the award of this Agreement or any Services to be performed as a result of this Agreement. Violation of this Section shall be a material breach of this Agreement entitling City to any and all remedies at law or in equity.

16. NO BENEFIT TO ARISE TO CITY OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES
No officer, employee of City, or their designees or agents, and no public official who exercises authority over or responsibilities with respect to the Services performed under the Agreement during their tenure or for one year thereafter, shall have any interest, direct or indirect, in any agreement or sub-agreement, or the proceeds thereof, for work to be performed in connection with the Services performed under this Agreement.

17. RELEASE OF INFORMATION/CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
a. All information gained by CONSULTANT in performance of this Agreement shall be considered confidential and shall not be released by CONSULTANT without City’s prior written authorization. CONSULTANT, its officers, employees, agents, or subconsultants, shall not without written authorization from the City Manager or unless

Professional Services Agreement 07.19.2022
requested by the City Attorney, voluntarily provide declarations, letters of support, testimony at depositions, response to interrogatories, or other information concerning the work performed under this Agreement or relating to any project or property located within the City. Response to a subpoena or court order shall not be considered “voluntary” provided CONSULTANT gives City notice of such court order or subpoena.
b. CONSULTANT shall promptly notify CITY should CONSULTANT, its officers, employees, agents, or subconsultants be served with any summons, complaint, subpoena, notice of deposition, request for documents, interrogatories, request for admissions, or other discovery request (“Discovery”), court order, or subpoena from any person or party regarding this Agreement and the work performed there under or with respect to any project or property located within the City, unless City is a party to any lawsuit, arbitration, or administrative proceeding connected to such Discovery, or unless CONSULTANT is prohibited by law from informing City of such Discovery.

City retains the right, but has no obligation, to represent CONSULTANT and/or be present at any deposition, hearing, or similar proceeding as allowed by law. Unless City is a party to the lawsuit, arbitration, or administrative proceeding and is adverse to CONSULTANT in such proceeding, CONSULTANT agrees to cooperate fully with City and to provide the opportunity to review any response to discovery requests provided by CONSULTANT. However, City’s right to review any such response does not imply or mean the right by City to control, direct, or rewrite said response. c. If City determines CONTRACTOR comes within the definition of Contractor under the Political Reform Act (Government Code §87100 et seq.), CONTRACTOR shall complete and file and shall require any other person doing Work under this Agreement to complete and file a “Statement of Economic Interest” with CITY disclosing CONTRACTOR’s and/or such other person’s financial interests.

18. DISCRIMINATION
CONSULTANT agrees that in the performance of this Agreement, neither CONSULTANT nor any person acting on CONSULTANT’s behalf shall discriminate against any person on the basis of race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sexual orientation, sex, gender identity, gender expression, military or veteran status or age.

19. NOTICES
Any notices which either party may desire to give to the other party under this Agreement must be in writing and may be given either by (i) personal service, (ii) delivery by a reputable document delivery service, such as but not limited to, Federal Express, which provides a receipt showing date and time of delivery, or (iii) mailing in the United States Mail, by first class mail, addressed to the address of the party as set forth below or at any other address as that party may later designate by notice:

Professional Services Agreement 07.19.2022
To City:

City of Pacific Grove
300 Forest Avenue
Pacific Grove, CA 93950
Attention: Chief Information Officer
To CONSULTANT: Access Media Productions
465 Tyler St
Monterey, CA 93940
Attention: Executive Director
Notice is effective on the date of personal service, or 5 days following deposit in a United States mailbox, or date of postmark. The parties may agree to service by email.

20. THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES
Nothing contained in this Agreement shall be construed to create, and the parties do not intend to create, any rights in third parties.

21. ASSIGNMENT
CONSULTANT shall not assign the performance of this Agreement, nor any part thereof, nor any monies due hereunder, without prior written consent of CITY. Because of the personal nature of the Services to be rendered pursuant to this Agreement, only CONSULTANT shall perform the Services described in this Agreement. CONSULTANT may use assistants, under their direct supervision, to perform some of the Services under this Agreement.

22. LICENSES
At all times during the term of this Agreement, CONSULTANT shall have in full force and effect, all licenses required of it by law for the performance of the Services described in this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall obtain a valid City Business License and shall maintain said Business License for the term of this Agreement and any extensions.

23. GOVERNING LAW
City and CONSULTANT understand and agree that the laws of the State of California shall govern the rights, obligations, duties, and liabilities of the parties to this Agreement and also govern the interpretation of this Agreement. Any litigation concerning this Agreement shall take place in Monterey County, or federal district court with jurisdiction over City.

CONSULTANT agrees not to commence or prosecute any dispute arising out of or in connection with this Agreement other than in the aforementioned courts and irrevocably consents to the exclusive personal jurisdiction and venue of the aforementioned courts.

Professional Services Agreement 07.19.2022

24. ENTIRE AGREEMENT
This Agreement contains the entire understanding between the parties relating to their obligations described in this Agreement. All prior or contemporaneous agreements, understandings, representations, and statements, oral or written and pertaining to the subject of this Agreement or with respect to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, are merged into this Agreement and shall be of no further force or effect. Each party is entering into this Agreement based solely upon the representations set forth herein and upon each party’s own independent investigation of any and all facts such party deems material. No amendment shall be valid unless in writing, executed by both parties.

25. DISPUTE RESOLUTION; ATTORNEY’S FEES
CONSULTANT shall continue to perform under this Agreement during any dispute.

CONSULTANT and City hereby agree to make good faith efforts to resolve disputes as quickly as possible. In the event any dispute arising from or related to this Agreement results in litigation or arbitration, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover all reasonable costs incurred, including court costs, attorney fees, expenses for expert witnesses (whether or not called to testify), expenses for accountants or appraisers(whether or not called to testify), and other related expenses. Recovery of these expenses shall be as additional costs awarded to the prevailing party, and shall not require initiation of a separate legal proceeding.

26. WORK SCHEDULED/TIME OF COMPLETION
City and CONSULTANT agree that time is of the essence in this Agreement.

27. AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE THIS AGREEMENT
The person or persons executing this Agreement on behalf of CONSULTANT warrants and represents that they have the authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of the CONSULTANT and have the authority to bind CONSULTANT to the performance of its obligations hereunder.

28. INTERPRETATION OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS
In the event of any conflict or inconsistency between the provisions of this Agreement and the Provisions of any exhibit or other attachment to this Agreement, the provisions of this Agreement shall prevail and control.

29. SEVERABILITY
If any term of this Agreement is held invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction or arbitrator the remainder of this Agreement shall remain in effect.

Professional Services Agreement 07.19.2022
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written.

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE CONSULTANT
By:

Risk Manager
Date:

By: By:

Department Director Consultant
Date: Date:

By: ___________________________ By: ____________________________ City Manager or Mayor City Administrative Services Department Date: ___________________________ Date: ___________________________ Approved As To Form:

City Attorney
_______________________________
Date

Professional Services Agreement 07.19.2022
Attachments: Exhibit A Scope of Services and Contractor Terms Exhibit B Payment Schedule and Contractor Pricing Options Exhibit C Insurance Requirements

EXHIBIT A

SCOPE OF SERVICES AND CONTRACTOR TERMS

Professional Services Agreement 07.19.2022

EXHIBIT B

PAYMENT SCHEDULE AND CONTRACTOR PRICING OPTIONS

Professional Services Agreement 07.19.2022

EXHIBIT C

INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
Without limiting CONSULTANT’s indemnification of City, and prior to commencement of Work, CONSULTANT shall obtain, provide and maintain at its own expense during the term of this Agreement, policies of insurance of the type and amounts described below and in a form satisfactory to City.

General liability insurance. CONSULTANT shall maintain commercial general liability insurance with coverage at least as broad as Insurance Services Office form CG 00 01, in an amount not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence, $2,000,000 general aggregate, for bodily injury, personal injury, and property damage. The policy must include contractual liability that has not been amended. Any endorsement restricting standard ISO “insured contract” language will not be accepted.

Automobile liability insurance. CONSULTANT shall maintain automobile insurance at least as broad as Insurance Services Office form CA 00 01 covering bodily injury and property damage for all activities of the Consultant arising out of or in connection with Work to be performed under this Agreement, including coverage for any owned, hired, non-owned or rented vehicles, in an amount not less than $1,000,000 combined single limit for each accident.

Professional liability (errors & omissions) insurance. CONSULTANT shall maintain professional liability insurance that covers the Services to be performed in connection with this Agreement, in the minimum amount of $1,000,000 per claim and in the aggregate. Any policy inception date, continuity date, or retroactive date must be before the effective date of this Agreement and CONSULTANT agrees to maintain continuous coverage through a period no less than three (3) years after completion of the Services required by this Agreement.

Note: May need to delete workers’ compensation and employer’s liability insurance requirements for certain sole proprietorships, partnerships, or corporations without employees.

Workers’ compensation insurance. CONSULTANT shall maintain Workers’ Compensation Insurance (Statutory Limits) and Employer’s Liability Insurance (with limits of at least $1,000,000).

CONSULTANT shall submit to CITY, along with the certificate of insurance, a Waiver of Subrogation endorsement in favor of CITY, its officers, agents, employees and volunteers.

Umbrella or excess liability insurance. [Optional depending on limits required]. CONSULTANT shall obtain and maintain an umbrella or excess liability insurance policy with limits that will provide bodily injury, personal injury and property damage liability coverage at least as broad as the primary coverages set forth above, including commercial general liability, automobile liability, and employer’s liability. Such policy or policies shall include the following terms and conditions:
• A drop down feature requiring the policy to respond if any primary insurance that would otherwise have applied proves to be uncollectible in whole or in part for any reason;
• Pay on behalf of wording as opposed to reimbursement;

Professional Services Agreement 07.19.2022
• Concurrency of effective dates with primary policies; • Policies shall “follow form” to the underlying primary policies; and • Insureds under primary policies shall also be insureds under the umbrella or excess policies.

Other provisions or requirements
Proof of insurance. CONSULTANT shall provide certificates of insurance to City as evidence of the insurance coverage required herein, along with a waiver of subrogation endorsement for workers’ compensation. Insurance certificates and endorsements must be approved by City’s Risk Manager prior to commencement of performance. Current certification of insurance shall be kept on file with City at all times during the term of this contract. City reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, at any time.

Duration of coverage. CONSULTANT shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property, which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the Work hereunder by CONSULTANT, his agents, representatives, employees or subconsultants.

Primary/noncontributing.Coverage provided by CONSULTANT shall be primary and any insurance or self-insurance procured or maintained by City shall not be required to contribute with it. The limits of insurance required herein may be satisfied by a combination of primary and umbrella or excess insurance. Any umbrella or excess insurance shall contain or be endorsed to contain a provision that such coverage shall also apply on a primary and non-contributory basis for the benefit of City before the City’s own insurance or self-insurance shall be called upon to protect it as a named insured.

City’s rights of enforcement. In the event any policy of insurance required under this Agreement does not comply with these specifications or is canceled and not replaced, City has the right but not the duty to obtain the insurance it deems necessary and any premium paid by City will be promptly reimbursed by CONSULTANT or City will withhold amounts sufficient to pay premium from CONSULTANT payments. In the alternative, City may cancel this Agreement.

Acceptable insurers. All insurance policies shall be issued by an insurance company currently authorized by the Insurance Commissioner to transact business of insurance or is on the List of Approved Surplus Line Insurers in the State of California, with an assigned policyholders’ Rating of A- (or higher) and Financial Size Category Class VI (or larger) in accordance with the latest edition of Best’s Key Rating Guide, unless otherwise approved by the City’s Risk Manager.

Waiver of subrogation. All insurance coverage maintained or procured pursuant to this agreement shall be endorsed to waive subrogation against CITY, its elected or appointed officers, agents, employees and volunteers or shall specifically allow CONSULTANT or others providing insurance evidence in compliance with these specifications to waive their right of recovery prior to a loss.

CONSULTANT hereby waives its own right of recovery against City, and shall require similar written express waivers and insurance clauses from each of its subconsultants.

Professional Services Agreement 07.19.2022
Enforcement of contract provisions (non estoppel). CONSULTANT acknowledges and agrees that any actual or alleged failure on the part of the City to inform CONSULTANT of non-compliance with any requirement imposes no additional obligations on the City nor does it waive any rights hereunder.

Requirements not limiting. Requirements of specific coverage features or limits contained in this Section are not intended as a limitation on coverage, limits or other requirements, or a waiver of any coverage normally provided by any insurance. Specific reference to a given coverage feature is for purposes of clarification only as it pertains to a given issue and is not intended by any party or insured to be all inclusive, or to the exclusion of other coverage, or a waiver of any type. If the Consultant maintains higher limits than the minimums shown above, the City requires and shall be entitled to coverage for the higher limits maintained by the Consultant. Any available insurance proceeds in excess of the specified minimum limits of insurance and coverage shall be available to the City.

Notice of cancellation. Consultant agrees to oblige its insurance agent or broker and insurers to provide to CITY with a thirty (30) day notice of cancellation (except for nonpayment for which a ten (10) day notice is required) or nonrenewal of coverage for each required coverage.

Additional insured status. General liability policies shall provide or be endorsed to provide that City and its officers, employees, agents, and volunteers shall be additional insureds under such policies. This provision shall also apply to any excess/umbrella liability policies.

Prohibition of undisclosed coverage limitations. None of the coverages required herein will be in compliance with these requirements if they include any limiting endorsement of any kind that has not been first submitted to City and approved of in writing.

Separation of insureds. A severability of interests provision must apply for all additional insureds ensuring that Consultant’s insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the insurer’s limits of liability. The policy(ies) shall not contain any cross-liability exclusions.

Pass through clause. CONSULTANT agrees to ensure that its subconsultants, subcontractors, and any other party involved with the project who is brought onto or involved in the project by CONSULTANT, provide the same minimum insurance coverage and endorsements required of CONSULTANT.

CONSULTANT agrees to monitor and review all such coverage and assumes all responsibility for ensuring that such coverage is provided in conformity with the requirements of this section.

CONSULTANT agrees that upon request, all agreements with consultants, subcontractors, and others engaged in the project will be submitted to City for review.

City’s right to revise specifications. The City reserves the right at any time during the term of the contract to change the amounts and types of insurance required by giving the CONSULTANT ninety (90) days advance written notice of such change. If such change results in substantial additional cost to the CONSULTANT, the City and CONSULTANT may renegotiate CONSULTANT’s compensation.

Self-insured retentions. Any self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by City. City reserves the right to require that self-insured retentions be eliminated, lowered, or replaced by a deductible. Self-insurance will not be considered to comply with these specifications unless approved by City.

Professional Services Agreement 07.19.2022
Timely notice of claims. CONSULTANT shall give City prompt and timely notice of claims made or suits instituted that arise out of or result from CONSULTANT’s performance under this Agreement, and that involve or may involve coverage under any of the required liability policies.

Additional insurance. CONSULTANT shall also procure and maintain, at its own cost and expense, any additional kinds of insurance, which in its own judgment may be necessary for its proper protection and prosecution of the work.

DRAFT

CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE, CALIFORNIA
AND
ACCESS MONTEREY PENINSULA, INC.

AGREEMENT
This Agreement is made this _____ day of __________________, by and between the City of Pacific Grove, a municipal corporation ("City"), and Access Monterey Peninsula, Inc. ("AMP"), a 501(c) (3) non-profit corporation, who agree as follows:

RECITALS:

1. The City desires to provide continuing support for public, educational, and government (“PEG”) cable access channels pursuant to state law.

2. The California Public Utilities Commission has granted franchises to Comcast and AT&T (hereafter Franchisees) to provide video services in the City pursuant to the Digital Infrastructure and Video Competition Act (“DIVCA”) of 2006.

3. The City has codified its rights pursuant to the DIVCA in Chapter 21 Section

21.12.270 of the Pacific Grove City Code (City Code). Pursuant to those rights, video service providers granted franchises pursuant to DIVCA must provide certain PEG access channels, funding, and resources to the City.

4. City Code allows the City to designate a nonprofit access management entity to operate and administer the PEG access facilities, services, and programming. The City surveyed potential providers.

5. AMP, a PEG management entity serving cities on the Monterey Peninsula, has indicated its interest in serving the City by proving PEG access programming and services.

6. The City wishes to utilize AMP to serve as the access management organization to operate and manage PEG access, and be the recipient of those PEG access channels, funding, and resources provided by video service providers pursuant to DIVCA and the City Code.

7. AMP has agreed to serve the City and the community by managing the Community Media Center and providing PEG access programming, and services in a manner consistent with applicable law and best practices.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants set forth herein, the parties agree as follows:

SECTION 1. INCORPORATION OF RECITALS. The foregoing Recitals are true and correct and are integrated into this Agreement as if each was set forth fully herein.

SECTION 2. SCOPE OF SERVICES. In exchange for the funding provided by the City to AMP pursuant to this Agreement, AMP shall provide the following services:

A. OPERATE PUBLIC, EDUCATIONAL, AND GOVERNMENTAL ACCESS CABLE CHANNEL(S). Operate the public, educational, and governmental access cable channel(s) in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement and applicable state and federal law, with the primary purpose being to bring to the community local programming and information not otherwise readily available in commercial and national media.

B. OPERATE A COMMUNITY MEDIA CENTER. Manage a video production facility and equipment, available for public use at such hours and times that are convenient and accessible to the public as determined by AMP. Access to equipment and facilities shall be open to all those who satisfactorily complete training class(es) provided by AMP or who receive a certification from AMP, identifying said user(s) as having satisfied training requirements through means other than AMP training classes.

C. PRODUCTION OF VIDEO PROGRAMMING. Provide personnel required to assist the City in video recording, broadcasting, and streaming, either on premises or remotely, up to 30 meetings per year, as requested by the City Manager’s Office. AMP will provide a file of each meeting for VOD purposes within 2 business days and will also provide on-demand streaming of all the past meetings on AMP’s website. AMP will broadcast the City’s meetings on the Peninsula Channel ONLY while meetings are live (no replays). Should the City desire to retain AMP to provide additional services (meetings, special event coverage, content creation), AMP agrees to provide those services at the hourly rates delineated in Exhibit A in this agreement.

D. MAINTENANCE OF EQUIPMENT. Provide regular maintenance and repair of all video equipment purchased with monies received pursuant to this Agreement and/or donated, loaned, or leased to AMP by the City.

E. PROVIDE AUDIO VISUAL & TECHNICAL SERVICES. Provide routine maintenance and repair of audio and video equipment located in the City Council Chambers, as needed or requested. In addition, provide the following special services:

1. Evaluate the audio and video equipment in the City Council Chambers and prepare recommendations for replacement or upgrade.

2. Assist with or undertake the implementation of the video and audio equipment upgrades approved by the City.

3. Analyze any problems during the term of the agreement associated with the live transmission of City meetings or community events on the cable and signal streaming on the Internet, research potential solutions and their costs, and recommend preferred solutions.

4. Based on the City’s choice from the options described in Item E.3 above and the City’s approved budget for the implementation of the approved solutions, assist with and oversee, in coordination with the designated City staff, the implementation of the City’s desired solution for the problems associated with the live signal transmission of City Council meetings on the cable system and signal streaming on the Internet.

5. On an ongoing basis, monitor best practices of the industry and recommend to the City those improvements in policies, practices, and equipment that could enhance the achievement of the City’s goals.

F. PROVIDE EQUAL ACCESS. Provide access to the use of the equipment, facilities, channels, and services provided herein on a non-discriminatory basis to all members of the community for non-commercial programming purposes, whether individuals, groups, or organizations pursuant to operating rules promulgated by AMP.

G. DEVELOP OPERATING POLICIES AND PROCEDURES. Develop policies and procedures for use and operation of the PEG access equipment, facilities, and channel(s). AMP shall file such policies and procedures with the City.

H. OPERATE USING BEST PRACTICES. Operate the Community Media Center and the PEG access channels in a manner consistent with best practices for PEG access and other similar organizations.

I. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS, RULES, AND REGULATIONS. Administer the PEG access channels and facilities in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local laws, rules, regulations, and in compliance the Pacific Grove City Code.

J. TRAINING. Train City residents and, when requested, City employees, school or college employees and students in the techniques of video production, and provide technical advice in the execution of productions.

K. PLAYBACK/CABLECAST. AMP provides for the playback/cablecasting of programs on the PEG access channels twenty-four (24) hours per day, three hundred sixty-five (365) days per year. AMP will broadcast the City’s meetings on the Peninsula Channel ONLY while meetings are live. Additionally, AMP agrees to retain and archive one year (1) of the City’s video meeting recordings. Video files in excess of the one-year period will be transferred to the City for final archiving as required.

L. SPECIAL NEEDS GROUPS. Support special needs groups, including but not limited to the hearing impaired, in program production through training and other means.

M. PROMOTION. Actively promote the use and benefit of the PEG access channels and facilities to cable subscribers, the public, PEG access users, and Franchisees.

N. OTHER ACTIVITIES. Undertake other PEG access programming activities and services as deemed appropriate by AMP and consistent with the obligation to facilitate and promote PEG access programming and provide non-discriminatory access.

SECTION 3. CHANNELS OPEN TO PUBLIC: AMP shall keep the PEG access channels open to all potential users regardless of their viewpoint, subject to Federal Communications Commission regulations and other relevant laws. The parties agree neither the City, Franchisees, nor AMP shall have the authority to control the content of programming placed on the public access channel(s), so long as such programming is lawful. Nothing herein shall prevent AMP, the City, or the Franchisees from producing or sponsoring programming, prevent the City or the Franchisees from underwriting programming, or prevent the City, the Franchisees, or AMP from engaging in activities designed to promote production of certain types of programming or use by targeted groups as consistent with applicable law and rules for use of PEG channels. AMP shall promulgate and enforce policies and procedures that are designed to promote local use of the PEG access channels and make the programming accessible to the viewing public, consistent with such time, manner, and place regulations as are appropriate to provide for and promote use of PEG access channels, equipment and facilities.

SECTION 4. INDEMNIFICATION. AMP shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City, its officers, agents, and employees and volunteers from and against any and all claims, suits, actions, causes of action, losses, damage, or liabilities of any kind, nature or description, including, payment of litigation costs and attorneys' fees, brought by any person or persons for or on account of any loss, damage or injury to person, property or any other interest, tangible or intangible, sustained by or accruing to any person or persons, howsoever the same may be caused, directly or indirectly arising or resulting from any alleged acts or omission of the AMP, its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors arising out of or resulting from the performance of this Agreement.

AMP shall indemnify and hold harmless City, its officers, agents, employees and volunteers from and against any and all claims or other injury, including costs of litigation and attorney's fees, arising from or in connection with claims or loss or damage to person or property arising out of the failure to comply with any applicable laws, rules, regulations or other requirements of local, state or federal authorities, for claims of libel, slander, invasions of privacy, or infringement of common law or statutory copyright, for breach of contract of other injury or damage in law or at equity which claims, directly or indirectly, result from AMP use of channels, funds, equipment, facilities or staff granted under this Agreement or the franchise agreement.

The City shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless AMP, its officers, agents and employees from and against any and all claims, losses, liabilities, or damage including payment of reasonable attorneys' fees arising out of or resulting from the performance of this Agreement, caused in whole or part by any act or omission of the City.

SECTION 5. COPYRIGHT CLEARANCE. Before cablecasting video transmissions AMP shall require all users to agree in writing that they shall make all appropriate arrangements to obtain all rights to all material cablecast and clearances from broadcast stations, networks, sponsors, music licensing organizations' representatives, and without limitation from the foregoing, any and all other persons as may be necessary to transmit its or their program material over the PEG access channels that are operated and managed by AMP.

SECTION 6. COPYRIGHT AND OWNERSHIP. AMP shall own the copyright of any programs which it may produce. Copyright of programming produced by the public shall be held by such person(s) who produces said programming.

SECTION 7. DISTRIBUTION RIGHTS.

A. AMP shall require that all programs produced with funds, equipment, facilities, or staff granted under this Agreement be cablecast on the channels whose use is authorized by this Agreement. This subparagraph shall not be interpreted to restrict other distribution (beyond cablecasting on channels authorized by this Agreement), so long as such other distribution is consistent with any pertinent guidelines established in the PEG access operating policies and procedures.

B. At least at the beginning and end of each day that video programming is cablecast on the PEG access channels whose use is authorized by this Agreement, AMP shall display a credit stating "Partial funding for the operation of this channel is provided by the City of Pacific Grove." Such credit shall also state that opinions expressed in programming on the PEG access channels are the sole responsibility of the program producers.

SECTION 8. EQUIPMENT AND FACILITIES.

A. AMP shall be responsible for maintenance of all equipment and facilities owned, leased, or loaned to it under this Agreement or purchased with funds provided pursuant to this Agreement.

B. AMP shall own all equipment and facilities acquired by it and purchased with funds received pursuant to this Agreement. Upon termination or non-renewal of this Agreement all such equipment or facilities purchased with funds received pursuant to this Agreement shall become property of the City.

C. Upon the dissolution of AMP, it shall, subject to the approval of the City, transfer all assets of AMP representing City-funded equipment and facilities, and/or the proceeds of either to the City, or at the City's option, to such organization or organizations designated by the City to manage access which shall at the time qualify as a tax exempt organization(s) under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code (or the corresponding provisions of any future United States Internal Revenue Law).

SECTION 9. INSURANCE. AMP shall maintain in full force and effect at all times during the term of this Agreement, or any extension thereof, insurance as required by this Section. The cost of such insurance shall be borne by AMP and may be included in AMP annual budget.

A. COMPREHENSIVE LIABILITY INSURANCE. Comprehensive liability insurance, including protective, completed operations and broad form contractual liability, property damage and personal injury coverage, and comprehensive automobile liability including owned, hired, and non-owned automobile coverage. All such coverage shall be carried in the minimum amounts of $1,000,000 per occurrence, $2,000,000 aggregate.

B. EQUIPMENT INSURANCE. Insurance shall be maintained on all equipment and facilities, including fixtures, funded in whole or in part under this Agreement to replacement cost. The insurance shall include, at a minimum, insurance against loss or damage beyond the user's control, theft, fire or natural catastrophe.

C. WORKERS' COMPENSATION. Full Workers' Compensation Insurance and Employer's Liability with limits as required by California law shall be maintained by AMP and shall include an endorsement waiving any subrogation rights against the City. The insurance carrier shall be approved by the City.

D. CABLECASTER'S ERRORS AND OMISSIONS INSURANCE. Insurance shall be maintained to cover the content of productions which are cablecast on the access channel in, at minimum, the following areas: libel and slander; copyright or trademark infringement; infliction of emotional distress, invasion of privacy; plagiarism; and misuse of musical or literary materials. This policy shall not be required to cover individual access producers.

E. CITY AS ADDITIONAL INSURED. The aforementioned insurance policies shall be on a primary basis and shall list the City, via policy endorsement, as an additional insured. The policies shall provide that no cancellation, major change in coverage or expiration may be affected by the insurance company or AMP without first giving the City thirty (30) days written notice prior to the effective date of such cancellation or change in coverage. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City, its officers, agents, employees, or volunteers shall be in excess of the AMP insurance and shall not contribute to it.

F. NOTIFICATION OF COVERAGE. AMP shall annually file with the City proof of insurance coverage as follows: (1) Comprehensive Liability and Workers’ Compensation; (2) equipment insurance; (3) cablecaster's error and omission insurance prior to the commencement of cablecasting of programming on the designated PEG access channels. AMP shall immediately notify the City of any break or reduction in coverage.

SECTION 10. NON-DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT AND SERVICE. AMP shall comply with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and no person shall, on the grounds of race, religion or religious creed, color, age (over 40), sex (including gender identity and expression, pregnancy, childbirth and related medical conditions), sexual orientation (including heterosexuality, homosexuality and bisexuality), national origin, ancestry, marital status, medical condition (including cancer and genetic characteristics), mental or physical disability (including HIV status and AIDS), military service, or any other classification protected by federal, state, or local laws and ordinances be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under this Agreement.

SECTION 11. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. It is understood and agreed that AMP is an independent contractor and that no relationship of principal/agent or employer/employee exists between the City and AMP. If in the performance of this Agreement any third persons are employed by AMP, such persons shall be entirely and exclusively under the control, direction and supervision of AMP. All terms of employment, including hours, wages, working conditions, discipline, hiring and discharging or any other term of employment shall be determined by AMP and the City shall have no right or authority over such persons or terms of employment.

SECTION 12. ASSIGNMENT AND SUBLETTING. Neither this Agreement nor any interest herein shall be assigned or transferred by AMP, except as expressly authorized in writing by City.

SECTION 13. ANNUAL REPORTS. On or before December 31st of each year, AMP shall submit to City an annual report for the preceding fiscal year (July 1 – June 30).

This report shall contain, at a minimum, the following information:

A. Statistics on programming and services provided, as available; B. Current and complete listing of AMP's Board of Directors; and C. Year-end financial statements audited or reviewed by an independent certified public accountant.

SECTION 14. RECORDS, FISCAL AUDIT.

A. AMP shall maintain all necessary books and records, in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.

B. B. Upon reasonable request from City, AMP shall, at any time during normal business hours, make available all of its records with respect to all matters covered by this Agreement at:

Pacific Grove City Hall
Attn: City Manager
300 Forest Avenue
Pacific Grove, CA 93950
C. AMP shall prepare (or have prepared) and submit to the City a fiscal audit by a certified public accountant, at least every three (3) years.

SECTION 15. FUNDING.

A. Pursuant to City Code Section 21.12.270 (g), all Franchisees are obligated to provide certain PEG access channels, funding and resources to the City for PEG access purposes. The City does by this Agreement transfer those channels, funds, and resources as described below to AMP for the purposes described in this Agreement.

1. PEG Channel Capacity: There has been designated certain channel capacity (spectrum on franchised video broadband systems) for PEG access use. The City agrees to permit AMP to manage that channel capacity for PEG access programming.

2. PEG Support: The City agrees to provide AMP with $40,000.00 of PEG fees it receives from companies which have been granted franchises by the California Public Utilities Commissions. Should the City desire to retain AMP to provide additional services (meetings, special event coverage, content creation), AMP agrees to provide those services at the hourly rates delineated in Exhibit A in this agreement.

3. PEG Channel Carriage All PEG channels shall be receivable by all subscribers, whether they receive digital or analog service, or a combination thereof, without the need for any equipment other than that needed to receive the lowest cost tier of service.

PEG access capacity provided by a state franchisee shall be of similar quality and functionality to that offered by commercial channels, shall be capable of carrying a National Television System Committee (NTSC) quality television signal, and shall be carried on the state franchisee’s lowest cost tier of service.

4. PEG Channel Interconnection. A state franchisee shall make interconnection available to each PEG channel originator programming a channel in the City and shall provide the facilities necessary for the interconnection.

SECTION 16. ANNUAL PLAN AND BUDGET.

A. On or before March 1 of each year in which this Agreement is in effect, City shall provide AMP with an estimate of the funds (franchise fees and PEG fees) that will be available to AMP for the upcoming fiscal year. As used herein, the fiscal year begins on July 1 and ends on June 30.

B. On or before March 30, AMP shall meet and confer with City staff to seek input regarding the development of its annual plan and budget for the upcoming fiscal year.

During that meeting the City shall share with AMP any matters that it would like AMP to consider as it prepares its annual plan and budget.

C. On or before March 30 of each year in which this Agreement is in effect, AMP shall provide to the City a proposed Annual Plan and Budget outlining activities and programs planned for the following fiscal year with funds and PEG access channels received from the City. The Annual Plan and Budget shall contain:

1. A statement of anticipated number of hours of local original PEG access programming;

2. Training classes to be offered and frequency of classes;

3. Public meeting coverage;

4. Other access activities planned by AMP; and

5. A detailed operating and capital equipment and facilities budget.

SECTION 17. EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS. AMP shall spend funds received from City solely for the purposes listed in its Annual Plan and Budget and as described in Section 2 (Scope of Services) of this Agreement. Funds not expended in the year covered by the Annual Plan and Budget may be carried over by AMP into succeeding years. Upon termination of this Agreement all funds of any kind received from City and not expended by AMP shall be returned to City. AMP shall provide for such fiscal control and accounting procedures as are necessary to assure proper disbursement and accounting for funds received from City.

SECTION 18. RECEIPT OF APPROVED FUNDING. For each year in which AMP has submitted the Annual Plan and Budget to the City as required under Section 16 of this Agreement, the City shall make quarterly payments of $10,000.00 to AMP. Those payments shall be made on or before February 15, May 15, August 15, and November

15. If the City requests additional services from AMP, those will be billed to the City at an hourly rate, on a monthly basis.

SECTION 19. FUNDING FROM OTHER SOURCES. AMP may, during the course of this Agreement, receive supplemental funds from other sources. These funds may include, but are not limited to, fundraising activities.

SECTION 20. TERM OF AGREEMENT. This Agreement shall be for a period of one (1) year commencing on __________, 2021 and ending on __________, 2022 unless terminated earlier, as provided in this Agreement. This Agreement may be extended, by mutual agreement of the City and AMP, in writing, for one additional period of one (1) year in accordance with Section 22 of this Agreement.

SECTION 21. TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT: TRANSFER OF ASSETS.

A. The City shall have the right upon one hundred twenty (120) days written notice to AMP to terminate this Agreement for:

1. Breach of any provision of this Agreement by AMP;

2. Malfeasance, misfeasance, misappropriation of public funds; or

3. Loss of 501(c)(3) status by AMP.

B. AMP may avoid termination by curing any such breach to the satisfaction of the City within one hundred twenty (120) days of notification or within a time frame agreed to by the City and AMP. The City may also terminate this Agreement at the expiration of its term, or any extension thereof.

C. Upon termination of this Agreement, AMP shall immediately transfer to the City all equipment, real property, fixtures, contracts, leases, deposit accounts or other assets received by or purchased by AMP with funds received pursuant to this Agreement.

SECTION 22. EXTENSION OF AGREEMENT. This Agreement may be renewed or extended for an additional period of one (1) year, pursuant to the following process:

A. If AMP seeks an extension of this Agreement, it shall, on or before ___________, 2022 submit to City a letter of intent requesting extension.

B. On or before _____________, 2022 City shall respond to AMP’s letter of intent to request extension. If City intends to refuse to extend the Agreement, it shall explain the reasons for this decision in its response to AMP. City may not refuse to extend the contract based upon a failure of AMP to comply with the terms of this Agreement unless City has provided AMP a notice of its failure to comply with the terms and the opportunity to cure said noncompliance.

SECTION 23. TIME. Time is of the essence in this Agreement and for the performance of all covenants and conditions of this Agreement.

SECTION 24. COOPERATION. Each party agrees to execute all documents and do all things necessary and appropriate to carry out the provisions of this Agreement.

SECTION 25. APPLICABLE LAW. This Agreement shall be interpreted and enforced under the laws of the State of California.

SECTION 26. VENUE. The parties agree this Agreement is being entered into, and shall be performed, in Pacific Grove County, California.

SECTION 27. NOTICES. All notices and other communications to be given by either party may be given in writing, depositing the same in the United States mail, postage prepaid and addressed to the appropriate party as follows:

To City of Pacific Grove:

City Manager’s Office
Pacific Grove, CA 93940
To Access Monterey Peninsula:

Executive Director
465 Tyler Street
Monterey, CA 93940
Any party may change its address for notice by written notice to the other party at any time.

SECTION 28. SEVERABILITY. If any provision, or any portion thereof, contained in this Agreement is held unconstitutional, invalid, unenforceable, or contrary to public policy, the remainder of this Agreement, or portion thereof, shall be deemed severable, shall not be affected and shall remain in full force and effect.

SECTION 29. MUTUALITY. This Agreement is the product of negotiation and preparation by and among the parties represented by counsel. All sides and their counsel have reviewed and have had the opportunity to revise this Agreement. The Parties waive the provisions of Section 1654 of the Civil Code of California and any other rule of construction to the effect that ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting party, and the parties warrant and agree that the language of this Agreement shall neither be construed against or in favor of any party.

SECTION 30. WAIVER. A party’s failure to insist on the strict performance of any provision of this Agreement or to exercise any right, power, or remedy upon a breach of this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of any provision of this Agreement. Neither shall such action or inaction limit the party’s right to later enforce any provision or exercise any right to the fullest extent allowed under this Agreement. A waiver of any covenant, term or condition contained in this Agreement shall not be construed as a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same covenant, term or condition. The consent, authorization or approval by a party of any act shall not be deemed to waive or render unnecessary the consent, authorization or approval of any subsequent similar act. Any waiver of any terms or conditions must be in writing and signed by the parties.

SECTION 31. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Agreement is the entire agreement of the parties and supersedes all prior negotiations and agreements whether written or oral.

This Agreement may be amended only by written agreement and no purported oral amendment to this Agreement shall be valid.

City of PG Meeting Coverage & Streaming Service Packages

1. Basic Streaming & Channel Access Package — $35K annually • Broadcast of all City of PG City Council meetings and Streaming to Peninsula Channel during City Council meetings
• RTMP Connection to AMP Headend and live broadcast to
Comcast of City Council Meetings
• No on-site technical support

2. Broadcast & Replay Package — $40K annually
• Same coverage as above
• Streaming to Peninsula Channel during City Council meetings and Special Council meetings.
• Channel access to Peninsula with replays and playlist functions for City Website
• No on-site technical support

3. Current Plan — $52K annually
• Full coverage of City Council Meetings and Special Meetings • Streaming and Peninsula Channel access
• VOD file of Meetings and playlist function
• Technical support included, with current setup on site tech and testing prior to meetings.

4. Pacific Grove Channel Package — $62K annually
• All features of the current plan
• Option for PG to get its own dedicated channel
• Full control over content on the Pacific Grove Channel • On-site technical support included
• Coverage of 4 special events per year (separate from City Council meetings) this includes any city sponsored event, or production needs for the city separate from City Council meetings or event production.

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: Garrett McCown, Associate Planner
MEETING DATE: February 04, 2026
SUBJECT: Appeal of Architectural Permit (AP) and Coastal Development Permit (CDP) 24-0044 for 685 Mermaid Avenue (APN 006-085-003-000)
CEQA: Categorical Exemption, CEQA Guidelines 15331, Historical Resources Restoration/Rehabilitation

RECOMMENDATION
Deny the appeal and affirm the Planning Commission approval of Architectural Permit (AP) and Coastal Development Permit (CDP) 24-0044, based on findings, conditions of approval, and Class 1 and 31 Categorical Exemptions (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15301, Existing Facilities, and 15331, Historical Resource Restoration and Rehabilitation).

DISCUSSION
APPEAL
City Council to consider an appeal of the Planning Commission's December 11, 2025 approval of the following:

1. Coastal Development Permit (CDP) 24-0044

2. Architectural Permit (AP) 24-0044
These approvals were granted to allow a remodel and rehabilitation of an existing two-story residence.

This project includes demolition of an existing garage (which was converted to living space) and additions at the back of the house, first and second-floor additions to the residence, addition of an attached one-car garage and a second floor accessory dwelling unit (ADU) above the garage. This property is on the Historic Resources Inventory ("HRI").

The appellant submitted twelve (12) reasons as the grounds for their appeal, which include:

1. Approval of this permit will destroy the historical significance of a valuable resource, causing it to be de-listed from the Pacific Grove HRI,

2. The permit application does not meet the criteria for Categorical Exemptions per CEQA 15300.2 or 15331 Class 31, nor comply with CEQA by meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation,

3. The proposed demolition of the historical resource disqualifies it from a CEQA exemption, and does not comply with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation,

4. The detailed Historic Resource Evaluations ("HREs") required by CEQA, including documentation of the current condition of the built environment, have not been submitted,

5. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) must be completed to assess the impact of the proposed demolition and mitigation,

6. The project does not meet the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation of a Historic Building, particularly, Standards 9 and 10, for the proposed demolition and massing of the new addition.

Simplified or non-related explanations are offered for meeting the PG Architectural Review Guidelines.

7. Dana E. Supernowicz's Phase II Assessment is based on a report not in compliance with CEQA and does not offer evidence of substantial compliance to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for rehabilitation,

8. The Historic Resources Committee's ("HRC") approval of the permit was based on the design containing an Accessory Dwelling Unit ("ADU"), the historical preservation of the resource was not considered.

9. This modern build takes away from the charm of the "special community" protected under Section 30253 of the Coastal Act, negatively affecting its historical significance.

10. The property owners are in violation of PGMC 23.76.110 code for (a) Minimum maintenance.

11. The completed project will invade our privacy and impair the desirability of investment or occupation in our neighborhood,

12. The Planning Commission did not receive a complete history of the project in which to make an informed decision.

BACKGROUND
The following is a listing of the key elements in the review of this project that led to its consideration and approval by the Planning Commission:

February 22, 2024 - Community Development Department application submitted including a Phase II Historic Assessment (Seavey, December 2023).

March 8, 2024 - Coastal Development Permit Application submitted.

April 10, 2024 - Notice of Incomplete Application sent to applicant.

June 21, 2024 - Notified the California Coastal Commission that a Coastal Development Permit (CDP) is required for this project.

July 24, 2024 - Historic Resources Committee Regular Meeting The project was first presented to the Historic Resources Committee (HRC). Upon consideration, the HRC needed further clarification on:

The historicity of the existing attached garage, which had been converted to living space, Confirmation of the compatibility of materials used in the proposed project and their consistency with the Secretary of Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, Address concerns about the scale and massing of the proposed project.

Also, the HRC requested a redesign with a primary focus on massing and compatible materials consistent with the Secretary of Interior's Standards. The applicant agreed to make revisions reflecting the HRC's comments and approved a motion to continue the item to meeting to a date uncertain.

August 28, 2024 - Historic Resources Committee Regular Meeting The applicant made revisions to the plan addressing the HRC and neighbor's concerns that included:

Lowered ADU height by 6 inches
Windows and doors were revised to wood windows and doors.

Updated materials and colors
Submitted an addendum to the Phase II Assessment (Seavey, August 2024) to confirm materials compatibility and historicity of the converted garage.

The project was presented to the HRC with the above revisions and upon consideration, the HRC voted 3-2 to recommend approval to the Planning Commission.

November 1, 2024 - Appellant submitted a Peer Review (Evans & DeShazo, October 2024) Shortly after HRC recommendation to the Planning Commission and submittal of the Peer Review, Mr. Seavey declined to continue as project historian.

In preparation for the Planning Commission, the applicant contracted with a qualified historic consultant, Historic Resource Associates, to provide a historic consultation and a new Phase II Historic Assessment for the project. Upon consultation, Historic Resource Associates recommended changes to the proposed project which focused on historical compatibility and improved consistency with the Secretary of Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation (the standards) of the historic structure.

The applicant revised the August 28, 2024, plans to the HRC and submitted a new Phase II Historic Assessment (Historic Resource Associates, August 2025) in support of the project and an analysis that is consistent with the Secretary of Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation.

In consideration of the changes to the plans and the new Phase II Historic Assessment, staff presented the revised proposed project to the HRC on September 24, 2025.

September 24, 2025 - Historic Resources Committee Regular Meeting The applicant made revisions to the plan set that include:

Removing lap siding in order to return siding back to its original exterior board and batten wall cladding
Retain the character-defining front door in its existing location Retain the character-defining first floor window in its existing location Differentiate the addition from the original structure with horizontal wood siding The project was presented to the HRC with the above revisions and upon consideration, the HRC voted 3-0 to recommend approval of the project to the Planning Commission.

December 11, 2025 - Planning Commission Regular Meeting The project was presented to the Planning Commission and upon consideration, the PC voted 4-1-2 (Fredrickson and Davison absent) to approve Architectural Permit (AP) and Coastal Development Permit (CDP) 24-0044 with the following conditions of approval:

Tribal Monitoring. A qualified tribal monitor shall be present to observe all soil disturbance for all grading and excavation activities. If, at any time, potentially significant resources or intact features are discovered, the monitor(s) shall temporarily halt work until the find can be evaluated.

Legal Lot of Record. Applicant will provide documentation demonstrating that the subject site was lawfully created and documented under state and local Subdivision Map Act requirements.

December 19, 2025 - Appeal Submitted

ANALYSIS
Proposed Project Description
The proposed development consists of a remodel and rehabilitation of an existing 950 square-foot two-story residence to include the demolition of the existing converted garage and rear additions, the construction of a 156 square-foot first-floor addition, a 165 square-foot second-floor addition, a 337 square-foot attached garage addition, and a 339 square-foot second-floor ADU resulting in a 1,363 square-foot two-story residence with a 339 square-foot attached ADU. Additionally, the rehabilitation will include returning the existing structure back to its original board and batten wall cladding; replacing damaged or deteriorated windows with in-kind replacements, matching the design and shape of the existing windows; restoring the front (French) door; and restoring the front bay window.

In short, the appellants' grounds for appeal are:

1. The project is having a negative impact on a historic resource.

2. Does not comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

3. Is not compatible with the neighborhood character.

4. Impacts privacy and desirability of investment in and

5. Decisions by the HRC and PC were based on inadequate information.

In response to the reasons in support of the appeals, staff provides the following analysis.

The City of Pacific Grove's zoning regulations provide for additions, alterations, and improvements to a structure listed on the Historic Resources Inventory (HRI). They do not mandate that such a structure remain as it was built or frozen as it was at a specific point in the past. Rather, the city's codes recognize that improvements to those structures are warranted in order that they may be inline with current living standards.

As supported by the Phase II Historic Assessment (Historic Resource Associates, August 2025), the proposed project is the "rehabilitation" of a historic resource and has been found by the HRC and PC to be compliant with the Secretary of Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, retaining its significance and integrity.
“Rehabilitation” means the process of returning a property to a state of utility through repair or alteration, which makes possible an efficient contemporary use while preserving those portions or features of the property that are significant to its historical, architectural, and cultural values. “Reconstruction” means the process of reproducing by new construction the exact form and detail of a vanished structure, or part thereof, as it appeared during a specific period of time. “Restoration” means the process of returning a building to a documented prior condition.

The appellant cites "demolition, alterations, and massing" as the factors that they believe will "destroy the historic significance of available resource."
The extent of demolition has been reviewed by the project historian, who concludes that the proposed demolition and rehabilitation meets the Secretary of Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, and has been processed and included within the Architectural Permit (AP) and Coastal Development Permit (CDP), which have been reviewed and approved by the HRC and PC.

Per the Phase II Historic Assessment, the proposed project is considered a "Rehabilitation" and will use a combination of reconstruction, restoration, and new construction to achieve a state of utility through repair and alteration to make an efficient contemporary use of the structure while preserving and restoring the character-defining features of the property that are significant. This proposed project would also contribute to achieving the City's Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) numbers with the addition of an ADU.

As for the converted garage, the Phase II Historic Assessment (Historic Resource Associates, August 2025) describes the former garage (demolition portion of the building) as "is [in] such deteriorated condition and has been so altered to conclude that it no longer is a "contributing" part of the historic residence, which itself has undergone numerous alterations." In line with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), staff evaluates a project to identify the level of environmental review that would be required based on a project's cumulative impact on the environment, which includes listed historic resources. Also, the project proposes to demolish a "non-contributing" former garage and rehabilitate the residence by retaining key features and returning the historic siding. Since this property is on the HRI, staff requested that the applicant provide a Phase II Historic Assessment confirming that the project is consistent and conforming with the Secretary of Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and will not have a significant impact to the structure.

This project is not the "demolition" of a historic resource as "demolition" is defined in Chapter 23.76, Historic Preservation, of the Pacific Grove Municipal Code. Demolition is defined in this chapter of the code as changes to more than 25% of the wall area of the historic structure facing the street or more than 50% of the total of the exterior walls of the historic structure. Note that this definition was not applied to the garage because it is a non-contributing element of the historic resource due to the alterations and change in use. Since this project is not the demolition of a historic resource, per the city's own definitions, this project does not result in a significant impact on a historic resource.

The most recent Phase II Historic Assessment (Historic Resource Associates, August 2025), states that, "Per the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (Standards), a project that complies with the Standards is considered to have mitigated the changes to less than significant."
The city does not have an on-call historic consultant. Therefore, staff relies on qualified professional historians' technical reports (Phase II Historic Assessment) to evaluate whether the project is in compliance with the Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation (Standards) and to identify whether there are significant impacts on the properties.

Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 states, "Generally, a project involving a listed resource that follows the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring and Reconstructing Historic Buildings or the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitaing Historic Buildings (1995 as amended), Weeks and Grimer, shall be considered mitigated to a level of less than significant impact on the historical resource."
The historic consultant, Historic Resource Associates, has reviewed the project and found the project to be in compliance with these Standards and made recommendations to modify the original proposed project, which has been incorporated into the project by the architect.

In this case, staff made a determination based on what the Phase II Historic Assessment (Historic Resource Associates, August 2025) identified and determined that the proposed project falls under Class 1 and 31 categorical exemption for Class 1 and 31 (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15301, Existing Facilities, and 15331, Historical Resource Restoration and Rehabilitation).

The City has followed the CEQA Guidelines adopted by the State of California. The proposed project has been found to be categorically exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15331 (Class 31), Historical Resource Restoration/Rehabilitation. The Class 31 exemption consists of projects limited to maintenance, repair, stabilization, rehabilitation, restoration, preservation, conservation or reconstruction of historical resources in a manner consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the treatment of historic properties with Guidelines for preserving, rehabilitating, restoring and reconstructing historic buildings. As proposed, the project is consistent with the parameters of the Class 31 categorical exemptions. The project is also exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Class 1), Existing Facilities. The Class 1 exemption applies to expansions of existing structures not exceeding 10,000 square feet in areas where public utilities and services are available and are not environmentally sensitive habitat.

The Mermaid neighborhood has smaller lots relative to the rest of the city, and it includes an eclectic mix of varying architectural styles, alignments, and scales which are regulated by PGMC 23.57 and PGMC 23.90 (R-3-PGB district and LCP Implementation Plan). These standards in the code sections include, but are not limited to, uses permitted, building height limits, allowed building coverage, allowed site coverage, and required yards (setbacks). The existing structure is on a double lot (1,760 square foot lot). The proposed project complies with the following objective standards:

Uses permitted: Single-family dwellings with an ADU are allowed Building height allowed is 25 feet and limited to two stories: The proposed building height is 20'-11" and two stories.

Allowed building coverage 50% (880 max): The proposed building coverage is 48% (851 square feet).

Allowed site coverage 60% (1,056 max): The proposed site coverage is 59% (1,047 square feet).

Required yards: The existing residence is non-conforming with regard to the front yard, rear yard, and west side yard setback. However, the proposed demolition of a non-historic addition at the back of the residence results in a greater separation between the back of the structure and the rear property line, reducing the nonconformity by approximately four feet. The proposed project will not expand or create new nonconformities. All new construction will meet required yards per PGMC 23.57 (R-3-PGB) and PGMC 23.90 (Implementation Plan).

The proposed project and the neighborhood consist of similarly-sized residences of varying architectural styles, alignments, and scales. As proposed, the mass and height of the new structure would not overwhelm adjacent structures nor be out of character with the neighborhood. The implementation of the general plan, specifically as it relates to mass and scale, is carried out through the zoning regulations and development standards. As proposed, the project complies with all zoning regulations.

Additionally, staff has referenced and was guided by the Architectural Review Guidelines as well as the Architectural Guidelines for Historic Buildings in the previous HRC (9.24.2025) and PC (12.11.2025) hearings.

The site development requirements, as identified in the zoning regulations, provide the adopted standards for privacy and retention of neighborhood compatibility. Again, as noted earlier, the review by the appointed commissions serve as a check on this and their approval indicates that they found the siting and design of the proposed structure are appropriate for the R-3-PGB neighborhood.

Although in need of work, the current owners purchased the property in its present condition, and they are currently making an effort to rehabilitate the property by means of their proposal. Once complete, the project will contribute to the eclectic mix of residential buildings in this neighborhood and will not detract from the desirability of the surrounding neighborhood.

As noted earlier in this agenda report, the project reviewed by the Planning Commission was the result of a change in the applicant's historic consultant, input by the HRC, and architect/homeowners willingness to make changes that brought the project further into compliance with the Secretary of Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, including an exterior siding that more closely resembles that of the original home. Although the information from the first historic consultant was not provided to the Planning Commission because it had lost its relevance in light of the new historic evaluation, changes to the project, and reconsideration by the HRC, they are included in this agenda report, so the City Council can review the evolution of this project. Also, as part of this packet, staff has included the agenda report provided to the Planning Commission and minutes of the December 11, 2025 Planning Commission meeting.

RECOMMENDATION
As explained above, the grounds for the appellants' appeal are not supported by the City's Zoning regulations, CEQA requirements, or the City's Historic Resource conservation efforts and processes.

This project has been reviewed by the HRC and PC and their approvals support this conclusion.

Therefore, staff recommends denial of this appeal.

OPTIONS

1. Deny Appeal

2. Grant Appeal
Refer project to applicant to address concerns raised by City Council members and continue to a date specific.

3. FINANCIAL IMPACT:

No significant financial impact is anticipated as the appellants have paid an appeal fee, which has been established at an amount intended to recover resource expenditures.

FOCUSED PRIORITY AREA: Community Development
Attachments
Written public comment
HRC Signed AP Recommendation
HRC Signed CDP Recommendation
Seavey Phase II Historic Report 12.20.23
Seavey Phase II Addendum
Historic Resource Associates Phase II
PC Signed AP 24-0044 12.11.25
PC Signed CDP 24-0044 12.11.25
Project Data Sheet PC 12.11.25
PC Plan Set 12.11.25
CEQA Exemption Form
12-11 PC Minutes
Appeal Application Packet
Assessment and Recommendations (Evans and DeShazo, 1.12.2026) Phase II Summary Letter (Historic Resource Associates, 1.25.2026 Proposed project model view
PC - Correspondence
Draft Reso CC AP24-0044
Draft Reso CC CDP 24-0044
Outlook
City council meeting 2/4/26 item #11 A on the agenda
From anthony billeci <[email protected]>
Date Mon 2/2/2026 1:26 PM
To City Council Members <[email protected]> [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.] Regarding the appeal of the architectural permit for 685 Mermaid avenue (item #11 A on the agenda) I would like to express my disappointment for the approval of the permit both by the HRC and the planning commission of the city of Pacific Grove.

The architectural hodgepodge proposed would completely overwhelm the existing historic home to the point that the historic home would no longer be identifiable.

The historian's report is biased in that the historian was hired by the homeowner to write a report favorable to support the project. He did not suggest any alternatives to demolishing the original historic garage which could have been rehabilitated along with the historic home.

Since the current homeowners purchased the home on January 18, 2023, no maintenance  has been performed on the home which is in violation of the city of Pacific Grove's municipal code, chapter

23.76 historic preservation section 23.76.110 minimum maintenance sub section (a) states that minimum maintenance is necessary to prevent an owner from facilitating the demolition of a historic resource by neglecting it. All buildings listed on the historic resources inventory shall be kept in a state of good repair consistent with all other state and city codes so as to preserve them against decay and deterioration.

It is my belief that the current owners purposely neglected the property at 685 Mermaid avenue to accelerate the decay of the building to not only support the historian's report but to also support their project. The plan calls for an architectural hyphen to accommodate a staircase to be in compliance with current building standards. A recent HRC meeting approved plans to remodel 687 & 689 Mermaid avenue by allowing a small extension of the homes to accommodate the staircases so that they would be in compliance with current building standards.

The planned remodel of 687 & 689 Mermaid avenue maintains the look of the historic homes without dramatically changing their view from the street. The project at 685 Mermaid avenue could achieve the same thing if done correctly. The house would maintain the same street view as the other two and there would be plenty of room to add an ADU next to the historic structure. This would maintain the symmetry of the three homes when viewed from the street while walking down Mermaid avenue.

There are several other historic homes along Mermaid avenue that have been altered in such a way over the years so as not to take away their historic appearance when viewed from the street.

Please do not deny the appeal. Instead, encourage the homeowners to take another look at the project and try to keep the looks of 685 Mermaid avenue in line with the other homes along the street.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

Regards,
Anthony Billeci
700 Briggs avenue
Pacific Grove

Outlook
URGENT CONTINUATION REQUEST - Appeal Hearing 685 Mermaid 24-0044 Feb 4 City Council Meeting
From Leslie Anderson <[email protected]>
Date Tue 2/3/2026 12:46 PM
To Garrett McCown <[email protected]>; Aaron Campbell <[email protected]>; Jon Biggs <[email protected]>; City Council Members <[email protected]> Cc [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Katie Butler CCC <[email protected]>; Anthony Billeci #52 <[email protected]>; Cindy B MPHA <[email protected]>; Linda Downum #20 <[email protected]>; David and Myrna #51 <[email protected]>; Rachel McDonald #49 <[email protected]>; Mikki Jenott #50 <[email protected]>; Marian Moe <[email protected]>
1 attachment (68 KB)
Feb 2025 Email 685 Mermaid Avenue - Jon Biggs [email protected] - EarthLink Mail.pdf; [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 Planning Department and City Council:

I am writing to request a Continuance for the Appeal Hearing scheduled for February 4, 2026 with the City Council.

The agenda for the February 4th City Council meeting was published after business hours on Friday, January 30, 2026. It was at this time we learned the Archeologist, Dana Supernowicz, submitted a letter, "Summary Report of the Phase II Historical Assessment of 685 Mermaid Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA 93950", to rebut the "Assessment and Recommendation" Report submitted on January 12, 2026 by Stacey De Shazo of Evans &amp; De Shazo.

This January 25, 2026 letter is an entirely new circumstance we need time to digest and review with our expert Qualified Architectural Historian, Stacey De Shazo. Ms. De Shazo is currently visiting a project site and is not available for consultation or able to attend the February 4th City Council meeting.

John Domingue, Attorney with Rossi Domingue LLP is currently en route back to the United States after a month abroad. In light of his limited availability, and the new developments in this appeal, we need time to thoroughly review the case with him. John Domingue will not be available to attend the February 4, 2026 City Council meeting.

In addition, there are errors on the Appeal Agenda to be corrected. 1) The property address is not indicated anywhere on the agenda, 2) Under Background, the "April 10, 2024 - Notice of Incomplete Application sent to applicant", has an INCORRECT date. This occurred sometime after February 28, 2025 and corresponds with Kent Seavey &ldquo;no longer being able to continue with the project&rdquo; (see email attached), and was after the Peer Review was submitted by Evans &amp; De Shazo (November 1, 2024), 3) Although I included a copy of this Peer Review in my appeal packet, this document has not been provided by the city as part of the file for the appeal.

We are requesting the Appeal hearing be continued to a mutually agreeable date in approximately eight weeks, where Stacey De Shazo, John Domingue and the Appellants will be available to attend.

Thank you for your help in this matter.

Leslie Anderson

[ 1 ]
A. TITLE PAGE

PHASE II HISTORICAL ASSESSMENT OF
685 MERMAID AVENUE, PACIFIC GROVE,
MONTEREY COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 93950
AUGUST 2025
PREPARED FOR:

Charles Zeng
685 Mermaid Avenue
Pacific Grove, CA 93950
PREPARED BY:

Dana E. Supernowicz, M.A., RPA
Historic Resource Associates
3142 Bird Rock Road
Pebble Beach, CA 93953
Phase II Historical Assessment 685 Mermaid Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA [2]
B. TABLE OF CONTENTS
A. Title Page . . . . . . . . . 1
B. Table of Contents . . . . . . . . 2
C. Introduction . . . . . . . . . 3
D. Historical Context . . . . . . . . 7
E. Property Description . . . . . . . . 9
F. Evaluation of Significance . . . . . . . 15
G. Impacts of the Proposed Project . . . . . . 15
H. Mitigation . . . . . . . . . 15
I. Appendices . . . . . . . . . 18
Phase II Historical Assessment 685 Mermaid Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA [3]
C. INTRODUCTION
Historic Resource Associates (HRA) has completed a Phase II Historical Assessment of 685 Mermaid Avenue in Pacific Grove, Monterey County, California (Figures 1-3). The study was conducted to meet permit requirements imposed by the City of Pacific Grove in accordance with the proposed project plans (Figures 4-6). The property, identified as Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 006-085-003, is located in the Beach Tract on the south side of Mermaid Avenue. According to Kent Seavey, who prepared a similar Phase II Historic Assessment in December 2024, the residence and garage were reportedly built in 1926 by local contractor Fred C. Goodale (Seavey 2024). The proposed project involves construction of an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) and an addition and rehabilitation of the residence, which requires demolition of the former garage. Building upon the Phase II Historic Assessment by Seavey, this study focuses on the rehabilitation of the residence, the addition, and the demolition of the former garage.

According to the City of Pacific Grove, a Phase I Historical Assessment has been completed for the subject property by Page & Turnbull in 2019. Page and Turnbull found the subject property to be “significant for vernacular design expressed by intact stylistic features, forms and/or construction methods, and as a good example of type and/or style from Pacific Grove Comes of Age (1903-1926) historic theme.” When recorded in 2019, Page & Turnbull determined that the property “retained integrity.” Consequently, the property was rated C3 meeting Pacific Grove Criteria D, E, F, G, H, and I, based upon its architectural design. The building was given a rating of “5S1” which presumably included the attached garage (Page & Turnbull 2019). As previously noted, a Phase II Historic Assessment was completed by Kent Seavey in December 2024.

A Phase II Historical Assessment is intended to provide a more detailed evaluation of the resource and examines how a project will affect its significance, applying the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (Standards). In addition, a Phase II Historical Assessment may provide potential mitigation measures for consideration by the City of Pacific Grove to reduce impacts to a level of insignificance, if possible, or a clear statement that the proposal will cause a significant impact to the resource which cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance. If a property is listed or has been determined eligible for listing on the National or California Registers or is listed on the Pacific Grove Historic Resource Inventory, a Phase II Historical Assessment is automatically required.

The subject property was assessed by Dana E. Supernowicz, M.A., RPA, Registered Historian, Architectural Historian, and Archaeologist with Monterey County. Supernowicz has owned and operated Historic Resource Associates since the mid-1980s, served as principal historian for the U.S.

Forest Service and California Department of Transportation, and worked for the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) as a staff project reviewer. Supernowicz has been performing architectural and archaeological assessments in Monterey County and Pacific Grove since the 1990s, and meets or exceed the Secretary of Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for the aforementioned professions. The Phase II Historical Assessment was completed on August 4, 2025, in part using background information provided in the State of California, Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) site records prepared by Katherine Wallace of Page & Turnbull in 2019, and the previous Phase II Historical Assessment prepared by Kent Seavey in 2024 (Appendix 2: DPR Site Records).

Phase II Historical Assessment 685 Mermaid Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA [4]
Figure 1: Project Location Map (USGS 7.5’ Monterey,
California Topographic Quadrangle Map).
685 Mermaid Avenue
Phase II Historical Assessment 685 Mermaid Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA [5]
Figure 2: 3D Aerial view of the garage at 685 Mermaid Avenue, looking north.

Figure 3: 3D Aerial view of the garage at 685 Mermaid Avenue, looking south.

Project Location
Project Location
Phase II Historical Assessment 685 Mermaid Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA [6]
Figure 4: Existing and Proposed East and North Elevations.

Figure 5: Existing and Proposed West and South Elevations.

Phase II Historical Assessment 685 Mermaid Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA [7]
Figure 6: Proposed front elevation and material designs.

D. HISTORICAL CONTEXT
Pacific Grove was founded in 1875 by a group of Methodists who modeled the town after Ocean Grove, New Jersey. In time, the butterflies, fragrant pines and fresh sea air brought others to the Pacific Grove Retreat to rest and meditate. The initial meeting of the Pacific Coast branch of the Chautauqua Literary and Scientific Circle was held in Pacific Grove in June 1879. Modeled after the Methodist Sunday school teachers’ training camp established in 1874 at Lake Chautauqua, New York, this location became part of a nationwide educational network. In November 1879, after the summer campers returned home, Robert Louis Stevenson wandered into the deserted campgrounds: "I have never been in any place so dreamlike. Indeed, it was not so much like a deserted town as like a scene upon the stage by daylight, and with no one on the boards." The Pacific Grove post office opened in 1886, closed later that year, and was re-opened in 1887. Pacific Grove incorporated in 1889 (McLane 1952).

Pacific Grove, like Carmel-by-the-Sea and Monterey, became an artists' haven in the 1890s and subsequent period. Artists of the plein air school in both Europe and the United States were seeking an outdoor venue which had natural beauty, so that Pacific Grove was a magnet for this movement.

William Adam was an English painter who first moved to Monterey and then decided on Pacific Grove for his home in 1906. At about the same time Eugen Neuhaus, a German painter, arrived in Pacific Grove with his new bride. Charles B. Judson was an artist of aristocratic lineage who painted Phase II Historical Assessment 685 Mermaid Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA [8]
in Pacific Grove over a long period of time beginning in 1907; Judson's murals decorate the halls of the California Academy of Sciences (McLane 1952).

For a number of years, John Steinbeck lived in a cottage in Pacific Grove owned by his father, Ernest, who was Monterey County Treasurer. The cottage still stands on a quiet side street, without any plaque or special sign, virtually overlooked by most Steinbeck fans. In Steinbeck's book Sweet Thursday, a chapter is dedicated to describing a likely fictional rivalry that arose among the town's residents over the game of roque. Local traditions include a Butterfly Parade, in which elementary schoolchildren dress in costumes and march through town, and the Feast of Lanterns, a Chinese-styled pageant in which a high school girl and her companions act out a melodrama (McLane 1952).

The Asilomar Conference Grounds, now part of the California State Park system, lie to the south of the subject property. At the end of the 19th century, the Young Women's Christian Association (YWCA) played an active role in providing shelter for the young women who were coming to the nation's big cities in search of low-paying jobs in factories and offices. The YWCA housing included educational and vocational classroom facilities, where these young women could take classes in practical subjects, such as money management, sewing, cooking, and typing. The YWCA staff, students, and supporters met periodically to discuss women's issues of that time. These meetings eventually led to the formation of the YWCA Regional Leadership Conferences, and the western region was called the Pacific Coast Field Committee (Asilomar Conference Grounds Website 2025).

The Asilomar concept was first born in 1897, when the YWCA held its first western regional conference at Mills College near Oakland, California. Later, between 1900 and 1911, the Pacific Coast Field Committee conferred each year at the old Hotel Capitola near the beach at Santa Cruz. The committee was then composed of some of the most influential and prestigious women in California:

Phoebe Apperson Hearst (mother of pioneer publisher, William Randolph Hearst), Ellen Browning Scripps (a successful publisher), Mrs. Warren Olney and Mary Sroufe Merrill (who authored a history of Asilomar and its founding) (Asilomar Conference Grounds Website 2025).

In 1912, the Hotel Capitola was destroyed by fire, and that summer Phoebe Apperson Hearst opened her estate, Hacienda del Pozo Verona, near Livermore, for the YWCA's leadership conference. The conference was held in a miniature tent city furnished with iron beds, mattresses, blankets, electricity and running water for over 300 attendees. The red and white canvas tents and equipment that Hearst provided were later to become the original furnishings of Asilomar. It was at this conference that Hearst embraced the YWCA's idea to build a western conference ground (Asilomar Conference Grounds Website 2025).

The Pacific Improvement Company, whose Monterey area assets became the basis for what is now known as the Pebble Beach Company, donated thirty acres facing the Pacific Ocean on the Monterey Peninsula to the YWCA. The deed stipulated that the YWCA would pay the property taxes and that $30,000 of improvements were to be made on the property over the next ten years. The National Board accepted the offer, and the western conference grounds became a reality. That same year, the YWCA hired Julia Morgan, a San Francisco architect, and work began immediately. With funds donated by YWCA members and supporters, the Administration Building (Phoebe Apperson Hearst Social Hall), the Engineer's Cottage, the tent houses and the large granite entrance gates were built (Asilomar Conference Grounds Website 2025).

Phase II Historical Assessment 685 Mermaid Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA [9]
In July 1913, those were the only structures standing when 300 young women attended Asilomar's first YWCA student leadership conference. Meals were served in a central dining tent. While these facilities would be considered spartan today, they did offer electricity, running water, and bathing facilities. The facility at Capitola had been known as "Guardamar," and in 1913, the YWCA held a contest to name their new property on the Monterey Peninsula. They received hundreds of entries. The winning name came from a Stanford University student, Helen Salisbury, who made up the word Asilomar, derived from the Spanish words "asilo" meaning retreat or refuge, and "mar," meaning sea, hence "refuge-by-the-sea" (Asilomar Conference Grounds Website 2025).

E. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
The subject property is best described as a two-story, single-wall or balloon-framed, vernacular residence, originally built with an attached single-car garage to the left of the residence. The exterior wall-cladding of the residence is dropwood-siding, placed over the original board and batten siding in the circa 1950s. The former garage to the left of the residence is in extremely poor condition, has some replaced or altered board and batten exterior wall siding, and the rear has been altered to allow for a structural retrofit. The front of the former garage facing Mermaid Avenue features an awkward combination shed and gable roof clad with asphalt shingles, and a large circa-1950s 12-light fixed steelsash window on the front below the gable. The west wall of the garage shares a common wall with the two-story residence. The east elevation of the garage continues to the south lacking fenestration.

The south elevation of the garage is characterized by an offset gable with its west side transitioning lower as opposed to the main roof that forms a shed as it approaches the east wall of the residence.

Figure 7 illustrates what the property looked like in 1926, shortly after it was constructed. What is notable is that the small rectangle below the main dwelling is denoted as “A” for automobiles, in essence a garage.

Figure 7: Sanborn Fire Insurance Map,
Pacific Grove, California, 1926.

Phase II Historical Assessment 685 Mermaid Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA [10]
While the 1961 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map does not depict a window in the front of the garage, it’s likely that the garage had already been converted into a living unit with alterations to the roof and front elevation. There is also a modification in the map (Figure 8) to the front of the garage, which appears to be an addition. It is also notable that the rear of the residence (single-story portion) appears to have been an open porch, which is now enclosed (Figures 7 and 8).

Figure 8: Sanborn Fire Insurance Map,
Pacific Grove, California, 1926, updated 1961.

It is important to point out that the 2019 DPR site record prepared by Page & Turnbull was cursory at best and largely failed to adequately describe the full range of alterations to both the residence and the garage. A close examination of the residence suggests that besides the building’s massing or shape, there are few character defining features that remain, although it is important to point out that under the much newer horizontal board siding is the original board and batten wood siding.

Similarly, the garage converted to a residence when it was altered in the 1950s with a large window added to the front elevation, a result of removing the original garage door or doors. A concrete footing has also been added to the front of the former garage, presumably to create an interior living area. It is also unclear if the original roof was a shed design or a gable. A gable roof would have collected water against the residence, which would seem unadvisable, resulting in damage to the exterior wall of the residence (Photographs 1-6).

Modification to the original
design illustrated in Figure 6
Phase II Historical Assessment 685 Mermaid Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA [11]
Photograph 1: View looking southwest from
Mermaid Avenue at 685 Mermaid Avenue.

Photograph 2: View looking southeast. Note that the
existing exterior siding was added circa 1950s covering the original board and battens. Although a later addition, the bay window on the second story will be retained as well as the front door, which may be original to the house.

Phase II Historical Assessment 685 Mermaid Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA [12]
Photograph 3: View looking at the converted single-car garage.

Photograph 4: View looking northeast at the rear of
the residence and former garage. Note the conversion of the original open rear porch, now having plywood walls.

Phase II Historical Assessment 685 Mermaid Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA [13]
Photograph 5: View looking north at the rear of the residence and former garage. This view clearly shows the addition of a shed roof cutting into the gabled garage roof, the creation of an exterior wall closing what was an open porch, and a metal window on the second story alongside a window filled with horizontal siding.

Phase II Historical Assessment 685 Mermaid Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA [14]
Photograph 6: View looking west at the east elevation of the former garage and a door punched into the side to provide access.

Photograph 7: View looking south at the neighbor’s residence at 687 Mermaid Avenue illustrating what the original garage at 685 Mermaid Avenue may have looked like prior to it being converted into a living area.

Phase II Historical Assessment 685 Mermaid Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA [15]
F. EVALUATION OF SIGNIFICANCE
In 2019 the subject property was formally evaluated by Page and Turnbull for listing on the City of Pacific Grove Historic Resource Inventory. Page and Turnbull found the subject property to be “significant for vernacular design expressed by intact stylistic features, forms and/or construction methods, and as a good example of type and/or style from Pacific Grove Comes of Age (1903-1926) historic theme.” When recorded in 2019, Page & Turnbull determined that the property “retained integrity.” Consequently, the property was rated C3 meeting Pacific Grove Criteria D, E, F, G, H, and I, based upon its architectural design. The building was given a rating of “5S1” which presumably included the attached garage (Page & Turnbull 2019).

G. IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
As previously described, the proposed project involves rehabilitation of the residence, which includes returning it back to its original exterior board and batten wall cladding; replacing damaged or deteriorated windows with in-kind replacements, matching the design and shape of the existing windows; restoring the front (French) door; and restoring the front bay window. To the left of the historic residence is a former garage converted into a living space, which will be demolished and replaced with a two-story addition set back behind the residence, and, to the left of the addition, a garage and second-story ADU is proposed (Figures 4-6).

H. MITIGATION
Per the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (Standards) a project that complies with the Standards is considered to have mitigated the changes to less than significant. The Standards include four levels of treatment:

Stabilization (maintaining the condition of a property until the plans are approved).

Restoration (returning a property to its condition during the period of significance using tools, methods and materials of the original).

Rehabilitation (returning a property to a useful condition while maintaining the features of its significance).

Reconstruction (when a property is destroyed or beyond rehabilitation and the loss impacts other properties or the understanding of history).

The intent of the Standards is to assist the long-term preservation of a property's significance through the preservation of historic materials and features. The Standards pertain to historic buildings of all materials, construction types, sizes, and occupancy and encompass the exterior and interior of the buildings. They also encompass related landscape features and the building's site and environment, as well as attached, adjacent, or related new construction. It is important to note that before the property was acquired by the current owner it was in a state decay due to the lack of maintenance.

Phase II Historical Assessment 685 Mermaid Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA [16]
In applying the Standards, the term “Rehabilitation” is the most appropriate in describing the current plans, which involve demolition of the converted garage, replacing it with an addition to the residence and constructing a two-story addition to the left with a garage on the first floor and an ADU on the second story.

The ten Standards include:

1. A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces and spatial relationships.

2. The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided.

3. Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historic properties, will not be undertaken.

4. Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved.

5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved.

6. Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence.

7. Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used.

8. Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken.

9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work will be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment.

10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.

Assessment of each Standard:

1. The historic residence will be rehabilitated and used as it was historically. With the exception of the addition to the left, there will be minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces and spatial relationships.

2. The historic character of the property will be preserved, including returning the exterior design to its original wall cladding by removing the 1950s horizontal siding and uncovering the original board and batten wood siding.

3. Parts of the property that do not retain integrity or are not within the period of significance will be removed, such as the garage and rear shed-roof addition.

4. Not applicable.

Phase II Historical Assessment 685 Mermaid Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA [17]

5. Distinctive materials, such as the original board and batten siding and front entry door, will be retained and preserved.

6. If feasible, deteriorated historic fabric will be restored.

7. No chemical treatment is recommended for this project.

8. Archaeological resources associated with the parcel will be monitored during ground disturbing activities.

9. The new addition and the ADU will be constructed in a manner that will not damage or harm the historic residence.

10. The new additions will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.

In summary, after carefully examining the subject property, it is my professional opinion that the former garage is such a deteriorated condition and has been so altered to conclude that it no longer is a “contributing” part of the residence, which itself has undergone numerous alterations. Therefore, the rehabilitation of the residence and the demolition of the former garage appear to meet the aforementioned Standards. In this regard it is presumed that any new addition, in this case a two-story addition set back from the original residence and beyond it to the east the construction of a two-story combination garage and ADU, will be designed in a manner that does not directly damage or visually imply that either addition was once part of the original residence. At the same time, rehabilitating the residence and removing the modern circa-1950s horizontal board siding and exposing the board and batten siding, replacing windows in-kind while keeping the massing of the original residence largely intact, as well as other architectural details, such as the bay window on the front and lighted French style entry door, meet the Standards for preservation and rehabilitation.

Thus, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 states; “generally, a project that follows the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring and Reconstructing Historic Buildings or the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings (1995 as amended) shall be considered as mitigated to a level of less than a significant impact on the historical resource.” Phase II Historical Assessment 685 Mermaid Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA [18]
I. APPENDICES
Appendix 1: References
Asilomar Conference Grounds Website. “Park History.” www.visitasilomar.com/discover/parkhistory. Accessed August 2025.

Breschini, Gary S. The Founding of Monterey. Monterey County Historical Society, Local History Pages - The Colonization of Monterey. http://users.dedot.com/mchs/colonization.html. 1996.

Coventry, Kim. Images of America: Monterey Peninsula: The Golden Age. Arcadia Publishing, Chicago, IL. 2003.

Gordon, B. Monterey Bay Area: Natural History and Cultural Imprints. Pacific Grove, CA: Boxwood Press. 1979.

Owens, T. and J. M. Hall. The Insider’s Guide to California’s Monterey Peninsula. Second Edition. Guilford, CT: Globe Pequot/Falcon. 2000.

Page & Turnbull. City of Pacific Grove Historic Context Statement. Approved by City Council, October 19, 2011 and finalized on October 31, 2011.

Page & Turnbull. Pacific Grove Historic Resource Inventory (HRI) Survey Report and DPR Form for 685 Mermaid Avenue, Pacific Grove, California. October 18, 2019.

Sanborn Insurance Publishing Company. Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps. Pacific Grove, California, 1888-1960.

Schoenherr, A. A Natural History of California. Berkeley: University of California Press. 1992.

Seavey, Kent L. Phase II Historic Assessment for 685 Mermaid Ave. Pacific Grove. Prepared for Charles Zheng. December 7, 2024.

USGS 7.5' Monterey, California Topographic Quadrangle Map, 1955, revised 1980.

Watkins, R. C. History of Monterey, Santa Cruz and San Benito Counties, California. S.J. Clarke Publishing, Chicago. 1925.

Phase II Historical Assessment 685 Mermaid Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA [19]
Appendix 2: DPR Site Records
Phase II Historical Assessment 685 Mermaid Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA [20]

PROJECT DATA SHEET
Project Address: Submittal Date:

Applicant(s): Permit Type(s) & No(s):

REQUIRED/
Permitted
Existing
Condition
Proposed
Condition Notes
Zone District
Building Site Area
Density (multi-family projects only)
Building Coverage
Site Coverage
Gross Floor Area
Square Footage not counted towards Gross
Floor Area LQFOXGHV$'8
VXQGHUVI
Impervious Surface Area Created
and/or Replaced
Exterior Lateral Wall Length to be
demolished in feet & % of total* _______ _______ ___ft/___% Exterior Lateral Wall Length to be built _______ _______ Building Height
Number of stories
Front Setback
_______________Side Setback
(specify side)
_______________Side Setback
(specify side)
Rear Setback
Garage Door Setback
Covered Parking Spaces
Uncovered Parking Spaces
Parking Space Size
(Interior measurement)
9’ x 20’
Number of Driveways 1
Driveway Width(s)
Back-up Distance
Eave Projection (Into Setback) 3’ maximum
Distances Between Eaves & Property
Lines
3’ minimum
Open Porch/Deck Projections
Architectural Feature Projections
Number & Category of Accessory
Buildings
Accessory Building Setbacks
Distance between Buildings
Accessory Building Heights
Fence Heights
*If project proposes demolition to an HRI structure, also indicate % of proposed demolition of the surface of all exterior walls facing a public street or streets, if applicable. [Rev. ]

TITLE SHEET
A0.0
Z
H
E
N
G
R
E
M
O
D
E
L
6 8
5 M
E
R
M
A
I
D
A
V
E . P
A
C
I
F
I
C
G
R
O
V
E , C
A
9 3
9 5
0 11 . 15 . 25

ALL DRAWINGS, DESIGNS
+ WRITTEN MATERIALS

ARE THE ORIGINAL WORK
OF H3 DESIGN AND MAY

NOT BE DUPLICATED,

USED OR TRANSFERRED

W I T H O U T W R I T T E N

CONSENT
H
3 D
E
S
I
G
N
5 4 9 H I L L C
R E S
T
A
V E N
U E
( C ) 8 3 1 . 2 3 3 . 4 3 1 9
P A

C I F I C
G
R
O
V E, C
A 9 3 9 5 0
H
3 D
E
S
I
G
N
5 4 9 H I L L C
R E S
T
A
V E N
U E
( C ) 8 3 1 . 2 3 3 . 4 3 1 9
P A

C I F I C
G
R
O
V E, C
A 9 3 9 5 0
5 Z H E N G R E S I D E N C E
6 8 5 M E R M A I D A V E N U E , P A C I F I C G R O V E C A 9 3 9 5 0

PARCEL MAP
SHEET I.D. NAME / DESCRIPTION REVISION

SHEET INDEX

VICINITY MAP / TRUCK HAUL ROUTE

PROJECT DATA
OWNER: CHARLES ZHENG
685 MERMAID AVENUE
PACIFIC GROVE, CA 93950
SITE: 685 MERMAID AVENUE
PACIFIC GROVE, CA 93950
APN: 006-085-003
SITE AREA: 1,760 SQ FT (.04 AC)
ZONING: R-3-PGB
OCCUPANCY: R-3
CONSTUCTION TYPE: V-B
PARKING 1 GARAGE SPACE PROVIDED (23.64.190.A)
AREA CALCULATIONS: EXISTING BUILDING AREA:

LOWER FLOOR: 603 SQ FT
UPPER FLOOR: 347 SQ FT
TOTAL: 950 SQ FT
PROPOSED BUILDING AREA:

GARAGE: 337 SQ FT
LOWER FLOOR: 514 SQ FT
UPPER FLOOR: 512 SQ FT
ADU: 339 SQ FT
TOTAL: 1,702 SQ FT
MAX ALLOWABLE COVERAGE 50% (23.57.050) = 1,760 SQFT X 50% = 880 SQFT PROPOSED BUILDING COVERAGE = 337 SQFT + 514 SQFT = 851 SQFT MAX ALLOW. SITE COVERAGE 60% (23.57.051) = 1,760 SQFT X 60% = 1,056 SQFT PROPOSED SITE COVERAGE = 1,056 SQFT (SEE COVERAGE DIAGRAM BELOW) ALLOWABLE BUILDING HEIGHT 25'-0" (23.57.030)
GRADING: 15 CY CUT
01 CY FILL
16 TOTAL (UNDER 50 CY)
FIRE SPRINKLERS: YES
TREE REMOVAL: NONE
WATER SUPPLY: CAL AM
SEWER: CITY
A3.1 EXISTING + PROPOSED ELEVATIONS
A2.4 PROPOSED MAIN FLOOR PLAN
A0.0 COVER SHEET, PROJECT DATA
A2.3 UPPER FLOOR DEMOLITION PLAN
A1.0 EXISTING SITE PLAN
A3.2 EXISTING + PROPOSED ELEVATIONS
A4.2 PROPOSED BUILDING SECTION
A2.5 PROPOSED UPPER FLOOR PLAN
A2.0 EXISTING MAIN FLOOR PLAN
A2.1 EXISTING UPPER FLOOR PLAN
A2.2 MAIN FLOOR DEMOLITION PLAN
A9.1 ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS
A10.1 MATERIALS

SCOPE OF WORK
PROJECT INVOLVES REHABILITATION AND EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING 950 SF,

NON-CONFORMING, TWO-STORY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE, LISTED AS A LOCAL HISTORIC RESOURCE. THE SCOPE INCLUDES EXTENSIVE REHABILITATION OF THE

HISTORIC STRUCTURE, SELECTIVE DEMOLITION OF NON-CONTRIBUTING ELEMENTS, NEW CONSTRUCTION, AND FULL INTERIOR MODERNIZATION.

THE HISTORIC PORTION OF THE RESIDENCE WILL BE LIFTED TO ALLOW

INSTALLATION OF A NEW ENGINEERED FOUNDATION WITH PROPER DRAINAGE AND CODE-COMPLIANT FLOOR-TO-FLOOR CLEARANCE. INTERIOR FLOOR FRAMING WILL

BE REMOVED AND REPLACED, AND THE EXISTING SINGLE-WALL CONSTRUCTION WILL BE REINFORCED PER THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER’S SPECIFICATIONS. TWO EXISTING NON-CONFORMING ADDITIONS—THE EAST-FACING GARAGE AND THE SOUTH-FACING SINGLE-STORY LEAN-TO—WILL BE DEMOLISHED, AS THEY HAVE BEEN DEEMED HISTORICALLY INSIGNIFICANT AND IN SUBSTANTIAL DECAY. THE

ORIGINAL GABLE FORM AND HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES WILL BE

RETAINED AND RESTORED IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICABLE PRESERVATION STANDARDS.

A NEW TWO-STORY GABLED VOLUME WILL BE CONSTRUCTED PARALLEL TO THE

EXISTING STRUCTURE AND SET BACK TO ALLOW THE HISTORIC PORTION TO BE THE PROMINENT FACE. THE LOWER LEVEL WILL CONTAIN A SINGLE-CAR GARAGE

FOR THE PRIMARY RESIDENCE, WHILE THE UPPER LEVEL WILL CONTAIN AN

ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT (ADU) WITH INDEPENDENT ACCESS VIA EXTERIOR STAIR. A FLAT-ROOFED HYPHEN VOLUME WILL CONNECT THE TWO FORMS, HOUSING THE PRIMARY ENTRY, INTERIOR STAIR, AND A SECOND-FLOOR STUDY.

ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDE A NEW ELECTRICAL SYSTEM THROUGHOUT,

RELOCATION OF THE GAS METER TO A CODE-COMPLIANT LOCATION, AND

RENOVATION OF THE KITCHEN, BATHROOMS, AND INTERIOR FINISHES THROUGHOUT THE PRIMARY RESIDENCE AND ADU.

T-1 SITE SURVEY

PROJECT DATA SHEET
Project Address: Submittal Date:

Applicant(s): Permit Type(s) & No(s):

REQUIRED/
Permitted
Existing
Condition
Proposed
Condition Notes
Zone District
Building Site Area
Density (multi-family projects only)
Building Coverage
Site Coverage
Gross Floor Area
Square Footage not counted towards Gross
Floor Area LQFOXGHV$'8
VXQGHUVI
Impervious Surface Area Created
and/or Replaced
Exterior Lateral Wall Length to be
demolished in feet & % of total* _______ _______ ___ft/___% Exterior Lateral Wall Length to be built _______ _______ Building Height
Number of stories
Front Setback
_______________Side Setback
(specify side)
_______________Side Setback
(specify side)
Rear Setback
Garage Door Setback
Covered Parking Spaces
Uncovered Parking Spaces
Parking Space Size
(Interior measurement)
9’ x 20’
Number of Driveways 1
Driveway Width(s)
Back-up Distance
Eave Projection (Into Setback) 3’ maximum
Distances Between Eaves & Property
Lines
3’ minimum
Open Porch/Deck Projections
Architectural Feature Projections
Number & Category of Accessory
Buildings
Accessory Building Setbacks
Distance between Buildings
Accessory Building Heights
Fence Heights
*If project proposes demolition to an HRI structure, also indicate % of proposed demolition of the surface of all exterior walls facing a public street or streets, if applicable. [Rev. ]
R-3-PGB 1,760 SQFT +++ 50% MAX 60% MAX R-3-PGB R-3-PGB 1,760 SQFT 1,760 SQFT +++ +++ 603 SQFT 1,012 SQFT 1,047 SQFT +++ 950 SQFT 1,702 SQFT 685 Mermaid Avenue, Pacific Grove 08.27.25 Charles S. Hornisher, H3 design 25’ MAX 2 2 8’-0” MAX EAST WEST 4’-5” 10% of 44’-0”= 52.8” 4’-5” 8’-0” 8’-0” 1 required NA2 0 0 1
NA 8’-0” 2
10% of 44’-0”= 52.8” 1
NANA NA NANA NANA11’-5” NA NA NA 21’-2 1/2” 8” 6’-5” 8” 2’-1” 6’-0” (E) NANA 8’-0” 5’-7” (E) 5’-7” (E) 8’-0” (N) 8’-0” (N) 20’-10” 20’-11” 14” 14” (E) bay window 0” 0” (E) condition 11” 11” 9’ x 20’ 0 required NA 339 SQFT 35 SQFT 851 SQFT 880 SQFT MAX 1,056 SQFT MAX NA 1,047 - 1,012 = 35 72 37 0’-0” to street facade 103’

PROJECT DATA SHEET
1 1
1 A1.1 PROPOSED SITE PLAN
A2.6 ROOF PLAN
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 2
1 1
1 1
2 2
2 2
2 2
1 BELOW ARE LISTED REVISIONS, THEIR DELTA SYMBOL AND DATE:
1 06.07.24 - PLAN CHECK RESPONSES

REVISION DATE
2 08.13.24 - DESIGN REVISIONS
3 08.27.25 - DESIGN REVISIONS
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
1 2 3
3 3
3 4 09.08.25 - AREA REVISIONS
4 4
4 4
5 11.15.25 - PLANNING REVISIONS
A1.2 CONSTRUCTION SITE PLAN
A1.3 CONSTRUCTION BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
5 5
5 A10.2 COASTAL COMMUNITY CHARACTER ASSESSMENT 5

SUBJECT PARCEL
TRUCK ROUTE TO HWY 68 | HWY 1

PROJECT LOCATION
SCALE: NTS

EXISTING SITE PLAN
A1.0
Z
H
E
N
G
R
E
M
O
D
E
L
6 8
5 M
E
R
M
A
I
D
A
V
E . P
A
C
I
F
I
C
G
R
O
V
E , C
A
9 3
9 5
0 11 . 15 . 25

ALL DRAWINGS, DESIGNS
+ WRITTEN MATERIALS

ARE THE ORIGINAL WORK
OF H3 DESIGN AND MAY

NOT BE DUPLICATED,

USED OR TRANSFERRED

W I T H O U T W R I T T E N

CONSENT
H
3 D
E
S
I
G
N
5 4 9 H I L L C
R E S
T
A
V E N
U E
( C ) 8 3 1 . 2 3 3 . 4 3 1 9
P A

C I F I C
G
R
O
V E, C
A 9 3 9 5 0
H
3 D
E
S
I
G
N
5 4 9 H I L L C
R E S
T
A
V E N
U E
( C ) 8 3 1 . 2 3 3 . 4 3 1 9
P A

C I F I C
G
R
O
V E, C
A 9 3 9 5 0
5 SITE PLAN SHEET NOTES

ELECTRICAL MASTHEAD

SETBACK PER CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE REQUIREMENTS

GAS CONNECTION TO BE RELOCATED, SEE PROPOSED SITE PLAN

EXISTING RESIDENCE, SEE LEGEND FOR WALLS TO BE DEMOLISHED 2 STORY SINGLE

FAMILY RESIDENCE
W
M
G
M
CSS
O
EL
8"PLM
100.0
102.5
105.0
100.5
101.0
101.5
102.0
103.0
105.5
106.0
105.0
105.5
106.0
N
31°3
5'0
0" E
4 0.0
0'
N
31°3
5'0
0" E
4 0.0
0'
S 58°25'00" E 44.00'
S 58°25'00" E 44.00'
1,760 sq ft
8'-0"
FR
O
N
T
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
8'-0" 2
N
D
S
T
O
RY
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
4'-5"

SIDE SETBACK
4'-5"

SIDE SETBACK
5'-7" (E)
BLD
G
T
O
P
R
O
P
2'-1" (E)
BLD
G
T
O
P
R
O
P
6'-0"
R
E
D
U
C
E

D (E) B
UILDIN
G
E
N
C
R
O
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
20'-10 1/2" (E)

BLDG TO PROP
9 1/2"(E)

BLDG TO PROP
8"(E)

BLDG TO PROP
6" EAVE OVERHANG
2"

EAVE OVERHANG
4'-4 1/2"
(E) B
AY
WIN
D
O
W
6'-0" FENCE
0 1' 2' 4' 8'

MERMAID AVENUE
PGMC 23.57.060.B
PGMC 23.57.060.B
P
G
M
C
2 3.5

7.0 6

0.C
P
G
M
C
2 3.5

7.0 6

0.A
02 01
12 06
09 04
05 11
13 03
10 10 11
13 15
14 685 MERMAID CORNER RECORD

RETAINING WALL TO BE DEMOLISHED

GENERAL NOTES
5' TALL CHAIN LINK FENCE TO ADJACENT PROPERTY

BAY WINDOW ABOVE
BASIS OF BEARINGS:

R1
RECORD REFERENCES:

NOTES:

LEGEND:

FD NAIL & TAG "L.S. 3381" PER CR 713.

FOUND 3/4" IRON PIPE, W PLASTIC CAP
"L.S. 2689" PER CR 792
SET NAIL AND TAG, "P.L.S. 8368"
ON WOODEN FENCE.

SET 3/4" IRON PIPE W/ PLASTIC CAP "PLS 8368"
= VOLUME 3 OF CITIES AND TOWNS PAGE 6

1. DISTANCES ARE EXPRESSED
IN FEET AND DECIMALS THEREOF.

2. ENTITLEMENTS/ENCUMBRANCES

AFFECTING THIS PROPERTY MAY NOT
NECESSARILY BE SHOWN.

SNF = SEARCHED NOT FOUND
M = MEASURED
CFR# = CALCULATED FROM RECORD
THE BEARING OF S 58°25'00" E AS FOUND
MONUMENTED PER VOLUME 3 OF
CITIES AND TOWNS AT PAGE 6 IS THE
BASIS OF BEARINGS FOR THIS SURVEY.

MERMAID AVENUE
SET NAIL AND TAG, "P.L.S. 8368" ON WOOD BOARD

RETAINING WALL ALONG SW'LY PROPERTY LINE

3.00' NW'LY FROM SE'LY PROP. COR.

FOUND 1" IRON PIPE, TAGGED
"L.S. 4974" PER CR 792
FD LEAD AND TAG, "L.S. 2689" PER CR 113
Corner Record to be filed with the County of Monterey

FENCE TO BE DEMOLISHED
TOPOGRAPHIC LINE IN 6" INCREMENTS

PAVING TO BE DEMOLISHED

EDGE OF PAVMENT

LINE OF EAVE OVERHANGING PROPERTY LINE

WHITE LINE ON STREET

OVERHEAD POWER / PHONE LINES
15' TALL OVERGROWN HEDGE
1 1
A. THIS IS A HISTORIC RENOVATION. CAREFUL ATTENTION SHALL BE GIVEN TO HISTORIC ASPECTS AS DETAILED IN THE PHASE II HISTORIC ASSESSMENT.

ORIGINAL BUILDING ELEMENTS SHALL BE PROTECTED AND RESTORED AS

DIRECTED BY ARCHITECT AND HISTORIAN
B. VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS AFTER DEMOLITION AND FINISHES ARE REMOVED C. NOTIFY ARCHITECT OF ANY DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN PLANS + DIMENSIONS D. READ ARCHAEOLOGICAL REPORT FOR MONITORING REQUIREMENTS 1 (E) WALL TO REMAIN
(E) WALL TO BE DEMOLISHED

WALL LEGEND
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"

EXISTING SITE PLAN
01 02
03 04
05 06
07 08
09 10
11 12
13 14
15 PROPOSED SITE PLAN
A1.1
Z
H
E
N
G
R
E
M
O
D
E
L
6 8
5 M
E
R
M
A
I
D
A
V
E . P
A
C
I
F
I
C
G
R
O
V
E , C
A
9 3
9 5
0 11 . 15 . 25

ALL DRAWINGS, DESIGNS
+ WRITTEN MATERIALS

ARE THE ORIGINAL WORK
OF H3 DESIGN AND MAY

NOT BE DUPLICATED,

USED OR TRANSFERRED

W I T H O U T W R I T T E N

CONSENT
H
3 D
E
S
I
G
N
5 4 9 H I L L C
R E S
T
A
V E N
U E
( C ) 8 3 1 . 2 3 3 . 4 3 1 9
P A

C I F I C
G
R
O
V E, C
A 9 3 9 5 0
H
3 D
E
S
I
G
N
5 4 9 H I L L C
R E S
T
A
V E N
U E
( C ) 8 3 1 . 2 3 3 . 4 3 1 9
P A

C I F I C
G
R
O
V E, C
A 9 3 9 5 0
5 SITE PLAN SHEET NOTES

ELECTRICAL MASTHEAD

SETBACK PER CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE REQUIREMENTS

DIRVEWAY
TOPOGRAPHIC LINE IN 6" INCREMENTS
2 STORY SINGLE

FAMILY RESIDENCE

SEPARATE ADU LOCATED

ABOVE GARAGE
W
M
G
M
CSS
O
EL
8"PLM
100.0
105.0
100.5
101.0
105.5
106.0
N
31°3
5'0
0" E
4 0.0
0'
N
31°3
5'0
0" E
4 0.0
0'
S 58°25'00" E 44.00'
S 58°25'00" E 44.00'
101.0
101.5
102.0
100.9
101.56
101.06
1,760 sq ft
8'-0"
FR
O
N
T
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
8'-0" 2
N
D
S
T
O
RY
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
4'-5"

SIDE SETBACK
4'-5"

SIDE SETBACK
5'-7" (E)
BLD
G
T
O
P
R
O
P
3'-0" STAIR CLR. TO PROP. LINE
6'-5"

BLDG TO PROP
9 1/4"E)

BLDG TO PROP
8"(E)

BLDG TO PROP
6" EAVE OVERHANG
4'-4 1/2"
(E) B
AY
WIN
D
O
W
5'-0"
(N) B
ALC
O
N
Y
6'-0"
R
E
D
U
C
E

D (E) B
UILDIN
G
E
N
C
R
O
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
6'-0" FENCE
6'-0" FENCE

NO FENCE,

OPEN TO AREA
BEHIND
0 1' 2' 4' 8'

MERMAID AVENUE
PGMC 23.64.160
PGMC 23.57.060.B
PGMC 23.57.060.B
P
G
M
C
2 3.5

7.0 6

0.C
P
G
M
C
2 3.5

7.0 6

0.A
07 02
04 03
09 08
04 08
11 10 09
10 13
12 10
06 11
05 07
10 14
14 15 (N) GAS CONNECTION
30" RETAINING WALL

GENERAL NOTES
A. THIS IS A HISTORIC RENOVATION. CAREFUL ATTENTION SHALL BE GIVEN TO HISTORIC ASPECTS AS DETAILED IN THE PHASE II HISTORIC ASSESSMENT.

ORIGINAL BUILDING ELEMENTS SHALL BE PROTECTED AND RESTORED AS

DIRECTED BY ARCHITECT AND HISTORIAN
B. VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS AFTER DEMOLITION AND FINISHES ARE REMOVED C. NOTIFY ARCHITECT OF ANY DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN PLANS + DIMENSIONS D. READ ARCHAEOLOGICAL REPORT FOR MONITORING REQUIREMENTS

PROPOSED STORMWATER SEEPAGE PITS, CONNECT DOWN
SPOUTS TO LOCATION + PROVIDE OVERFLOW OUTLETS

PLANTED / PERMEABLE AREA
(E) BAY WINDOW ABOVE
(N) OPEN DECK ABOVE

OVERHEAD LINES

EDGE OF PAVEMENT

LINE OF EAVE OVERHANGING PROPERTY LINE
90 sq ft

PROPOSED

BUILDING COVERAGE

DRIVEWAY
89 SQ FT
851 SQFT

SITE PAVING
75 SQ FT

RETAINING
WALLS
76 SQ FT

SITE PAVING
18 SQ FT

PERMEABLE COVERAGE

PERMEABLE COVERAGE

PERMEABLE

COVERAGE

SITE PAVING
22 SQFT

ASPHALT
5 SQ FT

SITE COVERAGE

SITE PAVING
413 SQ FT

EXISTING

BUILDING COVERAGE
603 SQFT

RETAINING
WALLS
4 SQ FT
STAIRS + SITE PAVING
18 SQ FT

PERMEABLE COVERAGE

ASPHALT
11 SQ FT

EXISTING SITE

PROPOSED SITE
1 4
4 1
1 SWALE TO DIRECT SITE RUN-OFF TO INFILTRATION PITS
1 DOWNSPOUT LOCATION, HARD PIPE TO INFILTRATION PITS
(E) WALL TO REMAIN
(E) WALL TO BE DEMOLISHED
(E) WALL TO BE ALTERED / REPAIRED
(N) PROPOSED WALL

WALL LEGEND
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"

PROPOSED SITE PLAN
01 02
03 04
05 06
07 08
09 10
11 12
13 14
15 BUILDING COVERAGE 864 SQFT
SITE PAVING 111 SQFT
DRIVEWAY 89 SQFT
DRIVEWAY REDUCTION -89 SQFT
TOTAL 1,056 SQFT
RETAINING WALLS 76 SQFT
PCMC 23.08.020.S.SITE COVERAGE.2A
BUILDING COVERAGE 603 SQFT
SITE PAVING 431 SQFT
TOTAL 1,049 SQFT
RETAINING WALLS 4 SQFT
ASPHALT 5 SQFT
ASPHALT 11 SQFT
C

ONSTRUCTION

MANAGMENTPLAN
A1.2Z H E N G R E M O D E L 6 8 5 M E R M A I D A V E . P A C I F I C G R O V E , C A 9 3 9 5 0

11.15.25 ALLDRAWINGS,DESIGNS
+WRITTENMATERIALS

ARETHEORIGINALWORK
OFH
3 DESIGNANDMAY

NOTBEDUPLICATED,

USEDORTRANSFERRED

WITHOUTWRITTEN
CONSENT H 3 D E S I G N
5 4 9 H I L L C R E S T A V E N U E
( C ) 8 3 1 . 2 3 3 . 4 3 1 9
P A C I F I C G R O V E, C A 9 3 9 5 0
H 3 D E S I G N
5 4 9 H I L L C R E S T A V E N U E
( C ) 8 3 1 . 2 3 3 . 4 3 1 9
P A C I F I C G R O V E, C A 9 3 9 5 0 5

GENERALNOTES
A.THISISAHISTORICRENOVATION.CAREFULATTENTIONSHALLBEGIVENTO HISTORICASPECTSASDETAILEDINTHEPHASEIIHISTORICASSESSMENT.

ORIGINALBUILDINGELEMENTSSHALLBEPROTECTEDANDRESTOREDAS

DIRECTEDBYARCHITECTANDHISTORIAN
B.VERIFYALLDIMENSIONSAFTERDEMOLITIONANDFINISHESAREREMOVED C.NOTIFYARCHITECTOFANYDISCREPANCIESBETWEENPLANS+DIMENSIONS D.READARCHAEOLOGICALREPORTFORMONITORINGREQUIREMENTS
1 SITEPLANSHEETNOTES

ELECTRICALMASTHEAD

PULLBACKCONSTRUCTIONFENCINGDURINGWORKHOURS

EDGEOFPAVEMENT

CONSTRUCTIONPARKING

CHAINLINKCONSTRUCTIONFENCEW/GREENPRIVACYNETTING

OVERHEADPOWERLINES
1 LATTICESCREENING

PORTA-POTTY

WASHSTATION

MATERIALSTORAGE/STAGINGAREA
LINEOF12'RIGHTOFWAY
CONSTRUCTIONPLANBASEDOFFOFSURVEY,SEESHEETT-1FORINFORMATIONNOTSHOWNHERE

LINEOFNEWCONSTRUCTION

SEEDEMOLITIONPLANFORITEMSTOBEREMOVED
FIBERROLLFORSTORMRUNOFF,SEEWATTLEDETAIL1/A1.2SHOWNBELOW

PROPERTYLINE
CONSTRUCTIONBESTMANAGEMENTPRACTICESSHALLBEEMPLOYEDONSITEATALLTIMES,SEEA1.3FORNOTESANDDETAILS CONSTRUCTIONHOURSONSITEWILLBEFROM8:00AM-5:00PM
SITEDELIVERIESCANBEMADEFROM9:00AMTO4:00PM(OFFPEAK)
1'-0"
2" TO 4"
1'-0"

SLOPEVARIESPERSITE
TRENCH2"TO4"ACCORDING
TOMANUF.REC.

SECUREFIBERROLLW/3/4"X
3/4"WOODSTAKES,#3OR#4
REBARAPPROX16"TO18"

CLEANOUTANYSILTOR
DEBRISWHEN3/4FULL
PLACESTAKES8'APARTON
FLATORLOWSLOPEAREAS.AS

SLOPEINCREASES,DECREASE
SPACINGTO4'
FIBERROLL8"MIN.,LAY

ACROSSSLOPE,PARALLELTO

CONTOUR
*REGULARLYCHECKFIBER

ROLLSFORSEDIMENTBUILD

UP,GAPS,SLIPTORTORN
ROLLS.CHECKFIBERROLLS

PRIORTOINCLEMENT

WEATHER
OVERLAPFIBERROLLS12"MIN

SECTIONVIEW

PLANVIEW

WALLLEGEND
(E)WALLTOREMAIN
(E)WALLTOBEDEMOLISHED
(E)WALLTOBEALTERED/REPAIRED
(N)PROPOSEDWALL
WM
EL
8"PLM
1 00
.
0 1
0 0
.
5 N 31°35'00" E 40.00'
N 31°35'00" E 40.00'
S
5 8
°
2 5
'
0 0
"
E
4 4
.
0 0
'
100.9
GM
EL
S
5 8
°
2 5
'
0 0
"
E
4 4
.
0 0
'
0 1
'
2 '
4 '
8 '
M
E
R
M
A
I
D
AV
E
N
U
E
0 4
0 7
0 9
1 0
1 4
1 1
1 2
1 3
0 8
1 6
1 6
0 6
0 7
0 5
0 3
0 3
0 2
1 5
1 8
1 9
S
C
A
L
E
:
1 /
4 "
=
1 '
-
0 "
P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D
SIT
E
P
L
A
N
1 SCALE:11/2"=1'-0"

WATTLEDETAIL
01 02
03 04
05 06
07 08
09 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 CONSTRUCTION BEST

MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
A1.3
Z
H
E
N
G
R
E
M
O
D
E
L
6 8
5 M
E
R
M
A
I
D
A
V
E . P
A
C
I
F
I
C
G
R
O
V
E , C
A
9 3
9 5
0 11 . 15 . 25

ALL DRAWINGS, DESIGNS
+ WRITTEN MATERIALS

ARE THE ORIGINAL WORK
OF H3 DESIGN AND MAY

NOT BE DUPLICATED,

USED OR TRANSFERRED

W I T H O U T W R I T T E N

CONSENT
H
3 D
E
S
I
G
N
5 4 9 H I L L C
R E S
T
A
V E N
U E
( C ) 8 3 1 . 2 3 3 . 4 3 1 9
P A

C I F I C
G
R
O
V E, C
A 9 3 9 5 0
H
3 D
E
S
I
G
N
5 4 9 H I L L C
R E S
T
A
V E N
U E
( C ) 8 3 1 . 2 3 3 . 4 3 1 9
P A

C I F I C
G
R
O
V E, C
A 9 3 9 5 0
5 E

XISTINGMAINFLOOR
A2.0Z H E N G R E M O D E L 6 8 5 M E R M A I D A V E . P A C I F I C G R O V E , C A 9 3 9 5 0

11.15.25 ALLDRAWINGS,DESIGNS
+WRITTENMATERIALS

ARETHEORIGINALWORK
OFH
3 DESIGNANDMAY

NOTBEDUPLICATED,

USEDORTRANSFERRED

WITHOUTWRITTEN
CONSENT H 3 D E S I G N
5 4 9 H I L L C R E S T A V E N U E
( C ) 8 3 1 . 2 3 3 . 4 3 1 9
P A C I F I C G R O V E, C A 9 3 9 5 0
H 3 D E S I G N
5 4 9 H I L L C R E S T A V E N U E
( C ) 8 3 1 . 2 3 3 . 4 3 1 9
P A C I F I C G R O V E, C A 9 3 9 5 0 5

FLOORPLANSHEETNOTES

ELECTRICALMASTHEAD

GASCONNECTION

PROPERTYLINE,SEESITEPLAN
1 A3.2
LOWERFLOORAREA-603sqft
3 A3.1
3 A3.2
REF
2233
AA
BB
GG
11 22'-11/2"
12'-3"9'-101/2"
32'-3"
3'-11" 28'-4"
2'-1" 4'-6" 19'-0 1/2" 1'-10" 4'-9 1/2"
2'-7"5'-7"4'-1"4'-91/2"5'-1"
32'-3"
19'-11" 12'-4"
17'-5 1/2" 4'-0" 2'-5 1/2" 8'-4"
22'-11/2"
12'-31/2"9'-10"
10'-4"1'-111/2"9'-10"

KITCHEN
12'-0"X8'-11"

BEDROOM
9'-6"X19'-3"

LIVINGROOM
12'-0"X19'-1"
WD
UP
02 03
01 04
06 05
06 05

ELECTRICALMAINPANEL
1 A3.1

GENERALNOTES
(E)SINGLEWALLCONSTRUCTION

NON-HISTORICALLYSIGNIFICANTBEDROOMADDITIONTOBE

REMOVED,SEEDEMOLITIONPLAN
A.THISISAHISTORICRENOVATION.CAREFULATTENTIONSHALLBE

GIVENTOHISTORICASPECTSASDETAILEDINTHEPHASEIIHISTORIC
ASSESSMENT.ORIGINALBUILDINGELEMENTSSHALLBEPROTECTEDAND

RESTOREDASDIRECTEDBYARCHITECTANDHISTORIAN
B.VERIFYALLDIMENSIONSAFTERDEMOLITIONANDFINISHESARE

REMOVED
C.NOTIFYARCHITECTOFANYDISCREPANCIESBETWEENPLANS+

DIMENSIONS
D.READARCHAEOLOGICALREPORTFORMONITORINGREQUIREMENTS
SCALE:1/2"=1'-0"

EXISTINGMAINFLOOR
01 02
03 04
05 06
E

XISTINGUPPERFLOOR
A2.1Z H E N G R E M O D E L 6 8 5 M E R M A I D A V E . P A C I F I C G R O V E , C A 9 3 9 5 0

11.15.25 ALLDRAWINGS,DESIGNS
+WRITTENMATERIALS

ARETHEORIGINALWORK
OFH
3 DESIGNANDMAY

NOTBEDUPLICATED,

USEDORTRANSFERRED

WITHOUTWRITTEN
CONSENT H 3 D E S I G N
5 4 9 H I L L C R E S T A V E N U E
( C ) 8 3 1 . 2 3 3 . 4 3 1 9
P A C I F I C G R O V E, C A 9 3 9 5 0
H 3 D E S I G N
5 4 9 H I L L C R E S T A V E N U E
( C ) 8 3 1 . 2 3 3 . 4 3 1 9
P A C I F I C G R O V E, C A 9 3 9 5 0 5

FLOORPLANSHEETNOTES

ELECTRICALMASTHEAD

PROPERTYLINE
1 A3.2
UPPERFLOORAREA-347sqft
3 A3.1
3 A3.2
2233
AA
BB
GG
11 3'-11" 28'-4"
12'-3"9'-101/2"
22'-11/2"
2'-91/2"3'-4"3'-4"2'-91/2"
3'-11" 28'-4"
32'-3"
23'-6 1/2" 4'-9 1/2"
12'-3"9'-101/2"
22'-11/2"
4'-11/2"8'-11/2"
32'-3"
14'-8 1/2" 13'-7 1/2"
DN

BEDROOM
12'-0"X19'-1"

BATHROOM
12'-0"X8'-11"
WH
03 04
02 01
1 A3.1

LINEOFFLOORBELOW
(E)SINGLEWALLCONSTRUCTION

GENERALNOTES
A.THISISAHISTORICRENOVATION.CAREFULATTENTIONSHALLBE

GIVENTOHISTORICASPECTSASDETAILEDINTHEPHASEIIHISTORIC
ASSESSMENT.ORIGINALBUILDINGELEMENTSSHALLBEPROTECTEDAND

RESTOREDASDIRECTEDBYARCHITECTANDHISTORIAN
B.VERIFYALLDIMENSIONSAFTERDEMOLITIONANDFINISHESARE

REMOVED
C.NOTIFYARCHITECTOFANYDISCREPANCIESBETWEENPLANS+

DIMENSIONS
D.READARCHAEOLOGICALREPORTFORMONITORINGREQUIREMENTS
SCALE:1/2"=1'-0"

EXISTINGUPPERFLOOR
01 02
03 04
D

EMOLITIONPLANMAIN
FLOOR
A2.2Z H E N G R E M O D E L 6 8 5 M E R M A I D A V E . P A C I F I C G R O V E , C A 9 3 9 5 0

11.15.25 ALLDRAWINGS,DESIGNS
+WRITTENMATERIALS

ARETHEORIGINALWORK
OFH
3 DESIGNANDMAY

NOTBEDUPLICATED,

USEDORTRANSFERRED

WITHOUTWRITTEN
CONSENT H 3 D E S I G N
5 4 9 H I L L C R E S T A V E N U E
( C ) 8 3 1 . 2 3 3 . 4 3 1 9
P A C I F I C G R O V E, C A 9 3 9 5 0
H 3 D E S I G N
5 4 9 H I L L C R E S T A V E N U E
( C ) 8 3 1 . 2 3 3 . 4 3 1 9
P A C I F I C G R O V E, C A 9 3 9 5 0 5

DEMOLITIONPLANSHEETNOTES
REF

KITCHEN
12'-0"X8'-11"

BEDROOM
9'-6"X19'-3"

LIVINGROOM
12'-0"X19'-1"
WD
UP
05 01
03 08
07 16
11 17
09 18
04 05
14 04
06 10
02 13
12 INSPECTANDREPAIRANYDAMAGEDPANELSINSINGLEWALL

CONSTRUCTION,PREPAREFORNEWINTERNALFRMAING

REMOVEPAINTEDSHIPLAPSIDING

REMOVE(E)PORTIONOFWALLASSHOWN
REMOVENON-HISTORICSTEPS+OVERHEADTRELLIS

REMOVE(E)NON-HISTORICGARAGEADDITION

REMOVEBRICKFLUE,CAPGASASREQUIRED,CHIMNEYTOREMIAN

DEMOLISHINTERIORWALLS

DEMOLISH(E)STAIRS
REMOVE(E)KITCHEN+FIXTURES,CAPASREQUIRED

REMOVE(E)NON-HISTORICREARADDITION
RELOCATE+REPAIR(E)HISTORICWINDOW(S),SEEPROPOSEDPLANS

REMOVE(E)FINISHESFROMFLOOR
REMOVESLAB+PERIMITERFOUNDATIONFORGARAGEAND

NOTEREMOVED

INSPECT(E)HISTORICWINDOW,REPAIRANDRESTOREASNECESSARY
REMOVE(E)APPLIANCE,CAPPLUMBING+ELECTRICALASREQUIRED

REMOVE(E)FIXTURE,CAPPLUMBINGASREQUIRED

RELOCATE(E)GASMETER,DEMOLISHANDCAPASREQUIRED

GENERALNOTES
A.THISISAHISTORICRENOVATION.CAREFULATTENTIONSHALLBE

GIVENTOHISTORICASPECTSASDETAILEDINTHEPHASEIIHISTORIC
ASSESSMENT.ORIGINALBUILDINGELEMENTSSHALLBEPROTECTEDAND

RESTOREDASDIRECTEDBYARCHITECTANDHISTORIAN
B.VERIFYALLDIMENSIONSAFTERDEMOLITIONANDFINISHESARE

REMOVED
C.NOTIFYARCHITECTOFANYDISCREPANCIESBETWEENPLANS+

DIMENSIONS
D.READARCHAEOLOGICALREPORTFORMONITORINGREQUIREMENTS
3 SCALE:1/2"=1'-0"

DEMOLITIONPLANMAINFLOOR
01 02
03 04
05 06
07 08
09 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
D

EMOLITIONPLANUPPER
FLOOR
A2.3Z H E N G R E M O D E L 6 8 5 M E R M A I D A V E . P A C I F I C G R O V E , C A 9 3 9 5 0

11.15.25 ALLDRAWINGS,DESIGNS
+WRITTENMATERIALS

ARETHEORIGINALWORK
OFH
3 DESIGNANDMAY

NOTBEDUPLICATED,

USEDORTRANSFERRED

WITHOUTWRITTEN
CONSENT H 3 D E S I G N
5 4 9 H I L L C R E S T A V E N U E
( C ) 8 3 1 . 2 3 3 . 4 3 1 9
P A C I F I C G R O V E, C A 9 3 9 5 0
H 3 D E S I G N
5 4 9 H I L L C R E S T A V E N U E
( C ) 8 3 1 . 2 3 3 . 4 3 1 9
P A C I F I C G R O V E, C A 9 3 9 5 0 5

INSPECTANDREPAIRANYDAMAGEDPANELSINSINGLEWALL

CONSTRUCTION,PREPAREFORNEWINTERNALFRMAING

REMOVEPAINTEDSHIPLAPSIDING

REMOVE(E)PORTIONOFWALLASSHOWN

REMOVEBRICKFLUE,CAPGASASREQUIRED,CHIMNEYTOREMIAN

DEMOLISHINTERIORWALLS

DEMOLISH(E)STAIRS
RELOCATE+REPAIR(E)HISTORICWINDOW(S),SEEPROPOSEDPLANS

REMOVE(E)FINISHESFROMFLOOR

INSPECT(E)HISTORICWINDOW,REPAIRANDRESTOREASNECESSARY
REMOVE(E)APPLIANCE,CAPPLUMBING+ELECTRICALASREQUIRED

REMOVE(E)FIXTURE,CAPPLUMBINGASREQUIRED
DN

BEDROOM
12'-0"X19'-1"

BATHROOM
12'-0"X8'-11"
WH
03 02
01 05
08 07
11 14
13 07
04 09
02 06
10 15

REMOVE(E)NON-HISTORICROOF
(E)HISTORICBAYWINDOW,REHABILITATEASNEEDED

REMOVE(E)NON-HISTORICWINDOW

REMOVE(E)BUILT-INCABINETRY

GENERALNOTES
A.THISISAHISTORICRENOVATION.CAREFULATTENTIONSHALLBE

GIVENTOHISTORICASPECTSASDETAILEDINTHEPHASEIIHISTORIC
ASSESSMENT.ORIGINALBUILDINGELEMENTSSHALLBEPROTECTEDAND

RESTOREDASDIRECTEDBYARCHITECTANDHISTORIAN
B.VERIFYALLDIMENSIONSAFTERDEMOLITIONANDFINISHESARE

REMOVED
C.NOTIFYARCHITECTOFANYDISCREPANCIESBETWEENPLANS+

DIMENSIONS
D.READARCHAEOLOGICALREPORTFORMONITORINGREQUIREMENTS

DEMOLITIONPLANSHEETNOTES
SCALE:1/2"=1'-0"

DEMOLITIONPLANMAINFLOOR
01 02
03 04
05 06
07 08
09 10
11 12
13 14
15 PROPOSED MAIN FLOOR
A2.4
Z
H
E
N
G
R
E
M
O
D
E
L
6 8
5 M
E
R
M
A
I
D
A
V
E . P
A
C
I
F
I
C
G
R
O
V
E , C
A
9 3
9 5
0 11 . 15 . 25

ALL DRAWINGS, DESIGNS
+ WRITTEN MATERIALS

ARE THE ORIGINAL WORK
OF H3 DESIGN AND MAY

NOT BE DUPLICATED,

USED OR TRANSFERRED

W I T H O U T W R I T T E N

CONSENT
H
3 D
E
S
I
G
N
5 4 9 H I L L C
R E S
T
A
V E N
U E
( C ) 8 3 1 . 2 3 3 . 4 3 1 9
P A

C I F I C
G
R
O
V E, C
A 9 3 9 5 0
H
3 D
E
S
I
G
N
5 4 9 H I L L C
R E S
T
A
V E N
U E
( C ) 8 3 1 . 2 3 3 . 4 3 1 9
P A

C I F I C
G
R
O
V E, C
A 9 3 9 5 0
5 FLOOR PLAN SHEET NOTES
1 A3.2
LOWER FLOOR AREA - 514 sq ft
GARAGE - 337 sq ft
3 A3.1
1 A3.1
3 A3.2
1 A4.1
1 A4.1
REF
PAN
2 2
1 1
B B
D D
4 4
C
E
5 5
2 2
1 1
G G
19'-4 1/2" 4'-9 1/2" 4'-2"
36'-9"
12'-3" 3'-5" 6'-11" 14'-2"
6'-1 1/2" 6'-1 1/2" 7'-1" 4'-7 1/4" 2'-6"
12'-3" 10'-4" 14'-2"
2'-6 3/4" 5'-7 1/4" 4'-1" 1'-11" 3'-2 1/2" 5'-2 1/2" 7'-1" 7'-1" 4'-0 1/2" 1'-11 1/2" 19'-10 1/2"
2'-3" 1'-9 1/2"
36'-9"
2 8'-4"
2 5'-10 1/2"
GARAGE
13'-8" X 23'-4"
DN
UP
UP
W D
DN

KITCHEN
11'-4" X 8'-9"
LIVING
11'-4" X 10'-0"
MECH
02 01
03 04
05 05 13 08 06 11 07
09 16 14 10
06 10
13 07 11
14 15
08 16
DINING
11'-4" X 8'-0"
ENTRY
10'-0" X 8'-3"
POWDER
3'-2" X 6'-8"
CLOSET

ADU EXTERIOR

STAIR ENTRANCE

ELECTRICAL MASTHEAD

PROPERTY LINE, SEE SITE PLAN

BUILT-IN CLOSET / SHELVING
1" THRESHOLD AT EXTERIOR DOOR

BUILT-IN CABINETS
(N) WINDOW, TYP

LOW WATER USE FIXTURES PER MPWMD

LOCATION OF VENT HOOD TERMINUS
(N) WALL, SEE WALL LEGEND FOR DETAIL
(N) DOOR, TYP
(E) WINDOW TO BE REPAIRED & REPAINTED TYP., SEE DEMOLITION PLAN (N) GAS METER
1 HOUR RATED WALL, ADD 2 LAYERS GWB TYPE X TO INTERIOR OF GARAGE

CONCRETE LANDING
1 HOUR RATED WALL, ADD 2 LAYERS GWB TYPE X TO CEILING OF

GARAGE BETWEEN ADU AND RESIDENCE
OPEN, EXTERIOR STAIR TO ADU W/ 7" RISERS + 11" TREADS, HANDRAIL TO BE AT 36" FROM TOE OF STAIR, W/ 42" GUARDRAIL @ TOP
1 GENERAL NOTES
A. THIS IS A HISTORIC RENOVATION. CAREFUL ATTENTION SHALL BE

GIVEN TO HISTORIC ASPECTS AS DETAILED IN THE PHASE II HISTORIC ASSESSMENT. ORIGINAL BUILDING ELEMENTS SHALL BE PROTECTED AND

RESTORED AS DIRECTED BY ARCHITECT AND HISTORIAN
B. VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS AFTER DEMOLITION AND FINISHES ARE

REMOVED
C. NOTIFY ARCHITECT OF ANY DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN PLANS +

DIMENSIONS
D. READ ARCHAEOLOGICAL REPORT FOR MONITORING REQUIREMENTS 3 SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0"

PROPOSED LOWER FLOOR
01 02
03 04
05 06
07 08
09 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
P

ROPOSEDUPPERFLOOR
PLAN
A2.5Z H E N G R E M O D E L 6 8 5 M E R M A I D A V E . P A C I F I C G R O V E , C A 9 3 9 5 0

11.15.25 ALLDRAWINGS,DESIGNS
+WRITTENMATERIALS

ARETHEORIGINALWORK
OFH
3 DESIGNANDMAY

NOTBEDUPLICATED,

USEDORTRANSFERRED

WITHOUTWRITTEN
CONSENT H 3 D E S I G N
5 4 9 H I L L C R E S T A V E N U E
( C ) 8 3 1 . 2 3 3 . 4 3 1 9
P A C I F I C G R O V E, C A 9 3 9 5 0
H 3 D E S I G N
5 4 9 H I L L C R E S T A V E N U E
( C ) 8 3 1 . 2 3 3 . 4 3 1 9
P A C I F I C G R O V E, C A 9 3 9 5 0 5

FLOORPLANSHEETNOTES

ELECTRICALMASTHEAD

PROPERTYLINE,SEESITEPLAN
1 A3.2
UPPERFLOORAREA-512sqft
ADUFLOORAREA-339sqft
3 A3.1
1 A3.1
3 A3.2
1 A4.1
1 A4.1
2211
BB
DD
44 CE
55 2211
GG
REF
28'-4" 1'-2"
9'-10" 5'-4 1/2" 13'-1 1/2"
8'-4" 4'-9 1/2"
12'-3"10'-4"14'-2"
36'-9"
4'-41/2"3'-6"4'-41/2"
28'-4" 1'-2"
9'-3 1/2" 1'-11 1/2" 14'-7 1/2" 2'-5 1/2"
1'-11 1/4" 4'-0 1/4" 5'-5" 3'-3"
12'-3"10'-4"14'-2"
2'-91/2"3'-4"3'-4"2'-91/2"5'-11/4"5'-23/4"7'-1"7'-1"
36'-9"
5'-2"5'-2"7'-1"7'-1"

PRIMARYBEDROOM
11'-4"X12'-4"

BEDROOM
11'-4"X9'-4"

BEDROOM
13'-8"x9'-1"
W/D
CLOSET
02 01
07 14
070513
16 04
14 14
06 0705
0308
10 12
15 1113
11 09

BATHROOM
7'-6"X5'-0"
STUDY
10'-0"X7'-3"

BATHROOM
7'-10"X5'-0"

LIVING/KITCHEN
13'-6"X8'-7"
DN
DN
ADU
ENTRY
3'-6"X5'-5"

BUILT-INCLOSET/SHELVING

DROPCEILING
1"THRESHOLDATEXTERIORDOOR

BUILT-INCABINETS
(N)WINDOW

LOWWATERUSEFIXTURESPERMPWMD
42"GUARDRAIL
(N)WALL,SEEWALLLEGENDFORDETAIL
(N)DOOR

EGRESSWINDOW
EXTERIORSTAIRW/15RISERS<7.75"+11"TREADS,42"GURDRAIL+
36"HANDRAIL
(E)WINDOWTOBEREPAIRED&REPAINTED,SEEWINDOWSCHEDULE

OPENBALCONY
1HOURRATEDWALL,ADD2LAYERSGWBTYPEXTOINTERIOROFADU

BETWEENADUANDEXISTINGRESIDENCE
1 GENERALNOTES
A.THISISAHISTORICRENOVATION.CAREFULATTENTIONSHALLBE

GIVENTOHISTORICASPECTSASDETAILEDINTHEPHASEIIHISTORIC
ASSESSMENT.ORIGINALBUILDINGELEMENTSSHALLBEPROTECTEDAND

RESTOREDASDIRECTEDBYARCHITECTANDHISTORIAN
B.VERIFYALLDIMENSIONSAFTERDEMOLITIONANDFINISHESARE

REMOVED
C.NOTIFYARCHITECTOFANYDISCREPANCIESBETWEENPLANS+

DIMENSIONS
D.READARCHAEOLOGICALREPORTFORMONITORINGREQUIREMENTS
SCALE:1/2"=1'-0"

PROPOSEDUPPERFLOOR
01 02
03 04
05 06
07 08
09 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
P

ROPOSEDROOFPLAN
A2.6Z H E N G R E M O D E L 6 8 5 M E R M A I D A V E . P A C I F I C G R O V E , C A 9 3 9 5 0

11.15.25 ALLDRAWINGS,DESIGNS
+WRITTENMATERIALS

ARETHEORIGINALWORK
OFH
3 DESIGNANDMAY

NOTBEDUPLICATED,

USEDORTRANSFERRED

WITHOUTWRITTEN
CONSENT H 3 D E S I G N
5 4 9 H I L L C R E S T A V E N U E
( C ) 8 3 1 . 2 3 3 . 4 3 1 9
P A C I F I C G R O V E, C A 9 3 9 5 0
H 3 D E S I G N
5 4 9 H I L L C R E S T A V E N U E
( C ) 8 3 1 . 2 3 3 . 4 3 1 9
P A C I F I C G R O V E, C A 9 3 9 5 0 5

FLOORPLANSHEETNOTES

ELECTRICALMASTHEAD

PROPERTYLINE
2211
BB
DD
44 CE
55 2211
GG
12'-3"10'-4"14'-2"
36'-9"
28'-4"
12'-3"10'-4"14'-2"
36'-9"
28'-4"
1'-11 1/2" 23'-11" 2'-5 1/2"

RIDGERIDGE
VALLEY
1/4:12
6:126:126:126:12
6:126:12
1/4:12
02 01
05 05
050910060703
08050403
(E)CHIMNEYTOREMAIN,STRUCTURALENGINEERTODESIGNSTEEL

SUPPORTSTOSECURECHIMNEYWITHOUTFLUEBELOW
ROOFSCUPPERWITH3"DRAINTOLEADERHEADAND3"OVERFLOW

FLATROOFW/TPOCOVEREDBYGRAVELBALAST,SLOPETODRAIN
(N)CLASSACOMPOSITIONSHINGLEROOFTOMATCHEXISTING

LINEOFBUILDINGBELOW

NEWGUTTERANDDOWNSPOUTSTHROUGHOUT
DOWNSPOUTLOCATION,HARDPIPEINTOINFILTRATIONPITS,SEEA1.2
TIEINDOWNSPOUTSINBACK1/2OFBUILDINGTOSEEPAGEPIT,SEE
SITEPLANFORPROP.LOCATION
3 GENERALNOTES
A.THISISAHISTORICRENOVATION.CAREFULATTENTIONSHALLBE

GIVENTOHISTORICASPECTSASDETAILEDINTHEPHASEIIHISTORIC
ASSESSMENT.ORIGINALBUILDINGELEMENTSSHALLBEPROTECTEDAND

RESTOREDASDIRECTEDBYARCHITECTANDHISTORIAN
B.VERIFYALLDIMENSIONSAFTERDEMOLITIONANDFINISHESARE

REMOVED
C.NOTIFYARCHITECTOFANYDISCREPANCIESBETWEENPLANS+

DIMENSIONS
D.READARCHAEOLOGICALREPORTFORMONITORINGREQUIREMENTS
1 SCALE:1/2"=1'-0"

PROPOSEDROOFPLAN
01 02
03 04
05 06
07 08
09 10
EXISTING + PROPOSED

ELEVATIONS
A3.1
Z
H
E
N
G
R
E
M
O
D
E
L
6 8
5 M
E
R
M
A
I
D
A
V
E . P
A
C
I
F
I
C
G
R
O
V
E , C
A
9 3
9 5
0 11 . 15 . 25

ALL DRAWINGS, DESIGNS
+ WRITTEN MATERIALS

ARE THE ORIGINAL WORK
OF H3 DESIGN AND MAY

NOT BE DUPLICATED,

USED OR TRANSFERRED

W I T H O U T W R I T T E N

CONSENT
H
3 D
E
S
I
G
N
5 4 9 H I L L C
R E S
T
A
V E N
U E
( C ) 8 3 1 . 2 3 3 . 4 3 1 9
P A

C I F I C
G
R
O
V E, C
A 9 3 9 5 0
H
3 D
E
S
I
G
N
5 4 9 H I L L C
R E S
T
A
V E N
U E
( C ) 8 3 1 . 2 3 3 . 4 3 1 9
P A

C I F I C
G
R
O
V E, C
A 9 3 9 5 0
5 8" 7'-3" 4'-2" 10" 8'-0"
2 0'-11"
PR
OPERT
Y LINE
PR
OPERT
Y LINE
(N) UPPER FLOOR LEVEL
(N) MAIN FLOOR LEVEL
(N) UPPER PLATE

TOP OF SHEATHING
(E) STREET LEVEL
02 04
01 07
PR
OPERT
Y LINE
PR
OPERT
Y LINE
2 A9.1
1 A9.1
2 0'-5"
8" 7'-3" 4'-2" 10" 8'-0"
2 0'-11"
3'-8" 8" 8'-0" 10" 7'-3"
12 11 F 17 E 18 F D 17 16 C 14 A 13
PR
OPERT
Y LINE
PR
OPERT
Y LINE
12 6
12 6
12 6
12 6
(N) UPPER FLOOR LEVEL
(N) MAIN FLOOR LEVEL
(N) UPPER PLATE

TOP OF SHEATHING
(E) STREET LEVEL
(N) UPPER FLOOR LEVEL
(N) MAIN FLOOR LEVEL
(N) UPPER PLATE

TOP OF SHEATHING
(E) STREET LEVEL
2'-2" 7'-11" 6'-3" 3'-6"
19'-10"
06 02
05 04
03 01
(E) UPPER FLOOR LEVEL
(E) MAIN FLOOR LEVEL
(E) PLATE
(E) ROOF HEIGHT
12 6
12 6
PR
OPERT
Y LINE
PR
OPERT
Y LINE
(E) STREET LEVEL

SEE SITE PLAN FOR GRADING

ADDITION TO BE REMOVED, SEE DEMOLITION PLAN
(E) SHIPLAP SIDING TO BE REMOVED, REPAIRED,

REPAINTED AND RE-INSTALLED
(E) WINDOWS TO BE REMOVED, REPAIRED, REPAINTED

AND RE-INSTALLED

SEE DEMOLITION PLANS FOR ELEMENTS TO BE REMOVED

EXISTING ELEVATION SHEET NOTES GENERAL NOTES
EXTERIOR FENCE + BUSHES NOT SHOWN FOR CLARITY

EXISTING CONDITION SHOWN

PROPOSED ELEVATION SHEET NOTES
(N) WOOD WINDOW TO MATCH EXISTING PROFILE RELOCATED AS SHOWN (E) BOARD + BATT SIDING TO BE REPAIRED AS REQD. &

REPAINTED
(E) WINDOWS REPAIRED, REPAINTED AND RE-INSTALLED
(E) WOOD WINDOW RELOCATED AS SHOWN
(N) SITE WALLS, SEE SITE PLAN FOR LOCATION
(N) EXTERIOR STAIR FOR SEPARATE ADU ENTRY (N) WOOD WINDOWS TO MATCH HISTORIC PROFILES (E) CHIMNEY TO REMAIN
SEE PROPOSED MATERIALS + COLORS SHEET FOR FINISHES
1 2
2 A. THIS IS A HISTORIC RENOVATION. CAREFUL ATTENTION

SHALL BE GIVEN TO HISTORIC ASPECTS AS DETAILED IN THE
PHASE II HISTORIC ASSESSMENT. ORIGINAL BUILDING

ELEMENTS SHALL BE PROTECTED AND RESTORED AS DIRECTED

BY ARCHITECT AND HISTORIAN
B. VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS AFTER DEMOLITION AND

FINISHES ARE REMOVED
C. NOTIFY ARCHITECT OF ANY DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN
PLANS + DIMENSIONS
D. READ ARCHAEOLOGICAL REPORT FOR MONITORING

REQUIREMENTS
MATERIAL LEGEND 1
(N) WOOD WINDOWS TO MATCH (E) HISTORIC

PROFILE TO REPLACE HISTORIC WOOD WINDOWS
PAINTED NON-HISTORIC 4" DROP LAP SIDING
(N) ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOF

PAINTED HISTORIC BOARD AND BATT SIDING
(N) WOOD WINDOWS TO MATCH (E) HISTORIC PROFILE

PAINTED, SMOOTH CEMENT PLASTER SIDING
HORIZONTAL 3/8" THREADED METAL ROD RAILING
PAINTED, HORIZONTAL WOOD 6" SIDING W/ NICKEL GAP
2 1
1 1
1 2 3 3
3 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"

PROPSED EAST ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"

EXISTING EAST ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"

PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"

EXISTING NORTH ELEVATION
01 02
03 04
05 06
07 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
EXISTING + PROPOSED

ELEVATIONS
A3.2
Z
H
E
N
G
R
E
M
O
D
E
L
6 8
5 M
E
R
M
A
I
D
A
V
E . P
A
C
I
F
I
C
G
R
O
V
E , C
A
9 3
9 5
0 11 . 15 . 25

ALL DRAWINGS, DESIGNS
+ WRITTEN MATERIALS

ARE THE ORIGINAL WORK
OF H3 DESIGN AND MAY

NOT BE DUPLICATED,

USED OR TRANSFERRED

W I T H O U T W R I T T E N

CONSENT
H
3 D
E
S
I
G
N
5 4 9 H I L L C
R E S
T
A
V E N
U E
( C ) 8 3 1 . 2 3 3 . 4 3 1 9
P A

C I F I C
G
R
O
V E, C
A 9 3 9 5 0
H
3 D
E
S
I
G
N
5 4 9 H I L L C
R E S
T
A
V E N
U E
( C ) 8 3 1 . 2 3 3 . 4 3 1 9
P A

C I F I C
G
R
O
V E, C
A 9 3 9 5 0
5 2
A9.1
1 A9.1
3 A9.1
14 C 15 A 13 A 19 18 E D F 18 E 17 G 11 12
PR
OPERT
Y LINE
PR
OPERT
Y LINE
05 02
04 B
PR
OPERT
Y LINE
PR
OPERT
Y LINE
2 0'-5"
3'-8" 8" 8'-0" 10" 7'-3"
PR
OPERT
Y LINE
PR
OPERT
Y LINE
(N) UPPER FLOOR LEVEL
(N) MAIN FLOOR LEVEL
(N) UPPER PLATE

TOP OF SHEATHING
(E) STREET LEVEL
PR
OPERT
Y LINE
2'-2" 7'-11" 6'-3" 3'-6"
19'-10"
05 02
04 07
04 03
03 02
B
PR
OPERT
Y LINE
(E) UPPER FLOOR LEVEL
(E) MAIN FLOOR LEVEL
(E) PLATE
(E) ROOF HEIGHT
PR
OPERT
Y LINE
(E) STREET LEVEL
2 2
1 EXISTING ELEVATION SHEET NOTES 2 PROPOSED ELEVATION SHEET NOTES GENERAL NOTES A. THIS IS A HISTORIC RENOVATION. CAREFUL ATTENTION

SHALL BE GIVEN TO HISTORIC ASPECTS AS DETAILED IN THE
PHASE II HISTORIC ASSESSMENT. ORIGINAL BUILDING

ELEMENTS SHALL BE PROTECTED AND RESTORED AS DIRECTED

BY ARCHITECT AND HISTORIAN
B. VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS AFTER DEMOLITION AND

FINISHES ARE REMOVED
C. NOTIFY ARCHITECT OF ANY DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN
PLANS + DIMENSIONS
D. READ ARCHAEOLOGICAL REPORT FOR MONITORING

REQUIREMENTS
MATERIAL LEGEND 1
(N) WOOD WINDOWS TO MATCH (E) HISTORIC

PROFILE TO REPLACE HISTORIC WOOD WINDOWS
PAINTED NON-HISTORIC 4" DROP LAP SIDING
(N) ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOF

PAINTED HISTORIC BOARD AND BATT SIDING
(N) WOOD WINDOWS TO MATCH (E) HISTORIC PROFILE

PAINTED, SMOOTH CEMENT PLASTER SIDING
HORIZONTAL 3/8" THREADED METAL ROD RAILING
PAINTED, HORIZONTAL WOOD 6" SIDING W/ NICKEL GAP
1 1 2
1 1

SEE SITE PLAN FOR GRADING

ADDITION TO BE REMOVED, SEE DEMOLITION PLAN
(E) SHIPLAP SIDING TO BE REMOVED, REPAIRED,

REPAINTED AND RE-INSTALLED
(E) WINDOWS TO BE REMOVED, REPAIRED, REPAINTED

AND RE-INSTALLED

SEE DEMOLITION PLANS FOR ELEMENTS TO BE REMOVED
EXTERIOR FENCE + BUSHES NOT SHOWN FOR CLARITY

EXISTING CONDITION SHOWN
(N) WOOD WINDOW TO MATCH EXISTING PROFILE RELOCATED AS SHOWN (E) BOARD + BATT SIDING TO BE REPAIRED AS REQD. &

REPAINTED
(E) WINDOWS REPAIRED, REPAINTED AND RE-INSTALLED
(E) WOOD WINDOW RELOCATED AS SHOWN
(N) SITE WALLS, SEE SITE PLAN FOR LOCATION
(N) EXTERIOR STAIR FOR SEPARATE ADU ENTRY (N) WOOD WINDOWS TO MATCH HISTORIC PROFILES (E) CHIMNEY TO REMAIN
SEE PROPOSED MATERIALS + COLORS SHEET FOR FINISHES
3 3 3
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"

PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"

EXISTING SOUTH ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"

PROPOSED WEST ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"

EXISTING WEST ELEVATION
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
01 02
03 04
05 06
07 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19

PROPOSED SECTION
A4.1
Z
H
E
N
G
R
E
M
O
D
E
L
6 8
5 M
E
R
M
A
I
D
A
V
E . P
A
C
I
F
I
C
G
R
O
V
E , C
A
9 3
9 5
0 11 . 15 . 25

ALL DRAWINGS, DESIGNS
+ WRITTEN MATERIALS

ARE THE ORIGINAL WORK
OF H3 DESIGN AND MAY

NOT BE DUPLICATED,

USED OR TRANSFERRED

W I T H O U T W R I T T E N

CONSENT
H
3 D
E
S
I
G
N
5 4 9 H I L L C
R E S
T
A
V E N
U E
( C ) 8 3 1 . 2 3 3 . 4 3 1 9
P A

C I F I C
G
R
O
V E, C
A 9 3 9 5 0
H
3 D
E
S
I
G
N
5 4 9 H I L L C
R E S
T
A
V E N
U E
( C ) 8 3 1 . 2 3 3 . 4 3 1 9
P A

C I F I C
G
R
O
V E, C
A 9 3 9 5 0
5 1 2 4 5
2 A9.1
1 A9.1
8" 8'-0" 10" 3'-8" 7'-3"
2 0'-5"
8" 7'-3" 4'-2" 10" 8'-0"
2 0'-11"
01 02
03 04
05 04 08 06 07 09
11 08 09 12
(N) UPPER FLOOR LEVEL
(N) MAIN FLOOR LEVEL
(N) UPPER PLATE

TOP OF SHEATHING
(E) STREET LEVEL
(N) LOWER PLATE
(N) UPPER FLOOR LEVEL
(N) MAIN FLOOR LEVEL
(N) UPPER PLATE

TOP OF SHEATHING
(E) STREET LEVEL
(N) LOWER PLATE

BATHROOM STUDY ADU BATHROOM ADU ENTRY

DINING GARAGE
SIM
10 ENTRY
CLOSED CELL SPRAY FOAM INSULATION, MIN 4"
SISTER (N) 2X8 RAFTERS @ 24" O.C. (MIN)
(N) SLIDING WOOD DOORS SIMILAR TO (E) PROFILE
(N) WOOD WINDOWS SIMILAR TO (E) PROFILE

LOW PROFILE COMPOSITE SHINGLE ROOF TO MATCH (E)

EAVE DETAIL TO MATCH EXISTING AS SHOWN

FLAT TPO ROOFING W/ GRAVEL BALAST, SLOPE W/ RIGID INSULATION

TO DRAIN

SECTION SHEET NOTES GENERAL NOTES
(N) SITE WALL
SINGLE WALL CONSTRUCTION W/ (N) 1/2" SHEATHING ATTACHED TO 3" LVLS 7/8" 3 COAT CEMENT PLASTER W/ SMOOTH SAND FINISH O/ (2)

LAYERS GRADE D BUILDING PAPER

SIDING REPAIRED, REPAINTED & RE-INSTALLED O/ (N) VAOPR BARRIER LIFT (E) HISTORIC STRUCTURE + REPLACE FOUNDATION W/ (N) SLAB

ON GRADE AND CURB AS SHOWN
1 A. THIS IS A HISTORIC RENOVATION. CAREFUL ATTENTION SHALL BE GIVEN TO HISTORIC ASPECTS AS DETAILED IN THE PHASE II HISTORIC ASSESSMENT.

ORIGINAL BUILDING ELEMENTS SHALL BE PROTECTED AND RESTORED AS

DIRECTED BY ARCHITECT AND HISTORIAN
B. VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS AFTER DEMOLITION AND FINISHES ARE REMOVED C. NOTIFY ARCHITECT OF ANY DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN PLANS + DIMENSIONS D. READ ARCHAEOLOGICAL REPORT FOR MONITORING REQUIREMENTS 1 2 3
SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0"

PROPOSED SECTION
01 02
03 04
05 06
07 08
09 10
11 12

ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS
A9.1
Z
H
E
N
G
R
E
M
O
D
E
L
6 8
5 M
E
R
M
A
I
D
A
V
E . P
A
C
I
F
I
C
G
R
O
V
E , C
A
9 3
9 5
0 11 . 15 . 25

ALL DRAWINGS, DESIGNS
+ WRITTEN MATERIALS

ARE THE ORIGINAL WORK
OF H3 DESIGN AND MAY

NOT BE DUPLICATED,

USED OR TRANSFERRED

W I T H O U T W R I T T E N

CONSENT
H
3 D
E
S
I
G
N
5 4 9 H I L L C
R E S
T
A
V E N
U E
( C ) 8 3 1 . 2 3 3 . 4 3 1 9
P A

C I F I C
G
R
O
V E, C
A 9 3 9 5 0
H
3 D
E
S
I
G
N
5 4 9 H I L L C
R E S
T
A
V E N
U E
( C ) 8 3 1 . 2 3 3 . 4 3 1 9
P A

C I F I C
G
R
O
V E, C
A 9 3 9 5 0
5 8" CLR. MIN
MIN 5% SLOPE FOR 10' WHERE

POSSIBLE
(E) 1X BATTS REFINISH +

REPAINT
24 COPPER FLASHING O/

BITUTHENE
3X PT SOLE PLATE SET IN

SEALANT
(N) FOUNDATION

SINGLE WALL CONSTRUCTION
(N) LVL FRAMING +

INSULATION
SILL

HEAD / JAMB
5% SLOPE

WOOD SILL, JAMB AND HEAD

INTERIOR
REPAIRED + REPAINTED BOARD
+ BATT SIDING

SET IN SEALANT
(E) TRIM, REPAIRED + REINSTALLED

WHERE REQUIRED, (N)

CUSTOM WOOD WINDOWS TO

MATCH (E) WOOD WINDOW

PROFILE
(E) WOOD WINDOWS
REPAIRED, REPAINTED + REINSTALLED AS SHOWN
5% SLOPE
SHAPED 2X3 PAINTED CEDAR
(OR EQ.) TRIM
7/8" 3 COAT CEMENT

PLASTER, TEXTURE TO MATCH
EXISTING O/ (2) LAYERS

GRADE D BUILDING PAPER
SILL

HEAD / JAMB

SHAPED TRIM TO MATCH (E)
5/8" PAINTED GWB, TEXTURE

TO MATCH EXISTING

WOOD WINDOWS W/ PROFILE

TO MATCH (E) WOOD

WINDOWS

WOOD TRIM, FINISH TO

MATCH EXISTING INTERIOR

WINDOWS
2 3
3 1 SCALE: 3" = 1'-0"
(N) FOUNDATION @ HISTORIC WALL
2 SCALE: 3" = 1'-0"
(E) WINDOW @ HISTORIC WALL
3 SCALE: 3" = 1'-0"
(N) WINDOW
PROPOSED MATERIALS +
COLORS
A10.1
Z
H
E
N
G
R
E
M
O
D
E
L
6 8
5 M
E
R
M
A
I
D
A
V
E . P
A
C
I
F
I
C
G
R
O
V
E , C
A
9 3
9 5
0 11 . 15 . 25

ALL DRAWINGS, DESIGNS
+ WRITTEN MATERIALS

ARE THE ORIGINAL WORK
OF H3 DESIGN AND MAY

NOT BE DUPLICATED,

USED OR TRANSFERRED

W I T H O U T W R I T T E N

CONSENT
H
3 D
E
S
I
G
N
5 4 9 H I L L C
R E S
T
A
V E N
U E
( C ) 8 3 1 . 2 3 3 . 4 3 1 9
P A

C I F I C
G
R
O
V E, C
A 9 3 9 5 0
H
3 D
E
S
I
G
N
5 4 9 H I L L C
R E S
T
A
V E N
U E
( C ) 8 3 1 . 2 3 3 . 4 3 1 9
P A

C I F I C
G
R
O
V E, C
A 9 3 9 5 0
5 3
3 3
SCALE: 3/8" = 1'-0"

PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION
(N) RAILING
3/8" THREADED METAL
RODS W/ 1X2 POSTS +

PAINTED METAL TOP CAP
07 (N) ROOFING

BLACK, HIGH DEFINITION,

DESIGNER COMPOSITION

SHINGLES
(N) SIDING
PAINTED, 6" HORIZONTAL

WOOD SIDING W/ NICKEL
GAP
08 (E) BOARD + BATT
PAINTED 12" BOARD W/ 1
1/2" BATTS HISTORIC
SIDING
(N) EXTERIOR PAINT COLORS
WINDOW HEAD, JAMB SASH + SILL,
DOOR HEAD + JAMBS
01 02 03 04
(N) CEMENT PLASTER
7/8", PAINTED CEMENT

PLASTER WITH SMOOTH

SAND FINISH
(N) EXTERIOR PAINT COLORS
WINDOW FRAMES, DOOR FRAMES +

METAL RAILINGS
(N) EXTERIOR PAINT COLORS

HISTORIC DROP LAP SIDING,
VERTICAL WOOD SIDING + CEMENT

PLASTER EXTERIOR
(E) HISTORIC WOOD

WINDOWS

PAINTED HISTORIC WOOD

WINDOWS & TRIM
05 09
(N) WOOD WINDOWS +
DOORS

PAINTED WOOD WINDOWS &

TRIM TO MATCH HISTORIC
06 07 05 06 03
10 01 04 03 02 04 03 07 02 06 04 08 04 03 02 09 04 10 05 C

OASTALCOMMUNITY

CHARACTERASSESMENT
A10.2Z H E N G R E M O D E L 6 8 5 M E R M A I D A V E . P A C I F I C G R O V E , C A 9 3 9 5 0

11.15.25 ALLDRAWINGS,DESIGNS
+WRITTENMATERIALS

ARETHEORIGINALWORK
OFH
3 DESIGNANDMAY

NOTBEDUPLICATED,

USEDORTRANSFERRED

WITHOUTWRITTEN
CONSENT H 3 D E S I G N
5 4 9 H I L L C R E S T A V E N U E
( C ) 8 3 1 . 2 3 3 . 4 3 1 9
P A C I F I C G R O V E, C A 9 3 9 5 0
H 3 D E S I G N
5 4 9 H I L L C R E S T A V E N U E
( C ) 8 3 1 . 2 3 3 . 4 3 1 9
P A C I F I C G R O V E, C A 9 3 9 5 0 5
SCALE:3/16"=1'-0"

STREETELEVATION

NOTTOSCALE

PROPOSEDSTREETMONTAGE

PLANNING COMMISSION

MEETING MINUTES
Thursday, December 11, 2025, 6:00 P.M.

Council Chamber- City Hall - 300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA AGENDA

1. CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALL
Community Development Director, Jon Biggs, announced that Chair Kubica would be participating via teleconferencing per Government Code Section 54953 (f) “emergency circumstances” or “just cause.” For Chair Kubica to participate a motion, second, and vote from the Planning Commission would be required.

Action: Chair Kubica requested to participate remotely.

Action: Upon a motion by Commissioner Sweigert and seconded by Commissioner Nodzenski, the Planning Commissioners voted to allow Chair Kubica to participate remotely.

Motion carried 4-0-2 by the following vote:

AYES: Commissioners Sweigert, Nodzenski, Mourlam, Myers, NOES: None
ABSENT: Vice Chair Fredrickson, Commissioners Davison
Chair Kubica stated that there was no one over the age of 18 in the room with him, but his wife may be in the room later. Chair Kubica also stated that his basis for request was an emergency medical issue.

Chair Kubica called the meeting to order at 6:05 pm. Senior Planner Campbell conducted rollcall with the following commissioners present in Chamber: Commissioners Mourlam, Nodzenski, Myers and Sweigert.

Chair Kubica appearing telephonically (via Zoom) per Government Code 54953. Vice Chair Fredrickson and Commissioner Davison were absent.

2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Action: Upon a motion by Commissioner Myers and with a second by Commissioner Nodzenski, the Planning Commission voted to approve the agenda.

Motion carried 5-0-2 by the following vote:

AYES: Chair Kubica, Commissioners Sweigert, Mourlam, Myers, Nodzenski NOES: None
ABSENT: Vice Chair Fredrickson, Commissioners Davison

3. COMMISSION AND STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS (City-Related Items Only) No Commission announcements were provided.

Community Development Director, Jon Biggs, provided staff announcements.

4. COUNCIL LIAISON ANNOUNCEMENTS
No Council Liaison announcements were provided.

5. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT
A. Written General Public Comment was provided by Tony Ciani (11/17), Curtis and Jennifer Jensen (11/23), Larry and Maria Swank (11/29), Becky Tenanes (11/30), Tony Ciani (12/1), Geoff Welch (12/1), Emily Miller (12/2), Luke Coletti (12/2), Walama Detrote(sp?) (12/2), Lucy Moore (12/2), Eugene Lowe (12/2), Andrew Miller (12/3), Nate Welch (12/3), Maggie, Lindenthal-Cox (12/3), Joshua Beasley (12/3), Thomas Landberg (12/3), Tony Ciani (12/6), Charlie Marlowe (12/10), Blake Nilsson (12/10) Public Comment in Chamber (or on-line) was provided by Lisa Ciani.

CONSENT AGENDA

6. REPORTS FOR INFORMATION ONLY

7. REPORTS REQUIRING ACTION
A. Minutes of the November 13, 2025, Planning Commission Regular Meeting.

Reference: Aaron Campbell, Senior Planner
Recommended Action: Approve the minutes of the November 13, 2025, Planning Commission Regular Meeting.

CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
Action: Upon a motion by Commissioner Sweigert and with a second by Commissioner Nodzenski, the Planning Commission voted to approve the consent agenda.

Motion carried 5-0-2 by the following vote:

AYES: Chair Kubica, Commissioners Sweigert, Mourlam, Myers, Nodzenski NOES: None
ABSENT: Vice Chair Fredrickson, Commissioners Davison

REGULAR AGENDA

8. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Architectural Permit (AP) and Coastal Development Permit (CDP) 24-0044 for 685 Mermaid Avenue (APN 006-085-003-000)
From: Garrett McCown, Associate Planner
Zoning District/General Plan Designation: R-3-PGB/Medium-High Density Residential 10-20 DU/ac
Coastal Zone: Yes
Historic Resources Inventory: Yes
CEQA: Categorical Exemption, CEQA Guidelines 15331, Historical Resources Restoration/Rehabilitation
Recommended Action: Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve Architectural Permit (AP) and Coastal Development Permit (CDP) 24-0044, subject to the findings, recommended conditions, and Class 1 and 31 Categorical Exemptions (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15301, Existing Facilities, and 15331, Historical Resource Restoration and Rehabilitation).

Reference: Garrett McCown, Associate Planner
Associate Planner, Garrett McCown, provided the staff presentation.

Project architect, Charles Hornisher, and project Historian, Dana Supernowicz, provided the applicant presentation.

Written public comment was submitted by Leslie Anderson and Anthony Billeci.

Public Comment in Chamber (in person/Zoom) was provided by Leslie Anderson, Lisa Ciani, Dean Kasparian, Inge Lorentzen Daumer, and Cindy Billeci.

Action: Commissioner Nodzenski, with a second by Commissioner Myers, moved to approve Architectural Permit (AP) and Coastal Development Permit (CDP) 24-0044, subject to the findings, recommended conditions, and Class 1 and 31 Categorical Exemptions (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15301, Existing Facilities, and 15331, Historical Resource Restoration and Rehabilitation), as amended to include Tribal Monitoring as a condition of approval.

Action: Commissioner Sweigert requested a friendly amendment to the motion to include two additional conditions of approval; one to include the recordation of a deed restriction stating that the ADU will always remain an ADU, and the other requiring that the applicant provide documentation demonstrating that the two lots of the subject parcel have been legally merged.

Action: Commissioner Nodzenski accepted, in part, the friendly amendment to include that the applicant provide documentation demonstrating that the two lots of the subject parcel have been legally merged but did not accept the inclusion of the deed restriction.

Actions: On a motion by Commissioner Nodzenski and seconded by Commissioner Myers the Planning Commission voted to approve Architectural Permit (AP) and Coastal Development Permit (CDP) 24- 0044, subject to the findings, recommended conditions, and Class 1 and 31 Categorical Exemptions (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15301, Existing Facilities, and 15331, Historical Resource Restoration and Rehabilitation), as amended, with two additional conditions of approval to include Tribal Monitoring and that the applicant provide documentation demonstrating that the two lots of the subject parcel have been legally merged.

Motion carried 4-1-2 by the following vote:

AYES: Chair Kubica, Commissioners Mourlam, Myers, Nodzenski NOES: Commissioner Sweigert
ABSENT: Vice Chair Fredrickson, Commissioners Davison

9. CONTINUED AND ONGOING BUSINESS

10. NEW BUSINESS

11. PRESENTATIONS
Jon Biggs thanked the Planning Commission for their support, accomplishments, and contributions to the City in 2025, specifically, their diligence in providing recommendations to City Council regarding the Housing Element Update.

12. NEXT MEETING - January 8, 2026

13. ADJOURNMENT – 7:49 p.m.

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 I 973, 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.

Evans & De Shazo, Inc
1141 Highway 116 South,
Sebastopol, CA 95472
707-823-7400
www.evans-deshazo.com

ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR

CONSIDERATION BY THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
FOR THE CURRENT PROJECT AT 685 MERMAID

AVENUE, PACIFIC GROVE, MONTEREY COUNTY,
CALIFORNIA 93950
SUBMITTED TO:

City of Pacific Grove
SUBMITTED BY:

Stacey De Shazo, M.A.

Principal Architectural Historian
and
Nicole Wyton, M.S., Architectural Historian
January 12, 2026
Assessment and Recommendations for Consideration by the City of Pacific Grove for the Current Project at 685 Mermaid Avenue, Pacific Grove, Monterey County, California 93950 Page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................................................... 3 PREVIOUS DOCUMENTATION..................................................................................................................................... 3 PROPOSED PROJECT................................................................................................................................................... 3 REGULATORY SETTING ............................................................................................................................................... 3 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT .............................................................................................................................4 STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION...........................................................................................................................................5 METHODS................................................................................................................................................................... 6 STANDARDS REVIEW.................................................................................................................................................. 6 CONCLUSION............................................................................................................................................................ 13 STACEY DE SHAZO, M.A. | PRINCIPAL ARCHITECTURAL HISTORIAN.............................................................................................15 NICOLE WYTON, M.S. | ARCHITECTURAL HISTORIAN ...............................................................................................................15 Appendix A: Qualifications
Assessment and Recommendations for Consideration by the City of Pacific Grove for the Current Project at 685 Mermaid Avenue, Pacific Grove, Monterey County, California 93950 3

INTRODUCTION
The following document provides the City of Pacific Grove with an assessment and recommendation related to the current project at 685 Mermaid Avenue, Pacific Grove, Monterey County, California. Previously, at the request of Leslie Anderson, Evans & De Shazo, Inc. (EDS) completed a Historic Built Environment Peer Review (Peer Review) of the “Focused Phase II Historic Assessment” letter report by Kent Seavey (dated December 20, 2023),1 and the supplemental letter (dated August 22, 2024)2for the proposed project at 685 Mermaid Avenue, Pacific Grove, Monterey County, California, within APN 006-085-003 (Property). A new “Phase II Historical Assessment of 685 Mermaid Avenue, Pacific Grove, Monterey County, California 93950,“ documentation was then completed by Dana E. Supernowicz, M.A., RPA of Historic Resource Associates. In December 2025, Ms. Anderson requested that EDS review the documentation by Historic Resource Associates. Based on our review of the documentation by Historic Resource Associates, which appears to have relied heavily on the Seavey report and due to the misinterpretation of the National Park Service guidelines, specifically guidelines within the Standards for Rehabilitation, EDS completed the following assessment report. The purpose of the report is to provide a comprehensive review with recommendations for the City Council to consider as part of the appeal documentation.

The assessment was completed by EDS Principal Architectural Historian Stacey De Shazo, M.A., and Architectural Historian Nicole Wyton, M.S., who both exceed the Secretary of Interior's qualification standards in Architectural History and History (Qualifications Appendix A). The results are presented herein.

PREVIOUS DOCUMENTATION
The Property was documented by Page & Turnbull on Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 forms in 2019 as part of the "Pacific Grove Historic Resource Inventory (HRI) Survey Report.” The documentation recommended that the 1926 house is recommended as eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and for local listing “for Vernacular design expressed by intact stylistic features, forms and/or construction methods” and is a “good example of type and/or style from Pacific Grove Comes of Age (1903- 1926) development period and retains historic integrity.” In 2019, the City of Pacific Grove adopted the 2019 HRI report, which included the listing of the Property with a California Historical Resource Status Code (Status Code) of “5S1,” meaning it is an “individual property that is listed or designated locally.” As such, the 1926 house is considered a Historical Resource as defined in Section 15064.5 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines.

PROPOSED PROJECT
The proposed project includes changes to the 1926 house, including demolishing the attached garage and constructing a two-story addition as a separate accessory dwelling unit (ADU; Project).

REGULATORY SETTING
The CEQA regulations pertain to cultural resources, and the National Park Service (NPS) Standards guidelines 1 Kent Seavey, “Focused Phase II Historic Assessment,” December 20, 2023. 2 Kent Seavey, Letter addressed to Mr. Garrette McCowan (no reference), August 22, 2024.

Assessment and Recommendations for Consideration by the City of Pacific Grove for the Current Project at 685 Mermaid Avenue, Pacific Grove, Monterey County, California 93950 4 are outlined below.

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
CEQA and the Guidelines for Implementing CEQA (State CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5) give direction and guidance for evaluating properties and preparing Initial Studies, Categorical Exemptions, Negative Declarations, and Environmental Impact Reports. Under California State law, the City of Pacific Grove is legally responsible and accountable for determining the environmental impact of any land use proposal it approves.

Cultural resources are aspects of the environment that require identification and assessment for potential significance under CEQA (14 CCR § 15064.5 and PRC § 21084.1).

There are five classes of cultural resources defined by the State OHP. These are:
• Building: A structure created principally to shelter or assist in carrying out any form of human activity. A “building” may also be used to refer to a historically and functionally related unit, such as a courthouse and jail or a house and barn.
• Structure: A construction made for a functional purpose rather than creating human shelter.

Examples include mines, bridges, and tunnels.
• Object: Construction is primarily artistic in nature or relatively small in scale and simply constructed.

It may be movable by nature or design or made for a specific setting or environment. Objects should be in a setting appropriate to their significant historic use or character. Examples include fountains, monuments, maritime resources, sculptures, and boundary markers. • Site: The location of a significant event. A prehistoric or historic occupation or activity, or a building or structure, whether standing, ruined, or vanished, where the location itself possesses historic, cultural, or archaeological value regardless of the value of any existing building, structure, or object.

A site need not be marked by physical remains if it is the location of a prehistoric or historic event and if no buildings, structures, or objects marked it at that time. Examples include trails, designed landscapes, battlefields, habitation sites, Native American ceremonial areas, petroglyphs, and pictographs.
• Historic District: Unified geographic entities which contain a concentration of historic buildings, structures, or sites united historically, culturally, or architecturally.

According to CCR § 15064.5, cultural resources are historically significant if they are:
(1) A resource listed in or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (PRC §5024.1, 14 CCR § 4850 et seq.). (2) A resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in PRC § 5020.1(k) or identified as significant in a historical resource survey meeting the requirements of PRC § 5024.1(g), shall be presumed to be historically or culturally significant. Public agencies must treat any such resource as significant unless the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that it is not historically or culturally significant.
(3) Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency Assessment and Recommendations for Consideration by the City of Pacific Grove for the Current Project at 685 Mermaid Avenue, Pacific Grove, Monterey County, California 93950 5 determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California may be considered to be a historical resource, provided the lead agency's determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record. Generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be “historically significant” if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources (PRC § 5024.1, 14 CCR § 4852), including the following:
(A) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage;
(B) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; (C) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or (D) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. (4) The fact that a resource is not listed in or determined to be eligible for listing in the CRHR, not included in a local register of historical resources pursuant to PRC § 5020.1(k), or identified in a historical resources survey meeting the criteria in PRC § 5024.1(g) does not preclude a lead agency from determining that the resource may be a historical resource as defined in PRC § 5020.1(j) or § 5024.1.

STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION
The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation The Standards for Rehabilitation provide directions for making appropriate choices in planning the repairs, alterations, and additions that may be part of a rehabilitation project. The Guidelines apply the Standards and describe specific treatments that do and do not meet the Standards. The Standards for Rehabilitation, codified in 36 CFR Part 67, are regulatory for the Historic Preservation Tax Incentives program and are the Standards most often used by local historic district commissions nationwide.

The Standards for Rehabilitation are the criteria for determining if a rehabilitation project qualifies as a certified rehabilitation. The intent of the Standards is to assist in the long-term preservation of a property’s significance through the preservation of historic materials and features. The Standards pertain to historic buildings of all materials, construction types, sizes, and occupancy and encompass the exterior and the interior of historic buildings. The Standards also encompass related landscape features and the building’s site and environment, as well as attached, adjacent, or related new construction. To be certified, a rehabilitation project must be determined by the Secretary to be consistent with the historic character of the structure(s) and, where applicable, the district in which it is located. The following Standards are to be applied to specific rehabilitation projects in a reasonable manner, taking into consideration economic and technical feasibility.

1. A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment.

2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided.

Assessment and Recommendations for Consideration by the City of Pacific Grove for the Current Project at 685 Mermaid Avenue, Pacific Grove, Monterey County, California 93950 6

3. Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken.

4. Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved.

5. Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property shall be preserved.

6. Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence.

7. Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause damage to historic materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible.

8. Significant archeological resources affected by a project shall be protected and preserved. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall be undertaken.

9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment.

10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.

METHODS
The methods used to complete the focused “Standards review” included reviewing the recent documentation by Historic Resource Associates and a review of the Project's current architectural plans. Ms. De Shazo, M.A., and Ms. Wyton, M.S., worked to identify and address any potential adverse impacts on the 1926 house to ensure the current Project complies with the Standards for Rehabilitation.

STANDARDS REVIEW
Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation Review The following section addresses the current Project within the context of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. Rehabilitation is defined as the act or process of making possible a compatible use for a property through repair, alterations, and additions while preserving those portions or features that convey its historical, cultural, or architectural values. When repair and replacement of deteriorated features are necessary, when alterations or additions to the property are planned for a new or continued use, and when its depiction at a particular period of time is not appropriate, Rehabilitation may be considered as a treatment.

Assessment and Recommendations for Consideration by the City of Pacific Grove for the Current Project at 685 Mermaid Avenue, Pacific Grove, Monterey County, California 93950 7 According to the Standards, “some exterior and interior alterations to a historic building are generally needed as part of a Rehabilitation project to ensure its continued use, but it is most important that such alterations do not radically change, obscure, or destroy character-defining spaces, materials, features, or finishes.

Alterations may include changes to the site or setting, such as the selective removal of buildings or other features of the building site or setting that are intrusive, not character-defining, or outside the building’s period of significance.”
The Standards and EDS' analysis of the current preliminary Project related to the Standards is presented below. The Project was reviewed using the Project description provided by the architect, which was applied to each of the Standards. The results of the Standards analysis are presented below with an “EDS Response” and an “EDS Analysis” that identifies whether the Project conforms with Standards. “EDS Recommendations” are also provided, if warranted.

Pages 16 and 17 of “Phase II Historical Assessment of 685 Mermaid Avenue, Pacific Grove, Monterey County, California 93950,” by Dana E. Supernowicz, M.A., RPA, August 2025, address each of the ten Standards. The Standards are completed adequately, leaving out details that would support its assessment; however, several key elements of Standard 9 are ignored, simply stating “The new addition and the ADU will be constructed in a manner that will not damage or harm the historic residence.”3 This statement does not address the second sentence of the Standard “The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment.” As such, EDS completed Standard 9 in full, to demonstrate that the proposed project does not meet the Standard, as it is not compatible with the massing, size, and scale of the property.

The following Standards review assesses potential impacts of the current project and provides recommendations to assist the City of Pacific Grove in ensuring compliance with CEQA.

9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment.

The character-defining features of the 1926 house include the following, as determined by Page & Turnbull’s HRI, and confirmed by EDS:
• Slender, two-story, front-facing gable form
• Wood frame construction
• Off-centered entryway on the primary (street-facing) façade • Wood, casement windows
• Wood drop siding (Pacific Grove Building Permit filed April 5, 1926, states that the house was 3 Dana Supernowicz, M.A, ““Phase II Historical Assessment of 685 Mermaid Avenue, Pacific Grove, Monterey County, California 93950,” (August 2025) 16.

Assessment and Recommendations for Consideration by the City of Pacific Grove for the Current Project at 685 Mermaid Avenue, Pacific Grove, Monterey County, California 93950 8 clad with board and batten siding)
• Eave overhangs with exposed rafter tails
• Represents Pacific Grove “Vernacular” design
The proposed addition includes the removal of an original, but infilled, shed porch constructed on the south elevation, as well as the removal of the one-story, front-facing, infilled garage. The project proposes the removal of five original wood windows; thus, the project includes removing half of the existing ten windows. The project includes the restoration of the original board and batten siding (as demonstrated in the original Permit) and will maintain the original entrance on the primary facade.

The proposed project includes the addition of a two-story, front-facing gable form with a two-story hyphen between the original gabled form and the addition.

Massing
The proposed Project is differentiated entirely from the old, due to its modern application of materiality and its emphasis on interior experience. However, it is not compatible with the massing, size, or scale of the extant 1926 house. The house is approximately 12’ 3” wide, 32’ 3” deep, and 20’ 5” tall, representing a unique “Vernacular” design. The proposed front-facing addition is both wider and taller than the existing building, approximately 14’ 3” wide, 23’ 11” deep, and 21’ 7” tall. The design attempts to mitigate the difference by setting it back from the road; however, this proposed addition physically overwhelms the original house, which alters the hierarchy of the building – where the extant shed additions are clearly distinct from the main house, the proposed additions usurp the original two-story front-facing gable house. Rather than presenting the original house as the main feature of the building, it restructures the building’s street presence so that the additions appear to be the main building, and the ca. 1926 section of the house only an addition. Therefore, the proposed project is not compatible with the massing, size, or scale of the historic house.

Assessment and Recommendations for Consideration by the City of Pacific Grove for the Current Project at 685 Mermaid Avenue, Pacific Grove, Monterey County, California 93950 9 Figure 1. "Proposed North Elevation” from Page A3.1 of Zheng Remodel, by H3 Design (Courtesy of Heritage Society of Pacific Grove).

EDS Assessment:

The purpose of Standard 9 is to prevent the additions from undermining the historic integrity of the 1926 house. While retaining the original door attempts to keep the original 1926 front-facing gable as the primary building, the proposed massing and scale of the addition are too overwhelming for the small frame of the original building.

As such, to meet the Standards for Rehabilitation, any proposed additions must not be greater in scale or massing than the original 1926 house. As such, below are a few massing proposals that are more fitting to the 1926 addition. These are not designs, as EDS are not architects or designers, but they are recommendations based on our Secretary of the Interior’s professional qualifications as architectural historians. As such, EDS is qualified to determine what designs and elements, such as massing and materials, meet the Standards for Rehabilitation.

EDS Recommendations (3 options that meet the Standards and Local Compliance) Massing 1: Reduce the width of the front-facing gable and the height of the overall addition (Figure 2). This may be achieved by sinking the foundation, thus beginning the baseplate below street level; an example of this is San Francisco’s garages that are below the house and street level (Figure 3, Figure 4, and Figure 5). Though this may not be feasible, it should be considered as an option.

Assessment and Recommendations for Consideration by the City of Pacific Grove for the Current Project at 685 Mermaid Avenue, Pacific Grove, Monterey County, California 93950 10 Figure 2. Massing option 1, showing the two front-facing gables and the central hyphen are approximately 12' wide, and the ridge of the roof is no higher than the ridge of the existing 1926 house. Achieved by sinking the addition below grade.

Examples of Sunken Garages
The following section provides three examples of sunken garages that are part of option 1.

Figure 3. 3343 Jackson, San Francisco (Courtesy of RedFin).

Assessment and Recommendations for Consideration by the City of Pacific Grove for the Current Project at 685 Mermaid Avenue, Pacific Grove, Monterey County, California 93950 11 Figure 4. 3330 Jackson Avenue, San Francisco (courtesy of Google Maps).

Figure 5. 3424 Jackson Avenue, San Francisco (Courtesy of Google Maps).

Massing Option 2: The following option 2 demonstrates how removing the larger “ADU” and reducing the height of the “hyphen” meets the Standards for Rehabilitation (Figure 6).

Assessment and Recommendations for Consideration by the City of Pacific Grove for the Current Project at 685 Mermaid Avenue, Pacific Grove, Monterey County, California 93950 12 Figure 6. Massing Option 2 demonstrates where the widths are not altered, but the larger “ADU” is removed, and the height is below the eaves of the original 1926 front-facing gable.

Massing Option 3: The following option 3 demonstrates how reducing the proposed addition to one story meets the Standards for Rehabilitation (Figure 7).

Figure 7. Massing Option 3, where the entire height of the addition does not exceed 17 feet.

Assessment and Recommendations for Consideration by the City of Pacific Grove for the Current Project at 685 Mermaid Avenue, Pacific Grove, Monterey County, California 93950 13

CONCLUSION
Based on its local listing, the 1926 house is a historical resource under CEQA. EDS completed the assessment of the current Project to determine if the proposed Project would impact the integrity of the 1926 house to remain locally listed. Based on this review, EDS determined that the Project does not meet the Standards for Rehabilitation, and if approved, the 1926 house would no longer be eligible for local listing based on the City’s guidelines. However, if any of the three options are utilized, reducing the massing, the Project would meet the Standards for Rehabilitation and remain eligible for local listing.

Assessment and Recommendations for Consideration by the City of Pacific Grove for the Current Project at 685 Mermaid Avenue, Pacific Grove, Monterey County, California 93950 14 Appendix A:

Qualifications
Assessment and Recommendations for Consideration by the City of Pacific Grove for the Current Project at 685 Mermaid Avenue, Pacific Grove, Monterey County, California 93950 15 STACEY DE SHAZO, M.A. | PRINCIPAL ARCHITECTURAL HISTORIAN Stacey De Shazo, M.A., serves as Principal Architectural Historian and Project Manager. Ms. De Shazo has a Master of Arts (M.A.) degree in Historic Preservation, a Bachelor of Arts (B.A.) degree in Anthropology, and exceeds the Secretary of the Interior’s qualification standards in Architectural History and History. She has over 25 years of experience in the identification and evaluation of built environment cultural resources in California. Ms. De Shazo has extensive knowledge of the history of California, including major trends in migration, industrialization, agricultural development, building, transportation, and economic growth. She has produced hundreds of Historic Resource Evaluations for properties in cities and counties throughout California, including Sonoma, Napa, Marin, Alameda, San Mateo, Santa Clara, San Francisco, Santa Cruz, Monterey, Sacramento, and San Mateo County, to name a few. She has experience with Secretary of the Interior Standards reviews, California Register and National Register nominations, Historic Preservation 20% Tax Credit applications, Mills Act, preservation treatment plans, and completing peer reviews. Her experience on complex historic preservation projects within California, along with her education, has allowed her to become an expert and leader in Architectural History and Historic Preservation. Ms. De Shazo also served as Chair of the City of Santa Rosa's Cultural Heritage Board from 2014 to 2019 and served as an Adjunct Lecturer at Sonoma State University from 2017 to 2019, teaching the graduate-level class Practicum in the National Register of Historic Places.

NICOLE WYTON, M.S. | ARCHITECTURAL HISTORIAN
Ms. Wyton is an architectural historian with a Master of Science (M.S.) degree in Historic Preservation from Clemson University and College of Charleston and a B.A. in History from Christendom College in Virginia. In 2021, Ms. Wyton completed a historic preservation internship with EDS under Principal Architectural Historian Stacey De Shazo. Ms. Wyton began her work with EDS as an architectural historian intern and was hired by EDS upon completing her Internship. During her nearly five years with EDS, Ms. Wyton has conducted archival research and completed numerous historic architectural surveys. She has assisted in completing numerous HRE reports, writing historical context, and evaluating built environment resources for eligibility for listing on the CRHR and the NRHP. Ms. Wyton has assisted with completing several NRHP nominations, including a civil rights nomination for the Sigma Chi House on the Stanford University campus, a nomination for a Julia Morgan-designed structure in Mendocino County, and a District Nomination in Sonoma County.

She has also assisted with completing several Mills Act historic property tax relief projects and HABS documents for the Library of Congress. Ms. Wyton thoroughly understands state and federal laws and regulations, including CEQA and Section 106 of the NHPA. 1 January 25, 2026
Charles Zheng
685 Mermaid Avenue
Pacific Grove, CA 93950
Re: Summary Report of the Phase II Historical Assessment of 685 Mermaid Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA 93950
Dear Mr. Zheng:

The purpose of this letter is to summarize the findings and recommendation presented in the Phase II Historical Assessment of 685 Mermaid Avenue, Pacific Grove, prepared by Historic Resource Associates (HRA) in August 2025. To date, the Pacific Grove Planning staff, the Historic Resource Committee, and the Pacific Grove Planning Commission have all voted favorably on the Phase II Historical Assessment and the design plans for the property. In 2025, Historic Resource Associates (HRA) was asked to review the Phase I Historical Assessment of the property and examine the attached guest house that was originally constructed as a garage and apply the Secretary of the Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (Standards). Both the residence that was built in 1926 and the guest house are in extremely poor condition, due to neglect from previous owners. It is also apparent that the residence and guest house have undergone a number of consequential alterations that diminish the property’s architectural integrity. Those alterations include re-siding over the original board and batten siding, building a non-historic addition in the rear, adding a large bay window on the front of the residence, and likely replacing most of the windows. The former garage no longer serves as it was intended in the original design of the house, having undergone extensive remodeling in the circa-1950s to convert it into a guest house, which included removing garage doors and reconstructing the front façade with a large fixed, wooden picture window, along with other alterations.

A review of other properties aligning Mermaid Avenue reveals numerous additions and alterations to many, if not most, of the original modest houses that were built on the street in the 1920s-1930s.

Those additions often include adding a second-story to single-story cottages, adding garages, replacing original exterior wall fabric with non-historic fabric, and expanding the footprint of some houses to cover the entire parcel. It should be noted that the current owner of the property intends to rehabilitate the residence, retaining and restoring its “significant” architectural character defining features and removing non-historic materials, such as the inappropriate siding on the exterior walls, thus, revealing the original fabric and ensuring that the Standards are met. (refer to Phase II Historical Assessment of 685 Mermaid Avenue, Pacific Grove, Monterey County, California, August 2025, pages 16-17).

HISTORIC RESOURCE ASSOCIATES
HISTORIC ARCHITECTURE • ARCHAEOLOGY • HISTORICAL & GENEALOGICAL RESEARCH NATIONAL REGISTER NOMINATIONS • PRESERVATION PLANNING • HISTORIC INTERIORS 3142 Bird Rock Road
Pebble Beach, CA 93953
Office: 831-641-7474
Mobile: 916-296-4334
Email: [email protected]
2 In August 2025, HRA analyzed the character defining features of the residence, including the neighborhood character, and applied the Standards to the proposed rehabilitation of the property.

The appropriate Standard for 685 Mermaid Avenue is “Rehabilitation.” The key standards for “Rehabilitation” include preserving the historic character of the original residence; creating compatible new additions with the historic property (the guest house was determined to be a non-contributing part of the property); differentiating the new work from the old; designing the additions in a manner that, if removed, the overall form and integrity of the historic property is still largely revealed; designing the additions in a manner that when viewed from the public spaces the additions are subordinate to the historic house; and ensuring the new work does not present a false sense of history.

Because of the location, size, and setbacks of the project parcel, any additions would have to occur along its east elevation that are undeveloped with the exception of the attached guest house. Given the historic residence stands two-stories tall, and unlike the single-story cottages along Mermaid that have piggy-back rooftop additions, expansion is proposed in the location of the existing noncontributing guest house, which will be demolished and replaced with an extension of the residence, but set back with a lower roofline from the residence on the parcel so if viewed from the street it would be subordinate to the original residence. The Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU), instead of being built against the historic residence is proposed to be constructed to the east of the center addition, and while similar in size it would also be subordinate to the existing historic residence. In essence, the distance between the original residence, the ADU, and the intervening addition setback on the parcel is more than sufficient to meet the Standards #9 and #10.

In summary, the previous analysis of 685 Mermaid Avenue performed by HRA in August 2025 found that the proposed project meets the Standards. Based upon 40 years of experience in conducting architectural assessments in California, the Standards were designed to provide “guidance” for government agencies, as well as qualified professionals addressing historic preservation projects. It is also apparent that each city or community operates differently in regards to determining the significance of properties and assessing projects that involve the four aspects of the Standards, namely Rehabilitation, Restoration, Preservation, and Reconstruction. Since the passage of the National Historic Preservation Act in 1966, there have been numerous changes to the regulatory process at both the federal and state level, such as California’s mandate for expanding housing for its residents.

Finally, characterizing Pacific Grove in comparison to San Francisco, as was done in the report prepared by Evans & De Shazo, Inc., is inherently flawed in that both cities have unique issues and differing ways that housing projects should be assessed. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me.

Regards
Dana E. Supernowicz, M.A., RPA
Principal
P

ROPOSEDMODELVIEWS
A10.3Z H E N G R E M O D E L 6 8 5 M E R M A I D A V E . P A C I F I C G R O V E , C A 9 3 9 5 0

11.15.25 ALLDRAWINGS,DESIGNS
+WRITTENMATERIALS

ARETHEORIGINALWORK
OFH
3 DESIGNANDMAY

NOTBEDUPLICATED,

USEDORTRANSFERRED

WITHOUTWRITTEN
CONSENT H 3 D E S I G N
5 4 9 H I L L C R E S T A V E N U E
( C ) 8 3 1 . 2 3 3 . 4 3 1 9
P A C I F I C G R O V E, C A 9 3 9 5 0
H 3 D E S I G N
5 4 9 H I L L C R E S T A V E N U E
( C ) 8 3 1 . 2 3 3 . 4 3 1 9
P A C I F I C G R O V E, C A 9 3 9 5 0 5

NOTTOSCALE
PROPOSEDNORTH+WESTELEVATION

NOTTOSCALE

PROPOSEDNORTHELEVATION

NOTTOSCALE
PROPOSEDNORTH+EASTELEVATION
Outlook
FW: Support for Architectural Permit (AP) and Coastal Development Permit (CDP) 24-0044 for 685 Mermaid Avenue (APN 006-085-003-000)
From Garrett McCown <[email protected]>
Date Thu 12/11/2025 2:25 PM
To Planning Commission <[email protected]> Good afternoon Commissioners,
Please see forwarded email, from Mr. Dutra, for your consideration.

Best regards,
Garrett McCown
Associate Planner &
RFP Coordinator
City of Pacific Grove
www.cityofpacificgrove.org
p: 831-648-3185
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: Dominic Dutra <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2025 2:13 PM
To: Garrett McCown <[email protected]>
Cc: Jon Biggs <[email protected]>
Subject: Support for Architectural Permit (AP) and Coastal Development Permit (CDP) 24-0044 for 685 Mermaid Avenue (APN 006-085-003-000)
[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.] Mr. McCown,
As the new owner of the two properties located at 687 and 689 Mermaid Ave., please note to the members of the Planning Commission that we fully support the applicant and agree with staff’s recommendation that the Planning Commission approve the project (Architectural Permit (AP) and Coastal Development Permit (CDP) 24-0044, subject to the findings, recommended conditions, and Class 1 and 31 Categorical Exemptions (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15301, Existing Facilities, and 15331, Historical Resource Restoration and Rehabilitation).

We believe that this applicant has worked diligently to meet the concerns of neighbors, the HRC and others and have great confidence that his significant investment will be a great asset to the community. We appreciate the applicant’s efforts and wish him well during tonight’s meeting.

Please feel free to contact me should you have any questions.

Sincerely,
Dominic D. Dutra
Professional Qualifications
Cell Phone: 510.366.9931
BRE License No. 00963281
“The only man who can safely appear in public is the one who wishes he were at home. He alone can safely speak who prefers to be silent.

Only he can safely govern who prefers to live in submission, and only he can safely command who prefers to obey.” Thomas A Kempis
Outlook
FW: 685 Mermaid Ave hearing
From Garrett McCown <[email protected]>
Date Thu 12/11/2025 4:56 PM
To Planning Commission <[email protected]> Good evening Commissioners,
Please see forwarded email, from Mr. and Mrs. Weidenhamer, for your consideration.

Best regards,
Garrett McCown
Associate Planner &
RFP Coordinator
City of Pacific Grove
www.cityofpacificgrove.org
p: 831-648-3185
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: Michelle Robinson <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2025 4:27 PM
To: Garrett McCown <[email protected]>
Subject: 685 Mermaid Ave hearing
[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.] Hi Garrett McCown,
I'm Michelle Weidenhamer and my husband is Joseph Weidenhamer. We own the 675 and 679 Mermaid Ave. properties next to the proposed project. The elevation of Charles Zheng's is very attractive and we are really excited about him moving forward with the build. If there is anything you need please reachout.

Best Regards
Michelle Weidenhamer
224-244-1319
Yahoo Mail: Search, Organize, Conquer
Outlook
FW: Preserving Historic Resources and 685 Mermaid Ave AP 24-0044 From Garrett McCown <[email protected]>
Date Wed 12/10/2025 1:22 PM
To Planning Commission <[email protected]> Good afternoon Commissioners,
Please see forwarded email, from Ms. Anderson, for your consideration.

Best regards,
Garrett McCown
Associate Planner &
RFP Coordinator
City of Pacific Grove
www.cityofpacificgrove.org
p: 831-648-3185
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. -----Original Message-----
From: Leslie Anderson <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, December 4, 2025 4:36 PM
To: Jon Biggs <[email protected]>; City Manager <[email protected]>; Garrett McCown <[email protected]>; City Council Members <[email protected]>
Cc: Cal OHP <[email protected]>; Cal Coastal Comm Central Coast <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Anthony Billeci #52 <[email protected]>; Cindy B MPHA <[email protected]>; David and Myrna #51 <[email protected]>; Mikki Jenott #50 <[email protected]>; Linda Downum #20 <[email protected]>
Subject: Preserving Historic Resources and 685 Mermaid Ave AP 24-0044 [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.] "HGTV Names Pacific Grove Among the Tip 40 Most Charming Small Towns in the U.S,&rdquo; The City of Pacific Grove Website
"PG Named One of the Top 15 Small Towns to Visit in 2025 by Smithsonian Magazine,&rdquo; The City of Pacific Grove Website
"Located in one of California's most charming and culturally rich coastal towns... Situated just a short walk from the coast, Kimpton Mirador Pacific Grove is surrounded by historic homes, walkable streets, and local landmarks such as the Monarch Grove Sanctuary,&rdquo; Hospitality.Net November 18, 2025 &ldquo;It should be noted that this building style (687 Mermaid) is similar to its neighbor to the south, 685 Mermaid Avenue (1926), which may have been an inspiration for the subject house&rsquo;s construction.&rdquo; From the Phase I Historical Assessment on 687 and 689 Mermaid Avenue July 2, 2025 by Seth A. Bergstein, Principal of PAST Consultants, LLC Dear Pacific Grove Community Development and City Council:

The City of Pacific Grove promotes the charm and historic nature of our town but does not take these important elements into consideration when approving projects that will gravely alter historic resources.

The location and dramatic history of our city are what draw much needed tourism and future residence to our community. I am writing to urge the City Council and Planning Commission to consider more thoughtful designs that highlight the city&rsquo;s heritage, when it comes to the new Housing Element and rehabilitation of historic homes.

In particular, I am writing to assist the city of Pacific Grove in correctly analyzing the permit for a &ldquo;rehabilitation&rdquo; of 685 Mermaid Avenue (AP 24-0044), where the proposed design is more accurately described as a modern new build.

The Property currently includes a 1926 house and landscape. In 2019, the City of Pacific Grove adopted the 2019 HRI report, which included the listing of the Property with a California Historical Resource Status Code (Status Code) of &ldquo;5S1,&rdquo; meaning it is an &ldquo;individual property that is listed or designated locally.&rdquo; As such, the 1926 house is considered a Historical Resource as defined in Section 15064.5 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines.

I continue to work with Stacey De Shazo, M.A. Principal Architectural Historian of Evans &amp; De Shazo, Inc on the validity of documents submitted in relation to this permit. Stacey De Shazo is very busy so until she can get a review of the August 2025 Phase II Assessment submitted to the city, I would like to point out why this project should NOT be approved at the December 11 Planning Commission meeting, and an NOIA should remain on this permit until the required assessments are submitted.

In October 2024, Evans &amp; De Shazo, Inc. (EDS) completed a Historic Built Environment Peer Review (Peer Review) of the &ldquo;Focused Phase II Historic Assessment&rdquo; letter report by Kent Seavey (dated December 20, 2023), and the supplemental letter (dated August 22, 2024) for the proposed project at 685 Mermaid Avenue, Pacific Grove, Monterey County, California, within APN 006-085-003 (Property). The Peer Review concluded,
* Mitigation measures, including a focused Environmental Impact Report (EIR), may be necessary if the Project moves forward with significant impacts to a historic resource; * Based on CEQA requirements, the Project requires an HRE that includes appropriate historical context, a history of owners/occupants, a historic architectural survey to document the current condition of the built environment resources, and an evaluation for eligibility for listing on the CRHR, utilizing all four criteria. An integrity analysis is also required if the evaluation determines the Property meets one or more CRHR criteria. In addition, a local assessment is needed to determine if the Property warrants continued local listing.
* The &ldquo;Focused Phase II Historic Assessment&rdquo; of the Property at 685 Mermaid Avenue lacks the historical context and evaluation of the built environment resource needed to complete a Standards review. The letter report is not in compliance with CEQA or the City of Pacific Grove&rsquo;s Municipal Code findings in Chapter 23.76, Historic Preservation &ndash; to determine the impacts of the proposed Project on the historical resource. Although the &ldquo;Focused Phase II Historic Assessment&rdquo; treats the Property as a historical resource, it does not correctly apply the CEQA guidelines or the Standards. As such, an HRE meeting CEQA requirements is needed before completing a Standards review. In addition, the HRE can incorporate the local requirements within the Part II Historic Assessment. Only after the HRE is completed should a Standards review be applied to the Project.

Following the submission of the 2024 Peer Review by Evans &amp; De Shazo, the Planning Commission issued an NOIA for the project. The HRE recommended in the Peer Review has not been conducted, nor have mitigation measures or an EIR been submitted. In September 2025 the Historic Resource Committee (HRC), once again, approved the permit for 685 Mermaid Avenue solely based on the proposed design containing an ADU. The ADU will not be detached from the historic home but is part of the proposed 1000 square foot addition to the (696 square foot) historic property, and therefore all the elements of the proposed rehabilitation must be considered before approval. The HRC should focus solely on how the rehabilitation will alter the historicity of the built environment and base their approval on the design meeting Secretary of Interior Standards and CEQA laws pertaining to the historic structure.

Historic Resources are not automatically exempt from CEQA. The HRC should know enough to see past insufficient reports and make an informed decision that protects the resource and the liability of the city.

Dana E. Supernowicz submitted a second Phase II Historic Assessment dated August 2025 for 685 Mermaid Avenue. This Phase II relies on the previous Assessment and the introduction states, &ldquo;Building upon the Phase II Historic Assessment by Seavey, this study focuses on the rehabilitation of the residence, the addition, and the demolition of the former garage.&rdquo; Most of this report focuses on the demolition of the garage, which has been proven historic, but proper studies as to it&rsquo;s condition nor any form of mitigation are included in the Assessment. The Phase II Assessment has the same concerns as the previous Phase II in that both the Assessments do not conduct a complete Secretary of Interior Standards review but rather imply the design meets the standards without showing how this is done. Therefore, the report incorrectly concludes the design is exempt from CEQA.

The city of Pacific Grove continues to deem the Project exempt from CEQA per section 15300.2 but the exceptions state a categorical exemption does NOT apply when the project site is environmentally sensitive or (b) cumulative impacts would be significant AND (f) impacts to historic resources will occur. If any of the exceptions are triggered, a project that would normally be exempt under Class 31 would lose that exemption and require further environmental review. To qualify for the exemption, all work must conform with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the treatment of historic properties. The Project has not been property evaluated with Secretary of Interior Standards and therefore a CEQA exemption cannot be determined until the proper HRE is submitted. The inclusion of an attached ADU in the design does not exempt the Project from CEQA or the approval process for an alteration to a historic resource.

Nor can the garage be treated as a separate resource. The Phase II Assessments does not consider the change from a single family to a multi family format. This project must be treated in the same way the resources effected by the new Housing Element and Rezoning report were treated, in that it may require an Environmental Impact Report to determine the impact the remodel will have on the resource or, it could be redesigned in a way that meets the Standards and does not destroy the distinct characteristics of the historic home and the neighborhood.

It is apparent in the H3 design proposal dated September 8, 2025, that the size and massing of the historic home will be significantly altered. The proposed addition is larger, in height and overall mass, than the original home. In addition, many defining characteristics of the vernacular will be changed and the features intended for demolition (H3 design proposal pages 7 and 8), including interior features, will destroy the integrity of the historic resource. The impact of this destruction is not addressed in the 2025 Phase II Historic Assessment.

There are ways this historic buildings can be respectfully rehabilitated to maintain the charm of the resource, the character of the neighborhood, and consideration for the surrounding neighbors. The current design of 685 Mermaid Avenue is NOT that. An Architect with a background in historic rehabilitation&rsquo;s and restorations could create a design that is thoughtful and meets the Secretary of Interior Standards. I urge you to hold the owners accountable by denying the permit approval and requesting a design that meets the Secretary of Interior Standards for the historicity of the home and the neighborhood. This same theory applies to the resources that will be impacted by the new Housing Element for 2031. Please consider that Pacific Grove is revered for it's charm and historic nature, this is a strength we must appreciate and build upon instead of annihilating for the sake of meeting quotas.

Part of the charm of Pacific Grove is the sense of community. This should inspire us to work together to preserve what makes our town stand out and attract tourists and residence. If this house as proposed were to be built, it will negatively impact both the Monarch Pines and Beach Tract neighborhoods.

Impacts of this design on the neighborhood are not addressed in either Phase II Assessment. This oversized modern build not only lacks character but would put a wall up in front of the ocean view enjoyed by one hundred and three Monarch Pines households, and block views from the nine homes on my street. My neighbors and I will be staring into this new house, and the owners of the new house will be staring into our living rooms. I do not understand why this is desired by the owners, or acceptable by the city, especially when a more creative design could not only meet the Secretary of Interior Standards but respect the charm of the neighborhood and the home. One of the biggest issues is the garage should not be removed. Nothing has proven this is an acceptable treatment of this historic resource, nor have the proper assessments been completed to show the impact this and other changes will have on this historic home and the surrounding neighborhood. The design should include the rehabilitation of the historic garage that is a vital characteristic to the original Vernacular home. The Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation is defined as the act or process of making possible a compatible use for a property through repair, alterations, and additions while preserving those portions or features which convey its historical, cultural, or architectural values. We must uphold these values.

In Pacific Grove we are proud of our community and our landscape. The proposed design for 685 Mermaid Avenue respects neither. It is the duty of the City to protect it&rsquo;s resources, home values, community and it&rsquo;s citizens. We want to see the historic home restored but in a way that celebrates the modest Vernacular designs of the 1920s and the charm of what is considered a &ldquo;special community&rdquo; to be protected under Section 30253 of the Coastal Act. Once a historic resource is destroyed it cannot be replaced. With a little creativity Standards can be met and communities can remain intact. Please help us preserve our neighborhood and save our property values by preserving our views. Please issue an NOIA and require a design that meets the Secretary of Interior Standards, or at least require the proper surveys are conducted to assess the impact to the historic build environment.

Thank you for your help.

Leslie Anderson
Outlook
FW: 685 Mermaid Ave
From Garrett McCown <[email protected]>
Date Wed 12/10/2025 1:17 PM
To Planning Commission <[email protected]> Good afternoon Commissioners,
Please see forwarded email, from Mr. Belleci, for your consideration.

Best regards,
Garrett McCown
Associate Planner &
RFP Coordinator
City of Pacific Grove
www.cityofpacificgrove.org
p: 831-648-3185
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: anthony billeci <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2025 12:42 PM
To: Garrett McCown <[email protected]>; Jon Biggs <[email protected]>; Anna Bornstein <[email protected]>
Cc: Cindy Billeci <[email protected]>; Leslie Anderson <[email protected]> Subject: 685 Mermaid Ave
[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.] Re: December 11 planning commission meeting for 685 Mermaid Ave.

I strongly urge the planning commission to deny the permit for 685 Mermaid Ave.

The HRC should not have approved the plans at their last meeting. I believe the HRC failed to perform their duties in preserving & rehabilitating a historic structure in the city of Pacific Grove by allowing the demolition of the historic garage attached to the historic home. It was obvious at the HRC meeting that the historian was biased in his report in favor of the owners plans for the project as proposed.

Shouldn't the HRC as well as any historian be committed to preserve the historic homes and buildings of Pacific Grove?
If the permit is approved and the project is completed as planned it would open the door for other homeowners on Mermaid Avenue to follow suit. An example is the property next door at 687 Mermaid Avenue. The property was just approved for listing on the HRI. The homeowners already have plans to alter the structure as part of a remodel of the home.If this trend continues, the village-like atmosphere of Mermaid Avenue would be lost. Walking tours of historic homes in Pacific Grove are popular among tourists and residents of the city. As the historic homes are allowed to change their appearance there would be less interest in touring updated older homes. If the project at 685 Mermaid Avenue is approved and built and I was on a tour of historic homes I would walk right by this updated modern home.

At the last HRC meeting it was decided that the siding of the home be replaced with the original Board & Batten siding that the house was built with. The garage still has the original siding and with a little effort to restore & rehabilitate the structure by replacing the front window with original style doors the structure could be saved and have the appearance of the home as built 100 years ago.

Please don't approve the project as proposed. With some vision & talent a separate ADU can be added to the property which could enhance the historic home as it appears without destroying part of the original historic structure.

Keep in mind that the home was purchased in January of 2023 and the permit was requested in February of 2024. In the last three years no maintenance of the home has been performed adding to its state of disrepair.

This has been in violation of the city of Pacific Grove municipal code chapter 23.76 Historic preservation section 23.76110 that minimum maintenance must be performed to prevent the property from falling into decay and deterioration.

It is my belief that the owners of the property intended to have the property fall into a state of disrepair intentionally to justify their argument of the proposed project.

Please don't reward their bad behavior by approving the permit.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

Regards,
Anthony Billeci
700 Briggs ave.

Pacific Grove
RESOLUTION NO. 26-

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE DENYING THE APPEAL OF ARCHITECTURAL PERMIT (AP) 24-0044 AND APPROVING AP 24-0044 FOR A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 685 MERMAID AVENUE TO ALLOW THE DEMOLITION OF THE EXISTING CONVERTED GARAGE AND REAR ADDITIONS, CONSTRUCTION OF A 156 SQUARE FOOT FIRST-FLOOR ADDITION, A 165 SQUARE FOOT SECOND-FLOOR ADDITION, A 337 SQUARE FOOT ATTACHED GARAGE ADDITION, AND A 339 SQUARE FOOT ATTACHED ADU. THE PROPERTY IS LISTED ON THE HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY.

FACTS

1. The subject site is located at 685 Mermaid Avenue, Pacific Grove, APN 006-085-003-000.

2. The subject site has a land use designation of Medium High Density Residential, 10-20 dwelling units per acre (MHD 10-20 du/ac) in the certified City of Pacific Grove Coastal Land Use Plan (LUP Figure 6).

3. The project site is located in the R-3-PGB zoning district.

4. The subject site is approximately 1,760 square feet in size and currently developed with an existing two-story 950 square foot single-family residence.

5. The property is located within the City’s Area of Special Biological Significance, the Coastal Zone (LUP Figure 1), an archaeologically sensitive area (LUP Figure 7), and is listed on the City’s Historic Resources Inventory (HRI).

6. With the exception of the existing non-conforming setbacks of the historic building, as proposed, the project would conform to PGMC 23.57 (R-3-PGB zoning district) and PGMC 23.90 (Local Coastal PlanImplantation Plan).

7. The existing development on the property is non-conforming with regard to the front, west side and rear setbacks. However, demolishing the non-historic garage will reduce the non-conforming rear setback from 2 feet 1 inch to 6 feet. All proposed, new development will conform to development regulations. No new nonconformities will be created or expanding the original setback of the historic structure.

8. A Phase I and II archaeological assessment (Historic Resource Associates, April 2024) was prepared for the subject property and concluded that, "Due to the presence of precontact cultural material, it is recommended that an archaeological monitor be present during any ground disturbing activity associated with the proposed remodel of the existing residential house located at 685 Mermaid Avenue." Condition Nos. 8, 9, and 10 have been added to address archaeological monitoring, as well as inadvertent discovery of cultural resources.

9. A Phase II Historic assessment (Historic Resource Associates, August 2025) was prepared for the subject property and concluded, "After carefully examining the subject property, it is my professional opinion that the former garage is [in] such a deteriorated condition and has been so altered to conclude that it no longer is a "contributing" part of the residence, which itself has undergone numerous alterations. Therefore, the rehabilitation of the residence and the demolition of the former garage appear to meet the aforementioned standards [in the Phase II report]. In this regard it is presumed that any new addition, in this case a two-story addition set back from the original residence and beyond it to the east the construction of a two-story combination garage and ADU, will be designed in a manner that does not directly damage or visually imply that either addition was once part of the original residence. At the same time, rehabilitating the residence and removing the modern circa-1950's horizontal board siding and exposing the board and batten siding, replacing the window in-kind while keeping the massing of the original residence largely intact, as well as other architectural details, such as the bay window on the front and lighted French style entry door, meet the Standards for preservation and rehabilitation."
“Thus, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 states; "Generally, a project that follows the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring and Reconstructing Historic Buildings or the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings (1995 as amended) shall be considered as mitigated to a level of less than significant impact on the historical resource."”

10. On September 24, 2025, the Historic Resources Committee voted 3-0 (3 yes, 0 noes) to recommend the Planning Commission approve the project.

11. On December 11, 2025, the Planning Commission voted 4-1-1 (4 yes, 1 no, and 1 absent) to approve AP/CDP 24-0044.

12. This project has been determined to be Categorically Exempt per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Section 15331, Class 31, Categorical Exemption for Historical Resource Restoration/Rehabilitation, Section 15301, Class 1, Categorical Exemption for Existing Facilities, and the exceptions to the exemptions in Section 15300.2 of the CEQA Guidelines do not apply.

FINDINGS
For an Architectural Permit per PGMC Section 23.70.070(h)

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

The proposed development consists of a major remodel of an existing 950 square foot two-story residence to include demolition of the existing converted garage and rear additions, construction a 156 square foot firstfloor addition, a 165 square foot second-floor addition, a 337 square foot attached garage addition, and a 339 square foot second-floor ADU resulting in a 1,363 square foot two-story residence with a 339 square foot attached ADU. As designed, the project would be compatible with the neighborhood of medium- to largesized one- and two-story residences.  The surrounding streetscapes are comprised of residences with varying architectural styles, alignments, and scales.  The proposed project would use exterior colors and materials (i.e.; black wood windows and doors, board and batten wood siding, smooth exterior cement plaster, and black composition shingles) that will be compatible with residences in the vicinity and will blend with the surrounding natural streetscape.

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

There is no indication or evidence that the proposed project would either negatively affect the orderly and harmonious development of the city or impair the desirability of investment in the neighborhood.

The proposed development would improve the subject property and contribute to the desirability of investment in the Beach Tract neighborhood.

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

The architectural style, materials and site design are in substantial conformance with the City’s Architectural Review Guidelines, including but not limited to guidelines Nos. 1, 2, 7, 31, 32, and 38.

Appendix I: Working with Buildings on the Historic Resources Inventory Architectural Review Guidelines for Historic Resources
Guideline #1: Neighborhood Context: Any additions to historic buildings must take into account the effect of the proposed addition on the existing neighborhood, including but not limited to setbacks, mass, architectural style, and design.

The proposed project conforms with the zoning regulations set forth in the R-3-PGB zoning district as well as the Local Coastal Program Implementation plan (23.90). The original existing historic building has nonconforming setbacks, however, the project proposes to reduce the rear setback and the new additions will not expand or create new non-conformities. The architectural style and design is consistent with the Historic Context statement neighborhood context and existing neighborhood in regard to its rectangular shape, wood frame construction, board and batten siding, cement plaster siding, and combination of gable and flat roofs.

Guideline #2: Effects of additions on historic scale and character: Additions to historic buildings should be designed to preserve, as much as possible, the scale and overall character of the original structure.

The Phase II Historic Assessment (Historic Resource Associates, August 2025) states that, " The historic character of the property will be preserved, including returning the exterior design to its original wall cladding by removing the 1950's horizontal siding and uncovering the original board and batten wood siding." Additionally, "Parts of the property that do not retain integrity or not within the period of significance will be removed, such as the garage and rear shed-roof addition." Guideline #3: Preservation of character-defining features: New additions and alterations should be designed and constructed so that the character-defining features of the historic building are not radically changed, obscured, damaged, or destroyed.

The Phase II Historic Assessment (Historic Resource Associates, August 2025) states, "The proposed project involves rehabilitation of the residence which includes returning it back to its original exterior board and batten wall cladding, replacing damaged or deteriorated windows with in-kind replacements, matching the design and shape of the existing windows, restoring the front door, and restoring the front bay window." Guideline #4: Compatibility of new work with old: Additions and remodels should be compatible with the original historic building in forms, scale, and materials and not compromise the architectural integrity of the original.

The Phase II Historic Assessment (Historic Resource Associates, August 2025) states that, "The new addition and the ADU will be constructed in a manner that will not damage or harm the historic residence." Additionally, "The new additions will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired." Lastly, "the project meets the Secretary of Interior's Standards for Preservation and rehabilitation." Guideline #5: Replacements: When important character-defining features, such as windows, need to be replaced, the replacements should be of similar design and material. If using the same kind of material is not technically feasible, then a compatible substitute material may be considered.

The proposed project includes replacement of damaged or deteriorated windows with in-kind replacements, as well as restoration of the front French door and front bay window.

6. De facto demolitions: Certain alterations that are so extensive that they are tantamount to demolition of the original structure may be treated as demolitions rather than remodels.

The Phase II Historic Assessment (Historic Resource Associates, August 2025) states, "It is my professional opinion that the former garage is such a deteriorated condition and has been so altered to conclude that it no longer is a "contributing" part of the residence, which itself has undergone numerous alterations. Therefore, the rehabilitation of the residence and the demolition of the former garage appear to meet the aforementioned standards."

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
In approving the permit, the following conditions of approval are imposed and deemed reasonable and necessary to ensure that the approval will comply with the findings cited above.

1. Permit Expiration. This permit shall expire and be null and void if a building permit has not been applied for within one (1) year from and after the date of approval.  Application for extension of this approval must be made prior to the expiration date.

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

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

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

5. Conformance to Plans. Development of the site shall conform to the approved plans for “The Zheng Remodel” dated November 15, 2025, on file with the Community Development Department and to the Building Code, with the exception of any subsequently approved changes.

6. Lighting. All exterior lighting must conform to LUP Policy DES-6.

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

8. Archaeological Monitoring. As recommended in the Phase I and II Archaeological Assessment (Historic Resource Associates, April 2024) prepared for the property, a qualified archaeological monitor shall be present to observe all soil disturbance for all grading and excavation activities.  If at any time, potentially significant resources or intact features are discovered, the monitor(s) shall temporarily halt work until the find can be evaluated.  See also Conditions of Approval 9 and 10 below.

9. Archaeology and Inadvertent Discovery. When human remains or artifacts are exposed, the Health and Safety Code § 7050.5 requires that no further excavation or disturbance occurs in the area and that the county coroner is called so that the coroner can verify that the remains are not subject to medical jurisprudence. Within 24 hours of notification, the coroner calls the Native American Heritage Commission if the remains are known or thought to be Native American. The Native American Heritage Commission selects the Most Likely Descendant (MLD) from a rotating list of MLDs. The MLD has 24 hours to respond. All work will halt with a 50-yard radius until an osteologist can examine the remains, and a treatment plan for any said remains has been provided according to the MLD.

10. Cultural and/or Archaeological Artifacts. If such artifacts are unexpectedly discovered during ground disturbing activities, work shall be halted until the item(s) can be evaluated by a qualified professional archaeologist.  If the find is determined to be significant, appropriate mitigation will be formulated, with the approval of the lead agency, and implemented prior to recommencement of work.

Planning Commission Conditions of Approval:

11. Tribal Monitoring. A qualified tribal monitor shall be present to observe all soil disturbance for all grading and excavation activities.  If at any time, potentially significant resources or intact features are discovered, the monitor(s) shall temporarily halt work until the find can be evaluated.  See also Conditions of Approval 9 and 10.

12. Legal Lot of Record. Applicant will provide documentation demonstrating that the subject site was lawfully created and documented under state and local Subdivision Map Act requirements.

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

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

2. The Council denies the appeal and affirms the determination of the Planning Commission to approve CDP 24- 0044.

3. The Council  finds the project categorically exempt per CEQA Guidelines, Section 15301, Class 1, Existing Facilities, and CEQA Guidelines Section 15331, Class 31, Historical Resource Restoration/Rehabilitation. The Council also finds that the exceptions to the exemptions in Section 15300.2 of the CEQA Guidelines do not apply.

4. The required Findings and Conditions of Approval are hereby approved and incorporated herein by reference.

5. The  Council  APPROVES  this  permit  (Application  No.  24-0044)  to  allow  the  demolition  of  the  existing converted garage and rear additions, construction of a 156 square foot first-floor addition, a 165 square foot second-floor addition, a 337 square foot attached garage addition, and a 339 square foot attached ADU.

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

Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacific Grove on the 4th day of February, 2026, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTENTIONS:

APPROVED:

Nick Smith, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
SANDRA KANDELL, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________________
ALEX LORCA, City Attorney
RESOLUTION NO. 26-

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE DENYING THE APPEAL OF COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT (CDP) 24-0044 AND APPROVING CDP 24- 0044 FOR A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 685 MERMAID AVENUE TO ALLOW THE DEMOLITION OF THE EXISTING CONVERTED GARAGE AND REAR ADDITIONS, CONSTRUCTION OF A 156 SQUARE FOOT FIRST-FLOOR ADDITION, A 165 SQUARE FOOT SECOND-FLOOR ADDITION, A 337 SQUARE FOOT ATTACHED GARAGE ADDITION, AND A 339 SQUARE FOOT ATTACHED ADU. THE PROPERTY IS LISTED ON THE HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY.

FACTS

1. The subject site is located at 685 Mermaid Avenue, Pacific Grove, APN 006-085-003-000.

2. The subject site has a land use designation of Medium High Density Residential, 10-20 dwelling units per acre (MHD 10-20 du/ac) in the certified City of Pacific Grove Coastal Land Use Plan (LUP Figure 6).

3. The project site is located in the R-3-PGB zoning district.

4. The property is located within the City’s Area of Special Biological Significance, the Coastal Zone (LUP Figure 1), an archaeologically sensitive area (LUP Figure 7), and is listed on the City’s Historic Resources Inventory (HRI).

5. The subject site is approximately 1,760 square feet in size and currently developed with an existing two-story 950 square foot single-family residence.

6. With the exception of the existing non-conforming setbacks of the historic building, as proposed, the project would conform to PGMC 23.57 (R-3-PGB zoning district) and PGMC 23.90 (Local Coastal PlanImplantation Plan).

7. The existing development on the property is non-conforming with regard to the front, west side and rear setbacks. However, demolishing the non-historic garage will reduce the non-conforming rear setback from 2 feet 1 inch to 6 feet. All proposed, new development will conform to development regulations. No new nonconformities will be created or expanding the original setback of the historic structure.

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

23.90.040, CDP Exemptions, Community Development Department (CDD) staff determined the proposed project would require a Coastal Development Permit (CDP), and forwarded this determination to the Coastal Commission on June 21, 2024.

9. Per PGMC Section 23.90.140, Coastal Hazards, CDD staff reviewed LUP Figure 3 (Coastal Hazards and Areas of Potential Sea Level Rise), aerial and topographic imagery, plan set, and conducted a site visit on May 24, 2024, and determined the site and proposed development would not be subject to coastal hazards over its lifetime. The lowest point of the subject property is at an elevation of approximately 140 feet above mean sea level and approximately 220 feet from the shoreline. The property is further separated from the shoreline by a Recreation Trail, two city streets, and a block of single-family residences. In this case, submittal of a Coastal Hazards Report is not required or warranted.

10. Per PGMC Section 23.90.150, Water Quality and Marine Resources, the City did not require a water quality assessment because the proposed new development is under 2,500 square feet of new coverage, and will fall within the City’s Municipal Permit. The proposed project includes removing the existing bricks and demolition of the former garage and rear addition, which will be replaced with a two-story addition set back behind the residence and to the left of the addition, an attached garage with a second floor ADU above the garage, resulting in an increased site coverage of approximately 35 square feet.

11. Per PGMC Section 23.90.160, Scenic Resources, CDD staff reviewed LUP Figure 4 (Scenic Areas), aerial and street view imagery, and conducted a site visit on May 24, 2024. This review determined the site and proposed development are not within a designated scenic view area, not visible seaward of Ocean View Boulevard or the Recreational Trail, and would not adversely impact public views along Ocean View Boulevard.  As designed, the proposed second-story addition is consistent with adjacent development. In this case, submittal of a site-specific visual analysis is not required or warranted.

12. Per PGMC Section 23.90.170, Biological Resources, CDD staff reviewed LUP Figure 5, Land Habitat Sensitivity Map, aerial imagery, and conducted a site inspection on May 24, 2024. This review determined the proposed development would not have the potential to adversely affect biological resources or an environmentally sensitive habitat area. LUP Figure 5 identifies the site as having a moderate habitat value, and the property is a previously-developed site in a residentially zoned district surrounded by residential structures. The property is separated from any sensitive habitat by a recreational trail, two city streets, and open space. Additionally, the project site is approximately 220 feet from the nearest beach area. The project site is over 1,970 feet to the 5th Street beach and over 4,370 feet to the Hopkins Marine Station West Beach, and neither has a direct line of sight of the subject property. As designed and conditioned, the project would not impact natural habitats or resources; therefore, in this case, submittal of an initial site assessment for biological resources is not required or warranted.

13. Per PGMC Section 23.90.180, Community Design, the project conforms to all applicable LUP policies and IP community design standards.

14. Per PGMC Section 23.90.200, Cultural Resources, the application includes a Phase I and II Archaeological Assessment prepared for the project site by a qualified archaeologist (Historic Resource Associates, April 2024). The assessment concluded that, "Due to the presence of precontact cultural material, it is recommended that an archaeological monitor be present during any ground disturbing activity associated with the proposed remodel of the existing residential house located at 685 Mermaid Avenue." Condition Nos. 8, 9, and 10 have been added to address archaeological monitoring, as well as inadvertent discovery of cultural resources.

15. Per PGMC Section 23.90.200, Cultural Resources, the application includes a Phase II Historic Assessment prepared for the project by a qualified historian (Historic Resource Associates, August 2025). The assessment concluded that,  "After carefully examining the subject property, it is my professional opinion that the former garage is [in] such a deteriorated condition and has been so altered to conclude that it no longer is a "contributing" part of the residence, which itself has undergone numerous alterations. Therefore, the rehabilitation of the residence and the demolition of the former garage appear to meet the aforementioned standards [in the Phase II report]. In this regard it is presumed that any new addition, in this case a two-story addition set back from the original residence and beyond it to the east the construction of a two-story combination garage and ADU, will be designed in a manner that does not directly damage or visually imply that either addition was once part of the original residence. At the same time, rehabilitating the residence and removing the modern circa-1950's horizontal board siding and exposing the board and batten siding, replacing the window in-kind while keeping the massing of the original residence largely intact, as well as other architectural details, such as the bay window on the front and lighted French style entry door, meet the Standards for preservation and rehabilitation."
"Thus, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 states; "Generally, a project that follows the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring and Reconstructing Historic Buildings or the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings (1995 as amended) shall be considered as mitigated to a level of less than significant impact on the historical resource."

16. On September 24, 2025, the Historic Resources Committee voted 3-0 (3 yes, 0 noes) to recommend the Planning Commission approve the project.

17. On December 11, 2025, the Planning Commission voted 4-1-1 (4 yes, 1 no, and 1 absent) to approve AP/CDP 24-0044.

18. This project has been determined to be Categorically Exempt per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Section 15331, Class 31, Categorical Exemption for Historical Resource Restoration/Rehabilitation, Section 15301, Class 1, Categorical Exemption for Existing Facilities, and the exceptions to the exemptions in Section 15300.2 of the CEQA Guidelines do not apply.

FINDINGS
For a Coastal Development Permit per PGMC Section 23.90.080

1. LCP Consistency. The project is consistent with the LCP. (Local Coastal Program) The project meets the requirements of the LCP including, but not limited to, the applicable Coastal Resource Protection Standards (PGMC § 23.90.130) of the Implementation Plan (IP) and the Biological, Cultural, Scenic, and Community Design policies of the Land Use Plan (LUP).  These standards and policies are addressed in the Facts above and in the following findings.

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

Per LUP Figure 4, Scenic Areas, the project site is not located within a designated Scenic View Area.  As designed, the project would not impact public views or adversely impact public views. The proposed development would also not result in adverse visual impacts as viewed seaward from Oceanview Boulevard, the Recreation Trail, and would be consistent with the height and massing of residences in the immediate vicinity of the project area.

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

Per LUP Figure 5, Land Habitat Sensitivity Map, the project site is identified as having a moderate habitat value, and the property is a previously-developed site in a residentially zoned district surrounded by residential structures. The property is separated from any sensitive habitat by a recreational trail, two city streets, and open space. Additionally, the project site is approximately 220 feet from the nearest beach area. The project site is over 1,970 feet to the 5th Street beach and over 4,370 feet to the Hopkins Marine Station West Beach, and neither has a direct line of sight of the subject property. As designed, the project will not impact natural habitats or resources and is consistent with the LCP, including PGMC § 23.90.170 regarding biological resources and/or environmentally sensitive habitat areas.

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

The project conforms to all applicable LUP polices and IP community design standards (PGMC 23.90.180, Coastal Community Design).

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

As designed, the project will have no effect on coastal access to or along the coast.

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

The project includes residential development and will have no visitor-serving features, yet may qualify for a Short-Term Rental (STR) license given its location within the coastal zone.  As of this date, there is no indication that the applicant intends to pursue an STR license.

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

Per LUP Figure 6, the subject property has a Coastal Zone Land Use Designation of Medium High Density Residential 10-20 du/ac (MHD 10-20).  LUP Policy LUD-6 identifies single-family residences and guest/auxiliary/second housing units as allowed uses in areas designated MHD 10-20.  Therefore, the proposed use is consistent.

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

The 1,760 square foot property is a previously-developed site in a residentially zoned district surrounded by residential structures and is currently developed with an existing two-story 950 square foot single-family residence.  As proposed and designed, the project will not impact coastal resources.  See also Facts 9 – 14 and supporting information. Condition No. 11 has been added to implement the construction management plan as well as using Best Management Practices (BMP’s).

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
In approving the permit, the following conditions of approval are imposed and deemed reasonable and necessary to ensure that the approval will comply with the findings cited above.

1. Permit Expiration. This permit shall expire and be null and void if a building permit has not been applied for within one (1) year from and after the date of approval.  Application for extension of this approval must be made prior to the expiration date.

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

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

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

5. Conformance to Plans. Development of the site shall conform to the approved plans for “The Zheng Remodel” dated November 15, 2025, on file with the Community Development Department and to the Building Code, with the exception of any subsequently approved changes.

6. Lighting. All exterior lighting must conform to LUP Policy DES-6.

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

8. Archaeological Monitoring. As recommended in the Phase I and II Archaeological Assessment (Historic Resource Associates, April 2024) prepared for the property, a qualified archaeological monitor shall be present to observe all soil disturbance for all grading and excavation activities.  If at any time, potentially significant resources or intact features are discovered, the monitor(s) shall temporarily halt work until the find can be evaluated.  See also Conditions of Approval 9 and 10 below.

9. Archaeology and Inadvertent Discovery. When human remains or artifacts are exposed, the Health and Safety Code § 7050.5 requires that no further excavation or disturbance occurs in the area and that the county coroner is called so that the coroner can verify that the remains are not subject to medical jurisprudence. Within 24 hours of notification, the coroner calls the Native American Heritage Commission if the remains are known or thought to be Native American. The Native American Heritage Commission selects the Most Likely Descendant (MLD) from a rotating list of MLDs. The MLD has 24 hours to respond. All work will halt with a 50-yard radius until an osteologist can examine the remains, and a treatment plan for any said remains has been provided according to the MLD.

10. Cultural and/or Archaeological Artifacts. If such artifacts are unexpectedly discovered during ground disturbing activities, work shall be halted until the item(s) can be evaluated by a qualified professional archaeologist.  If the find is determined to be significant, appropriate mitigation will be formulated, with the approval of the lead agency, and implemented prior to recommencement of work.

Planning Commission Conditions of Approval:

11. Tribal Monitoring. A qualified tribal monitor shall be present to observe all soil disturbance for all grading and excavation activities.  If at any time, potentially significant resources or intact features are discovered, the monitor(s) shall temporarily halt work until the find can be evaluated.  See also Conditions of Approval 9 and 10.

12. Legal Lot of Record. Applicant will provide documentation demonstrating that the subject site was lawfully created and documented under state and local Subdivision Map Act requirements.

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

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

2. The Council denies the appeal and affirms the determination of the Planning Commission to approve CDP 24- 0044.

3. The Council  finds the project categorically exempt per CEQA Guidelines, Section 15301, Class 1, Existing Facilities, and CEQA Guidelines Section 15331, Class 31, Historical Resource Restoration/Rehabilitation. The Council also finds that the exceptions to the exemptions in Section 15300.2 of the CEQA Guidelines do not apply.

4. The required Findings and Conditions of Approval are hereby approved and incorporated herein by reference.

5. The  Council  APPROVES  this  permit  (Application  No.  24-0044)  to  allow  the  demolition  of  the  existing converted garage and rear additions, construction of a 156 square foot first-floor addition, a 165 square foot second-floor addition, a 337 square foot attached garage addition, and a 339 square foot attached ADU.

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

Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacific Grove on the 4th day of February, 2026, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTENTIONS:

APPROVED:

Nick Smith, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
SANDRA KANDELL, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________________
ALEX LORCA, City Attorney
Agenda No. 11 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: February 04, 2026
SUBJECT: Proposed Urgency Ordinance Repealing and Replacing Chapter 11.72 (Aircraft Landing) Regulating Aircraft Launch and Landing, and to Prohibit Recreational UAS
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

RECOMMENDATION
Discuss proposed Urgency Ordinance Repealing and Replacing Chapter 11.72 (Aircraft Landing) Regulating Aircraft Launch and Landing, and to Prohibit Recreational UAS.

1. 2. Request the City Attorney to read the title of the Urgency Ordinance

3. Motion to waive further reading of the ordinances.

Motion Adopt Urgency Ordinance Repealing and Replacing Chapter 11.72 (Aircraft Landing) Regulating Aircraft Launch and Landing, and to Prohibit Recreational UAS.

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

5. DISCUSSION
On October 1, 2025, Councilmember Lori McDonnell presented an Agenda item requesting staff to return to the City Council with an ordinance regulating operation of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS, aka drones). The Agenda Report for that item can be found here.

On January 21, 2026, proposed regular and urgency ordinances regulating UAS and amending Chapter

11.72 (Aircraft Landing) were presented for the City Council’s consideration. The Agenda Report for that item can be found at this link.

The Council considered the ordinances, and recognizing the need to take immediate action to limit disturbances to birds and wildlife, directed staff to return with an urgency ordinance that prohibits the use of recreational UAS within the City, with the balance of the proposed ordinance to be considered as a separate item.

The purpose of this ordinance (Attachment 1) is to prohibit the operation of recreational UAS, except as expressly permitted by federal or state law, in order to protect the privacy of the residents and visitors of the City of Pacific Grove, and to protect wildlife and birds including, but not limited to disturbing animals during breeding, nesting, rearing of young, or other critical life history functions.
life history functions.

Effective Date of Ordinance and Voting Requirements
The Urgency Ordinance, if approved by a four-fifths vote of the City Council, would take effect immediately. The City Council is comprised of seven members and four-fifths of seven is six. So for the Urgency Ordinance to be adopted, an affirmative vote of six is necessary.

California Environmental Quality Act

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, and, assuming arguendo that this ordinance is a “project” subject to CEQA, the ordinance is exempt from CEQA pursuant to the following categorical exemptions: Class 1 Existing Facilities exemption in CEQA Guidelines section 15301, because the ordinance entails operation and permitting of/within existing public areas and facilities; Class 4 Minor Alterations of Land exemption in CEQA Guidelines section 15304, because the ordinance addresses permits authorizing the temporary use of UAS which will not involve the removal of any trees and will have negligible or no permanent effects on the environment; Class 7 and Class 8 exemptions in CEQA Guidelines sections 15307 and 15308, because the primary purpose of the ordinance is to protect the City’s natural resources and environment (e.g., Marine Protected Areas and wildlife); and the common sense exemption in CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3), because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the ordinance may have a significant adverse effect on the environment.

OPTIONS

1. Take alternative action related to this subject

2. Take no action
FINANCIAL IMPACT:

There is no direct financial impact as the result of this ordinance. Enforcement of the recreational drone ban will take staff time but it is not possible to estimate the magnitude at this time.

FOCUSED PRIORITY AREA: Not Applicable.

Attachments
Urgency Ordinance Repealing and Replacing Chapter 11.72 (Aircraft Landing) Regulating Aircraft Launch and Landing, and to Prohibit Recreational UAS
Written public comment
4901-0503-7194 v3