Pacific Grove City Council
May 6, 2026

Food and Beverage Concession Lease – The Grove at Point Pinos Lease                                    Page   of  28 31

EXHIBIT C

ONGOING MAINTENANCE SCHEDULE
Type Frequency
Carpet Cleaning Every 6 months
Window Washing Monthly
Ansul System Flush Every 6 months
Grease Trap Quarterly
Hoods ducts Every 6 months
Hoods and Stove Trays Weekly
Auto-Chlor Monthly
Fridge and Freezer Preventative Maintenance Annually
Deep Clean Annually
Interior Paint Touch Ups Annually
Chimney Sweep Annually
Outdoor Furniture Weather Treatment Annually
Bathroom Cleaning/janitorial service At least twice per day or more as needed PGCC 5-6-26
118
PGCC 5-6-26

Food and Beverage Concession Lease – The Grove at Point Pinos Lease                                    Page   of  29 31 Exhibit D

THE GROVE AT POINT PINOS

EQUIPMENT AND FURNISHINGS LIST AT COMMENCEMENT DATE

LESSOR-OWNED EQUIPMENT AND FURNISHINGS

ITEM QTY DESCRIPTION
1 1 Can Wash Faucet and Hose (outside the building)
2 1 Janitors/Mop Sink in the storage room
3 2 Chemical storage multi-rack shelf in the storage room 4 7 6 dry storage multi-rack shelves and 1 wine rack in the storage room 6 1 Walk-in Refrigerator with 5 multi-rack storage shelves 7 1 Walk-in Freezer with 4 multi-rack storage shelves
8 1 Unit Evaporator (Freezer)
9 1 Unit Evaporator (Refrigerator)
11 1 Snack bar counter
12 1 Worktable with preparation sinks
13 1 Fire suppression system
14 1 Cube ice machine with storage bin
15 1 Employee handwashing sink
16 1 lot Wall mounted shelf and utensil rack
17 1 Clean dish table/utensil sinks and drain boards
18 1 Booster heater
19 1 Type II vapor hood
21 1 Pre-rinse unit
22 1 Soiled dish table
23 1 Wall mounted rack shelf
24 1 Stainless steel wall lining
25 1 Type 1 exhaust ventilator
26 1 Vulcan six burner stove w/ convection oven
27 1 Vulcan six burner stove w/ oven
28 1 Under boiler with oven
29 1 Griddle top range with convection oven
30 1 Salamander broiler
31 2 Deep fat fryer with filter system
32 1 Worktop with base cabinet
33 1 Single section reach-in refrigerator/Freeze
34 1 Refrigerated work counter with cold rail
35 2 Refrigerated prep stations
36 1 lot Wall-mounted shelf
37 1 Chef’s work counter with sink
38 1 11-quart soup well unit
39 1 Waitress counter
40 1 Two-section under counter refrigerator
42 1 Ice/Water station
43 3 Compartment sink with two drain boards
44 1 Bottle cooler
45 1 Drain board
46 1 Handwashing sink
47 1 Drain board
48 1 Serving counter
49 12 Bar Stools
50 3 Round High-Top Tables
51 22 Square Tables
52 2 Outdoor Teak Bench (Matches patio furniture)
54 50 Indoor dining chairs
55 12 Teak Patio Tables – various sizes
56 72 Teak Patio Chairs – various styles
57 5 Child highchair
PGCC 5-6-26
119
PGCC 5-6-26

Food and Beverage Concession Lease – The Grove at Point Pinos Lease                                    Page   of  30 31

EXHIBIT E

CONFIRMATION OF TERM OF LEASE
This Confirmation of Term of Lease is made by and between City of Pacific Grove, a California Municipal  Corporation  and  charter  city  (“CITY”)  and  ____________________________,  a ____________________ (“TENANT”), who agree as follows:

1. CITY  and  TENANT  entered  into  a  Lease  dated  [insert Effective Date:
__________________] (“Lease”), in which CITY leased to TENANT and TENANT leased from CITY the Premises (as defined in the Lease) in the building located at 79 Asilomar Boulevard, Pacific Grove, CA 93950.

2. CITY and TENANT agree to confirm the Commencement Date and Expiration Date of the Term of the Lease as follows:
(a) __________________, 20__, is the Commencement Date; (b) __________________, 20__, is the Expiration Date; and (c) [insert other relevant negotiated dates, add lowercase letter sections as needed]

3. TENANT hereby confirms that the Lease is in full force and effect and:
(a) TENANT has accepted possession of the Premises as provided in the Lease; (b) The improvements (including those identified in Lease Exhibit E) and space required to be furnished by CITY under the Lease have been furnished;

4. The Lease has not been modified, altered or amended, except as follows:
____________________________________________________________________;

5. There are no setoffs or credits against rent and no security deposit has been paid except as expressly provided by the Lease.

6. The provisions of this Confirmation of Term of Lease shall inure to the benefit of, or bind, as the case may require, the parties and their respective successors, subject to the restrictions on transfer and subleasing contained in the Lease.
[Remainder of page intentionally left blank; signature page follows] PGCC 5-6-26
120
PGCC 5-6-26

Food and Beverage Concession Lease – The Grove at Point Pinos Lease                                    Page   of  31 31

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE TENANT
By: ____________________________
Matthew Mogensen, City Manager
By: ____________________________
Date: ____________________________
By: ____________________________
Approved as to Form
By: ____________________________
City Attorney
By: ____________________________
Date: ____________________________
Date: ____________________________
Approved as to
Fiscal Provisions2
By: ____________________________
Finance
Date: ____________________________
2 Approval by Finance necessary only if financial questions or issues raised in the City’s approval of agreement.

PGCC 5-6-26
121
PGCC 5-6-26

ORDINANCE NO. 26-____

ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE

APPROVING A CONCESSION LEASE BETWEEN FORTUNATE FORK, LLC AND

THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE FOR FOOD AND BEVERAGE CONCESSION

SERVICES AT THE POINT PINOS GRILL
FACTS

1. The City owns the Pacific Grove Golf Course Clubhouse, known as Point Pinos Grill, located at 79 Asilomar Boulevard (“PREMISES”).

2. The City operates the PREMISES through a concessionaire agreement for food and beverage services.

3. The PREMISES is improved with a restaurant including a kitchen, a banquet room, a dining room, outdoor patio, two public restrooms, and a snack bar.

4. The previous tenant of the PREMISES vacated the PREMISES on November 23, 2025. In order to maintain business continuity, staff negotiated and entered into a temporary month-to -month management agreement with CourseCo Inc. effective December 1, 2025.

5. The City issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) on December 15, 2025. The RFP closed January 29, 2026 at 2:00 pm. On January 29, 2026, the City received sealed proposals from two entities. A panel of staff reviewed the proposals and interviewed each proposer. As a result of the selection process, the proposal submitted by Fortunate Fork, LLC was selected as the highest rated proposal for their unique qualifications and vision for the PREMISES.

6. The concession lease allows Fortunate Fork, LLC the exclusive use of PREMISES for the sale of food, beverages (including alcoholic beverages) and related services including banquets, and other related events.

7. The concession lease is not an expanded use of the PREMISES.

8. The concession lease allows Fortunate Fork, LLC to change the name of the PREMISES from “Point Pinos Grill” to “The Grove at Point Pinos”.

9. Leasing of the PREMISES will not have a significant effect on the environment and is found exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines which allows for the leasing, licensing, repair, and maintenance of public or private structures.

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

PGCC 5-6-26
122
PGCC 5-6-26

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

SECTION 2. The request for concession agreement hereby is approved, in the form attached hereto, titled AGREEMENT FOR FOOD AND BEVERAGE CONCESSION SERVICES AT THE POINT PINOS GRILL.

SECTION 3. In the event of legal challenge to any aspect of this approval, Fortunate Fork, LLC shall defend and save harmless city against any claim, judgment or liability arising out of such challenge. Fortunate Fork, LLC may, in the event of such challenge and as an alternative to its obligation to defend and save harmless, terminate the concession agreement.

SECTION 4. As a condition of the approval hereby made, Fortunate Fork, LLC shall not only execute the concession lease, but shall also sign and acknowledge the findings, terms and conditions of this ordinance on a line to be provided below by the city clerk.

SECTION 5. The City Manager is directed to execute all documents and to perform all other necessary City acts to implement effect this Ordinance.

SECTION 6. Severability. If any provision, section, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance, or any part thereof, or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance, or any part thereof, or its application to other persons or circumstances. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed and adopted each provision, section, paragraph, subparagraph, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, paragraphs, subparagraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases, or the application thereof to any person or circumstance, be declared invalid or unconstitutional.

SECTION 7. In accord with Article 15 of the City Charter, this ordinance shall become effective on the thirtieth (30th) day following its passage and adoption [or insert other date].

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

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

PGCC 5-6-26
123
PGCC 5-6-26

APPROVED:
_______________________________
NICK SMITH, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
SANDRA KANDELL, City Clerk
DATED:_______________________
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________________
ALEX LORCA, City Attorney
PGCC 5-6-26
124
PGCC 5-6-26

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: Nick Smith, Mayor
MEETING DATE: May 06, 2026
SUBJECT: Appointments to the Museum Board
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

RECOMMENDATION
Approve appointments to the Museum Board.

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

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

The term for the Museum Board is 4 years (Charter) Mayoral appointments to City committees must be confirmed by Council (City Charter, Art. 26).

Appointments for confirmation are as follows:

Charter committees
Museum Board –Mary Albert, Robert Burdick, Jessica Swanson.

OPTIONS
Not applicable.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact.

GOAL ALIGNMENT: Not Applicable.

Attachments
Albert
Burdick
PGCC 5-6-26
125
PGCC 5-6-26

Swanson
Swanson Resume
PGCC 5-6-26
126
PGCC 5-6-26

PGCC 5-6-26
127
PGCC 5-6-26

PGCC 5-6-26
128
PGCC 5-6-26

PGCC 5-6-26
129
PGCC 5-6-26

PGCC 5-6-26
130
PGCC 5-6-26

PGCC 5-6-26
131
PGCC 5-6-26

PGCC 5-6-26
132
PGCC 5-6-26

JESSICA SWANSON
PROFESSIONAL SUMMARY:

Results-driven PMP-certified leader with 20+ years managing complex, cross-functional initiatives and 11 months of executive leadership in California’s clean energy sector as Chief of Staff at Central Coast Community Energy.

Proven experience in stakeholder management, program implementation, and regulatory coordination across largescale operations. Seeking to leverage program management excellence and utility sector knowledge to advance clean energy solutions and optimize utility operations in California’s evolving energy landscape.

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE:

Chief of Staff, Central Coast Community Energy, Monterey, CA March 2025 – Present • Partnered with the CEO and senior leadership to turn board priorities into day-to-day action, helping guide the $588.4M FY 2025-26 budget that supports energy service for 1.1M+ customers across the Central Coast • Served as the communication bridge between the CEO and staff, translating executive direction into clear, actionable priorities that supported strong financial performance and helped grow the agency’s net position to $290.8M by June 2025
• Led coordination of high-impact agency initiatives including state and federal regulatory engagement strategies, progress toward 100% clean energy, technology integration initiatives, and agency-wide policy reform ensuring cross-departmental alignment and execution • Prepared CEO briefings and stakeholder engagement materials that strengthened partnerships with cities, counties, and community leaders, enabling a service-area expansion with a 93% customer enrollment rate • Identified process improvement opportunities and operational efficiencies across agency functions, implementing solutions that enhanced program effectiveness and stakeholder satisfaction U.S. Navy June 2002 – March 2024
Senior Manager and International Strategist, San Diego, CA 2021 – 2024 • Managed strategic relationships with 20+ international partners, achieving a 100% project completion rate while ensuring stakeholder satisfaction and meeting program objectives • Led complex multi-stakeholder initiatives across matrixed organizations, increasing organizational efficiency by 50% through innovative project and relationship management approaches • Provided executive leadership consultations on relevant political-military issues, risk management, and program optimization with foreign partners through clear and concise communication • Developed and implemented strategic communication plans to keep stakeholders informed of project updates, policy changes, and organizational initiatives Regional Branch Chief, Tampa, FL 2018 – 2021
• Led a team of five military and civilian personnel developing and executing long-range strategic national security initiatives leveraging quantitative analysis, forecasting, and program evaluation methodologies while increasing collaboration across multiple federal agencies and foreign partners • Directed 75+ strategic programs across four geographic regions, overseeing relationship management and program implementation with key government stakeholders • Created and delivered executive communications and strategic recommendations to enhance program effectiveness and stakeholder satisfaction advancing the organization’s strategic objectives • Mentored and coached junior program managers and analysts, developing talent pipeline and improving team performance through structured feedback and professional development initiatives Foreign Military Sales Officer, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates 2016 – 2018 • Managed a portfolio of 120 strategic foreign military sales accounts valued at over $26B, implementing program management frameworks ensuring client satisfaction, regulatory compliance, and program success PGCC 5-6-26
133
PGCC 5-6-26

• Increased stakeholder partnership engagement by 25% through proactive relationship management, enhanced collaboration, and innovative solutions
• Implemented cross-functional coordination processes involving multiple government agencies, defense contractors, and international partners, improving program visibility and reducing delivery timelines International Strategist and Analyst, Manama, Bahrain 2013 – 2016 • Led strategic relationship development between the U.S. Navy and regional international partners, increasing annual engagements to meet complex stakeholder needs • Managed 20+ concurrent projects requiring extensive stakeholder coordination, implementing standardized program management methodologies that improved on-time delivery and stakeholder satisfaction Helicopter Pilot, Advisor, and Program Manager, CA; VA; Afghanistan 2002 – 2013 • Flew and commanded combat missions in U.S. Navy Seahawk helicopters, accumulated 1000+ flight hours • Successfully managed diverse programs, including a helicopter system division, squadron operations, helicopter standardization programs, personnel statistics, and women’s issues, demonstrating adaptability and excellence across varied program, types and organizational needs EDUCATION:

Master of Arts: National Security Studies; Naval Postgraduate School – Monterey, CA Bachelor of Science: Architectural Engineering; Drexel University – Philadelphia, PA PGCC 5-6-26
134
PGCC 5-6-26

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: May 06, 2026
SUBJECT: Regional Surface Transportation Program Allocation Funding Agreement CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

RECOMMENDATION
Authorize an agreement with the Transportation Agency for Monterey County (TAMC) for appropriation of $123,590.57 of Fair Share Regional Surface Transportation Program funds.

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

DISCUSSION
The Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP) was established by the State of California to utilize federal Surface Transportation Program funds for a wide variety of transportation projects. The State allows the Transportation Agency for Monterey County (TAMC) to exchange these federal funds for state funds to maximize the ability of local public works departments to use the funds on a wide variety of projects, including bicycle and pedestrian projects, local roads, and transit. TAMC has the responsibility of distributing these funds to the local jurisdictions. RSTP funds are distributed in two methods:

1. Fair Share, which is allocated to cities and counties based on population and centerline miles; and

2. Competitive Share, which is allocated to projects based on a competitive grant process.

On March 25, 2026, the TAMC Board approved RSTP Fair Share funding allocations for the three-year program period, FY 2026-2029. The City’s fair share funding allocation for this period is $123,590.57.

A new funding agreement with TAMC is required every three years in order to be eligible to receive RSTP funds. These monies are held for the City by TAMC and can be used for a wide variety of transportation projects. Projects that are eligible include construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, resurfacing, restoration, and operational improvements.

If the agreement is approved, the City of Pacific Grove’s Department of Public Works will allocate RSTP funding towards appropriate transportation projects within the next three years for consideration by the City Council.

PGCC 5-6-26
135
PGCC 5-6-26

OPTIONS
Do not enter into the RSTP agreement and forgo $123,590.57 of transportation-related funding. Failure to do so would result in the City being ineligible for the receipt of RSTP Fair Share funding.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

By entering into an agreement with the Transportation Agency of Monterey County, the City will secure a $123,590.57 allocation of transportation-related funding for future infrastructure projects.

FOCUSED PRIORITY AREA: Infrastructure
Attachments
Funding Agreement
PGCC 5-6-26
136
PGCC 5-6-26

AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE

TRANSPORTATION AGENCY FOR MONTEREY COUNTY

AND THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE

FOR THE ALLOCATION OF FUNDING APPROVED BY

THE TRANSPORTATION AGENCY BOARD OF DIRECTORS
This agreement is made on _____________ by and between the City of Pacific Grove, a public body, hereinafter referred to as “Recipient,” and the Transportation Agency for Monterey County, hereinafter referred to as “TAMC.”
WHEREAS, TAMC is the state-designated Regional Transportation Planning Agency for Monterey County; and
WHEREAS, as authorized by section 182.6(g) of the Streets and Highways Code, TAMC has entered into a separate agreement with the State of California, through the Department of Transportation (Caltrans), to assign a defined portion of its annual federal Surface Transportation Block Grant Program (STBGP) apportionment to Caltrans in exchange for state funds for specified fiscal year(s); and
WHEREAS, TAMC is authorized to use these exchanged funds (hereinafter referred to as “RSTP Exchange Funds”) to assist local agencies to promote projects which otherwise qualify for STBGP funds; and
WHEREAS, as authorized by Chapter 2, Title 21, Rule 6640 of the Transportation Development Act, one of the duties of TAMC is to administer the provisions of the Transportation Development Act in apportioning Local Transportation Funds (LTF) for the Transportation Development Act 2% (TDA 2%) program for bicycle and pedestrian projects pursuant to Article 3 of that law, and to the Cities, County, and Monterey-Salinas Transit District; WHEREAS, as authorized by the Joint Powers Agreement for the Monterey County Regional Development Impact Fee Agency, TAMC is designated to administer and allocate regional development impact fee revenues (RDIF) to projects identified in the approved Strategic Expenditure Plan; and
WHEREAS, the TAMC Board of Directors has approved the allocation of funds toward the projects listed in Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, it is contemplated by TAMC and the Recipient that the amount of funding and the projects designated in Exhibit A may change from time to time as set forth below; and WHEREAS, TAMC has requested the Monterey County Auditor-Controller to establish a separate fund for the Federal Apportionment Exchange Program and such a separate fund has been established.

PGCC 5-6-26
137
PGCC 5-6-26

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein, THE PARTIES HERETO AGREE AS FOLLOWS:

1. RULES FOR RSTP EXCHANGE FUNDS
A. TAMC agrees to allocate RSTP Exchange Funds paid by Caltrans under the Federal Apportionment Exchange Program only for projects as authorized under sections 133(b) and 133 (c) of Title 23, United States Code and Article XIX of the California State Constitution.

B. The Recipient agrees to use RSTP Exchange Funds only for the RSTP Exchange eligible project(s) described in Exhibit A, as approved by the TAMC Board of Directors, for the amounts awarded for each project.

2. RULES FOR TDA 2%
A. TAMC agrees to allocate TDA 2% funds under the Transportation Development Act only for projects as authorized under the Transportation Development Act Section 99234 Claims for Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities.

B. The Recipient agrees to use TDA 2% funds only for TDA 2% eligible project(s) described in Exhibit A, as approved by the TAMC Board of Directors, for the amounts awarded for each project.

3. RULES FOR RDIF
A. TAMC agrees to allocate RDIF funds under the Joint Powers Agreement only for projects as authorized by the TAMC Board of Directors in the approved Strategic Expenditure Plan.

B. The Recipient agrees to use RDIF funds only for RDIF eligible project(s) described in Exhibit A, as approved by the TAMC Board of Directors, for the amounts awarded for each project.

4. ADMINISTRATIVE POLICIES
A. The projects described in Exhibit A, and the amounts allocated therefore, may be amended from time to time without changing the rest of this Master Agreement, by means of approval by the TAMC Board of Directors of a revised Exhibit A, which shall be designated by a date and number (e.g., “Exhibit A-1 (DATE)”).

B. The Recipient agrees to submit an annual report to TAMC by April 30 describing the progress towards completion for all projects listed in Exhibit A.

PGCC 5-6-26
138
PGCC 5-6-26

C. The Recipient agrees to mention TAMC’s role in funding the project in any press releases or media events held by the Recipient to promote a funded project.

D. TAMC agrees to reimburse the Recipient within 30 days of receipt of a completed claim form (Exhibit B) from the Recipient.

E. The Recipient agrees to cause the completion of the project(s) within three years from the date funds were awarded by the TAMC Board of Directors, as recorded in Exhibit A. Failure to complete the project(s) in a timely basis shall allow TAMC to refuse reimbursement and to reprogram such funds for other purposes.

5. COST PRINCIPLES
A. Recipient agrees to comply with Office of Management and Budget Circular A-87, Cost Principles for State and Local Government, and 2 CFR, Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles and Audit Requirements.

B. Recipient agrees to:
(a) use Contract Cost Principles and Procedures, 48 CFR, Federal Acquisition Regulations System, Chapter 1, Part 31, et seq., to determine the allowability of individual project cost items; and
(b) comply with Federal administrative procedures in accordance with 2 CFR, Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Costs Principles and Audit Requirements.

Every sub-recipient receiving funds as a contractor or sub-contractor under this AGREEMENT shall comply with Federal administrative procedures in accordance with 2 CFR, Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Costs Principles and Audit Requirements.

6. THIRD PARTY CONTRACTING
A. Recipient shall not award a construction contract over $10,000 or other contracts over $25,000 on the basis of a noncompetitive negotiation for work to be performed using Funds without the prior written approval of Caltrans. This provision shall not apply to professional service contracts of the type which are required to be procured in accordance with Government Code Sections 4525 (d), (e), and (f).

B. Recipient agrees that travel and per diem reimbursements and third-party contract reimbursements to subcontractors will be allowable as project costs only after those costs are incurred and paid for by the subcontractors and only if consistent with Paragraph 10, below.

PGCC 5-6-26
139
PGCC 5-6-26

C. In addition to the above, the pre-award requirements of third party contractor/ consultants with Recipient shall be consistent with Local Program Procedures as published by Caltrans.

7. ACCOUNTING SYSTEM
Recipient, its contractors and subcontractors, shall establish and maintain an accounting system and records that properly accumulate and segregate expenditures by line item.

The accounting system of Recipient, its contractors and all subcontractors shall conform to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), enable the determination of incurred costs at interim points of completion, and provide support for reimbursement payment claims.

8. RIGHT TO AUDIT
For the purpose of determining compliance with Public Contract Code 10115, et seq. and Title 21, California Code of Regulations, Chapter 21, Section 2500 et seq., when applicable and other matters connected with the performance of the Agreement pursuant to Government Code 8546.7, Recipient shall maintain and make available for inspection all books, documents, papers, accounting records, and other evidence pertaining to the performance of the Agreement, including but not limited to, the costs of administering the Agreement. All parties shall make such materials available at their respective offices at all reasonable times during the Agreement period and for three years from the date of final payment under the Agreement. The state, State Auditor, TAMC, FHWA, or any duly authorized representative of the Federal Government shall have access to any books, records, and documents of Consultant and its certified public accountants (CPA) work papers that are pertinent to the Agreement and indirect cost rates (ICR) for audit, examinations, excerpts, and transactions, and copies thereof shall be furnished if requested. Subcontracts in excess of $25,000 shall contain this provision.

9. TRAVEL AND SUBSISTENCE
Payments to Recipient for travel and subsistence expenses of Recipient forces and/or its contractors or subcontractors, claimed for reimbursement or applied as local match credit, shall not exceed rates authorized to be paid exempt non-represented State employees under current State Department of Personnel Administration (DPA) rules. If the rates invoiced are in excess of those authorized DPA rates, then Recipient is responsible for the cost difference and any overpayments shall be reimbursed to the TAMC on demand.

PGCC 5-6-26
140
PGCC 5-6-26

10. PROJECT COMPLETION
Recipient agrees to provide to the TAMC a short report summarizing total project costs and milestones, including before and after photos of the project, for each project within sixty (60) days of completion.

11. GOVERNING LAWS
This Agreement shall be construed and enforced according to the laws of the State of California, and the parties hereby agree that the County of Monterey shall be the proper venue for any dispute arising hereunder.

12. CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Recipient warrants that it presently has no interest and shall not acquire any interest during the term of this Agreement, which would directly or indirectly conflict in any manner or to any degree with its full and complete performance of all services under this Agreement.

13. CONSTRUCTION OF AGREEMENT
The parties agree that each party has fully participated in the review and revision of this Agreement and that any rule of construction to the effect that ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting party shall not apply in the interpretation of this Agreement or any exhibit or amendment. To that end, it is understood and agreed that this Agreement has been arrived at through negotiation, and that neither party is to be deemed the party which prepared this Agreement within the meaning of Civil Code Section 1654. Section and paragraph headings appearing herein are for convenience only and shall not be used to interpret the terms of this Agreement.

14. WAIVER
Any waiver of any term or condition hereof must be in writing. No such waiver shall be construed as a waiver of any other term or condition herein.

15. SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS
This Agreement and all rights, privileges, duties and obligations hereunder, to the extent assignable or delegable, shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties and their respective successors, permitted assigns and heirs.

PGCC 5-6-26
141
PGCC 5-6-26

16. TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE
The parties mutually acknowledge and agree that time is of the essence with respect to every provision hereof in which time is an element. No extension of time for performance of any obligation or act shall be deemed an extension of time for performance of any other obligation or act, nor shall any such extension create a precedent for any further or future extension.

17. EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT
Any individual executing this Agreement on behalf of an entity represents and warrants that he or she has the requisite authority to enter into this Agreement on behalf of such entity and to bind the entity to the terms and conditions hereof. This Agreement may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same agreement.

18. ENTIRE AGREEMENT
This document, including all exhibits hereto, constitutes the entire agreement between the parties, and supersedes any and all prior written or oral negotiations and representations between the parties concerning all matters relating to the subject of this Agreement.

19. TERMINATION DATE
This Agreement shall remain in effect for a period of three (3) years from the latest date reflected on the signature page(s) below.

PGCC 5-6-26
142
PGCC 5-6-26

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, TAMC and Recipient execute this Agreement as follows:
___________
Date
___________
Date
___________
Date
___________
Date

TRANSPORTATION AGENCY FOR MONTEREY COUNTY
_________________________________
Todd Muck
Executive Director
Recipient:

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
_______________________________
Nick Smith
Pacific Grove Mayor
Approved as to Form:
_______________________________
Shane Strong
TAMC Counsel
_______________________________
Alex Lorca,
City Attorney City of Pacific Grove
PGCC 5-6-26
143
PGCC 5-6-26

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: Mohammed Khasimi, Chief Information Officer
MEETING DATE: May 06, 2026
SUBJECT: Renewal of Microsoft Enterprise Software License Agreement CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

RECOMMENDATION
Authorize a 3-year renewal agreement with Dell / Microsoft for Microsoft Enterprise Software Licensing through Riverside County Master Agreement, in the amount of approximately $26,000 annually.

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

DISCUSSION
City Council approved the original 3-year Microsoft Enterprise Software Licensing Agreement on May 10, 2023. This item requests approval to renew the agreement for a subsequent 3-year term.

Microsoft software licenses are used by City staff and City Council members for email communication, digital content storage, virtual meetings, and other core productivity and collaboration needs. The Microsoft Enterprise Agreement (EA) for the City’s software licensing requirements is offered through Dell via the Riverside County Master Agreement, and it provides the following benefits:

Lower cost: Licensing through the EA with volume discounts is typically lower than standard pricing, with an estimated savings of approximately 20%.

Centralized license management: All Microsoft licenses can be managed centrally through the Microsoft Licensing Portal.

Broader product availability: The EA provides access to a standardized catalog of Microsoft products and services available under the agreement.

Dell is a reseller of Microsoft Enterprise licenses through Riverside County’s Master Agreement.

Numerous cities and counties utilize Dell for their Microsoft EA licensing under this contract, including the City of Monterey, City of Morgan Hill, City of Gilroy, City of Sacramento, Los Angeles County, and the City of Long Beach. This practice is consistent with Pacific Grove Municipal Code Section

2.16.080, Bidding procedures - Dispensation when (g) which allows dispensation of bidding procedures when the article can be purchased more economically through the central purchasing authority of another governmental agency.

The cost is approximately $26,000 annually, but may vary slightly based on storage needs and number PGCC 5-6-26
144
PGCC 5-6-26

of licenses to support operations.

The renewal must be completed by May 20, 2026, which makes this a time sensitive request.

OPTIONS
Authorize a 3-year renewal agreement with Dell / Microsoft for Microsoft Enterprise Software Licensing through Riverside County Master Agreement, in the amount of approximately $26,000 annually.

1. Do not authorize the 3-year renewal agreement. Failure to authorize the renewal would result in significant impacts to functionally and operations due to inability to access email communication, digital content storage, virtual meetings, and other core productivity and collaboration needs.

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

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

Funding for this expenditure is included within the adopted budget.

FOCUSED PRIORITY AREA: Not Applicable.

Attachments
2023 Microsoft EA Agreement - Signed
New 2026 Microsoft EA Renewal Agreement - Draft
PGCC 5-6-26
145
PGCC 5-6-26

PGCC 5-6-26
146
PGCC 5-6-26

PGCC 5-6-26
147
PGCC 5-6-26

PGCC 5-6-26
148
PGCC 5-6-26

PGCC 5-6-26
149
PGCC 5-6-26

PGCC 5-6-26
150
PGCC 5-6-26

PGCC 5-6-26
151
PGCC 5-6-26

PGCC 5-6-26
152
PGCC 5-6-26

PGCC 5-6-26
153
PGCC 5-6-26

PGCC 5-6-26
154
PGCC 5-6-26

PGCC 5-6-26
155
PGCC 5-6-26

PGCC 5-6-26
156
PGCC 5-6-26

PGCC 5-6-26
157
PGCC 5-6-26

PGCC 5-6-26
158
PGCC 5-6-26

PGCC 5-6-26
159
PGCC 5-6-26

PGCC 5-6-26
160
PGCC 5-6-26

PGCC 5-6-26
161
PGCC 5-6-26

PGCC 5-6-26
162
PGCC 5-6-26

PGCC 5-6-26
163
PGCC 5-6-26

PGCC 5-6-26
164
PGCC 5-6-26

PGCC 5-6-26
165
PGCC 5-6-26

PGCC 5-6-26
166
PGCC 5-6-26

PGCC 5-6-26
167
PGCC 5-6-26

PGCC 5-6-26
168
PGCC 5-6-26

PGCC 5-6-26
169
PGCC 5-6-26

PGCC 5-6-26
170
PGCC 5-6-26

PGCC 5-6-26
171
PGCC 5-6-26

PGCC 5-6-26
172
PGCC 5-6-26

PGCC 5-6-26
173
PGCC 5-6-26

PGCC 5-6-26
174
PGCC 5-6-26

PGCC 5-6-26
175
PGCC 5-6-26

PGCC 5-6-26
176
PGCC 5-6-26

PGCC 5-6-26
177
PGCC 5-6-26

PGCC 5-6-26
178
PGCC 5-6-26

PGCC 5-6-26
179
PGCC 5-6-26

PGCC 5-6-26
180
PGCC 5-6-26

PGCC 5-6-26
181
PGCC 5-6-26

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: George Fuerst, Environmental Program Manager
MEETING DATE: May 06, 2026
SUBJECT: Emission-Reducing Replacement of City Owned Natural Gas Water Heaters, Funded by PG&E Government/K-12 Program Incentive
CEQA: Categorical Exemption, CEQA Guidelines Section 15302, Class 2, Replacement or Reconstruction of Existing Structures and Facilities

RECOMMENDATION

1. Authorize the City Manager, or designee, to enter into an agreement with Willdan, an authorized implementer of PG&E Programs, for the replacement of natural gas storage tank water heaters with emission-reducing heat pump water heaters or on-demand natural gas water heaters.

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

DISCUSSION
The City of Pacific Grove maintains multiple facilities with aging natural gas water heaters that will require replacement in the near term. This project provides an opportunity to proactively replace that equipment with more efficient and lower-emission systems in alignment with the City’s Climate Action and Adaptation Plan, which calls for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from municipal operations and transitioning to cleaner technologies where feasible.

Through the PG&E Government/K-12 (GK-12) Program, administered by Willdan Energy Solutions, the City has received a funding commitment to replace existing units at the Youth Center (302 16th Street), Community Center (515 Junipero Avenue), Golf Maintenance Yard (Del Monte Boulevard, 5th Fairway), Public Works Corporation Yard (2100 Sunset Drive), Fire Department (600 Pine Avenue), and the Golf Pro Shop (77 Asilomar Avenue).

The project includes installation of 50-gallon heat pump water heaters (HPWHs) at the Youth Center, Golf Maintenance Yard, and Public works Corporation Yard, and a 120-Gallon HPWH at the Community Center. At the Fire Department and Golf Shop, where operational or site constraints limit electrification, the project proposes installation of two high-efficiency on-demand (tankless) natural gas water heaters.

This approach ensures that aging equipment is replaced with the most appropriate technology for each site—prioritizing emission-reducing heat pump systems while maintaining reliable service through efficient gas systems where necessary.

The total project cost, estimated at $56,765, and including equipment purchase and installation, is fully PGCC 5-6-26
182
PGCC 5-6-26

funded through PG&E GK-12 Program incentives, with Willdan serving as the authorized program implementer. Willdan will manage installation and is paid directly by PG&E; therefore, there is no cost to the City for equipment or installation. Incentive funding is limited and reserved on a first-come, first-served basis, making timely authorization important.

This program enables the City to replace end-of-life infrastructure at no direct cost while advancing Climate Action and Adaptation Plan goals, reducing emissions, and improving energy efficiency.

OPTIONS
Do nothing.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

There is no cost to the City for this project. The full estimated cost of $56,765 for equipment and installation is funded through PG&E’s Government/K-12 (GK-12) Program and paid directly to the program implementer, Willdan Energy Solutions.

The City anticipates ongoing utility savings due to improved efficiency; however, actual savings will depend on usage patterns and future energy costs and cannot be reliably estimated at this time. The City will also avoid future capital and emergency replacement costs by proactively replacing aging water heaters at no cost.

FOCUSED PRIORITY AREA: Environmental Stewardship
Attachments
2026 GK12 PPA City of Pacific Grove
PGCC 5-6-26
183
PGCC 5-6-26

PGCC 5-6-26
184
PGCC 5-6-26

PGCC 5-6-26
185
PGCC 5-6-26

PGCC 5-6-26
186
PGCC 5-6-26

PGCC 5-6-26
187
PGCC 5-6-26

PGCC 5-6-26
188
PGCC 5-6-26

PGCC 5-6-26
189
PGCC 5-6-26

PGCC 5-6-26
190
PGCC 5-6-26

PGCC 5-6-26
191
PGCC 5-6-26

PGCC 5-6-26
192
PGCC 5-6-26

PGCC 5-6-26
193
PGCC 5-6-26

Agenda No. 9 E

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Daniel Gho, Public Works Director/Deputy City Manager MEETING DATE: May 06, 2026
SUBJECT: Extension with Topes Tree Service Inc. for Tree Maintenance Services in Public Right of Way
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

RECOMMENDATION
Authorize Fiscal Year 2026/27 extension with Topes Tree Service Inc. to provide Tree Maintenance Services for trees in the public right-of-way and on City-owned properties in an amount not to exceed $250,000.

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

DISCUSSION
The City of Pacific Grove Public Works Department is responsible for maintaining all trees on public land and within the City’s right-of-way. To effectively manage this task, including vertical clearance standards for all city roadways, the City has historically utilized a tree service contractor to supplement staff.

The City has used the model of harnessing an on-call tree service contractor agreement to complete essential tree maintenance since 2014.

At the August 7, 2024 meeting, the City Council authorized an agreement with Topes Tree Service Inc. to provide Tree Maintenance Services for trees in the public right-of-way and on City-owned properties in an amount not to exceed $250,000 per fiscal year, with up to four (4) annual, one-year extensions by mutual letter, subject to the Council’s approval each year.

This Agenda Report is brought forward to authorize the second of the four (4) annual extensions. In accordance with the agreement, this action must be authorized by the Council each year.

THE IMPORTANCE OF A TREE SERVICE CONTRACTOR
The City’s tree service contractor plays an essential role in maintaining the health and safety of Pacific Grove’s trees. They perform critical maintenance tasks for all trees within public spaces, City facilities, and the City right-of-way under the guidance and supervision of the City Forester.

Key Responsibilities:

Pruning & Removal: The contractor performs routine, priority, and emergency pruning and tree PGCC 5-6-26
194
PGCC 5-6-26

Pruning & Removal: The contractor performs routine, priority, and emergency pruning and tree removal, including clearing street obstructions.

Additional Services: Other services may include tree planting, staking, pest control, fertilization, and maintenance or removal of trees as needed.

Emergency Response: The contractor also supports emergency response efforts, helping to remove or stabilize hazardous trees and ensuring public safety by addressing tree-related hazards promptly.

Having a skilled contractor for tree maintenance helps our Forester and staff manage the demanding task of tree care in accordance with the Pacific Grove Municipal Code Title 12, Trees and the Urban Forest, and the City’s Urban Forestry Standards. This partnership ensures our urban forest remains healthy, attractive, and safe.

OPTIONS

1. Authorize the extension
Do not authorize the extension. Failure to authorize the extension would result in a lapse of service while staff issued a new RFP. This would likely result in higher service costs, which would equate to the $250,000 not-to-exceed amount covering less work.

2. FINANCIAL IMPACT:

Sufficient funding has been proposed in the Fiscal Year 2026/27 Public Works Department Operating Budget to accommodate the agreement extension. The Extension will become effective on July 1, 2026.

FOCUSED PRIORITY AREA: Environmental Stewardship
PGCC 5-6-26
195
PGCC 5-6-26

Agenda No. 9 F

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Lori McDonnell, Councilmember
MEETING DATE: May 06, 2026
SUBJECT: Assembly Bill 2254 / Coastal Monarchs Protection Act CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

RECOMMENDATION
Submit letter in support of Assembly Bill 2254

DISCUSSION
Assembly Bill 2254 (Addis) would strengthen protections for monarch butterfly overwintering habitat along California’s coast.

Western monarch butterflies have experienced dramatic population declines, driven in part by the loss and degradation of overwintering habitat. These coastal groves provide the unique microclimate conditions monarchs need to survive the winter, and once lost, they are difficult—if not impossible—to replace.

AB 2254 offers a practical, locally grounded approach to address this challenge. The bill would:

Direct the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, in coordination with the California Coastal Commission, to identify monarch overwintering sites and existing local protections; Develop model policies to guide habitat protection, restoration, and management; and Require local governments with monarch habitat in the coastal zone to incorporate these protections into their Local Coastal Programs during future updates.

Importantly, AB 2254 works within the existing Coastal Act framework and aligns with local planning processes. It provides cities and counties with clear guidance and flexibility, while promoting consistency in how these irreplaceable habitats are identified and protected across jurisdictions.

OPTIONS
Do nothing.

Provide alternate direction.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

There is no financial impact.

PGCC 5-6-26
196
PGCC 5-6-26

FOCUSED PRIORITY AREA: Environmental Stewardship
Attachments
AB - 2254 - Addis
Bill Text - AB-2254 Coastal resources_ local coastal program_ monarch butterfly habitat.

Letter of support CPG
PGCC 5-6-26
197
PGCC 5-6-26

AB 2254

Date of Hearing: April 14, 2026

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON WATER, PARKS, AND WILDLIFE
Diane Papan, Chair
AB 2254 (Addis) – As Amended April 8, 2026
SUBJECT: Coastal resources: local coastal program: monarch butterfly habitat SUMMARY: Requires that local agencies include protection policies for monarch butterfly overwintering habitat sites in local coastal programs. Specifically, this bill:
1) Requires the Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), in consultation with the California Coastal Commission (Coastal Commission), to identify the monarch butterfly overwintering habitat sites in the coastal zone and identify the habitat management plans or policies that are currently in place by local governments to protect those overwintering habitats by January 1, 2028.
2) Requires CDFW, in consultation with the Coastal Commission, to develop and provide guidance on model policies to be used by a local government for the protection of monarch butterfly overwintering habitat. Model policies can include, but are not limited to, habitat management plans, local coastal program updates, or any other local policy for protecting monarch butterflies.
3) Requires a local government with a monarch butterfly overwintering habitat site located within their coastal zone to include monarch butterfly overwintering habitat site protection policies in the next amendment to their local coastal program. 4) Encourages a local government with a local coastal program that includes monarch butterfly overwintering habitat site protection policies to apply for pollinator rescue grants from the Wildlife Conservation Board.
5) Provides that if the Commission on State Mandates determines that this act contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made (pursuant to Government Code § 17500 et seq.).

EXISTING LAW:
1) Defines the coastal zone as the land and water area of the State of California from the Oregon border to the Mexico border, extending seaward to the state’s outer limit of jurisdiction, including all offshore islands, and extending inland generally 1,000 yards from the mean high tide line of the sea, as shown on the maps in Section 17 of Chapter 1330 of the Statutes of 1976 [Public Resources Code (PRC) § 30103].
2) Establishes the Coastal Commission and charges it with planning and management of the coastal zone (PRC § 30300 et seq.).
3) Requires local governments that are, in whole or in part, within the coastal zone to prepare a local coastal program, subject to certification by the Coastal Commission (PRC § 30500 et seq.).

PGCC 5-6-26
198
PGCC 5-6-26

AB 2254

4) Authorizes local governments to amend their local coastal programs, subject to certification by the Coastal Commission (PRC § 30514).
5) Protects environmentally sensitive habitat areas in the coastal zone from any significant disruption of habitat values (PRC § 30240).
6) Authorizes CDFW to take feasible actions to conserve monarch butterflies and the unique habitats they depend upon for successful migration [Fish and Game Code (FGC) § 1021].

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown. This bill is keyed fiscal.

COMMENTS:
1) Purpose of this bill. According to the author, “Monarch butterflies, like many people, travel to California’s coast every year to rest and enjoy the mild climate. However, human development has seriously damaged or even removed their fragile overwintering habitats, which they need to survive harsh winter conditions. Loss of these sites, combined with the constant threat of climate change, has led to a 95% decline in the western monarch butterfly population since the 1980s. As a result, this population is at a serious risk of collapse. As stewards of our natural world, we need to ensure that these sites remain safe and available for the monarchs so that they can have a chance at recovering.” 2) Background. The western monarch butterfly, the population of monarchs found west of the Rocky Mountains, is a migratory butterfly that breeds in the inland West and migrates to the California coast for winter. There has been a long-term decline in western monarch populations, with current population numbers less than 5% of those reported in the 1980s. In a 2020 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) species status assessment, the western monarch was found to have a probability of extinction of 60–68% by 2030 and 99% by 2080.

One recent study suggests that land use change is the dominant driver of monarch decline, exacerbated by climate change.1
Monarch overwintering. Monarch butterflies cannot survive freezing temperatures, so they migrate to warmer areas for the winter. Overwintering monarchs roost in groves of trees and shrubs and remain mostly inactive, consume little food, and enter reproductive diapause, halting their sexual development and not reproducing until spring. The delicate balance of low-energy activity and native plants is important for monarch survival: when faced with nonnative plants, including nonnative milkweed, monarchs can continue to mate and lay eggs through the winter. Winter breeding can cause population loss as massed monarchs overwhelm a small amount of food and is also associated with increased rates of infection with Ophryocystis elektroscirrha, a debilitating parasite that can result in large numbers of butterflies failing to complete their migration.

Protection efforts. In 2020, USFWS announced a 12-month finding on a petition to list the monarch butterfly as threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act (16 United States Code § 1531 et seq.), finding that the listing was warranted but precluded by higher priority actions. USFWS issued a proposed rule in 2024 that would list the monarch butterfly as 1 Elizabeth Crone, et al., “Why are Monarch Butterflies Declining in the West? Understanding the Importance of Multiple Correlated Drivers,” Ecological Applications 29, no. 7 (2019), https://doi.org/10.1002/eap.1975.

PGCC 5-6-26
199
PGCC 5-6-26

AB 2254

threatened and designate critical habitat for the butterfly; the comment period closed in May 2025. In California, monarch butterflies are listed on CDFW’s Terrestrial and Vernal Pool Invertebrates of Conservation Priority List and are identified as a Species of Greatest Conservation Need. The monarch butterfly is not currently listed or a candidate species under the California Endangered Species Act (FGC § 2050 et seq.).

Local coastal programs. The Coastal Act sets coastal resources planning and management policies for public access, recreation, marine environment, land resources, development, industrial development, and sea level rise (PRC §§ 30200–30270). The actual implementation of these policies is left to local governments, which must produce local coastal programs that are in compliance with the state’s policies (see Existing Law #3).

Protection of environmentally sensitive habitat areas is one required component of a compliant local coastal program. Occasionally, the state requires local governments to update their local coastal programs and/or requires the Coastal Commission to provide guidance to address a specific issue—recent examples include accessory dwelling unit permitting (2024) and sea level rise planning (2023).
3) Arguments in support. The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation writes for a coalition of conservation groups, “Where millions of butterflies once gathered along the coast each winter, recent monitoring has documented only a small fraction of those historic numbers. . . . [This bill] would take a thoughtful and collaborative approach to this challenge.

The bill directs the development of model policies to guide the protection of monarch overwintering habitat and ensures that coastal jurisdictions incorporate those policies into their local coastal programs during future updates. By integrating habitat protection into existing coastal planning processes, the bill provides local governments with tools and guidance to help safeguard these important sites while maintaining flexibility in local implementation.”
4) Arguments in opposition. The League of California Cities writes for a coalition of local government groups, “[Local coastal programs] are critically important planning tools that serve as long-term land use plans that contain high level policies for how to balance coastal resources, community development, and public access. . . . [local coastal program] updates are a challenging and time intensive process for local governments to gain [Coastal Commission] certification and approval to retain local permitting authority in the coastal zone.” Writing about the requirement to engage in updates to local coastal programs without the process involved with species listing under the California Endangered Species Act, the League of California Cities continues, “Without these scientific analyses, mandating local governments to update [local coastal programs] with specific policies is unjustifiable.” 5) Dual referral. This bill was also referred to the Assembly Natural Resources Committee, where it passed by a vote of 10-3 on April 6, 2026.
6) Related legislation. SB 1214 (Ochoa Bogh) of the current legislative session designates the western monarch butterfly as the official State Butterfly. SB 1214 is pending in the Senate Governmental Organization Committee.

SB 1077 (Blakespear), Chapter 454, Statutes of 2024, requires the Coastal Commission to develop and provide guidance for local governments to facilitate the preparation of PGCC 5-6-26
200
PGCC 5-6-26

AB 2254

amendments to a local coastal program to clarify and simplify the permitting process for accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units.

SB 867 (Allen), Chapter 83, Statutes of 2024, approved in Proposition 4 (2024), authorizes $870 million for the Wildlife Conservation Board for, among other purposes, monarch butterfly and pollinator rescue.

SB 272 (Laird), Chapter 384, Statutes of 2023, requires the Coastal Commission to establish guidelines for the preparation of a sea level rise plan and requires local governments lying within the coastal zone to adopt a sea level rise plan as part of their local coastal program by January 1, 2034.

AB 2421 (Mark Stone), Chapter 760, Statutes of 2018, establishes the Monarch Butterfly and Pollinator Rescue Program, administered by the Wildlife Conservation Board.

AB 559 (Lopez), Chapter 478, Statutes of 2015, authorizes CDFW to take feasible actions to conserve monarch butterflies and the unique habitats they depend upon for successful migration.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support
The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation (sponsor) American Bird Conservancy
Audubon California
California State Parks Foundation
Center for Biological Diversity
Center for Food Safety
Central Coast State Parks Association
Defenders of Wildlife
Monarch Joint Venture
National Audubon Society
National Wildlife Federation
Natural Resources Defense Council
Pacific Grove Museum of Natural History
Planning and Conservation League
Rainforest Rising, Inc.

River Partners
San Diego Zoo Wildlife Alliance
Santa Barbara Zoo
Social Compassion in Legislation
Valley Eco
Wild Farm Alliance
Oppose unless amended
California State Association of Counties
League of California Cities
PGCC 5-6-26
201
PGCC 5-6-26

AB 2254

Rural County Representatives of California
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by: Sean Clair / W., P., & W. / (916) 319-2096 PGCC 5-6-26
202
PGCC 5-6-26

SHARE THIS: Date Published: 04/08/2026 09:00 PM
ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 225
AB-2254 Coastal resources: local coastal program: monarch butterfly habitat.

REVISED APRIL 15, 2026
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 08, 2026
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MARCH 16, 2026
CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE— 2025–2026 REGULAR SESSION
Introduced by Assembly Member Addis
(Coauthors: Assembly Members Zbur and Hart)
February 19, 2026
An act to add Section 1021.5 to the Fish and Game Code, and to add Section 30505 to the Public Resources Code, relating to coastal resources.

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
AB 2254, as amended, Addis. Coastal resources: local coastal program: monarch butterfly habitat.

Existing law establishes the Department of Fish and Wildlife and sets forth the duties of that department, whic include administering various programs for the protection and conservation of fish and wildlife. Existing la authorizes the department to take feasible actions to conserve monarch butterflies and the unique habitats the depend upon for successful migration.

Existing law, the California Coastal Act of 1976, among other things, establishes the California Coast Commission and provides for planning and regulation of development in the coastal zone, as defined. The a requires the commission to adopt, after public hearing, procedures for the preparation, submission, approva Home Bill Information California Law Publications Other Resources My Subscriptions My Favorites Bill Text - AB-2254 Coastal resources: local coastal program: monarch ... https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=20... 1 of 3 4/29/26, 10:11 AM
PGCC 5-6-26
203
PGCC 5-6-26

appeal, certification, and amendment of a local coastal program, as provided. The act generally requires eac local government, as specified, to prepare a local coastal program for certification by the commission.

This bill would require, on or before July 1, 2027, the commission January 1, 2028, the department, coordination with the commission, to identify monarch butterfly overwintering habitat sites in the coastal zon and current local government monarch butterfly overwintering habitat management plans or policies. The b would also require, on or before July 1, 2028, the department, in coordination with the commission, to develo and provide guidance on model policies to be used by a local government for the protection of monarch butterf overwintering habitat. habitat, including habitat restoration and enhancement. The bill would require, after July 1, 2027, after the above-described guidance on model policies is finalized, a local government with monarch butterfly overwintering habitat site located within their jurisdiction and the coastal zone, as describe at the time of their next amendment to their local coastal program, to include monarch butterfly overwinterin habitat site protection policies in their local coastal program. By imposing additional duties on a loc government, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain cos mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains cos mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions note above.

Vote: majority Appropriation: no Fiscal Committee: yes Local Program: yes THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Section 1021.5 is added to the Fish and Game Code, to read:
1021.5. (a) On or before January 1, 2028, the department, in coordination with the California Coast Commission, shall identify both of the following:
(1) Monarch butterfly overwintering habitat sites in the coastal zone. (2) Current local government monarch butterfly overwintering habitat management plans or policies. (b) On or before July 1, 2028, the department, in coordination with the California Coastal Commission, sha develop and provide guidance on model policies that can be used by a local government for the protection monarch butterfly overwintering habitat, including habitat restoration and enhancement, to address gaps habitat protection plans in the coastal zone.
(1) Model policies developed pursuant to this subdivision may include, but are not limited to, habita management plans, local coastal program updates, and other local policies for protecting monarch butterflies. (2) The department and the California Coastal Commission, in developing the guidance pursuant to th subdivision, may use existing data sets produced by local governments, organizations focused on th conservation of invertebrates and their habitats, and other relevant entities. (3) (A) The department and the California Coastal Commission shall post the guidance developed pursuant this subdivision on their internet websites.
(B) The guidance document posted pursuant to subparagraph (A) shall include the information identifie pursuant to subdivision (a).
(c) For purposes of this section, the following definitions apply:

Bill Text - AB-2254 Coastal resources: local coastal program: monarch ... https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=20... 2 of 3 4/29/26, 10:11 AM
PGCC 5-6-26
204
PGCC 5-6-26

(1) “Coastal zone” has the same meaning as defined in Section 30103 of the Public Resources Code. (2) “Local coastal program” has the same meaning as defined in Section 30108.6 of the Public Resource Code.

SECTION 1.SEC. 2. Section 30505 is added to the Public Resources Code, immediately following Section 30504 to read:
30505.(a)On or before July 1, 2027, the commission shall develop and provide guidance on model policies to b used by a local government, pursuant to subdivision (b), for the protection of monarch butterfly overwinterin habitat.
(b)On and after July 1, 2027,
30505. (a) After the guidance on model policies developed pursuant to Section 1021.5 of the Fish and Game Cod is finalized, a local government with a monarch butterfly overwintering habitat site located within the jurisdiction and the coastal zone, as described in subdivision (c), identified pursuant to subdivision (a) of Sectio 1021.5 of the Fish and Game Code, upon the next amendment to their local coastal program, shall includ monarch butterfly overwintering habitat site protection policies, as developed pursuant to subdivision (a policies.
(b) A local government shall be encouraged to apply for grants administered pursuant to the Monarch Butterf and Pollinator Rescue Program established by Section 1374 of the Fish and Game Code if the local government local coastal program includes monarch butterfly overwintering habitat site protection policies that are consisten with subdivision (a) and with the guidelines developed pursuant to subdivision (e) of Section 1374 of the Fis and Game Code.
(c)For purposes of this section, the location of a monarch butterfly overwintering habitat site shall be determine using the “Monarch Overwintering Areas, Areas of Conservation Emphasis” dataset established by th Department of Fish and Wildlife.

SEC. 2.SEC. 3. If the Commission on State Mandates determines that this act contains costs mandated by th state, reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made pursuant to Part (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code. ___________________
REVISIONS:

Heading—Line 2.
___________________
Bill Text - AB-2254 Coastal resources: local coastal program: monarch ... https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=20... 3 of 3 4/29/26, 10:11 AM
PGCC 5-6-26
205
PGCC 5-6-26

Letter of Support from the City of Pacific Grove for AB2254 To Protect Monarch Butterfly Overwintering Habitat
On behalf of the City of Pacific Grove, I am writing to express our strong support for Assembly Bill 2254 (Addis), which would strengthen protections for monarch butterfly overwintering habitat along California’s coast.

Our community is home to monarch butterfly overwintering habitat at the Monarch Sanctuary, where these remarkable insects depend on specific coastal conditions to survive the winter. We have seen firsthand the importance of these sites—not only for monarch conservation, but also for community identity, education, and coastal stewardship.

Western monarch populations have declined dramatically, and the loss or degradation of overwintering habitat remains a key factor. Protecting these sites is critical, particularly because the precise conditions monarchs require are not fully understood and cannot easily be recreated once lost.

AB 2254 provides a practical and collaborative path forward. By directing the development of model policies and integrating them into Local Coastal Programs during future updates, the bill will help local governments like ours better protect monarch habitat while working within existing planning frameworks.

For communities with known overwintering sites, this guidance is especially valuable. It will support more consistent, science-informed management and help ensure these irreplaceable habitats are preserved for future generations.

The City of Pacific Grove is committed to protecting our local monarch habitat and respectfully urges your support for AB 2254.

Sincerely,
[Name]
[Title, e.g., Mayor / Councilmember]
City of Pacific Grove
PGCC 5-6-26
206
PGCC 5-6-26

Agenda No. 10 A

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Sandra Kandell, City Clerk/DEI Coordinator
MEETING DATE: May 06, 2026
SUBJECT: Task Force on Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Meeting Minutes: 1/12, 2/9, and 3/9/2026
CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

RECOMMENDATION
Receive the minutes.

Attachments
Combined Minutes
PGCC 5-6-26
207
PGCC 5-6-26

1 MEETING MINUTES

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE

TASK FORCE ON DIVERSITY, EQUITY, AND INCLUSION

REGULAR MEETING
Monday, January 12, 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_DEI

1. CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL
Chair Bui called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m. Management Analyst Arriola conducted roll call with the following Task Force members present in person: Chair Bui, Secretary Pye, and Members Doneux and Rubin. Absent: Vice-Chair Fryberger.

2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Action: Upon motion by Chair Bui and seconded by Member Rubin, the Task Force voted 4-0-1, Vice-Chair Fryberger absent, to approve the agenda.

3. PRESENTATIONS
None.

4. TASK FORCE AND STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS (City-Related Items Only) None.

5. COUNCIL LIAISON ANNOUNCEMENTS
Council member Poduri gave announcement remotely.

6. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT
General public comment received from Beth Walker.

7. CONSENT AGENDA

8. REGULAR AGENDA
A. Task Force Work Plan Review.

No public comment received.

Action: The Task Force reviewed the 2024-2025 Work Plan.

9. NEXT MEETING: February 9, 2026 at 6:00 PM

10. ADJOURNMENT
The regular meeting was adjourned at 6:30 p.m.

PGCC 5-6-26
208
PGCC 5-6-26

2 Respectfully submitted,
Kimberly Pye
Secretary
Approved by Chair:__________________________________________Date____________________ PGCC 5-6-26
209
PGCC 5-6-26

1 MEETING MINUTES

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE

TASK FORCE ON DIVERSITY, EQUITY, AND INCLUSION

REGULAR MEETING
Monday, February 9, 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_DEI

1. CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL
Chair Bui called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. City Clerk/DEI Coordinator Kandell conducted roll call with the following Task Force members present in person: Chair Bui, Secretary Pye, and Members Doneux and Rubin. Absent: Member Fisher.

2. A. Election of Officers
No public comment received.

Action: Member Doneux nominated Kim Bui as Chair. With no second to the nomination required, the Task Force voted 4-0-1, Member Fisher absent, to confirm Kim Bui as Chair.

Action: Member Rubin nominated Bruce Doneux as Vice Chair. With no second to the nomination required, the Task Force voted 4-0-1, Member Fisher absent, to confirm Bruce Doneux as Vice Chair.

Action: Member Doneux nominated Kimberly Pye as Secretary. With no second to the nomination required, the Task Force voted 4-0-1, Member Fisher absent, to confirm Kimberly Pye as Secretary.

B. Approval of the Agenda
Action: Chair Bui continued Regular Agenda item 8A to a date uncertain.

Action: Upon motion by Chair Bui and seconded by Secretary Pye, the Task Force voted 4-0-1, Member Fisher absent, to approve the agenda, as modified.

3. PRESENTATIONS

4. TASK FORCE AND STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS (City-Related Items Only)

5. COUNCIL LIAISON ANNOUNCEMENTS

6. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT
General public comment received from Beth Walker.

PGCC 5-6-26
210
PGCC 5-6-26

2 7. CONSENT AGENDA
Upon motion by Vice-Chair Doneux and seconded by Member Rubin, the Task Force voted 4-0-1, Member Fisher absent, to approve the Consent Agenda.

A. Minutes of the December 8, 2025 Task Force on Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Meeting Action: Approved the minutes.

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

8. REGULAR AGENDA
A. Task Force Purpose, Powers, and Duties This item was continued to a date uncertain.

Reference: Chair Kim Bui
Recommended Action: That the Task Force review the Task Force Purpose, Powers and Duties.

B. Appointment of Work Plan Subcommittees
No public comment received.

Recommended Action: Upon motion by Member Rubin and seconded by Vice-Chair Doneux, the Task force voted 4-0-1 to appoint Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) Work Plan Subcommittees as follows:
• Metrics and Outreach Subcommittee comprised of Member Doneux and Member Rubin • Land and Ancestral Peoples Acknowledgement Subcommittee comprised of Chair Bui and Secretary Pye

9. NEXT MEETING - March 9, 2026 at 6:00 PM

10. ADJOURNMENT
The regular meeting was adjourned at 6:20 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
Kimberly Pye
Secretary

Approved by Chair:__________________________________________Date____________________ PGCC 5-6-26
211
PGCC 5-6-26

1 MEETING MINUTES

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE

TASK FORCE ON DIVERSITY, EQUITY, AND

INCLUSION

SPECIAL STUDY SESSION
Monday, March 9, 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_DEI

1. CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL
Chair Bui called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m. City Clerk/DEI Coordinator Kandell conducted roll call with the following Task Force members present in person: Chair Bui, Vice-Chair Doneux, Secretary Pye, and Member Rubin. Absent: Member Fisher.

2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Action: Upon motion by Chair Bui and seconded by Vice-Chair Doneux, the Task Force voted 4-0-1, Member Fisher absent, to approve the agenda.

3. PRESENTATIONS

4. TASK FORCE AND STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS (City-Related Items Only)

5. COUNCIL LIAISON ANNOUNCEMENTS

6. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT
No general public comment received.

A. Written General Public Comment

7. CONSENT AGENDA
Action: The Task Force took a 10-minute break to await Council Liaison Councilmember Poduri and Member Fisher.

8. SPECIAL STUDY SESSION AGENDA
A. Task Force Work Plan Study Session
No public comment received.

Action: The Task Force conducted a Work Plan Study Session.

9. NEXT MEETING - April 13, 2026 at 6:00 p.m.

PGCC 5-6-26
212
PGCC 5-6-26

2 10. ADJOURNMENT
The regular meeting was adjourned at 7:32 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
Kimberly Pye
Secretary

Approved by Chair:__________________________________________Date____________________ PGCC 5-6-26
213
PGCC 5-6-26

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: Joseph Sidor, Contract Planner
MEETING DATE: May 06, 2026
SUBJECT: Consider an Appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of Coastal Development Permit 26-0011, Crespi Pond Vegetation Management Project (portion of APN 007-011-006) and Adoption of an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration.

CEQA: Initial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council deny the appeal, adopt the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15074, approve a 5-Year Coastal Development Permit (CDP 26-0011) subject to the findings and conditions of approval, and adopt the associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan.

DISCUSSION
Project Description
The proposed project consists of removing emergent vegetation to enhance wildlife habitat at Crespi Pond. Emergent vegetation would be removed around the pond’s perimeter and within a central portion of the pond to maintain approximately 70 percent open water habitat and 30 percent emergent vegetation. Approximately 0.78 acres of emergent vegetation in the pond is proposed for removal and would consist primarily of California tule with a lesser component of narrow-leaved cattail.

The work will be performed using barge-mounted excavation equipment. The barge would be launched from the northern bank of the pond into the remaining area of open water. The emergent vegetation will be removed down to the root mass using a hydraulic arm and clam bucket attachment mounted on the deck of the barge. The removed vegetation will be hauled off-site for proper disposal as green waste.

After the initial maintenance, vegetation removal would occur no more than once every two years to maintain 70 percent open water habitat and 30 percent emergent vegetation.

Summary of Appeal
On March 12, 2026, the Planning Commission considered the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND), and voted 6 – 0 – 1 (6 yes, 0 no, and 1 absent) to adopt the IS/MND, approve the project (CDP 26-0011) as proposed, and adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP).

Based on the IS/MND analysis, potential project impacts would either be avoided (i.e., no impact or less PGCC 5-6-26
214
PGCC 5-6-26

than significant) or minimized (i.e., less than significant with the incorporation of mitigation measures).

The Planning Commission found that the project, as proposed, would be consistent with the Local Coastal Program (LCP) and would not adversely affect or impact public views, coastal access, biological resources, cultural resources, or other coastal resources.

On March 20, 2026, the appellant submitted a timely appeal (attached) of the Planning Commission’s decision to adopt the IS/MND, approve the project (CDP 26-0011), and adopt the MMRP. The appeal raises four general points related to work time limits that could be imposed by a state agency, biological monitoring, listing of a Responsible Agency, and identification of requirements that may be imposed by other agencies. See the attached appeal form for the full text of the appeal.

City staff reviewed the points raised in the appeal, as summarized below, and responds as follows:

The appellant states that the project fails to incorporate California Water Board time limits (September 1 - 30). The City has initiated an application for regulatory review of the project by the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (Central Coast RWQCB). This review is pending submittal of additional documentation from the City, including the Coastal Development Permit (CDP) and the CEQA Notice of Determination, which would be filed after the City approves the project. The City would be required to implement any restrictions imposed by the Central Coast RWQCB upon completion of the pending regulatory review. Via this CDP, the City would fulfill its responsibility to ensure consistency with the certified LCP, which is generally the first of several steps in the regulatory entitlement process for this type of project. Additionally, Mitigation Measure BIO-3B requires the avoidance of discharge of suspended sediment to the beach or Monterey Bay. Prior to initiating project removal activities, the water level in relation to the overflow culvert will be assessed to determine whether Mitigation Measure BIO-3B will need to be implemented to prevent discharge of suspended sediment. Therefore, per Mitigation Measure BIO-3B, the City would avoid discharge of suspended sediment.

The appellant states the project fails to require a certified biologist to directly observe and monitor the work during vegetation removal activities. The IS/MND identified potential impacts to nesting birds and sensitive habitat, and included mitigation measures from a qualified biologist to reduce the potential impacts to less than significant. No other potential significant impacts requiring mitigation were identified. Mitigation Measure BIO-1 requires vegetation removal activities to occur outside of the nesting season to avoid potential impacts to nesting bird species. Mitigation Measure BIO-2 requires daily biological pre-construction surveys prior to initiation of project activities, and a biologist would conduct spot checks and weekly visits to ensure compliance. Mitigation Measure BIO-3A limits future vegetation removal to no more than once every two years and no more than 50 percent of the emergent vegetation present at that time to minimize the loss of wetland function and habitat value.

Mitigation Measure BIO-3B requires the avoidance of discharge of suspended sediment to the beach or Monterey Bay. Mitigation Measure BIO-3C requires hazardous materials to be stored away from aquatic resources. The mitigation measures identified in the IS/MND have been deemed sufficient by a qualified biologist and the City for either avoiding impacts or reducing impacts to a less-than-significant level; therefore, the City is not exploring additional mitigation beyond what is required to reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level, in compliance with CEQA.

The appellant states that the IS/MND submitted to the California State Clearinghouse failed to include the California Coastal Commission (CCC) as a “Responsible Agency” as that term is used in CEQA. As responded to in the Final IS/MND (Page 10, Response E-1), PGCC 5-6-26
215
PGCC 5-6-26

CEQA does not require that the Draft IS/MND list responsible agencies. The proposed project is located within the jurisdiction of the City’s certified LCP and within the CCC’s appeal jurisdiction. However, the project site is not within the CCC’s original permit jurisdiction or in an Area of Deferred Certification, which includes areas subject to CCC original permit jurisdiction. The appellant has conflated the two concepts of a CEQA Responsible Agency and permit appeal jurisdiction. As such, the City of Pacific Grove, not the CCC, is responsible for reviewing the project for consistency with the certified LCP as part of the CDP review and decision-making process and is responsible for approving the CDP for the proposed project. Therefore, the CCC is not identified, nor would the CCC be identified in this case, as a Responsible Agency for the proposed project.

The appellant states that the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and California Water Board need to permit the project and that the City did not disclose or include those agency’s requirements. The appellant further states that the Planning Commission public hearing for the project did not incorporate relevant information regarding the restoration and maintenance of Crespi Pond, including information required pursuant to the terms and conditions outlined in the United States Coast Guard Grant Deed to the City of Pacific Grove. As noted above, the City has initiated an application for regulatory review of the project by the Central Coast RWQCB. Additionally, the City has initiated an application for CDFW regulatory review of the project. These pending reviews will be completed after the City completes the CDP entitlement process, and the City would be required to implement any restrictions imposed by the Central Coast RWQCB and CDFW. Regarding the timing of proposed project activities, see staff’s appeal response 1 above. The Planning Commission public hearing for the project held on March 12, 2026, incorporated relevant information regarding the restoration and maintenance of Crespi Pond, including the information required pursuant to the terms and conditions outlined in the federal transfer of the property to the City of Pacific Grove. As described in the Final IS/MND (Pages 10 - 12, Response E-2), the information is provided and the proposed project complies with the applicable federal requirements. Furthermore, a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) permit is not required for the proposed project. Email correspondence from the Corps dated May 19, 2025, stated that “although regulated activities within Crespi Pond and adjacent wetlands would generally require a Corps permit, the vegetation removal project as currently proposed does not appear to involve a fill discharge and, therefore, would not require a Corps permit.” In summary, the appeal makes statements that are either not applicable or relevant to the City’s review, or not supported by the evidence (including the IS/MND analysis). Based on the information in the record, the appeal lacks substantive merit, and the project record sufficiently analyzes and mitigates the potential impacts of the proposed project.

Additional Staff Response to the Appeal
Pacific Grove Municipal Code (PGMC) Chapter 23.74, Appeals and Call-Ups, identifies the requirements and grounds on which an appeal of a land use decision may be filed. Specifically, PGMC subsection 23.74.030(b), Timing and Form of Appeal, provides that “All appeals shall be submitted in writing on a city application and shall specifically state the pertinent facts of the case and the basis for the appeal.” In this case, the appellant fails to meet the requirements of subsection 23.74.030(b) as the appeal generally asserts that there were deficiencies in the information presented to the Planning Commission but fails to identify any particular defects or provide evidence to substantiate its claim or to guide the City Council in evaluating the basis of the appeal.

Without specific contentions or evidence, the appeal should be denied due to the appellant’s failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. An individual or organization does not exhaust administrative PGCC 5-6-26
216
PGCC 5-6-26

remedies if they fail to provide facts supporting their contentions. The exhaustion of administrative remedies doctrine requires that parties engage fully with the administrative process, including presenting specific facts and arguments to support their claims. This principle is grounded in the purpose of the exhaustion requirement, which includes allowing administrative agencies to apply their expertise, develop a factual record, and address disputes efficiently before judicial intervention. The appellant’s appeal is insufficient and does not provide a clear contention on which the City or the applicant can respond without speculation or relying on evidence outside of the record. Rather, City staff affirms that the information presented on the public record, during the application process, the California Environmental Quality Act process (Draft IS/MND and Final IS/MND), as well as the March 12, 2026, Planning Commission staff report and public hearing, was not erroneous in nature, and was not misleading to the public or decision-makers.

Project Location and Site Description
Crespi Pond is an approximately 1.63 acre area of wetland located immediately adjacent to Ocean View Boulevard, within the Point Pinos Lighthouse Reservation at the northern point of the Municipal golf course between the 16th and 17th holes.

The proposed project is located in the Coastal Zone, within an Archaeologically Sensitive Area, within an Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA; per LUP Figure 5), and within the City’s Area of Special Biological Significance (ASBS). A Phase I Archaeological and Cultural Resources Assessment Report was prepared by Albion in November 2024, and a Biological Resources Assessment Report was prepared by Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. in February 2024.

Surrounding Land Uses
Land uses surrounding the site include the municipal golf course, Ocean View Boulevard, Recreational Trail to the north, and residential development to the east. The project site consists of Crespi Pond, which includes open water and emergent wetland habitat immediately surrounded by golf course turf.

Crespi Pond Maintenance Permitting Background
According to Coastal Commission records (Coastal Development Permit Application W8c, September 10, 2003), the Golf Course had obtained Coastal Development Permit Waivers from the Coastal Commission each time vegetation maintenance was required at Crespi Pond (generally every other year). Due to the ongoing need to maintain an optimum level of open water and vegetated habitat, the Golf Course Superintendent at the time requested a long-term maintenance permit to conduct the work.

At the January 14, 2004, Coastal Commission Hearing, the Commission granted the Crespi Pond 5-Year Long-Term Maintenance Permit (#3-03-083 (attached)). In May 2014, the City requested another five-year permit from the Coastal Commission for "vegetation removal and maintenance ...to maintain a balance of 70% open water and 30% vegetation coverage and to reduce eutrophication in the pond." At the June 11, 2014, Coastal Commission Hearing, Waiver 3-14-0375-W (attached) was granted for five-years for annual maintenance of Crespi Pond including up to 200 cubic yards of aquatic vegetation removal at the municipal golf course. The notice of permit waiver concluded that "… the proposed project will enhance the biological productivity of Crespi Pond and will not otherwise have any adverse impact on coastal resources or public access to the shoreline." Applicable General Plan Policies
The Pacific Grove General Plan is the principal policy document for guiding future conservation and development of the city. The Natural Resources element of the General Plan combines the requirements of the State-mandated conservation and open space elements, which are intended to cover the protection and preservation of the city's waters, forests, soils, wildlife, and other natural and open space resources.

The proposed project is consistent with applicable General Plan goals and policies, including the PGCC 5-6-26
217
PGCC 5-6-26

following:

Chapter 6: Natural Resources
Goal 1 — Comprehensively manage Pacific Grove's vegetation and wildlife habitat.

Policy 2 Develop a vegetation and wildlife habitat management program.

Goal 4 — Protect Pacific Grove's water and marine resources.

Goal 5 — Protect Pacific Grove's biological resources.

Applicable Land Use Plan Policies
The Pacific Grove Land Use Plan (LUP), also provides a framework for public infrastructure within the City's Coastal Zone. The subject site is designated Open Space (OS) in the adopted and certified City of Pacific Grove Coastal Land Use Plan (LUP Figure 6). The LUP describes Crespi pond as "a small but valuable wetland which has gone dry during periods of drought, is located on Ocean View Boulevard between Point Pinos and the western end of Asilomar Avenue. Crespi Pond provides a stopping place for migrating bird species, including terns, gulls, many species of ducks, and Canada geese; and hundreds of different birds continue to be sighted. It is a site for ornithological studies, and is of interest to the scientific community."
The proposed project is consistent with applicable LUP policies, including the following:

MAR-2 — Wetlands, including Crespi Pond and the Majella Slough riparian area shall be considered Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas, and governed by Coastal Act policies 30233, and 30240. No alteration of freshwater wetlands (including Crespi Pond and Majella Slough) shall be allowed, except for maintenance dredging and similar activities essential for restoration and/or enhancement of natural habitats, as well as other uses and development specified in the Biological Resources and Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas chapter of this Land Use Plan, and only where there is no feasible less environmentally damaging alternative and where feasible mitigation measures have been provided to minimize adverse environmental effects.

MAR-6 - The biological productivity and the quality of coastal waters, streams, wetlands, estuaries, and lakes appropriate to maintain optimum populations of marine organisms and for the protection of human health shall be maintained and, where feasible, restored through, among other means, minimizing adverse effects of waste water discharges and entrainment, controlling runoff, preventing depletion of groundwater supplies and substantial interference with surface water flow, encouraging waste water reclamation, maintaining natural vegetation buffer areas that protection riparian habitats, and minimizing alteration of natural streams.

BIO-2 — Development in Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas, as defined in BIO-1 and Coastal Act §30107.5, shall be limited to uses dependent on the resource (e.g., habitat restoration, scientific research, and low-intensity public access and recreation), and shall be sited and designed to protect against significant disruption of habitat values including to rare and endangered species. Other stabilizing native dune plants shall also be protected, relocated, or replanted with similar native plants.

The City will determine and designate other areas in the Coastal Zone which have high biological sensitivity and establish appropriate protections for those areas.

BIO-3 — Applications for development within and near Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas, including wetlands and streams, shall be accompanied by a habitat assessment prepared by a qualified biological and a botanical survey by a qualified expert prepared at the owner’s expense, prior to consideration of a project within the City. The habitat assessment and botanical survey shall, at a minimum, identify and confirm the extent of the Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area, document any PGCC 5-6-26
218
PGCC 5-6-26

site constraints and the presence of sensitive species, recommend buffers and development setbacks and standards to protect the Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area, recommend mitigation measures to address any allowable impacts, and include any other information and analyses necessary to understand potential Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area impacts as well as measures necessary to protect the Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area resource as required by the Local Coastal Program.

BIO-4 — Preserve and maintain wetlands in the Coastal Zone as productive wildlife habitats and protect wetlands against significant disruption of habitat values.

CRS-1 The City will conduct consultations with any federally-recognized California tribal government listed on the most recent notice of the United States Federal Register and any non-federally recognized California tribe listed on the California Tribal Consultation List maintained by the California Native American Heritage Commission that identifies as native to the Monterey Peninsula, including the Ohlone Costanoan Esselen Nation, in accordance with state law.

CRS-2 The City will ensure the protection, preservation, and proper disposition of archaeological resources within the Coastal Zone by assessing the potential impact of proposed development and ensuring, to the maximum extent feasible, that tribal concerns are considered before actions on proposed development are taken and that such impacts are avoided, minimized, or mitigated in conformity with the Coastal Act and other applicable legal requirements.

CRS-3 The City will assist developers and landowners by providing early identification of sensitive sites so that archaeological resources can be considered and protected during the early phases of project design. The City shall require new development to prepare an archaeological report by a qualified professional and, where appropriate, shall require mitigation measures to adequately protect and preserve potential archeological resources.

Applicable Zoning Code Regulations
As proposed, the project complies with the applicable zoning regulations and development standards set forth in Pacific Grove Municipal Code (PGMC) Chapters 23.42 (O) and 23.90 (Coastal Implementation Plan or IP).

Coastal Development Permit (CDP)
An application was filed with the Community Development Department (CDD) on January 13, 2026, and the application submittal is consistent with PGMC Section 23.90.060. Findings and related conditions of approval are included in the draft resolution (attached). Pursuant to PGMC Sections

23.90.050, CDP Determinations, and 23.90.040, CDP exemptions, CDD staff determined that the proposed Crespi Pond Vegetation Management project would require a CDP.

Coastal Hazards
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, application materials, and conducted a site visit on March 2, 2026. This review determined the project would not be subject to coastal hazards over the expected lifetime of the development as no structural development is proposed.

In this case, submittal of a Coastal Hazards Report is not warranted.

Water Quality
Per PGMC Section 23.90.150, Water Quality and Marine Resources, staff reviewed the Initial Study prepared by Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. in October 2025, that suggests the removal of emergent wetland vegetation within the pond using barge-mounted equipment would temporarily increase the turbidity in the pond elevating the risk of sediments entering the Monterey Bay. Condition No. 8, PGCC 5-6-26
219
PGCC 5-6-26

Avoidance and Minimization Measures, as recommended by the Biological Resources Report (Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc., Feb. 2024), has been included to address this potential impact. Project activities shall be conducted when the water level in Crespi Pond is below the elevation of the overflow culvert to ensure that no water or suspended sediment is discharged to the adjacent beach or Monterey Bay. Also, equipment, fuels, lubricants, and solvents shall be stored in a designated staging area at least 100 feet from aquatic resources.

Scenic Resources
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 March 2, 2026. This review determined the proposed project, due to the short maintenance duration and no structural development, would not adversely impact public views. Additionally, the location of the subject project site is landward of Ocean View Boulevard and would not adversely impact public views seaward of Ocean View Boulevard, the Recreational Trail, or along the shoreline.

Biological Resources and Restoration
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 March 2, 2026. Additionally, a Biological Resources Report prepared by Denise Duffy and Associates, Inc. in February 2024 was provided and attached as Appendix A of the Initial Study. The report concluded, "… the project has the potential to impact nesting raptors and other nesting avian species and could potentially impact wintering tricolored blackbirds. The project will also temporarily impact sensitive habitats, including a sensitive natural community and ESHA associated with wetlands and the open waters of Crespi Pond." Condition No. 8, Avoidance and Minimization Measures, as recommended by the Biological Resources Report (Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc., Feb. 2024), has been included to address and minimize these potential impacts. Furthermore, no project work would occur seaward of Ocean View Boulevard and the Recreational Trail, and the contractor would be required to use best management practices to protect the area surrounding the subject project site.

Condition No. 8 implements Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-3C, which require the following:

Prohibits vegetation removal during the breeding and nesting season.

Scheduling of project maintenance activities between September 1 and February 1.

Pre-construction surveys for tricolored blackbirds each morning of project maintenance activities by a qualified biologist or designated monitor prior to initiation of project activities. If identified, project activities will not be allowed to proceed.

Subsequent to the initial maintenance for vegetation removal, vegetation removal will occur no more than once every two years.

Project activities shall be conducted when the water level in Crespi Pond is below the elevation of the overflow culvert to ensure that no water or suspended sediment is discharged to the adjacent beach or Monterey Bay.

Equipment, fuels, lubricants, and solvents shall be stored in a designated staging area at least 100 feet from aquatic resources.

Cultural Resources
Archeological Resources
Per PGMC Section 23.90.200, Cultural Resources, the proposed project involves dredging in an archaeologically sensitive area; therefore, an archaeological report was prepared by a qualified archaeologist (Albion, 2024). The report concluded that because the project site was previously PGCC 5-6-26
220
PGCC 5-6-26

disturbed in association with the existing and past golf course operations and maintenance activities, it is unlikely that intact archaeological deposits currently exist at the proposed project site. Similarly, no human remains are known to be on the project site. However, due to the sensitivity of the area and the potential for inadvertent discovery of cultural resources, Condition Nos. 5, 6, and 7 have been included to require tribal monitoring and inadvertent discovery procedures throughout the course of the project.

Historic Resources
Per PGMC section 23.90.200, Cultural Resources, the proposed project does not involve structural development or permanent changes to a setting or location; therefore, an historic report is not warranted.

California Environmental Quality Act
In reviewing this action, the City has followed the CEQA statute adopted by the State of California as published in the California Public Resources Code, Division 13, §21000, et seq., and the California Code of Regulations, Title 14, §15000, et seq. (i.e., CEQA Guidelines). Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083 and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Sections 15063(a) and 15063(b)(2), the City of Pacific Grove Public Works Department (PW), as Lead Agency, completed an environmental review to determine if the project may have a significant effect on the environment.

The City prepared a draft initial study and mitigated negative declaration (IS/MND) for this project (attached). The IS/MND was circulated for public review and comment from November 3, 2025, through December 3, 2025 (State Clearinghouse Number 2025110213). Public comment was received (six comment letters) and revisions were made to the draft Initial Study to correct an error in the acreage of vegetation to be removed from 0.55 acres to 0.78 acres to achieve the target habitat ratio of 30% emergent vegetation and 70% open water.

The environmental analysis found that biological resources and water quality during construction activities would have a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated, while all other environmental analysis topics would have a less than significant impact. A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan has been prepared and incorporated as a CEQA required component of the Mitigated Negative Declaration process.

The Draft IS/MND and the Final IS/MND together constitute the environmental record for the Crespi Pond Vegetation Management Project. The Final IS/MND consists of an introduction, comment letters received during the 30-day public review period, responses to comments, and revisions to the Draft IS/MND if deemed applicable (i.e., the revisions to the Draft IS/MND are contained in the Final IS/MND as per common practice).

Noticing
City staff completed the required noticing pursuant to PGMC sections 23.86.040 and 23.90.070, as follows:

1. Mailing. On April 22, 2026, Notices of Public Hearing were mailed to properties within a 100-foot radius of the subject property, the Appellant, and other interested parties.

2. Posting. On April 22, 2026, a Notice of Public Hearing was posted on the site’s street frontage in a location that may be viewed from the street on Ocean View Boulevard.

3. Publication. Not required.

Story Poles and Netting
The proposed project involves the removal of vegetation from Crespi Pond and does not include any structural development. Therefore, in this case, installation of story poles and netting is not required nor warranted.

PGCC 5-6-26
221
PGCC 5-6-26

OPTIONS

1. Concur with staff's recommendation;

2. Decline to concur with staff's recommendation;
Refer the project to the applicant and continue the item to a specific regular meeting of the City Council to allow the applicant an opportunity to address questions raised by the Council; or

3. 4. Discuss and take other action related to this item.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

Funds to support the Crespi Pond Vegetation Management program have been allocated by the City Council.

There are no fees charged to file an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to approve a Coastal Development Permit (CDP). However, the processing of a CDP appeal does result in an unfunded financial impact on the City. Staff estimates it has expended approximately 24 hours on the processing of this appeal (not including public hearing time before the City Council). At the fully burdened staff rate of $215 per hour, the City has incurred an approximate cost of $5,160.00 to date in the processing of this unsubstantiated appeal.

FOCUSED PRIORITY AREA: Environmental Stewardship
Attachments
Appeal
CDD Application
CDP Application
Draft City Council Resolution
Final IS/MND
Draft IS/MND w/Appendices
Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Plan
Dewatering, Staging, BMP Site Plan
Scope of Work
Combined Coastal Commission Documents
Planning Commission CDP 26-0011
Planning Commission Written Public Comment
PGCC 5-6-26
222
PGCC 5-6-26

PGCC 5-6-26
223
PGCC 5-6-26

PGCC 5-6-26
224
PGCC 5-6-26

PGCC 5-6-26
225
PGCC 5-6-26

PGCC 5-6-26
226
PGCC 5-6-26

PGCC 5-6-26
227
PGCC 5-6-26

PGCC 5-6-26
228
PGCC 5-6-26

PGCC 5-6-26
229
PGCC 5-6-26

PGCC 5-6-26
230
PGCC 5-6-26

PGCC 5-6-26
231
PGCC 5-6-26

RESOLUTION NO. 26 - ___

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE DENYING THE APPEAL AND APPROVING A 5-YEAR COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT (FILE NUMBER CDP 26-0011) TO ALLOW THE BI-ANNUAL REMOVAL

OF EMERGENT VEGETATION IN CRESPI POND (CRESPI POND MANAGEMENT

PROJECT) TO ENHANCE WILDLIFE HABITAT AND MAINTAIN A BALANCE OF 70% OPEN WATER AND 30% VEGETATION COVERAGE IN CRESPI POND.

FACTS

1. The City of Pacific Grove Public Works Department (applicant) proposes the removal of emergent vegetation in Crespi Pond to enhance wildlife habitat.

2. Detailed Project Description:
a. Emergent vegetation would be removed around the pond’s perimeter and within a central portion of the pond to maintain 70 percent open water habitat and 30 percent emergent vegetation. The emergent vegetation in the pond proposed for removal would consist primarily of California tule (Schoenoplectus californicus) with a lesser component of narrow-leaved cattail (Typha angustifolia). b. The work will be performed using barge-mounted excavation equipment (i.e., Aquamog). The barge will be launched from the northern bank of the pond into the remaining area of open water. The emergent vegetation will be removed down to the root mass using a hydraulic arm and clam bucket attachment mounted on the deck of the barge. The removed vegetation will be hauled off-site for proper disposal as green waste.
c. Subsequent to the initial maintenance vegetation removal, vegetation removal will occur no more than once every two years to maintain 70 percent open water habitat and 30 percent emergent vegetation.

3. Crespi Pond is immediately adjacent to Ocean View Boulevard, within the Point Pinos Lighthouse Reservation at the northern point of the municipal golf course between the 16th and 17th holes. The subject project site is a portion of APN 007-011-006.

4. The subject project site has a land use designation of Open Space - Recreational (OS-R) in the adopted and certified City of Pacific Grove Land Use Plan (per LUP Figure 6, Coastal Zone Land Use Designations).

5. The subject project site has a zoning classification of O.

6. The subject project site is located within the City’s Coastal Zone, within an archaeologically sensitive area (per LUP Figure 7), within an environmentally sensitive habitat area (ESHA; per LUP Figure 5), and within the City’s Area of Special Biological Significance (ASBS).

7. 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 not be exempt from the requirement to obtain a Coastal Development Permit (CDP).

PGCC 5-6-26
232
PGCC 5-6-26

8. 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, application materials, and conducted a site visit on March 2, 2026. This review determined the project would not be subject to coastal hazards over the expected lifetime of the development as no structural development is proposed. In this case, submittal of a Coastal Hazards Report is not warranted or required.

9. Per PGMC section 23.90.150, Water Quality and Marine Resources, the Initial Study prepared by Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc., suggests that the removal of emergent wetland vegetation within the pond using barge-mounted equipment would temporarily increase the turbidity in the pond and elevate the risk of sediments entering the Monterey Bay. Condition No. 8, Avoidance and Minimization Measures, as recommended by the Biological Resources Report (Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc., February 2024), has been included to address this potential impact.

10. 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 March 2, 2026. This review determined that the project, as proposed, would not adversely impact public views due to the short maintenance duration and no structural development.

Additionally, the location of the subject project site is landward of Ocean View Boulevard and would not adversely impact public views or access seaward of Ocean View Boulevard, the Recreational Trail, or along the shoreline.

11. 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 March 2, 2026. Additionally, a Biological Resources Report prepared by Denise Duffy and Associates, Inc. was provided and attached as Appendix A of the Initial Study. The report concluded, "… the project has the potential to impact nesting raptors and other nesting avian species and could potentially impact wintering tricolored blackbirds. The project will also temporarily impact sensitive habitats, including a sensitive natural community and ESHA associated with wetlands and the open waters of Crespi Pond." Condition No. 8, Avoidance and Minimization Measures, as recommended by the Biological Resources Report (Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc., February 2024), has been included to address and minimize these potential impacts. Furthermore, no project work would occur seaward of Ocean View Boulevard and the Recreational Trail, and the contractor would be required to use best management practices to protect the area surrounding the subject project site.

12. Per PGMC Section 23.90.200, Cultural Resources, the proposed project involves dredging in an archaeologically sensitive area; therefore, an archaeological report was prepared by a qualified archaeologist (Albion, 2024). The report concluded that because the project site was previously disturbed in association with the existing and past golf course operations and maintenance activities, it is unlikely that intact archaeological deposits currently exist at the proposed project site. Similarly, no human remains are known to be on the project site. However, due to the sensitivity of the area and the potential for inadvertent discovery of cultural resources, Condition Nos. 5, 6, and 7 have been included to require tribal monitoring and inadvertent discovery procedures throughout the course of the project.

PGCC 5-6-26
233
PGCC 5-6-26

13. Per PGMC Section 23.90.200, Cultural Resources, the proposed project does not involve structural development or permanent changes to a setting or location; therefore, an historic report is not warranted or required.

14. The City of Pacific Grove Public Works Department (DPW), as Lead Agency, prepared an Initial Study pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083, and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Sections 15063(a) and 15063(b)(2). The Initial Study is on file in the offices of DPW and CDD, and is hereby incorporated by reference. CDD, located at 300 Forest Avenue, 2nd Floor, Pacific Grove, California, 93950, is the custodian of documents and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings upon which the decision to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration is based.

15. The draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the Pacific Grove Crespi Pond Vegetation Management Project was prepared in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines and circulated for public review from November 3, 2025, through December 3, 2025 (State Clearinghouse Number 2025110213). Public comments were received (six comment letters) and revisions were made to the Initial Study to correct an error in the acreage of vegetation to be removed from 0.55 acres to 0.78 acres to achieve the target habitat ratio of 30% emergent vegetation and 70% open water.

16. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1 and LUP Policy CRS-1, DPW initiated consultation via notification letters with local Native American tribes and the first consultation meeting with the Esselen Tribe of Monterey County was held on November 6, 2024.

17. The City of Pacific Grove Planning Commission considered the IS/MND and proposed project at a noticed public hearing on March 12, 2026. The Planning Commission voted 6 – 0 – 1 (6 yes, 0 no, and 1 absent) to adopt the IS/MND and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan, and approve CDP 26-0011.

18. On March 20, 2026, the appellant submitted a timely appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to adopt the IS/MND and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan, and approve CDP 26-0011.

19. Pursuant to the appeal, the City of Pacific Grove City Council considered and reviewed the proposed project at a noticed public hearing on May 6, 2026.

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).

As proposed and conditioned, the Crespi Pond maintenance 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 Water Quality and Marine Resources policies of the Land Use Plan (LUP). These standards and policies are addressed in the Facts above and in the following Findings.

PGCC 5-6-26
234
PGCC 5-6-26

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

The proposed Crespi Pond maintenance project, due to the short construction duration and no structural development, would not adversely impact public views. Therefore, per PGMC section

23.90.160, Scenic Resources, a site-specific visual analysis is not required in this case. See also Fact No. 10 above.

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

The goal of the project is to promote a balance of vegetation and open water habitats to enhance wildlife habitat at Crespi Pond. The project will also temporarily impact sensitive habitats, including a sensitive natural community and ESHA associated with wetlands and the open waters of Crespi Pond. With Condition No. 8, Avoidance and Minimization Measures, as recommended by the Biological Resources Report (Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc., February 2024), the project is consistent with the LCP, including PGMC section 23.90.170 regarding biological resources and/or environmentally sensitive habitat areas. As proposed and conditioned, the project would not permanently impact natural habitats or resources. See also Fact No. 11 above.

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 proposed project does not involve structural development; therefore, this finding is not applicable.

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

As proposed and conditioned, the project would not adversely impact public access to or along the coast. Condition No. 10 has been applied to protect public access and ensure retention of emergency access during construction. See also Fact No. 10 above.

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.

As proposed, the project does not involve visitor-serving needs or facilities; therefore, this finding is not applicable.

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

The proposed use is consistent with applicable LCP requirements, including the site zoning classification and land use designation.

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

As proposed and designed, the project would enhance coastal resources. The goal of the project is to promote a balance of vegetation and open water habitats to enhance wildlife habitat at Crespi Pond. See also Fact Nos. 9 – 13 and supporting information, and Findings above.

PGCC 5-6-26
235
PGCC 5-6-26

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
On the basis of the whole record before the City of Pacific Grove City Council, there is no substantial evidence that the proposed project as designed and conditioned, will have a significant effect on the environment. Also, the City Council finds that there is no substantial evidence supporting a fair argument of a significant environmental impact. The City will implement proposed project mitigation measures, best management practices, and standard conditions of approval that avoid or minimize potential effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur. Based upon the analysis of the Initial Study (IS), the Public Works Department prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and the MND reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City. The City has also prepared a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP) to ensure that the project implements the approved mitigation measures subsequent to project approval (CEQA Guidelines §15074(d)).

The Draft IS/MND and the Final IS/MND together constitute the environmental record for the Crespi Pond Vegetation Management Project. The Final IS/MND consists of an introduction, comment letters received during the 30-day public review period, responses to comments, and revisions to the Draft IS/MND if deemed applicable (i.e., the revisions to the Draft IS/MND are contained in the Final IS/MND).

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.

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

1. Permit Expiration. This permit shall expire and be null and void five (5) years from and after the date of approval. Application for extension of this approval must be made prior to the expiration date.

2. Conformance to Submittals/Plans. Development of the site shall conform to the approved scope of work activities as described in the approved submittal materials, with the exception of any subsequently approved changes.

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

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

5. Archaeological/Tribal Monitoring. A qualified archaeological monitor and 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.

6. 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, PGCC 5-6-26
236
PGCC 5-6-26

appropriate mitigation will be formulated, with the approval of the lead agency, and implemented prior to recommencement of work.

7. 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.

8. Avoidance and Minimization Measures. The following avoidance and minimization measures shall be incorporated into the construction plans and implemented during construction:
a. BIO-1: Conduct vegetation removal activities outside of the nesting season to avoid impacts to nesting bird species. Vegetation removal activities shall occur between September 1 and February 1, outside of the breeding and nesting season, to avoid potential impacts to nesting raptors and other nesting avian species. b. BIO-2A: A pre-construction survey for tricolored blackbirds will be performed each morning by a qualified biologist prior to initiation of project activities. The biologist will train a designated monitor on the construction crew to identify the species. Once the biologist is satisfied that the designated monitor can identify the species, that individual will conduct the surveys prior to each day’s work. The biologist will remain on call and available to respond to the designated monitor’s request to confirm a sighting. The biologist will conduct spot checks in addition to weekly visits to ensure the mitigation is being implemented in a satisfactory manner. If tricolored blackbirds are identified, project activities shall not be allowed to proceed until subsequent surveys can confirm that the birds have left the area of their own volition.
c. BIO-3A: Subsequent to the initial maintenance vegetation removal, vegetation removal will occur no more than once every two years and shall include the removal of no more than 50% of the emergent vegetation present at that time to minimize the scope and scale of the temporary loss of wetland function and habitat value.
d. BIO-3B: Project activities shall be conducted when the water level in Crespi Pond is below the elevation of the overflow culvert to ensure that no water or suspended sediment is discharged to the adjacent beach or Monterey Bay. e. BIO-3C: Equipment, fuels, lubricants, and solvents shall be stored in a designated staging area at least 100 feet from aquatic resources.

9. Best Management Practices (BMPs). The project shall implement BMPs as required per PGMC 9.30.130(c).

PGCC 5-6-26
237
PGCC 5-6-26

10. Temporary Traffic Handling Plan (TTHP). Per PGMC Section 23.90.210.B.2, the Public Works Department shall prepare and implement a TTHP to protect public access (e.g., parking and/or traffic circulation) and ensure retention of emergency access during project work.

11. 2028 and 2030 Report to the Planning Commission and City Council. The Applicant shall provide an informational report to the Planning Commission and City Council in January or February of 2028 and 2030 regarding whether the removal of emergent vegetation at Crespi Pond will be conducted at appropriate times during the 2028 and 2030 calendar years.

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 decision of the Planning Commission to adopt the IS/MND and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan, and approve Coastal Development Permit (CDP) 26-0011.

3. The Council has considered and adopts the IS/MND pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15074.

4. The Council approves CDP 26-0011 as proposed and conditioned. The required Findings and Conditions of Approval are hereby approved and incorporated herein by reference.

5. The Council adopts the associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan.

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

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE this 6th day of May, 2026, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

APPROVED:
_______________________________
NICK SMITH, Mayor
PGCC 5-6-26
238
PGCC 5-6-26

ATTEST:
_______________________________
SANDRA KANDELL, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________________
ALEX J. LORCA, City Attorney
PGCC 5-6-26
239
PGCC 5-6-26

Final
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
for the

CRESPI POND VEGETATION MANAGEMENT

PROJECT
SCH# 2025110213
Prepared for:

City of Pacific Grove
300 Forest Avenue
Pacific Grove, CA 93950
Prepared by:

Denise Duffy & Associates
947 Cass Street, Suite 5
Monterey, CA 93940
January 2026
PGCC 5-6-26
240
PGCC 5-6-26

This Page Intentionally Left Blank
PGCC 5-6-26
241
PGCC 5-6-26

Crespi Pond Vegetation Management Project i January 2026 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1

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

1.2 Public Participation ..................................................................................................................... 1 CHAPTER 2. Response to Comments .................................................................................................. 3

2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 3

2.2 List of Comment Letters .............................................................................................................. 3

2.3 Response to Comments ............................................................................................................... 3 CHAPTER 3. Revisions to the Draft IS/MND .................................................................................... 18 Appendix A – Comment Letters
PGCC 5-6-26
242
PGCC 5-6-26

Crespi Pond Vegetation Management Project ii January 2026 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Table of Contents This Page Intentionally Left Blank
PGCC 5-6-26
243
PGCC 5-6-26

Crespi Pond Vegetation Management Project 1 January 2026 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Chapter 1. Introduction CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background
This document, together with the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (Draft IS/MND), constitutes the Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (Final IS/MND) for the Crespi Pond Vegetation Management Project (project or proposed project). The City of Pacific Grove (City) is the lead agency for the proposed project. The Final IS/MND consists of an introduction, all comment letters received during the 30-day public review period, responses to comments, and revisions to the Draft IS/MND if deemed applicable.

1.2 Public Participation
The Draft IS/MND was prepared to inform the public of the potential environmental effects of the project and identify possible ways to minimize project-related impacts. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15073(a), the City circulated the Draft IS/MND for a 30-day review period during which comments could be submitted. In accordance with CEQA, the Final IS/MND is included in the official public record for the Draft IS/MND. On November 3, 2025, the City distributed the Draft IS/MND for public review to responsible and trustee agencies, interested groups, and individuals. The review period ended on December 3, 2025. The City received six comment letters on the Draft IS/MND. This Final IS/MND includes all comment letters received by the City as of December 15, 2025 (Appendix A).

PGCC 5-6-26
244
PGCC 5-6-26

Crespi Pond Vegetation Management Project 2 January 2026 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Chapter 1. Introduction This Page Intentionally Left Blank
PGCC 5-6-26
245
PGCC 5-6-26

Crespi Pond Vegetation Management Project 3 January 2026 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Chapter 2. Revisions to the Draft IS/MND CHAPTER 2. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

2.1 Introduction
This chapter includes responses to comments received from the public and public agencies during the circulation of the Draft IS/MND. This section contains all information available to date in the public record related to the Draft IS/MND.

2.2 List of Comment Letters
The following is a list of comment letters/email comments received on the Draft IS/MND and the dates these letters were received:

Comment Letters
A. Department of Toxic Substance Control .................................................................... November 18, 2025 B. Monterey Audubon Society........................................................................................ November 30, 2025 C. Monterey Bay California Native Plant Society ............................................................. December 1, 2025 D. Lisa Ciani ...................................................................................................................... December 2, 2025 E. Anthony Ciani ............................................................................................................ November 17, 2025 F. Anthony Ciani ................................................................................................................ December 1, 2025

2.3 Response to Comments
Individual comments in each letter identified in Section 2.2 are numbered as shown in Appendix A.

Correspondingly numbered responses to each comment are provided in the following discussion. Some comments do not raise environmental issues, or do not require additional information. CEQA does not require a substantive response to such comments. If comments raised environmental issues that required additions or deletions to the text, tables, or figures in the Draft IS/MND, a brief description of the change is provided and the reader is referred to Chapter 3.0, Revisions to the Draft IS/MND.

The comments received on the Draft IS/MND did not result in a "substantial revision" of the IS/MND, as defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5. No new significant impacts were identified since the commencement of the public review period that would require mitigation measures or project revisions to be added in order to reduce the effects to less than significant.

While responses to comments on a proposed IS/MND are not required by CEQA (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.), this Response to Comments document is provided to demonstrate the City’s careful consideration of the comments in compliance with CEQA. These responses provide the City’s good faith, reasoned analysis on the major environmental issues raised in the comments.

PGCC 5-6-26
246
PGCC 5-6-26

Crespi Pond Vegetation Management Project 4 January 2026 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Chapter 2. Revisions to the Draft IS/MND Letter A: Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC)
Response A-1: Comment acknowledged. This comment does not raise a substantive environmental issue.

No further response is necessary.

Response A-2: The Draft IS/MND identified the Point Piños Lighthouse State Response site as the nearest hazardous materials cleanup site to the proposed project, based on the DTSC’s EnviroStor map viewer. The proposed project is located on the same property as the Point Piños Lighthouse State Response site; however, the project is located approximately 0.2 mile from the Point Piños Lighthouse (see Draft IS/MND pp. 33-34). The “Lighthouse Point Piños Light Station Soil Lead Sampling Locations” exhibit prepared by Engineering/Remediation Resources Group, Inc. on November 20, 2005, includes only areas located at the Point Piños Lighthouse and immediately adjacent soils and does not include areas located within or adjacent to the proposed project site. Additionally, the DTSC EnviroStor database states that the Point Piños Lighthouse site “consists of the historic lighthouse structure and adjacent soil located on the U.S. Coast Guard Point Piños Light Station.” The proposed project is not located within this DTSC site. Further, the proposed project activities are consistent with activities previously approved and carried out on the site. The project proposes to remove emergent vegetation from within Crespi Pond. Consistent with the Use Restrictions identified in the Quitclaim Deed, the project does not propose any excavation, grading, sediment removal, trenching, fill, mining, or other earthmoving activities.

Response A-3: A U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) permit is not required for the proposed project.

Email correspondence from the Corps dated May 19, 2025, stated that “although regulated activities within Crespi Pond and adjacent wetlands would generally require a Corps permit, the vegetation removal project as currently proposed does not appear to involve a fill discharge and, therefore, would not require a Corps permit.”
Response A-4: Comment acknowledged. This comment does not raise a substantive environmental issue.

No further response is necessary.

PGCC 5-6-26
247
PGCC 5-6-26

Crespi Pond Vegetation Management Project 5 January 2026 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Chapter 2. Revisions to the Draft IS/MND Letter B: Monterey Audubon Society
Response B-1: Comment acknowledged. This comment is on the merits of the proposed project and does not raise a substantive environmental issue. No further response is necessary.

Response B-2: This comment is on the merits of the proposed project and does not raise a substantive environmental issue; however, the City would like to note that while it is not pursuing dredging or additional restoration work at this time, the City may consider implementation of a long-term restoration project involving activities such as dredging in the future. Future projects would be dependent on budget availability as well as additional environmental review and permit acquisition from applicable agencies.

Response B-3: Comment acknowledged. This comment is on the merits of the proposed project and does not raise a substantive environmental issue. No further response is necessary.

Response B-4: The City appreciates the effort of the Monterey Bay Audubon Society Conservation Committee, in partnership with Patrick Furtado, in preparing this documentation. While the City is not pursuing a larger-scale restoration project at this time, the City will consider the Monterey Bay Audubon Society’s recommendations for potential future projects aimed at long-term restoration of Crespi Pond.

Response B-5: Comment acknowledged. This comment is on the merits of the proposed project and does not raise a substantive environmental issue. No further response is necessary.

PGCC 5-6-26
248
PGCC 5-6-26

Crespi Pond Vegetation Management Project 6 January 2026 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Chapter 2. Revisions to the Draft IS/MND Letter C: Monterey Bay California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Response C-1: Comment acknowledged. This does not raise a substantive environmental issue. No further response is necessary.

Response C-2: Comment acknowledged. This does not raise a substantive environmental issue. No further response is necessary.

Response C-3: Comment acknowledged. This does not raise a substantive environmental issue. No further response is necessary.

Response C-4: Comment acknowledged. This comment is on the merits of the proposed project and does not raise a substantive environmental issue. No further response is necessary.

Response C-5: Comment acknowledged. This comment is on the merits of the proposed project and does not raise a substantive environmental issue. No further response is necessary.

Response C-6: The purpose of the Draft IS/MND is to evaluate whether the proposed project may result in significant impacts on the environment and to identify mitigation measures where necessary to reduce those impacts to a less-than-significant level, consistent with the requirements of CEQA. The City of Pacific Grove Community Development Department will consider appropriate conditions of approval, including those related to compliance with the certified Local Coastal Program (LCP), as part of the CDP review and decision-making process, which occurs separately from the CEQA environmental review.

PGCC 5-6-26
249
PGCC 5-6-26

Crespi Pond Vegetation Management Project 7 January 2026 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Chapter 2. Revisions to the Draft IS/MND Letter D: Lisa Ciani
Response D-1: Comment acknowledged. This comment is on the merits of the proposed project and does not raise a substantive environmental issue. No further response is necessary.

Response D-2: Comment acknowledged. This comment does not raise a substantive environmental issue.

No further response is necessary.

Response D-3: The Biological Resources Report states that historically, the City performed emergent vegetation removal under a CDP or CDP Waiver to maintain 70 percent open water and 30 percent emergent wetland habitat in Crespi Pond; however, since the City last conducted vegetation maintenance of the pond, emergent vegetation has expanded to occupy approximately 80 percent of the pond’s surface area. Therefore, the City intends to reinitiate periodic removal of emergent vegetation in Crespi Pond under a new CDP (see Crespi Pond Biological Resources Report, p. 1). The project being proposed involves reinitiating vegetation removal in Crespi Pond to maintain the recommended ratio of 30:70 emergent vegetation to open water. The purpose of the Biological Resources Report is to assess potential impacts to sensitive biological resources that could result from the proposed project. The Biological Resources Report is used to inform the CEQA environmental analysis and is not a restoration plan or other similar document intended to address pond health.

Response D-4: The goal of the proposed project is to promote a balance of vegetated and open water habitats to enhance wildlife habitat at Crespi Pond through removal and management of emergent vegetation. The project would remove emergent vegetation to establish a ratio of 30 percent emergent vegetation and 70 percent open water (see Draft IS/MND p. 3). The City would accomplish this using the methods described under Section D, Project Description of the Draft IS/MND (see Draft IS/MND pp. 3- 4). The City is also seeking a CDP with a five-year term for the project to allow for ongoing vegetation maintenance to prevent uncontrolled expansion of emergent vegetation within the pond. Following the initial removal, the City would be responsible for continuing to conduct periodic vegetation removal over the five-year term of the CDP, which would help to maintain a healthier balance of vegetative and open water habitats in the pond by preventing uncontrolled expansion of emergent vegetation within the pond.

This proposed project is consistent with the vegetation management projects at Crespi Pond that were previously reviewed and approved by the CCC.

Response D-5: See Response D-4, above. The proposed project would restore Crespi Pond to a ratio of 30 percent emergent vegetation and 70 percent open water habitat by removing emergent vegetation from the pond using the methods and materials described in Section D, Project Description of the IS/MND (see Draft IS/MND pp. 3-4). Following this initial removal, the City would be responsible for periodically removing emergent vegetation over the five-year term of the new CDP to maintain a healthier balance of vegetative and open water habitats in the pond. Additionally, while the City is not pursuing a larger-scale restoration project at this time, the City may decide at a later date to initiate a project that addresses longterm restoration of Crespi Pond. Any future projects would be dependent on budget availability as well as additional environmental review and permit acquisition from applicable agencies (also see Responses B-2 and B-4, above).

Response D-6: The Draft IS/MND incorrectly stated that 0.55 acre of emergent vegetation would be removed, which would be equivalent to 43 percent of the existing emergent vegetation in the pond. The correct acreage and percentage of vegetation to be removed to reach the target ratio of 30 percent emergent vegetation and 70 percent open water is 0.78 acre (approximately 61 percent). This has been corrected throughout the Draft IS/MND, and is discussed further in Chapter 3 of this document. Please also refer to the table below for values used to calculate the acreage to be removed.

PGCC 5-6-26
250
PGCC 5-6-26

Crespi Pond Vegetation Management Project 8 January 2026 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Chapter 2. Revisions to the Draft IS/MND Crespi Pond Vegetation Removal Calculation
Category Acreage
(Existing)
Percent
Area
(Current)
Percent
Area
(Target)
Acreage
(Target)
Acreage
(Removal)
Emergent wetland vegetation 1.27 78% 30% 0.49 0.78
Open water 0.36 22% 70% 1.14
Total Area 1.63 1.63
Note: Calculation excludes 0.03 acre of non-native invasive poison hemlock patches.

Response D-7: The City is proposing removal of emergent vegetation. Sediment removal, including dredging of Crespi Pond, is not proposed as part of the Crespi Pond Vegetation Management Project evaluated in the Draft IS/MND. The California Coastal Commission (CCC) Staff Report for approved CDP Application No. 3-03-083 cites the November 2001 Biological Assessment and Restoration of Dune Habitat for the City of Pacific Grove recommendation that “Crespi Pond [should] be maintained at a ratio of 70 percent open water and 30 percent emergent vegetation at a general depth of 4 feet.” However, the project described in the CDP application and approved by the CCC included “removal of approximately 200 cubic yards (CY) of tule, penny royal, and other aquatic vegetation.” The project did not explicitly involve dredging of sediment from the pond (see CDP Application No. 3-03-083 p. 5). Therefore, the proposed project remains consistent with activities previously approved by the CCC. The commenter cites the Draft IS/MND’s statement that the pond has a maximum depth of approximately three feet and that removal of the root zone of vegetation may deepen the pond between one and two feet. Therefore, while the project does not propose additional dredging of sediment, removal of vegetation to the root zone may generally increase the pond depth to between four and five feet, which would be consistent with the November 2001 Biological Assessment and Restoration of Dune Habitat for the City of Pacific Grove recommendations.

Response D-8: This comment does not raise a substantive environmental issue. However, the City would like to note that the Draft IS/MND uses acreages based on a wetland delineation to determine the extent of the pond and the calculated area of vegetation that would need to be removed to reach the target ratio of 30% emergent vegetation and 70% open water. The specific amount and manner of vegetation removal ultimately authorized for the project – including the metrics used to define or limit that removal (e.g., volume, area, etc.) – will be determined by the Pacific Grove Community Development Department as part of the CDP review and approval process, which is a separate discretionary approval from the CEQA environmental review.

Response D-9: The timing of proposed project activities would occur between September 1 and February 1 to ensure vegetation removal is occurring outside of bird nesting and breeding season to avoid impacts to eggs, nestlings, and nesting birds during removal activities. A pending regulatory approval from the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) for the project would further limit the work window to only the month of September due to the RWQCB work window requirement of July 1 – September 30.This proposed timing is consistent with the timing identified in prior CDP Waiver 3-13- 1336-W and CDP Application No. 3-03-083. It is unknown at this time what the current water level is in the pond. Because the timing of proposed project activities may include months that overlap the rainy season, it is possible the water level in the pond may reach or exceed the weir elevation at the time of project implementation. For this reason, the Draft IS/MND includes Mitigation Measure BIO-3B to avoid discharge of suspended sediment to the Monterey Bay (see Draft IS/MND p. 22). Prior to initiating removal activities, the water level in relation to the overflow culvert will be assessed to determine PGCC 5-6-26
251
PGCC 5-6-26

Crespi Pond Vegetation Management Project 9 January 2026 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Chapter 2. Revisions to the Draft IS/MND whether Mitigation Measure BIO-3B will need to be implemented to prevent discharge of suspended sediment into the Monterey Bay.

Response D-10: Comment acknowledged. This comment does not raise a substantive environmental issue. No further response is necessary.

Response D-11: The Draft IS/MND does not include a statement that “annual dredging is too much,” as the commenter claims. The City is pursuing a CDP for continued, periodic removal of emergent vegetation from the pond over a five-year term, consistent with the prior CDPs. The ratio of 30 percent emergent vegetation to 70 percent open water would be maintained by periodic vegetation removal under the new CDP. The project would be required to comply with any conditions of the CDP which may include specific limits to the amount of removed material allowed and/or the allowed frequency of removal activities.

Response D-12: Comment acknowledged. This comment does not raise a substantive environmental issue. No further response is necessary.

Response D-13: The Draft IS/MND includes Mitigation Measure BIO-2, which requires daily biological monitoring during construction activities (see Draft IS/MND p. 21). This and the other mitigation measures identified in the Draft IS/MND are deemed sufficient for either avoiding impacts or reducing impacts to a less-than-significant level; therefore, the City is not exploring additional mitigation beyond what is required to reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level, in compliance with CEQA.

Response D-14: In compliance with CEQA, the Draft IS/MND assesses potential impacts to water quality that could result from implementation of project activities. The Draft IS/MND includes appropriate mitigation to ensure potential water quality impacts associated with the project are avoided or reduced to a less-than-significant level (see Mitigation Measure BIO-3B on p. 22 of the Draft IS/MND).

No additional discussion of existing water quality data is required to comply with CEQA.

Response D-15: Comment acknowledged. This comment does not raise a substantive environmental issue. No further response is necessary.

Response D-16: This comment is on the merits of the project and does not require further response.

However, the City would like to note that the scope of the project is to remove emergent vegetation from Crespi Pond to achieve 30 percent emergent vegetation and 70 percent open water. Any additional restorative activities are outside the scope of the proposed project. Therefore, the Draft IS/MND’s analysis addresses only the potential impacts of the project, as proposed.

PGCC 5-6-26
252
PGCC 5-6-26

Crespi Pond Vegetation Management Project 10 January 2026 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Chapter 2. Revisions to the Draft IS/MND Letter E: Anthony Ciani
Response E-1: CEQA does not require that the Draft IS/MND list responsible agencies or identify review/comment periods. The review and comment periods are established by statute and are identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15073(a). Additionally, the proposed project is located within the jurisdiction of the City’s certified and adopted LCP. The project site is within the CCC’s appeal jurisdiction; however, the project site is not within the CCC’s original permit jurisdiction or in an Area of Deferred Certification, which includes areas subject to CCC original permit jurisdiction. As such, the City of Pacific Grove Community Development Department, not the CCC, is responsible for reviewing the project for consistency with the certified LCP as part of the CDP review and decision-making process and is responsible for approving the CDP for the proposed project. Therefore, the CCC is not identified as a Responsible Agency for the proposed project.

Response E-2: The Endangered Species Covenant (Section 2) of the Quitclaim Deed restricts use of the property for any purpose that would: 1) alter the existing topography and/or character of the property; or 2) adversely affect Menzie’s wallflower, Tidestrom’s lupine, beach layia, or Monterey spineflower, or the habitat of any of these species. The Endangered Species Covenant also specifies that if an occurrence on the property violates a restriction or other requirement of US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Biological Opinion No. 1-8-04-F-35 or the Biological Assessment and Dune Habitat Restoration Plan (as amended by an Addendum dated October 20, 2004), the Grantee shall: 1) immediately notify the USFWS, 2) implement corrective actions, and 3) supply copies of relevant documentation related to the violation.

The project does not propose to alter the topography or character of the property and would not impact Menzie’s wallflower, Tidestrom’s lupine, beach layia, or Monterey spineflower, or the habitat of any of these species (see Crespi Pond Biological Resources Report, p. 15 and Appendix C). Therefore, the project complies with the Endangered Species Covenant.

The Quitclaim Deed’s Notice of Wetlands (Section 9) states:
“The northern portion of the Property contains jurisdictional wetlands near Crespi Pond.

Activities contemplated for the Property by the GRANTEE, its successors and assigns are subject to any and all Federal, State and local laws, rules, and ordinances governing land use in wetland areas. No work by the GRANTEE, its successors or assigns on the Property, including filling, excavation, digging, or dredging is permitted in this area without a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, if applicable.”
See Response A-3, above. A Corps permit is not required for the proposed project. Email correspondence from the Corps dated May 19, 2025, stated that “although regulated activities within Crespi Pond and adjacent wetlands would generally require a Corps permit, the vegetation removal project as currently proposed does not appear to involve a fill discharge and, therefore, would not require a Corps permit.” Therefore, the project complies with the requirements of the Grant Deed related to wetlands.

The Quitclaim Deed also includes a Historic Preservation Covenant (Section 1) and covenants related to possible presence of lead-based paint on the property and restricted property use (Section 10); potential presence of asbestos (section 11); and hazardous substances (Section 12). The Historic Preservation Covenant requires preservation and maintenance of any historic structures on-site, including preservation and maintenance of the Point Piños Lighthouse; restricts physical changes to and rehabilitation of historic structures; requires that development plans be approved by the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) for development of the property as it effects the archaeological sites identified in the November 1977 Archaeological Inventory and Evaluation of the U.S. Lighthouse Reservation, Pacific Grove, California by Rob Edwards and Gary Breschini); authorizes the U.S. General Services Administration or the SHPO to inspect the property at any time; and provides actions to be taken if the covenants, PGCC 5-6-26
253
PGCC 5-6-26

Crespi Pond Vegetation Management Project 11 January 2026 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Chapter 2. Revisions to the Draft IS/MND conditions, or restrictions under Section 1 are violated. As described in the Draft IS/MND, no historic buildings are located on the project site (see Draft IS/MND pp. 25 and 52). The proposed project does not involve any changes to historic buildings. The project is also not required to obtain SHPO approval because: 1) the project does not involve development of the property, and 2) the project would not affect the archaeological sites identified in the 1977 Edwards and Breschini Report (please refer to Draft IS/MND pp. 23-26 and 50-52 and Responses F-4 and F-13 for additional detail pertaining to archaeological resources at the project site).

Section 10 of the Quitclaim Deed identifies the potential presence of lead-based paint on the property and requires the owner, lessor, or sublessor of the property to provide notice to a buyer, lessee, or sublessee that hazardous substances are located on or beneath the property; requires the property owner to provide notice to the DTSC within 30 days after executing any document conveying ownership or leasehold over the property; establishes the following use restrictions for the property:
 Property shall not be used for any of following purposes: a residence, including any mobile home or factory built housing used as residential human habitation, a hospital for humans, a public or private school, a day care center for children, a playground.  Soil Management. No activities that will disturb the surface soil to 12 inches below ground surface (e.g. excavation, grading, removal, trenching, filling, earth movement, or mining) shall be allowed on property without a pre-approved Soil Management Plan and Health and Safety Plan approved by the DTSC.
 Any soil removed from the property shall be managed in accordance with all applicable provisions of state and federal law.

Section 10 also establishes DTSC access, inspection and monitoring restrictions, annual reporting requirements, and enforcement related to violations of this covenant. See Response A-3, above. The project is on the same property as the Point Piños Lighthouse State Response site, which was identified as potentially containing lead-based paint; however, the project site is located approximately 0.2 mile from the Point Piños Lighthouse State Response site. Additionally, proposed project activities are consistent with activities previously approved and carried out on the site. The project does not propose excavation, grading, sediment removal, trenching, fill, mining, or other earth-moving activities. Therefore, the project is consistent with the use restriction covenant under Section 10 of the Quitclaim Deed.

Section 11 of the Quitclaim Deed provides notice that the property may have materials containing asbestos and requires the Grantee to comply with all federal, state, and local laws relating to asbestos.

Section 11 is specific to structures associated with the Point Piños Lighthouse, located approximately 0.2 mile from the project site. As such, covenants and restrictions under this covenant are not applicable to the proposed project.

Section 12 of the Quitclaim Deed provides notice that no other hazardous substances other than those described in Sections 10 and 11 have been released, disposed of, or stored on the property. The covenant under Section 12 states that the United States warrants that it shall take any additional response action found to be necessary after the date of the property conveyance regarding hazardous substances located on the Property on the date of the conveyance. The Section 12 covenant also requires that in the event the Grantee, its successor(s) or assign(s), seeks to have United States conduct any additional response action, the Grantee, its successor(s) or assign(s) must provide the United States at least 45 days written notice and provide evidence that: 1) the associated contamination existed prior to the date of conveyance, and 2) the need to conduct any additional response action or part thereof was not the result of any act or failure to act by the Grantee, its successor(s) or assign(s), or any party in possession. The project does not involve any additional response action by the United States. Therefore, the Section 12 covenant does not apply to the PGCC 5-6-26
254
PGCC 5-6-26

Crespi Pond Vegetation Management Project 12 January 2026 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Chapter 2. Revisions to the Draft IS/MND project. For the reasons described in this response, the proposed project complies with the covenants of the Quitclaim Deed.

Response E-3: Comment acknowledged. This comment does not raise a substantive environmental issue.

No further response is necessary.

Response E-4: Comment acknowledged. This comment does not raise a substantive environmental issue.

No further response is necessary.

Response E-5: Comment acknowledged. This comment does not raise a substantive environmental issue.

No further response is necessary.

Response E-6: In compliance with CEQA, the Draft IS/MND assesses potential impacts to water quality that could result from implementation of the project. The Draft IS/MND includes appropriate mitigation to ensure water quality impacts are avoided or reduced to a less-than-significant level (see Mitigation Measure BIO-3B on p. 22 of the Draft IS/MND). No additional discussion of existing water quality data is required to comply with CEQA (also see Response D-14, above). The scope of the project is limited to removing emergent vegetation from Crespi Pond to achieve 70 percent open water and 30 percent emergent vegetation habitat. Any additional protection, restoration, or enhancement activities, including further water quality studies or consultations related to improving water quality in the pond are outside the scope of the proposed project and are, therefore, not covered in the Draft IS/MND.

Response E-7: The Biological Resources Report included an assessment of potentially jurisdictional wetlands and waters in the survey area in accordance with the requirements set forth in The Field Guide for Wetland Delineation: 1987 Corps of Engineers Manual (Wetland Training Institute, 1995) and the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (Version

2.0) (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2008). Therefore, the wetland delineation conducted as part of the Biological Resources Report is in accordance with established procedures for conducting wetland delineations and no additional wetland surveys are necessary for assessing the impacts of the proposed project.

Response E-8: In compliance with CEQA, the Draft IS/MND assesses potential drainage impacts that could result from implementation of project activities. As identified in the Draft IS/MND, the proposed project would not alter existing drainage patterns (see Draft IS/MND p. 38). No additional discussion of existing water quality data is required to comply with CEQA. Additionally, the scope of the project is to remove emergent vegetation from Crespi Pond to achieve 30 percent emergent vegetation and 70 percent open water. Any additional protection, restoration, or enhancement activities are outside the scope of the proposed project.

Response E-9: Previous development on the golf course is outside the scope of this IS/MND. No further response is necessary.

Response E-10: In compliance with mitigation identified in the Draft IS/MND, project activities will occur outside of the rainy season, when the water level in Crespi Pond is below the elevation of the overflow culvert or, if project activities cannot be timed to avoid discharging water to the beach or Monterey Bay, a sediment filter will be attached to the outlet pipe that connects Crespi Pond to the beach to ensure suspended sediments from project activities are not discharged to the beach or Monterey Bay (see Mitigation Measure BIO-3B on p. 22 of the Draft IS/MND).

Response E-11: This comment is on the merits of the project and does not require further response.

However, the City would like to note that the scope of the project is to remove emergent vegetation from Crespi Pond to achieve 30 percent emergent vegetation and 70 percent open water. Any additional restorative activities, including reevaluating the optimum depth, location and type of plant materials to PGCC 5-6-26
255
PGCC 5-6-26

Crespi Pond Vegetation Management Project 13 January 2026 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Chapter 2. Revisions to the Draft IS/MND restore and enhance Crespi Pond and re-habituation with native animal species are outside the scope of the proposed project. Therefore, the Draft IS/MND’s analysis addresses only the potential impacts of the project, as proposed.

Response E-12: The purpose of the Biological Resources Report is to assess potential impacts to sensitive biological resources that could result from the proposed project. The Biological Resources Report is used to inform the CEQA environmental analysis and is not a restoration plan or other similar document intended to address pond health. The purpose of the Draft IS/MND is to evaluate whether the proposed project may result in significant impacts on the environment and to identify mitigation measures where necessary to reduce those impacts to a less-than-significant level, consistent with the requirements of CEQA. In compliance with CEQA, the Draft IS/MND assesses existing environmental conditions at the site to the extent necessary to assess potential impacts that could result from implementation of project activities. Additional evaluation of sea water infiltration into the pond is not necessary for determining potential impacts associated with project implementation. No additional discussion of seawater infiltration into the pond is required to comply with CEQA.

Response E-13: The NOI does not include a statement that the City did not require or obtain an Archaeological Report. As identified in the Draft IS/MND, the City retained Albion to prepare an Archaeological Report for the project, in response to a request the City received from the Esselen Tribe of Monterey County (ETMC) during AB 52 tribal consultation (see Draft IS/MND pp. 23-26 and pp. 50-52 for additional detail regarding the results of Albion’s Archaeological Report). The Archaeological Report contains sensitive information regarding cultural resources in the area and is confidential. Albion’s Archaeological Report is, therefore, not attached to the Draft IS/MND and is not publicly available.

Response E-14: The Draft IS/MND evaluates potential impacts to biological, archaeological/cultural, and visual resources that could result from the project, as they relate to applicable City LUP policies. Please refer to Draft IS/MND Section 4, Biological Resources (pp. 19-22); Section 5, Cultural Resources (pp. 23-26); Section 18, Tribal Cultural Resources (pp. 50-52); and Section 1, Aesthetics (pp. 11-12) for detailed discussions of potential impacts to biological, cultural, and visual resources, respectively.

Additionally, see detailed discussion below.

Biological Resources Report included a wetland delineation in accordance with established procedures for conducting wetland delineations; therefore, no additional wetland surveys are deemed necessary to assess potential impacts of the proposed project (also refer to Response E-7, above). The scope of the proposed project is limited to removal of emergent vegetation to maintain a ratio of 70 percent open water and 30 percent emergent vegetation habitat in the pond. Development of a “maintenance and monitoring and reporting program” to restore ESHA is outside the scope of the project. In compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15097(a) and Public Resources Code Section 21081, the project requires adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) to ensure mitigation measures identified in the Draft IS/MND are implemented. The MMRP must be adopted at the time the lead agency approves the project. Therefore, the City will review and adopt the MMRP as part of its approval of the project.

As discussed in the Draft IS/MND, Albion prepared an Archaeological Report for the project in November 2024 (also see Response E-13, above). Additionally, as discussed in the Draft IS/MND, the City’s General Plan and LUP designate the coastline north of Ocean View Boulevard as a Scenic Area (see Draft IS/MND p. 11). Crespi Pond, located south of Ocean View Boulevard, is outside of the City General Plan and LUP’s designated Scenic Areas. Crespi Pond is also located in an urbanized landscape that is built up with residences, roadways, and recreational open space (i.e., the golf course). Therefore, the Draft IS/MND’s analysis of aesthetic impacts focused on potential impacts to the City’s officially designated scenic resources, which are located north of Ocean View Boulevard. In addition, the Draft PGCC 5-6-26
256
PGCC 5-6-26

Crespi Pond Vegetation Management Project 14 January 2026 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Chapter 2. Revisions to the Draft IS/MND IS/MND addressed visual impacts in urbanized areas and focused on the project’s consistency with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality, in accordance with the CEQA Appendix G checklist which states:
“In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage points.) If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?” Because the project site is not identified as a designated Scenic Area and is in an urbanized area, the Draft IS/MND’s analysis appropriately focused its analysis on potential impacts to designated Scenic Areas, scenic vistas, and potential conflicts with applicable plans and zoning laws governing the project.

PGCC 5-6-26
257
PGCC 5-6-26

Crespi Pond Vegetation Management Project 15 January 2026 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Chapter 2. Revisions to the Draft IS/MND Letter F: Anthony Ciani
Response F-1: Comment acknowledged. This comment does not raise a substantive environmental issue.

No further response is necessary.

Response F-2: The proposed project is located within the jurisdiction of the City’s certified and adopted LCP. The project site is within the CCC’s appeal jurisdiction, which includes “lands between the sea and the designated first public road paralleling the sea or within 300 feet of the inland extent of any beach or of the mean high tide line if there is no beach, whichever is the greater distance. Also included are lands within 100 feet of streams and wetlands and lands within 300 feet of the top of the seaward face of any coastal bluff.” The project site is not within the CCC’s original permit jurisdiction or in an Area of Deferred Certification which includes areas subject to CCC original permit jurisdiction. As such, the City of Pacific Grove Community Development Department, not the CCC, is responsible for reviewing the project for consistency with the certified LCP as part of the CDP review and decision-making process and is responsible for approving the CDP for the proposed project. Therefore, the CCC is not identified as a Responsible Agency on the State Clearinghouse distribution list.

Response F-3: Comment acknowledged. This comment does not raise a substantive environmental issue.

No further response is necessary.

Response F-4: The project site includes Crespi Pond, which is located on assessor’s parcel number (APN) 007-011-006-000. This APN encompasses the Point Piños Lighthouse Reservation, which contains a historic site – the Point Piños Lighthouse; however, as identified in the IS/MND, this historic site is located approximately 800 feet south of the project site. Therefore, project activities would not impact this historic resource (see Draft IS/MND, p. 25). Consistent with City LUP Policy CRS-3, Albion prepared an Archaeological Report for the proposed project. Albion’s Archaeological Report did not identify any historic buildings or structures within the project area. Albion’s Archaeological Report also concluded that no previously recorded cultural resources are located within the project site and that it is unlikely that intact archaeological deposits currently exist at the site, due to prior ground disturbance.

Albion’s Archaeological Report includes resources identified in the 1977 archaeological inventory conducted by Edwards and Breschini that are within a 0.25-mile radius of the project site. The resources identified in the 1977 report are located outside of the project site. While the project parcel, which encompasses the Point Piños Lighthouse Reservation, contains cultural resources, Albion’s focused Archaeological Report for the proposed project does not identify known historic or other prehistoric cultural resources within the project site. In addition, the Draft IS/MND identified that as part of the CDP process, the project would be required to comply with provisions of the CDP, including standard conditions related to cultural resource protection. Compliance with the standard conditions would avoid or minimize potential impacts; therefore, the Draft IS/MND concluded potential impacts to cultural resources from project activities would be less-than-significant and mitigation would not be required.

Response F-5: The scope of the project is to remove emergent vegetation from Crespi Pond to achieve 30 percent emergent vegetation and 70 percent open water. Any additional restorative activities, including prevention of pollution from existing use of the golf course, are outside the scope of the proposed project.

Response F-6: See Response F-5, above. The scope of the project is to remove emergent vegetation from Crespi Pond to achieve 30 percent emergent vegetation and 70 percent open water. Any additional restorative activities are outside the scope of the proposed project. Additionally, the purpose of the Draft IS/MND is to evaluate whether the proposed project may result in significant impacts on the environment and to identify mitigation measures where necessary to reduce those impacts to a less-than-significant PGCC 5-6-26
258
PGCC 5-6-26

Crespi Pond Vegetation Management Project 16 January 2026 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Chapter 2. Revisions to the Draft IS/MND level, consistent with the requirements of CEQA. In compliance with CEQA, the Draft IS/MND contains mitigation measures to avoid or reduce impacts that could occur as a result of the proposed project (see Draft IS/MND pp. 21-22 and City of Pacific Grove Crespi Pond Vegetation Management Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for detailed mitigation measures). The Draft IS/MND is not required to include mitigation for impacts unrelated to project activities, such as water quality impacts resulting from ongoing use of the golf course.

Response F-7: This comment is on the merits of the proposed project and does not raise a substantive environmental issue; however, the City would like to note that the wetland survey conducted as part of the Biological Resources Report was conducted in accordance with the requirements set forth in The Field Guide for Wetland Delineation: 1987 Corps of Engineers Manual (Wetland Training Institute, 1995) and the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (Version 2.0) (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2008). Therefore, the wetland delineation for the project was not arbitrary, but was conducted in accordance with established procedures for conducting wetland delineations.

Response F-8: The purpose of the Draft IS/MND is to evaluate whether the proposed project may result in significant impacts on the environment and to identify mitigation measures where necessary to reduce those impacts to a less-than-significant level, consistent with the requirements of CEQA. The Draft IS/MND’s evaluation of potential impacts included an assessment of impacts related to flooding and inundation, in accordance with the CEQA Appendix G checklist. The Draft IS/MND identified that the project site is within a tsunami hazard zone and discussed potential impacts, including potential release of pollutants such as fuels or lubricants used for project activities, in the event of inundation during project implementation. The Draft IS/MND concluded that the project would not exacerbate existing risks related to inundation from flood, tsunami, or seiche events (see Draft IS/MND p. 38). CEQA does not require an analysis of the effects of the environment on a project unless the project would exacerbate those effects.

Because the project would not exacerbate existing risks, the Draft IS/MND sufficiently evaluated the potential impacts associated with the project’s location in an area prone to inundation.

Response F-9: Comment acknowledged. This comment does not raise a substantive environmental issue.

No further response is necessary.

Response F-10: Comment acknowledged. This comment is on the merits of the proposed project and does not raise a substantive environmental issue. No further response is necessary. Also see Responses E7 and F-7 above for additional detail pertaining to delineating the wetland boundaries.

Response F-11: The goal of the proposed project is to promote a balance of vegetated and open water habitats to enhance wildlife habitat at Crespi Pond through removal and management of emergent vegetation. As described in the Draft IS/MND, the City would remove emergent vegetation to establish a ratio of 30 percent emergent vegetation and 70 percent open water (see Draft IS/MND p. 3). The City would accomplish this using the methods described under Section D, Project Description of the IS/MND (see Draft IS/MND pp. 3-4). The City is also seeking a CDP with a five-year term for the project to allow for ongoing vegetation maintenance to help to maintain a healthier balance of vegetative and open water habitats in the pond by preventing uncontrolled expansion of emergent vegetation within the pond. This project is consistent with the vegetation management projects at Crespi Pond that were previously reviewed and approved by the CCC. Further, the City would like to reiterate that the scope of the project is limited to vegetation management activities. Any additional restoration, enhancement, or preservation activities including improving water quality or reducing siltation and sedimentation into the pond caused by recreational use of the golf course are outside the scope of the proposed project and are therefore not PGCC 5-6-26
259
PGCC 5-6-26

Crespi Pond Vegetation Management Project 17 January 2026 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Chapter 2. Revisions to the Draft IS/MND evaluated in the Draft IS/MND. While the City is not pursuing a larger-scale restoration project at this time, the City may decide at a later date to initiate a project that addresses long-term restoration of Crespi Pond, including water quality and sedimentation issues related to existing recreational use. Any future projects would be dependent on budget availability as well as additional environmental review and permit acquisition from applicable agencies.

Response D-5: See Response D-4, above. The project would restore Crespi Pond to a ratio of 30 percent emergent vegetation and 70 percent open water habitat by removing emergent vegetation from the pond using the methods and materials described in Section D, Project Description of the IS/MND (see Draft IS/MND pp. 3-4). Following this initial removal, the City would be responsible for periodically removing emergent vegetation over the five-year term of the CDP to maintain a healthier balance of vegetative and open water habitats in the pond. Additionally, while the City is not pursuing a larger-scale restoration project at this time, the City may decide at a later date to initiate a project that addresses long-term restoration of Crespi Pond. Any future projects would be dependent on budget availability as well as additional environmental review and permit acquisition from applicable agencies (also see Responses B-2 and B-4, above).

Response F-12: See Response F-5, above. The scope of the project is to remove emergent vegetation from Crespi Pond to achieve 30 percent emergent vegetation and 70 percent open water. Any additional restorative activities, including prevention of pollution from existing use of the golf course, are outside the scope of the proposed project.

Response F-13: Albion’s Archaeological Report included a records search to identify all previously identified historic and prehistoric cultural resources within the project site and within a 0.25-mile radius of the project site. Albion’s Archaeological Report includes the 1977 findings of Edwards and Breschini.

The resources identified in the 1977 report are located over 490 feet outside of the project site (please note that for protection of cultural resources, the specific descriptions and locations of these resources are confidential and not publicly available). Therefore, Albion’s Archaeological Report accurately identifies and addresses the findings and conclusions of the 1977 Edwards and Breschini report. Please also refer to Response F-4 for additional information pertaining to cultural resource impacts.

PGCC 5-6-26
260
PGCC 5-6-26

Crespi Pond Vegetation Management Project 18 January 2026 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Chapter 3. Revisions to the Draft IS/MND CHAPTER 3. REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT IS/MND
The City has modified the text of the Draft IS/MND (October 2025), as noted below. The revision to the Draft IS/MND text involves a global revision to correct the acreage and percentage of vegetation proposed for removal. The Draft IS/MND incorrectly identified an area of 0.55 acre (43 percent) of the existing emergent vegetation to be removed. The amount of vegetation that would need to be removed in order to meet the target habitat ratio of 30 percent emergent vegetation and 70 percent open water is 0.78 acre (61 percent). Therefore, the text has been changed throughout the Draft IS/MND, including Appendix A, to correct this error. This section identifies the location of the affected text within the document and provides the original text then the revised text.

Original Text: Approximately 0.55 acre (43 percent) of emergent vegetation in the pond is proposed for removal and would consist primarily of California tule (Schoenoplectus californicus) with a lesser component of narrow-leaved cattail (Typha angustifolia).

Revised Text: Approximately 0.78 acre (61 percent) of emergent vegetation in the pond is proposed for removal and would consist primarily of California tule (Schoenoplectus californicus) with a lesser component of narrow-leaved cattail (Typha angustifolia).

Description, Paragraph 1, Sentence 5
Original Text: Approximately 0.55 acre (43 percent) of emergent vegetation in the pond is proposed for removal and would consist primarily of California tule (Schoenoplectus californicus) with a lesser component of narrow-leaved cattail (Typha angustifolia).

Revised Text: Approximately 0.78 acre (61 percent) of emergent vegetation in the pond is proposed for removal and would consist primarily of California tule (Schoenoplectus californicus) with a lesser component of narrow-leaved cattail (Typha angustifolia).

Discussion/Mitigation, Paragraph 2, Sentence 4
Original Text: Additionally, the project would disturb approximately 0.55 acre within the pond and would not result in generation of fugitive dust, as all vegetation removal would occur in wetted soils associated with the pond.

Revised Text: Additionally, the project would disturb approximately 0.78 acre within the pond and would not result in generation of fugitive dust, as all vegetation removal would occur in wetted soils associated with the pond.

Discussion/Mitigation, Paragraph 4, Sentence 2
Original Text: These sensitive habitats would be temporarily disturbed by vegetation removal, which would remove approximately 43 percent of the existing emergent wetland vegetation in the pond.

Revised Text: These sensitive habitats would be temporarily disturbed by vegetation removal, which would remove approximately 61 percent of the existing emergent wetland vegetation in the pond.

PGCC 5-6-26
261
PGCC 5-6-26

Crespi Pond Vegetation Management Project 19 January 2026 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Chapter 3. Revisions to the Draft IS/MND

Discussion/Mitigation, Paragraph 2, Sentence 1
Original Text: The proposed project would consist of removing approximately 0.55 acre of vegetation in Crespi Pond.

Revised Text: The proposed project would consist of removing approximately 0.78 acre of vegetation in Crespi Pond.

Quality – Discussion/Mitigation, Paragraph 2, Sentence 2 Original Text: The project would increase the storage capacity of the pond through removal of approximately 0.55 acres of emergent wetland vegetation.

Revised Text: The project would increase the storage capacity of the pond through removal of approximately 0.78 acres of emergent wetland vegetation.

Discussion/Mitigation, Paragraph 2, Sentence 3
Original Text: The proposed project would remove approximately 0.55 acre of emergent wetland vegetation from the pond and would require temporary closure or interruption of play on the golf course to ensure the safety of project personnel during vegetation removal activities.

Revised Text: The proposed project would remove approximately 0.78 acre of emergent wetland vegetation from the pond and would require temporary closure or interruption of play on the golf course to ensure the safety of project personnel during vegetation removal activities.

Systems – Discussion/Mitigation, Paragraph 2, Sentence 2 Original Text: Approximately 0.55 acre of vegetation would be removed and would be dewatered prior to disposal.

Revised Text: Approximately 0.78 acre of vegetation would be removed and would be dewatered prior to disposal.

Sentence 3
Original Text: Additionally, the proposed project would temporarily disturb sensitive habitats during vegetation removal, which would remove approximately 43 percent of the existing emergent wetland vegetation in the pond.

Revised Text: Additionally, the proposed project would temporarily disturb sensitive habitats during vegetation removal, which would remove approximately 61 percent of the existing emergent wetland vegetation in the pond.

Sentence 3
Original Text: The project would be limited in scope (i.e., approximately 0.55 acre) and impacts would be temporary.

PGCC 5-6-26
262
PGCC 5-6-26

Crespi Pond Vegetation Management Project 20 January 2026 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Chapter 3. Revisions to the Draft IS/MND Revised Text: The project would be limited in scope (i.e., approximately 0.78 acre) and impacts would be temporary.

Appendix A, Page 1, Section 1.2 Project Description, Paragraph 2, Sentence 2 Original Text: Approximately 0.55 acres of emergent vegetation is proposed for removal to increase the amount of open water to approximately 70%.

Revised Text: Approximately 0.78 acres of emergent vegetation is proposed for removal to increase the amount of open water to approximately 70%.

Appendix A, Page 17, Section 5.0 Impacts, Avoidance & Minimization Measures – Sensitive Habitats, Paragraph 1, Sentence 1
Original Text: Sensitive habitats present at the project site, which include California bulrush marsh, a sensitive natural community, and EHSA associated with wetlands and open waters of Crespi Pond will be temporarily impacted by vegetation removal, which will remove approximately 43% percent of the existing emergent wetland vegetation.

Revised Text: Sensitive habitats present at the project site, which include California bulrush marsh, a sensitive natural community, and EHSA associated with wetlands and open waters of Crespi Pond will be temporarily impacted by vegetation removal, which will remove approximately 61 percent of the existing emergent wetland vegetation.

PGCC 5-6-26
263
PGCC 5-6-26

ATTACHMENT A

COMMENT LETTERS
PGCC 5-6-26
264
PGCC 5-6-26

This Page Intentionally Left Blank
PGCC 5-6-26
265
PGCC 5-6-26

dtsc.ca.gov
SENT VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
November 18, 2025
Daniel Gho
Public Works Director/Deputy City Manager
City of Pacific Grove
300 Forest Avenue
Pacific Grove, CA 93950
[email protected]
RE: MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE CRESPI POND VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PROJECT DATED NOVEMBER 6, 2025 STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER 2025110213
Dear Daniel Gho:

The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) reviewed the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Crespi Pond Vegetation Management Project (Project). The Project site located at Point Piños adjacent to Ocean View Boulevard, within the Point Piños Lighthouse Reservation between the 16th and 17th holes of the municipal golf course, Assessor’s Parcel Number 007­011­006­000. The proposed Project consists of removing emergent vegetation to enhance wildlife habitat at Crespi Pond. Emergent vegetation would be removed around the pond’s perimeter and within a central portion of the pond to maintain approximately 70 percent open water habitat and 30 percent emergent vegetation. Approximately 0.55 acre (43 percent) of emergent vegetation in the pond is proposed for removal and would consist primarily of California tule with a lesser component of narrow­leaved cattail. DTSC recommends and requests consideration of the following comment:

A-1
Letter A
PGCC 5-6-26
266
PGCC 5-6-26

Daniel Gho
November 18, 2025

The Property may contain lead­based paint as outlined in this Lead Contamination figure and is located on a DTSC site, the Port Pinos Lighthouse. The site contains Land Use Restrictions outlined in the Quitclaim Deed recorded in August 2006 on the Property and the following activities are prohibited:
(1) Soil Management. No activities that will disturb the surface soil to 12 inches below ground surface (e.g. excavation, grading, removal, trenching, filling, earth movement, or mining) shall be allowed on Property without a pre­approved Soil Management Plan and a Health and Safety Plan approved by the Department. (2) Owner shall provide the Department written notice at least thirty (30) days prior to any building, filling, grading, mining, or excavation of the Property surface soil to 12 inches below the ground surface.
(3) Any soil removed from the Property shall be managed in accordance with all applicable provisions of state and federal law.

The Deed also noticed wetlands at or near the Property. Below is the language in the Deed:

The northern portion of the Property contains jurisdictional wetlands near Crespi Pond.

Activities contemplated for the Property by the GRANTEE, its successors and assigns are subject to any and all Federal, State and local laws, rules, and ordinances governing land use in wetland areas. No work by the GRANTEE, its successors or assigns on the Property, including filling, excavation, digging, or dredging is permitted in this area without a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, if applicable.

DTSC would like to thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Crespi Pond Vegetation Management Project. Thank you for your assistance in protecting California’s people and environment from the harmful effects of toxic substances. If you have any questions or would like clarification on DTSC’s comments, please respond to this letter or via our CEQA Review email for additional guidance.

A-2
A-3
A-4
PGCC 5-6-26
267
PGCC 5-6-26

Daniel Gho
November 18, 2025

Sincerely,
Dave Kereazis
Associate Environmental Planner
HWMP ­ Permitting Division – CEQA Unit
Department of Toxic Substances Control
[email protected]
cc: (via email)
Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation
State Clearinghouse
[email protected]
Thomas Tse
Senior Hazardous Substances Engineer / Project Manager
SMRP­NPL
Department of Toxic Substances Control
[email protected]
Tamara Purvis
Associate Environmental Planner
HWMP­Permitting Division – CEQA Unit
Department of Toxic Substances Control
[email protected]
Scott Wiley
Associate Governmental Program Analyst
HWMP ­ Permitting Division – CEQA Unit
Department of Toxic Substances Control
[email protected]
PGCC 5-6-26
268
PGCC 5-6-26

Dear Public Works Director,
Given our goal to protect local wildlife diversity, we support vegetation removal in Crespi Pond to increase the amount of open water, creating more diversity of habitat. We would like to emphasize that Crespi Pond is not just a water hazard for the golf course or a storm water retention basin, but is still, even in its degraded state, significant wildlife habitat. The Pacific Grove Golf Links have been active for 50+ years, but this critical bird habitat has been used by local wildlife for thousands of years. Years of sediment buildup in the Pond have encouraged continual growth of tules and cattails creating a uniform monoculture, diminishing habitat diversity while also increasing eutrophication. Coupled with run-off from the golf course, water quality in the Pond is poor, and diminishes its value to wildlife. The City is trapped in a cycle of small-scale vegetation removal every year or two, which then rapidly recolonizes in the shallow water.

The ideal situation would be to initiate a restoration plan that would include dredging and removing the accumulated silt in addition to the vegetation removal. Additional ways to improve ecosystem benefits in this pond would be to add more native plants to the edges and to contour the sides to a gradual slope versus the undercut bank we have now. Since birds utilize this area year-round, with over 160 different bird species having been sighted there, we are grateful the current work plan is slated to happen outside of the general bird nesting season (February - September) which reduces direct harm to nests, eggs, and chicks.

Our Conservation Committee worked in partnership with a professional restoration ecologist and wetland scientist, Patrick Furtado, to develop a robust summary of the biological and ecosystem functions of Crespi Pond with restoration recommendations to improve habitat function and water quality. Please review the recommendations below and consider them as an addition to this and/or future Coastal Development Permits.

Again, we support the idea of maintaining the proposed 70:30 water to vegetation ratio at Crespi Pond, but do not see this being accomplished by the proposed project plan without more dredging. Crespi Pond should be fully restored to meet habitat management goals consistent with the city environmental stewardship goals, Council-approved recommendations in the Coastal Wildlife Protection Advisory Committee report, and the Local Coastal Program.

We look forward to collaborating in the future and thank you for your work, Amanda Preece
Monterey Audubon Society Conservation Committee, Chair
B-2
B-4
B-5
B-1
B-3
Letter B
PGCC 5-6-26
269
PGCC 5-6-26

Crespi Pond Restoration Opportunity
Point Pinos and Crespi Pond form a small but strategically placed stopover and foraging complex for birds on the Pacific Flyway, a major migratory bird route that stretches from Alaska down to South America. As they are both located on the outermost tip of the Monterey Peninsula, they have an outsize importance to migratory birds moving along the coast. Along this stretch of rocky coast, freshwater is scarce, and Crespi Pond provides a reliable source of drinking water and bathing and resting habitat for migrants that have just crossed long stretches of ocean or coastal headlands.

Unfortunately, for many decades Crespi Pond
has been gradually accumulating sediments via
surface runoff, stream inflow, and bank erosion
that have reduced the depth of water in the
pond and the quality of habitat for migrating
birds, as well as for other wildlife such as native
amphibians. Construction of Ocean View
Boulevard most likely reduced the historical
natural flow of water and sediments flowing
through the pond and out to the bay.

Additionally, in a well-studied and understood
sequence of physical and biological changes, the
decreased depth of the pond has allowed
emergent aquatic vegetation, tule and cattail, to
colonize nearly 80% of the pond’s surface,
effectively converting the pond into marsh and
reducing water quality (Figure 1). This
conversion has eliminated most of the important
open water habitat that was historically used by
ducks, geese, and other waterfowl along the migratory flyway. 1 Once depths in the pond have decreased to approximately three feet due to sedimentation, tule and cattail begin to colonize. These species are highly effective at trapping additional sediments among their stems and rhizomes. Plant stems also slow water flow, causing additional 1 Freshwater ponds in the California coastal zone are ecologically rare and disproportionately valuable. Along much of the coast, lowland freshwater habitats are naturally scarce and have been heavily altered by agriculture, development, and hydrologic modification. Because of that scarcity, and because these systems sustain specialized and often imperiled species, the California Coastal Commission (CCC) routinely treats them as high-priority resources and designates them as Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHAs).

Figure 1 Crespi Pond Draft ISMND
Attachment to Letter B
PGCC 5-6-26
270
PGCC 5-6-26

suspended sediments to settle. Dead tule and cattail stalks and rhizomes also contribute large amounts of organic matter, building peat and raising the marsh surface. This feedback loop of vegetation-driven sedimentation shrinks the pond’s remaining open water into small pockets or channels. Furthermore, organic matter and sediments continuously release excessive nutrients into the pond, while decaying plant matter consumes oxygen and leads to hypoxia, anaerobic conditions, and severely degraded wildlife habitat.

Without substantial management intervention, the pond will eventually become entirely marsh, then transition to upland habitat that is easily invaded by non-native species such as poison hemlock. This full sequence of ecological succession appears to have already occurred in part, whereby a large patch of upland and highly-invasive poison hemlock has already established midway along the pond’s eastern shoreline upon excessive sediments and erosional infill, entirely eliminating important pond habitat.

The Monterey Audubon Society urgently advocates that the City of Pacific Grove takes substantial and effective interventional steps to restore Crespi Pond to its ecological role as a freshwater pond refuge for migrating waterbirds and shorebirds as well as habitat for native amphibians such as Pacific chorus frog and California red-legged frog. This historically and ecologically important pond is not only a valued asset for wildlife, but also for golfers, birdwatchers, Pacific Grove residents out for a stroll, and for increasingly nature-oriented visiting tourists.

The currently proposed vegetation removal will not be effective in the long term in restoring ecological function to Crespi Pond.2 A review of historical satellite imagery of Crespi Pond shows that a past vegetation removal project in 2015, of a strip of tule and cattail along the pond’s southwest shore, did not significantly restore open water habitat and was quickly recolonized within one to two years. Further costly piecemeal interventions such as this would be ecologically ineffective and a waste of the City’s limited financial resources.

It is Monterey Audubon’s position that nothing less than a complete draining of the pond and a significant removal of the decades-long accumulation of pond sediments will be effective for the ecological restoration of the pond. Significant portions of the pond need to have water depths restored to a minimum of 6-8 feet to prevent rapid re-colonization of tule and cattail. 2 From Crespi Pond Draft ISMND: Historically, the City has periodically performed removal of emergent vegetation under a Coastal Development Permit (CDP) or CDP Waiver issued by the California Coastal Commission (CCC) to maintain a balance of approximately 70 percent open water habitat and 30 percent emergent wetland habitat within Crespi Pond. The City has not performed vegetation maintenance at Crespi Pond since approximately 2015 due to the expiration of previous authorizations from the Coastal Commission. Since that time, emergent vegetation has expanded to occupy approximately 80 percent of the pond’s surface area. Therefore, the City intends to reinitiate removal of emergent wetland vegetation at Crespi Pond under a new CDP with a five (5)-year term to restore the balance of open water and vegetated habitats. Vegetation maintenance is expected to occur approximately every other year.

PGCC 5-6-26
271
PGCC 5-6-26

Eroding sections of shoreline also need re-sloping to prevent further erosion. Sediment and nutrient inputs upstream of the pond should be examined and potentially controlled. An upstream swale could be constructed to trap sediments and nutrients (such as golf course fertilizer) before entering the pond.

Draining the pond would also allow for the removal of invasive crayfish currently inhabiting the pond. Invasive non-native crayfish profoundly disrupt freshwater ecosystems through their predation on eggs and larvae of native amphibians, as well as upon aquatic insect populations amphibians rely on. Crayfish also change natural pond nutrient cycling via high bioturbation and carry fungi or bacteria that may affect amphibians and other aquatic animals.

A comprehensive restoration plan for Crespi Pond should be fully developed and include the restoration of riparian vegetation such as arroyo willow and creek dogwood along sections of the pond’s shoreline. A small setback of the golf course turf would allow restoration of this important habitat. Any plan should also include increased public access to the pond, which could be provided via a walkway, parallel to the current accessway to the driving range, ending at a wildlife viewing platform overlooking the pond. Additional historical and ecological interpretive signage should also be provided to better inform the public of the pond’s significance.

A comprehensive Crespi Pond restoration plan
could also include a section on the historical
ecology of the pond and advocate for a
restoration of the full surface extent of the pond
to that found before the construction of the golf
course (or even to that found immediately postconstruction, see Figure 2). It is likely that golf course construction brought the planting of turf
to the very edge of the pond without any
setback. Subsequent erosion of the banks
underneath this turf have potentially led to a
loss of 25% or more of the pond’s historical
surface area through erosional slumping and
infill, as well as through sedimentation.

Although potentially exempt from some
measures of the California Coastal Act of 1976,
due to construction of the golf course prior to
the act, the California Coastal Commission
generally requires the restoration of impacted ESHA habitat, such as that found at Crespi Pond, Figure 2 1941 aerial image of Crespi Pond – post-golf
course construction
PGCC 5-6-26
272
PGCC 5-6-26

to functionally freshwater habitat, prohibits fill or partial fill of pond habitat, prohibits the conversion of pond margins or buffers into landscaping, requires the removal of non-native species such as invasive crayfish, and requires long-term monitoring, hydrologic performance standards, and invasive species control.

Monterey Audubon also encourages the City to potentially partner in Crespi Pond restoration with entities such as the California Coastal Conservancy and the Resource Conservation District of Monterey County, which may provide both expertise and additional funding.

Thank you for reviewing this request. Restoring Crespi Pond beyond the basic tule removal will enhance habitat for birds and other wildlife, improve water quality, and benefit the entire community. We would be glad to meet with City staff to explore restoration options and to support this effort however we can.

PGCC 5-6-26
273
PGCC 5-6-26

1 Daniel Gho December 1, 2025
Public Works Director/Deputy City Manager
City of Pacific Grove – Public Works Department
300 Forest Avenue
Pacific Grove, CA 93950
Submitted via email to: [email protected]
Submitted by: Monterey Bay CNPS, P.O. Box 221303, Carmel, CA 93922 Brian LeNeve, President, [email protected]
Re: Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Crespi Pond Vegetation Management Project, APN 007-011-006 Dear Mr. Gho:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for vegetation management at Crespi Pond along Ocean View Blvd. The public comment period for the environmental review of this project closes at 5pm on December 2, 2025.

The following comments are submitted on behalf of the California Native Plant Society (CNPS), a non-profit environmental organization with over 12,500 members in 35 Chapters across California and Baja California, Mexico. The Mission of CNPS is the protection California’s native plant heritage and its preservation for future generations through the application of science, research, education, and conservation. CNPS works closely with decision-makers, scientists, and local planners to advocate for well-informed policies, regulations, and land management practices.

The Monterey Bay Chapter of CNPS (CNPS-MB) has a long history of advocating for the restoration and conservation of unique coastal habitats throughout the Monterey Bay region.

The coastal bluffs along Ocean View Blvd and habitats in the Asilomar Dune Complex in Pacific Grove are high priority conservation and restoration targets. Coastal ecosystems in this area support a suite of uncommon plants, birds and wildlife species, many of which are extremely rare and protected by the state and federal Endangered Species Acts.

Crespi Pond is a natural, coastal wetland and open water feature that provides valuable wildlife habitat, particularly for birds and amphibians. The pond was formerly a component of the Asilomar Dune Complex and today is surrounded by the municipal golf course and infrastructure that supports recreational activities. The pond is now sustained by stormwater runoff, golf course irrigation and natural inputs from rain.

C-2
C-1
C-3
Letter C
PGCC 5-6-26
274
PGCC 5-6-26

CNPS Monterey Bay Chapter Comments – Crespi Pond Vegetation Management Project 2 Inadequate maintenance in recent years has led to the build-up of sediment that provides a medium for vegetation recruitment and reduces the volume of water in the coastal pond.

Emergent wetland vegetation crowds open water habitat, water quality in the pond is poor, and non-native aquatic species like crayfish occur.

CNPS-MB supports the City’s application for a Coastal Development Permit from the California Coastal Commission to remove emergent vegetation and enhance wildlife habitat at Crespi Pond, which is considered Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA) in the Coastal Zone.

CNPS-MB concurs with the proposal described in the IS/MND to create 70% open water and 30% emergent vegetation cover in the pond. However, without significant sediment removal, California tule (Schoenoplectus californicus) and narrow-leaved cattail (Typha angustifolia) will readily recolonize and require ongoing aggressive maintenance that will lead to recurring habitat disruption.

CNPS-MB recommends that the following compliance condition be incorporated into the new Coastal Development Permit authorizing vegetation removal at Crespi Pond: Conduct shortterm vegetation removal and within 18 months of permit issuance prepare and implement a comprehensive habitat restoration plan for the site that optimizes habitat function and improves water quality.

The restoration plan should include:
- An analysis of optimum sediment and water depth.
- Reduction of golf course turf in a buffer around the pond. - Techniques to reduce golf course irrigation and nutrient inputs to the pond. - Revegetation of native plant species around the pond that are typical of local coastal and wetland habitats.
- Elimination of non-native aquatic and invasive terrestrial species. - Seasonal monitoring for native amphibians and birds.
- A schedule for regular maintenance that is designed to support the ecological function of the pond and wetland for wildlife.

Thank you for your continued efforts to restore and conserve our precious coastal resources.

Sincerely,
Brian LeNeve, CNPS Monterey Bay Chapter President
CC: Kevin Kahn, Central Coast District Manager, California Coastal Commission Katie Butler, Central Coast District Supervisor, California Coastal Commission CNPS-MB Board of Directors
C-3
C-5
C-4
C-6
PGCC 5-6-26
275
PGCC 5-6-26

1 Comments on DRAFT IS/MND, Crespi Pond Vegetation Management Project, Submitted by Lisa Ciani on December 2, 2025
INSUFFICIENT RESPONSE TO DEGRADATION RESULTING FROM THE LAST 10 YEARS OF

NEGLECT
While it's good that a "Vegetation Management Project" for Crespi Pond is finally available for public review, maintenance dredging of Crespi Pond is long overdue, and “maintenance" is no longer adequate for assuring the health of the Pond. It’s been over 10 years since the last maintenance dredging as noted in the Crespi Pond Biological Resources Report, not because of "the expiration of previous authorizations” as asserted in the Report and in the IS/MND, but because the City neglected to continue the permitted annual dredging under the 2014 CDP Waiver after dredging some time in 2015, and then neglected to apply for a new permit when the 5-year 2014 permit expired.

The Biological Report cites an 80:20 ratio of emergent vegetation to open water at the time Denise Duffy & Associates assessed the Pond in January 2024, in stark contrast to a 30:70 ratio of vegetation to water that has been recommended for decades for the health of the Pond. Since the last “annual” dredging was 10 years ago, the Biological Report is inadequate in addressing “maintenance" of Pond health. Additionally, the IS/MND also fails to address the extreme degradation of the Pond in the absence of maintenance over the last 10 years.

The IS/MND does NOT address the Project Goals and Objectives realistically:
“The goal of the proposed project is to promote a balance of vegetated and open water habitats to enhance wildlife habitat at Crespi Pond, through removal and management of emergent vegetation.
[Emergent vegetation is rooted in shallow water with stems and leaves rising above the water’s surface, such a cattails, bulrushes, and other reeds.] No evidence is shown for how, specifically, the Pond will be restored to a healthy condition overall, considering the degree of degradation. And additional compliance mitigations are necessary to avoid further neglect. Crespi Pond is a uniquely important wetland both historically and ecologically, and the City of Pacific Grove needs to demonstrate a more responsible restoration and maintenance process with accountability and monitoring.

INCOMPLETE INFORMATION
Will removing 0.55 acre of emergent vegetation, or 43%, reduce the vegetation to open water ratio to the recommended 30:70 vegetation to water ratio? D-1
D-2
D-3
D-4
D-5
D-6
Letter D
PGCC 5-6-26
276
PGCC 5-6-26

2 I can find no statement of the size of the Pond in the CEQA document. The Project Site is described as approximately 2 acres, presumably including staging areas, etc. Pacific Grove’s 1994 General Plan says the Pond is 1.28 acres. Doing the math, if .55 acre is 43% of the emergent vegetation, then the total acreage of emergent vegetation would be 1.28 acres, and the total Pond area would be 1.6 acres. Removing .55 acre of vegetation from

1.28 acres of emergent vegetation would leave .73 acre of vegetation, which would be 46% vegetation and 54% open water, and would apparently not achieve the 30:70 ratio.

In the Biological Report, on page 13, the section on Wetlands under Sensitive Habitats says, "the project site contains 1.3 acres of wetlands…as well as 0.36 acres of open water". That would total 1.66 acres for the Pond. It’s not clear what numbers the consultants are using in determining the amount of vegetation to be removed. What total Pond area are they using? How do they arrive at a 30:70 ratio of vegetation to water? Is only vegetation and not sediment to be removed?
As described in the IS/MND only the vegetation down to the root mass is being dredged.

The sediment that builds up from golf course and stormwater runoff and decaying vegetation that has kept the Pond shallow and promoted the overgrowth of emergent vegetation is not discussed. The Coastal Commission’s 2004 Coastal Development Permit (CDP) for 5-Year Long-Term Maintenance of Crespi Pond was based on recommendations of a "November 2001 biological Assessment and Restoration of Dune Habitat prepared for the City of Pacific Grove by Rana Creek Habitat Restoration biologists", including recommendations for maintaining the 70:30 open water to emergent vegetation ratio “at a depth of 4 feet”. At the time of the staff report for that CDP in December 2003, the depth was 3 feet.

The current IS/MND states, “The pond has a maximum depth of approximately three feet and receives stormwater inputs as well as irrigation runoff and natural input from rainfall.” (Page 3) Vegetation removal may only increase the depth by approximately 1’-2’, per the IS/MND (page 4):
"Removal of the root zone may deepen the pond between approximately one and two feet.”

LACK OF CONSISTENCY WITH PREVIOUS COASTAL COMMISSION-APPROVED

STANDARDS
Surface area or volume to be removed—how is the amount of material to be confirmed? How is the 30:70 ratio to be confirmed?
In the last two Coastal Commission CDPs, in 2004 and 2014, for maintenance dredging of Crespi Pond, “Annual removal of up to 200 cubic yards of aquatic vegetation for pond maintenance” was approved. Why is the IS/MND using area (acres) instead of volume (cubic yards) to determine how much they’re removing? How does 0.55 acre specified for removal in the IS/MND compare with the 200 cubic yard maximum specified in the last two CDPs?
D-7
D-8
D-6
PGCC 5-6-26
277
PGCC 5-6-26

3 Time limitations for dredging differ without explanation.

The 2014 Coastal Commission CDP Waiver specifies, “All activities will be limited to the Fall season between September 1 and November 31 [sic] each year in order to avoid California red legged frog (CRLF) breeding season." It also specifies this time range to avoid rainy season and to perform the work when the water level is below the overflow culvert. (Does the rainy season start earlier now than 20 years ago, or 10 years ago?) What is the current water level in the Pond in relation to the overflow culvert? Wetland expertise is needed to recommend restoration measures for the health of this significant wetland, known for its biodiversity.

The 2004 CDP stated that, “Historically, the Golf Course has obtained a Waiver from the Coastal Commission each time maintenance was required at Crespi Pond, which generally occurs every other year. However, because maintaining an optimum level of open water and vegetated habitat is an ongoing requirement, the Golf Course Superintendent, Mike Leach, is requesting a long-term maintenance permit to conduct this work.” The 2014 CDP Waiver was a 5-year permit “for annual maintenance of Crespi Pond including up to 200 cubic yards of aquatic vegetation removal”. The current IS/MND says annual dredging is too much, but how can the 30:70 balance be achieved and maintained unless dredging is conducted annually or the Pond is drained or excavated to a depth that does not promote overgrowth of emergent vegetation? Sediment build-up is not addressed. Humans have altered the balance by building a road (Ocean View Blvd) and a golf course. The reeds provide one excellent kind of habitat, but they degrade the wetland if not in the proper balance.

The 2004 Coastal Commission CDP had a Special Condition requiring Environmental Monitoring during construction “to ensure compliance with all mitigation requirements during the construction phase”. And the City had a Crespi Pond Advisory Committee at that time whose approval was required. Providing an Environmental Monitor during construction and re-establishing a Crespi Pond Advisory Committee, or a subcommittee of the BNRC, would be mitigations to consider.

UNACCEPTABLE WATER QUALITY REPORTS
The findings of the quarterly water quality reports for Crespi Pond are not being addressed.

The most recent report I received from the City’s Environmental Programs Manager is Pacific Grove Local Water Project Monitoring Results – September 2024. It states, “Crespi Pond exceeded the action levels for chloride, Kjeldahl nitrogen, sodium, total dissolved solids, and total nitrogen.” This should be addressed in the IS/MND.

D-9
D-10
D-11
D-12
D-13
D-14
PGCC 5-6-26
278
PGCC 5-6-26

4 The Pond seems to serve two priorities for the City: 1) as a water hazard for the golf course, and 2) as a retention basin for stormwater runoff from the golf course where sediments have a chance to settle and not overflow and carry polluted water into the Marine Sanctuary. Wildlife habitat must be the first priority.

This IS/MND does not provide sufficient information or focused corrective measures, informed by wetland expertise, to address the current extreme imbalance. The IS/MND must address the need for accountability and a comprehensive restoration plan. Significant revisions are needed to carry out the goal to enhance wildlife habitat at Crespi Pond.

D-15
D-16
PGCC 5-6-26
279
PGCC 5-6-26

Anthony A. Ciani 220 Walnut Street Pacific Grove, California 93950 1 November 17, 2025
Mr. Daniel Gho, Director
Department of Public Works
City of Pacific
300 Forest Avenue
Pacific Grove, CA 93950
Via Email: Daniel Gho [email protected]
RE: DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Crespi Pond Vegetation Management Project
Dear Director Gho,
Please consider the following comments:
1) The DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION does not appear to list all of the “Responsible Agencies” including the California Coastal Commission (CCC); or the deadline for responsible agencies to comment. Note: the previous permits to manage Crespi Pond were in the jurisdiction of the CCC which still has jurisdiction upon appeal.
2) Regarding the U.S.C.G. quit claimed Crespi Pond to the City of Pacific Grove as part of the Lighthouse Station and Reservation lands on August 23, 2006, including Covenants Endangered Species Section 3, and Wetlands section 9; does the proposed project comply with the covenants in the deed?
3) Historical records, including topographical surveys and aerial photographs indicate the estuary wetland area was subject to surface water infiltration from sheet flow from higher adjacent land and a large swale at the toe of an embankment leading from the southeast.

Aerial photos since the Municipal Golf Course was completed indicate surface water flow in a swale leading from the southeast through a stand of Cypress trees with standing ponds of water and boggy soils between the trees and estuary. It appears the east edge of the wetland extends to the trees. The City of Pacific Grove Coastal Wildlife Protection Advisory Committee’s “Recommendations to Mitigate Identified Threats to Coastal Wildlife” (June 8, 2021) states: Crespi Pond is an important bird habitat, and under “Threats,” states:
“Degradation of water quality and habitat at Crespi Pond. In particular removal of native wetland grasses and habitats and replacement with biologically homogenous golf course grasses has reduced volume and diversity of bird species.”
E-1
E-2
E-3
E-4
Letter E
PGCC 5-6-26
280
PGCC 5-6-26

Anthony A. Ciani 220 Walnut Street Pacific Grove, California 93950 2 November 17, 2025
Daniel Gho, Director of Public Works
City of Pacific Grove
RE: Crespi Pond Vegetation Management Project Draft IS/MND

(Ciani)
Also, the Golf Course drains and or pumps runoff from turf areas into Crespi Pond. See Photos below1:

January 2023 (Ciani)
The recent Pacific Grove Local Water Project Monitoring Results - Quarterly Analysis Results for Crespi Pond, indicate high levels of chloride and nitrogen in the water and 1 Daniel Gho, City of Pacific Grove, Public Works Director / Deputy City Manager, Email: Mr. Ciani, This is generated from surface water/ drainage on the golf course on the 11th hole. January 2, 2023 E-5
E-6
PGCC 5-6-26
281
PGCC 5-6-26

Anthony A. Ciani 220 Walnut Street Pacific Grove, California 93950 3 November 17, 2025
Daniel Gho, Director of Public Works
City of Pacific Grove
RE: Crespi Pond Vegetation Management Project Draft IS/MND

possibly in the soil which should require further investigation and mitigation measures in consultation with the department of US Fish and Wildlife and the Coastal Commission’s ecologists to protect, restore and enhance the estuary.

The Report and IS/MND should also provide scientific evidence of the wetland grass and other plant species and soil classifications to determine the botanical and biological boundaries of the estuary wetlands and establish a buffer area.

Additionally, the Report and IS/MND should address drainage from the golf course into Crespi Pond and a permanent method to protect, restore and enhance the estuary. 4) The 1979 photo below indicates that the area between the estuary and trees to the east was not part of the original golf course design. More recent photos depict a tall wood and net fencing and expansion for a golf practice area that may not have obtained a Coastal Development Permit (CDP) as required by the Coastal Act since 1973. How was the fence location determined; and did it obtain necessary permits (please provide a copy of the permit reports, findings and recommendations.)?
N36 38.44 W121 55.91 Image 7933044 Mon Apr 30 15:24:00 1979 Copyright © 2004 Kenneth & Gabrielle Adelman. All rights reserved. 5) Crespi Pond has a weir that manages the maximum water level in the pond with an overflow outlet and culvert that discharges to the sea including into Monterey Bay. I understand dredging should occur only “when water levels are well below the top of the weir so that no discharge to Monterey Bay occurs during dredging activities.”2 The IS/MND should provide how this will occur.
2 Harris and Associates, CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PHASE 9 – COASTAL ZONE SEGMENTS, FINAL INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION, ADOPTED BY CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE PLANNING COMMISSION ON: JULY 13, 2023
E-6
E-7
E-8
E-9
E-10
PGCC 5-6-26
282
PGCC 5-6-26

Anthony A. Ciani 220 Walnut Street Pacific Grove, California 93950 4 November 17, 2025
Daniel Gho, Director of Public Works
City of Pacific Grove
RE: Crespi Pond Vegetation Management Project Draft IS/MND

6) The Report states the maximum depth of the pond is three (3’) feet, however, siltation since it was last dredged may have reduced the depth. Geological tests should be conducted to determine depth of layers of and types of sedimentation and bedrock. The Report should reevaluate the optimum depth, location and type of plant materials to restore and enhance Crespi Pond, including re-habituation with native animal species. 7) The Crespi Pond Biological Report prepared by Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. indicates that Crespi Pond is a “fresh water pond” partially surrounded by a fringe emergent wetland. However, the land area to the northeast is subject to flooding by seawater during King Tides and or, Severe Winter storms. Sea water flows into the pond; see photo below: The Report should discuss sea water infiltration into the pond and the IS/MND should address the effects.
(Ciani -2019)
8) The “NOTICE OF INTENT [NOI] TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECALARTION FOR THE CRESPI POND VEGATION3 MANAGEMENT
PROJECT” (NOVEMBER 3, 2025) provides: “As required by the LCP Implementation Plan (IP), the application includes a Biological Resources Report.” However, the IP also provides in
“Section. 23.90.200 Cultural Resources.
3 ‘Vegation”: presumedly this is a typo.

E-11
E-12
E-13
PGCC 5-6-26
283
PGCC 5-6-26

Anthony A. Ciani 220 Walnut Street Pacific Grove, California 93950 5 November 17, 2025
Daniel Gho, Director of Public Works
City of Pacific Grove
RE: Crespi Pond Vegetation Management Project Draft IS/MND

“(a) In order to protect the city’s archaeological and historic resources, and to maintain consistency with the LCP’s land use plan (LUP), development shall conform to all applicable LUP cultural resources policies and the following requirements.
“(b) Applications for Development Potentially Affecting Cultural Resources. The following documentation and requirements shall be provided for all CDP applications that may impact cultural resources.
“(1) Archaeological Report. Due to the archaeological sensitivity of the entire Pacific Grove Coastal Zone, an archaeological report for projects that include soil disturbance shall be prepared by a qualified archaeologist prior to approval of the project. Landscaping that does not involve construction of structures or changes to the site contours greater than one foot are exempt from this requirement.” [Etc.] The NOI indicates that the applicant (Public Works Department) did not require or obtain an Archaeological Report, however, the site is in the “Archaeologically Sensitive Area, Figure 7, LCP page 83. LCP Policies: CRS-1 through CRS-4.” Furthermore, Archaeological investigations performed in 1947 and 1977 determined that the area around the Pond has historic or prehistoric midden. The Pacific Local Coastal Program and City General Plan designate the site to be in an archaeologically sensitive area; therefore, the study should have an archaeological report and be subject to archaeological and tribal monitoring. As with the Pacific Grove Wastewater Collection System project in 2023, “…pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1, City of Pacific Grove Public Works staff [must] initiate[d] consultation via notification letters with local Native American tribes … Note: Conducting consultation early in the CEQA process allows tribal governments, lead agencies, and project proponents to discuss the level of environmental review and identify and address potential impacts.”4 9) Additionally, The City of Pacific Grove Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan (LUP) provides:
• “. . .legally designated areas include Areas of Special Biological Significance (ASBS) identified by the State Water Resources Control Board; State Marine Protected Areas; rare and endangered species habitat; all coastal wetlands. . .” (LUP, Page 51). • November 17, 20205
• Daniel Gho, Director of Public Works
4 Ibid
E-13
E-14
PGCC 5-6-26
284
PGCC 5-6-26

Anthony A. Ciani 220 Walnut Street Pacific Grove, California 93950 6 November 17, 2025
City of Pacific Grove
RE: Crespi Pond Vegetation Management Project Draft IS/MND Page
• “Crespi Pond is another wetland which supports a significant patch of dense freshwater marsh vegetation dominated by broad-leaved cattail and California bulrush, and which also provides foraging and nesting habitat for local and migratory birds as well as other native species. Crespi Pond is part of the city-designated Lighthouse Reservation and golf course, identified as an area of Scientific and Ecological Significance. . . “ (Ibid). • [LUP Policy] BIO-4. Preserve and maintain wetlands in the Coastal Zone as productive wildlife habitats and protect wetlands against significant disruption of habitat values. (Ibid, page 59).
• The site is in the Archaeologically Sensitive Area, Figure 7, LCP page 83. LCP Policies:

CRS-1 through CRS-4).
• Figure 4, Scenic Areas, shows the areas designated by the City as having special scenic significance; however, it is also the policy of the City to consider and protect the visual quality of all scenic areas that are part of the public viewshed, whether designated or not, as a resource of public importance. The portion of Pacific Grove’s Coastal Zone designated scenic includes: all public view areas along Pacific Grove’s shoreline; all areas seaward of Ocean View Boulevard and Sunset Drive as shown on Figure 4, Scenic Areas; Lighthouse Reservation lands; LCP page 47.

Crespi Pond is a biological, cultural and aesthetic resource. It is part of the lands of the ancestors of California Native people who inhabited the area including Crespi Pond during prehistoric periods.5 It is a visually important feature in the Point of Pines historical setting during the discovery of Monterey Bay. A Bronze Plaque adjacent to Crespi Pond serves as a commemorative marker to Juan Crespi, namesake for the estuary. The biological assessment and IS/MND must be updated for the entire Crespi Pond wetland and surrounding area by a specialist to determine the wetland boundaries, buffer areas, and address the current conditions and recommend an up-to-date maintenance and monitoring reporting program to protect, restore and enhance the ESHA. An archaeological report is required to inform the project and IS/MND; and the aesthetic quality of Crespi Pond should be evaluated as a ”scenic resource.” Respectfully,
Tony Ciani
Tony Ciani
Cc: Pacific Grove City Council, Planning Commission, Beautification and Natural Resources Commission, Historical Resources Committee, California Coastal Commission, Monterey Audubon Society, US Fish and Wildlife (Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office), Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary – Water Quality Report (Lindsay Brown, Urban Water Quality Program Coordinator) 5 City of Pacific Grove, PT PINOS COASTAL TRAIL DRAFT COASTAL TRAIL STUDY AND PLAN, 2017:

P. 35
E-14
PGCC 5-6-26
285
PGCC 5-6-26

Anthony A. Ciani 220 Walnut Street Pacific Grove, California 93950 1 December 1, 2025
Mr. Daniel Gho, Director
Department of Public Works
City of Pacific
300 Forest Avenue
Pacific Grove, CA 93950
Via Email: Daniel Gho [email protected]
RE: DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Crespi Pond Vegetation Management Project, SUPPLEMENTAL COMMENTS Dear Director Gho,
This letter shall serve to provide comments in addition to those in my November 17, 2025, letter regarding the IS/MND. The following is a summary of the IS/MND REPORT’S deficiencies:
1) The Notice of Completion & Environmental Document Transmittal, digitally signed on 11/04/2025 by Lead Agency Representative Dan Gho, failed to include the Coastal Commission as a Responsible Agency on the State Clearinghouse distribution list. In fact, no agencies on the “Reviewing Agency Checklist” were marked. 2) The City of Pacific Grove General Plan and Local Coastal Program (March 20, 2020) which serve as guiding principles for the review of the project, are referenced below as LCP LUP.
3) CULTURAL RESOURCES. The IS/MND assessment of the potential impacts to cultural (archaeological or historical) resources erroneously determined:
“No Impact. No historic resources are known to be on the project site. The project site is not a historical site, nor is the project site adjacent to a historical site (Albion, 2024)”.

In fact, however, the “ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVENTORY AND EVALUATIONOF THE U.S. LIGHTHOUSE RESERVATION PACIFIC GROVE, MONTEREY COUNTY, CALIFORNIA by ROB EDWARDS and GARY S. BRESCHINI, November 1977”, conducted for the U. S. Coast Guard as part of the anticipated transfer of the Lighthouse Reservation including Crespi Pond to the City of Pacific Grove as required by the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 concluded:
“The conclusions that were produced [for the Lighthouse Reservation] property contains nine prehistoric archaeological sites, forming a highly significant community from which a detailed understanding of the past can be obtained, and which should be nominated [as an archaeological district] to the National Register of Historic Places.”
F-1
F-2
F-3
F-4
Letter F
PGCC 5-6-26
286
PGCC 5-6-26

Anthony A. Ciani 220 Walnut Street Pacific Grove, California 93950 2 December 1, 2025
Mr. Daniel Gho, Director
RE: DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Crespi Pond Vegetation Management Project, SUPPLEMENTAL COMMENTS

Furthermore, the 1977 archaeological survey found:
“The opportunity to conduct research in such a community, and to gain a detailed understanding of one such area will then be of great importance to adjacent regions. . . they constitute a tremendously valuable resource for several reasons--they are possibly the best-preserved community on the Monterey Peninsula”
LCP LUP POLICY CRS-3 requires: “The City shall require new development to prepare an archaeological report by a qualified professional and, where appropriate, shall require mitigation measures to adequately protect and preserve potential archeological resources.”
There is substantial evidence that the project site is part of an important archaeological district, and the project could result in significant adverse effects, not less-than-significant impacts. Pursuant to CRS-3, the archaeological report must be revised to protect the archaeological resources, and the project may require an EIR. 4) RECREATIONAL RESOURCE. Crespi Pond is a unique recreational resource that is an integral part of the Lighthouse Reservation property has existed for many centuries before the golf course was installed in 1959. The LCP LUP designates it as Open Space- Recreation and provides:
“[Crespi Pond] is a unique resource that provides habitat for wildlife, opportunities for birdwatching and scientific study, and is considered an Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA) under the California Coastal Act (Coastal Act).”
And,
“Crespi Pond provides a stopping place for migrating bird species including terns, gulls, many species of ducks, and Canada geese; and hundreds of different birds continue to be sighted. It is a site for ornithological studies and is of interest to the scientific community”. (LCP LUP, p. 40) Thus, protection, restoration and enhancement of the Crespi Pond should take precedence over the estuary’s use as a hazard feature in the golf course, including to prevent its pollution from chemicals used on the golf course that are harmful to the water quality and wetland habitat. The Crespi Pond estuary per se should not serve as a filter, siltation pit or sedimentation trap.

F-5
F-4
PGCC 5-6-26
287
PGCC 5-6-26

Anthony A. Ciani 220 Walnut Street Pacific Grove, California 93950 3 December 1, 2025
Mr. Daniel Gho, Director
RE: DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Crespi Pond Vegetation Management Project, SUPPLEMENTAL COMMENTS

In compliance with LCP LUP Policy MAR-1, 2, 3, 6 & 8; the IS/MND mitigation measures should include a designed 100-foot buffer to filter runoff from the golf course including silt fences, silt ponds, and sediment traps and a catch filter pit system above and around the estuary. A linear drain should be installed on the inland edge of Ocean View Boulevard to direct street runoff to the City’s sewer sump pump. 5) BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES, HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY.

The boundaries of the wetland depicted in the report appear to be arbitrary (see “Final Comments” below). The IS/MND Crespi Pond Biological Resources Report’s “Wetland” study examined the soil and plants at several locations in and adjacent to the existing pond, however, it did not examine areas for potential hydric soils observed to flow into the pond and flood surrounding areas. In particular, the brook in and around the Monterey Cypress Trees located east of the pond, and in the soggy areas of the so-called driving range between the trees and pond may be hydric soils. See photos below:

Looking west through trees and across the Driving Range (February 2019) F-6
F-7
PGCC 5-6-26
288
PGCC 5-6-26

Anthony A. Ciani 220 Walnut Street Pacific Grove, California 93950 4 December 1, 2025
Mr. Daniel Gho, Director
RE: DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Crespi Pond Vegetation Management Project, SUPPLEMENTAL COMMENTS

Brook - Looking Southwest across Driving Range (March 2024) The areas around the estuary should be tested for hydric soils and the project should be modified with mitigation measures to protect and restore them with a 100-foot buffer filter zone.

F-7
PGCC 5-6-26
289
PGCC 5-6-26

Anthony A. Ciani 220 Walnut Street Pacific Grove, California 93950 5 December 1, 2025
Mr. Daniel Gho, Director
RE: DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Crespi Pond Vegetation Management Project, SUPPLEMENTAL COMMENTS

6) GEOLOGY AND PUBLIC ACCESS.

The IS/MND does not appear to address potential adverse impacts from flooding in the low-lying flood-prone areas as evidenced during high wave events severe winter storms or king high tides. Waves that wash over Ocean View Boulevard flow into Crespi Pond carrying deposits of organic materials, sand and boulders (see photos below). The IS/MND does not appear to address potential hazards due to wave runup or address potential impacts from Sea Level Rise. Ocean waves flood the Coastal Trail, road and Crespi Pond with vegetation, boulders and salt water and interfere with public access to and along the shoreline. See photos below.

Looking west at Ocean View Blvd. and Crespi Pond (January 2023) F-8
PGCC 5-6-26
290
PGCC 5-6-26

Anthony A. Ciani 220 Walnut Street Pacific Grove, California 93950 6 December 1, 2025
Mr. Daniel Gho, Director
RE: DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Crespi Pond Vegetation Management Project, SUPPLEMENTAL COMMENTS

Apparently, the City is in violation of the Coastal Commission’s 2015, Five-year permit (CDP # 3-14-0375-W) for its failure to conduct the vegetation of Crespi Pond maintenance annually.

The City should mitigate its failure to manage the estuary by engaging a licensed civil engineer to prepare a detailed topographic recorded survey and photo-documentation to ensure that this resource is properly recorded in a reliable manner, including to map the topography and precise boundaries of the estuary for the current project, and long-term protection and future plans to enhance Crespi Pond. The recorded survey would provide a baseline for the estuary size, areas of open water and vegetation, and condition, as well as use for future studies. It should set permanent monument offset markers from the pond delineating the boundary of the estuary and wetland buffer areas.

The stated goal of the IS/MND is “… to enhance wildlife habitat at Crespi Pond …” To achieve that goal and to implement the policies of the LCP LUP, the highest priority for Lighthouse Reservation as a municipal park and recreational use should be preservation and enhancement of Crespi Pond. To achieve that goal, the IS/MND should provide alternatives to prevent the chemical “action levels” from exceeding the acceptable water quality standards for Crespi Pond. Additionally, the project design should incorporate solutions to reduce siltation and sedimentation in the estuary by providing adequate filtration barriers, diverter channels, siltation ponds and filter systems.

Also, “… to enhance wildlife habitat at Crespi Pond …” the golf course layout or rules should be modified to prevent pollution from golf balls entering in Crespi Pond.

The 2024 Archaeological Report used for the IS/MND must be corrected to accurately address the findings and conclusions in the 1977 Edwards and Breschini report to the U.S. Coast Guard and recommend adequate mitigation measures.

Respectfully,
Tony Ciani
Tony Ciani
Cc: Pacific Grove City Council, Planning Commission, Beautification and Natural Resources Commission, Historical Resources Committee, California Coastal Commission, Monterey Audubon Society, US Fish and Wildlife (Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office), Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary – Water Quality Report (Lindsay Brown, Urban Water Quality Program Coordinator) F-9
F-10
F-11
F-12
F-13
PGCC 5-6-26
291
PGCC 5-6-26

DRAFT

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE

DECLARATION
Crespi Pond Vegetation Management Project
October 2025
Prepared By: Prepared with the Assistance of:

City of Pacific Grove
300 Forest Avenue
Pacific Grove, CA 93950
Contact: Daniel Gho
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.
947 Cass Street, Suite 5
Monterey, California 93940
Contact: Erin Harwayne
PGCC 5-6-26
292
PGCC 5-6-26

This page was left intentionally blank.

PGCC 5-6-26
293
PGCC 5-6-26

CRESPI POND VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PROJECT IS/MND Page i Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. October 2025
Table of Contents
I. Background Information................................................................................ 1 II. Description of Project and Environmental Setting ....................................... 3 A. Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 3 B. Project Location ............................................................................................................... 3 c. Existing Use...................................................................................................................... 3 D. Project Description........................................................................................................... 3 E. Project Goals and Objectives ............................................................................................ 4 F. Project Approvals and Permits Required............................................................................ 4 III. Environmental Factors Potentially Affected and Determination ................. 7 A. Factors ............................................................................................................................ 7 B. Determination.................................................................................................................. 8 IV. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts........................................................... 9 V. Environmental Checklist.............................................................................. 11

1. Aesthetics......................................................................................................................11

2. Agriculture and Forestry Resources.................................................................................13

3. Air Quality ......................................................................................................................15

4. Biological Resources ......................................................................................................19

5. Cultural Resources.........................................................................................................23

6. Energy............................................................................................................................27

7. Geology and Soils...........................................................................................................28

8. Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................................................31

9. Hazards and Hazardous Materials...................................................................................33

10. Hydrology and Water Quality...........................................................................................36

11. Land Use and Planning ...................................................................................................40

12. Mineral Resources..........................................................................................................41

13. Noise .............................................................................................................................42

14. Population and Housing..................................................................................................44

15. Public Services...............................................................................................................45

16. Recreation .....................................................................................................................47

17. Transportation................................................................................................................48 PGCC 5-6-26
294
PGCC 5-6-26

CRESPI POND VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PROJECT IS/MND Page ii Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. October 2025

18. Tribal Cultural Resources................................................................................................50

19. Utilities and Service Systems ..........................................................................................53

20. Wildfire ..........................................................................................................................55 VI. Mandatory Findings of Significance............................................................57 Discussion/Mitigation .............................................................................................................57 VII. Fish and Game Environmental Document Fees ..................................59 Assessment of Fee .................................................................................................................59 VIII. References .............................................................................................. 61 APPENDIX A–CRESPI POND ................................................................................63 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES REPORT ........................................................................63

FIGURES
Figure 1 – Project Location ....................................................................................................... 5 Figure 2 – Land Use Map .......................................................................................................... 6 TABLES
Table 3-1 – Summary of National Air Quality Standards ....................................................... 16 Table 3-2 – Attainment Status for the NCCAB ....................................................................... 17 Table 3-3 – Air Quality Significance Threshold ...................................................................... 17

APPENDICES
Appendix A – Biological Resources Assessment Report
PGCC 5-6-26
295
PGCC 5-6-26

CRESPI POND VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PROJECT IS/MND Page iii Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. October 2025
Acronyms and Abbreviations
Acronym/Abbreviation Definition
3CE Central Coast Community Energy
AAM Annual Arithmetic Mean
APN Assessor’s Parcel Number
AQMP Air Quality Management Plan
ARB Air Resources Board
CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards
CALFIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire
Protection
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CCAA California Clean Air Act
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CESA California Endangered Species Act
CFC Chlorofluorocarbons
CH4 Methane
City City of Pacific Grove
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
CNPPA California Native Plant Protection Act
CO2 Carbon Dioxide
CO2e Carbon Dioxide Equivalent
CO Carbon Monoxide
CRHR California Register of Historical Resources
dB Decibel
dBA A-Weighted Decibel
CDC California Department of Conservation
DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control
EIR Environmental Impact Report
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ESA Endangered Species Act
FCCA Federal Clean Air Act
FMMP Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
GHG Greenhouse Gas
IS Initial Study
IS/MND Initial Study/Negative Declaration
Lbs/day Pounds Per Day
Leq Equivalent Noise Level
LCP Local Coastal Program
LRA Local Responsibility Area
M1W Monterey One Water
MBARD Monterey Bay Air Resources District
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
MBUAPCD Monterey Bay Air Pollution Control District
MT/YR Metric Tons Per Year
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
NCCAB North Central Coast Air Basin
NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service
NO2 Nitrogen Dioxide
NOX Nitrogen Oxides
PGCC 5-6-26
296
PGCC 5-6-26

CRESPI POND VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PROJECT IS/MND Page iv Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. October 2025
Acronym/Abbreviation Definition
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NPL National Priority List
O3 Ozone
PF Public Facility District
PM2.5 Fine Particulate Matter
PM10 Particulate Matter
PPB Parts Per Billion
PPM Parts Per Million
PRC California Public Resource Code
ROG Reactive Organic Gasses
RMP Resource Management Plan
SB Senate Bill
SO2 Sulfur Dioxide
SRA State Responsibility Area
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled
VOC Volatile Organic Compounds
PGCC 5-6-26
297
PGCC 5-6-26

CRESPI POND VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PROJECT IS/MND Page v Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. October 2025
This page was left intentionally blank.

PGCC 5-6-26
298
PGCC 5-6-26

CRESPI POND VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PROJECT IS/MND Page 1 Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. October 2025
I. BACKGROUND INFORMATION

1. Project Title: Crespi Pond Vegetation Management Project

2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Pacific Grove. 300 Forest Avenue. Pacific Grove, CA 93950

3. Contact Person and Phone Number:

Daniel Gho, Director of Public Works
City of Pacific Grove
(831) 648-5722 ext 4203
[email protected]

4. Project Location: The Crespi Pond Vegetation Management Project (project or proposed project) is located at Point Piños in the City of Pacific Grove. The project site is immediately adjacent to Ocean View Boulevard, within the Point Piños Lighthouse Reservation between the 16th and 17th holes of the municipal golf course (see Figure 1). The proposed project is located in the Coastal Zone of Pacific Grove, within the jurisdiction of the City’s Local Coastal Program (LCP). The proposed project is on Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 007-011-006-000. The project is located approximately four miles northwest of State Route 1 (SR 1) and approximately one mile north of State Route (SR 68), which provide regional access to the area. Lighthouse Avenue and Asilomar Avenue connect the City to SR 1 and SR 68 and provide primary local access to the site.

5. Project Setting: Land uses surrounding the site include the municipal golf course, Ocean View Boulevard and the Monterey Bay Recreational Trail to the north, and residential developments to the east. The project site consists of Crespi Pond, which includes open water and emergent wetland habitat and is immediately surrounded by golf course turf.

6. Project Description: The proposed project consists of removing emergent vegetation to enhance wildlife habitat at Crespi Pond. Alteration of wetlands is generally prohibited by the City Land Use Plan (LUP). However, §2.2.4 of the City LUP provides an exception for maintenance of Crespi Pond (City of Pacific Grove, 2020). Emergent vegetation would be removed around the pond’s perimeter and within a central portion of the pond to maintain approximately 70 percent open water habitat and 30 percent emergent vegetation. Approximately 0.55 acre (43 percent) of emergent vegetation in the pond is proposed for removal and would consist primarily of California tule (Schoenoplectus californicus) with a lesser component of narrow-leaved cattail (Typha angustifolia).

7. Acreage of Project Site: The project site is approximately two (2) acres.

8. Land Use Designations: The City’s Land Use Plan and Zoning Ordinance designate the project site as Open Space/Recreational Trail, which accommodates recreational uses, wildlife and forest preserves, parks, playgrounds, and public serving buildings, structures, and parking facilities (see Figure 2).

9. Date Prepared: October 8, 2025

10. Prepared By: Denise Duffy and Associates, Inc.

PGCC 5-6-26
299
PGCC 5-6-26

CRESPI POND VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PROJECT IS/MND Page 2 Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. October 2025
This page left intentionally blank
PGCC 5-6-26
300
PGCC 5-6-26

CRESPI POND VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PROJECT IS/MND Page 3 Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. October 2025
II. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
A. INTRODUCTION
This project description has been prepared for the proposed project, located in the City of Pacific Grove (City), within Monterey County, California (County). The following section is consistent with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines §15124 to the extent that it is applicable to the project. The following sections contain a detailed description of the project location, existing setting, project components, and relevant project characteristics.

B. PROJECT LOCATION
The proposed project is located at Crespi Pond, which is situated within the Point Piños Lighthouse Reservation, between the 16th and 17th holes of the municipal golf course, in Pacific Grove, Monterey County, California (see Figure 1). The proposed project is in the Coastal Zone of Pacific Grove, on APN 007-011-006- 000. The City of Pacific Grove Land Use Plan (City LUP, Figure 6: Coastal Zone Land Use Designations) designates the project site as Open Space Recreational (OS-R) and the City’s Zoning Map classifies the site as Open Space (O), which accommodates recreational uses, wildlife and forest preserves, parks, playgrounds, and public serving buildings, structures, and parking facilities (see Figure 2). The municipal golf course immediately surrounds the project site. Additional surrounding land uses include Ocean View Boulevard and the Monterey Bay Coastal Trail to the north, residential development to the east, and the municipal golf course and Point Piños Lighthouse Reservation to the west.

C. EXISTING USE
Crespi Pond is a freshwater pond partially surrounded by fringe emergent wetland, located in the Coastal Zone of Pacific Grove. The pond has a maximum depth of approximately three feet and receives stormwater inputs as well as irrigation runoff and natural input from rainfall. It is a unique resource that provides habitat for wildlife, opportunities for birdwatching and scientific study, and is considered an Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA) under the California Coastal Act (Coastal Act). Crespi Pond is also a feature of the municipal golf course and creates a water hazard for golf play between the 16th and 17th holes. Crespi Pond occasionally goes dry in drought years and when full, discharges through a culvert beneath Ocean View Boulevard to the adjacent beach.

Historically, the City has periodically performed removal of emergent vegetation under a Coastal Development Permit (CDP) or CDP Waiver issued by the California Coastal Commission (CCC) to maintain a balance of approximately 70 percent open water habitat and 30 percent emergent wetland habitat within Crespi Pond. The City has not performed vegetation maintenance at Crespi Pond since approximately 2015 due to the expiration of previous authorizations from the Coastal Commission. Since that time, emergent vegetation has expanded to occupy approximately 80 percent of the pond’s surface area. Therefore, the City intends to reinitiate removal of emergent wetland vegetation at Crespi Pond under a new CDP with a five (5)-year term to restore the balance of open water and vegetated habitats. Vegetation maintenance is expected to occur approximately every other year.

D. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Proposed project consists of removing emergent vegetation to enhance wildlife habitat at Crespi Pond.

Alteration of wetlands is generally prohibited by the City LUP. However, §2.2.4 of the City LUP provides an exception for maintenance of Crespi Pond (City of Pacific Grove, 2020). Emergent vegetation would be removed around the pond’s perimeter and within a central portion of the pond to maintain approximately 70 percent open water habitat and 30 percent emergent vegetation. Approximately 0.55 acre (43 percent) of PGCC 5-6-26
301
PGCC 5-6-26

CRESPI POND VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PROJECT IS/MND Page 4 Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. October 2025
emergent vegetation in the pond is proposed for removal and would consist primarily of California tule (Schoenoplectus californicus) with a lesser component of narrow-leaved cattail (Typha angustifolia).

The work would be performed using a barge-mounted hydraulic arm and clam bucket attachment (i.e., Aquamog). Food-grade, biodegradable hydraulic fluid would be used for lubricating and powering the equipment. The barge would be launched from the northern bank of the pond into the remaining area of open water and emergent vegetation would be removed down to the root mass. Removal of the root zone may deepen the pond between approximately one (1) and two (2) feet. As vegetation is removed, it would be piled along the edge of the pond to allow vegetation to dry. Once the piles of vegetation have been sufficiently dried, removed vegetation will be loaded using an excavator into dump trucks for off-haul and proper disposal as green waste. Project activities would occur over an anticipated 20 to 25 days and would occur between September 15 and February 1 to avoid impacts to nesting raptors and other protected avian species.

E. PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The goal of the proposed project is to promote a balance of vegetated and open water habitats to enhance wildlife habitat at Crespi Pond, through removal and management of emergent vegetation.

F. PROJECT APPROVALS AND PERMITS REQUIRED
The proposed project involves authorization of a new CDP from the City. The CDP would authorize longterm vegetation maintenance activities for a limited five-year term. Additionally, the applicant may need to acquire a California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) regulatory permit (i.e., Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement).

PGCC 5-6-26
302
PGCC 5-6-26

Path: C:\GIS\GIS_Projects\2023-83 Crespi Pond\Crespi Pond ISMND Figures.aprx Figure
Planning and Environmental Consulting
DENISE DUFFY & ASSOCIATES, ASSOCIATES, INC.

Scale
1/27/2025
Date
Project Location 1
Monterey
Pacific Grove

C A R M E L V AL LE Y
Carmel
Carmel
Bay
F
0 250 500
US Feet
Project Site
Regional Project Location
1 in = 374 ft
1 681
Ocean View Blvd
Asilomar Ave
Ocean View Blvd
Surf Ave
Shell Ave
Del Monte Blvd
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

Planning and Environmental Consulting
PGCC 5-6-26
303
PGCC 5-6-26

Path: C:\GIS\GIS_Projects\2023-83 Crespi Pond\Crespi Pond ISMND Figures.aprx Figure
Planning and Environmental Consulting
DENISE DUFFY & ASSOCIATES, ASSOCIATES, INC.

Scale
1/27/2025
Date
Project Site and Surrounding Land Uses 2
Undesignated
Medium Density Res
Low Density Res
Open Space
Land Use Designations
Project Site
Parcels
F
0 250 500
Feet
1 in = 383 ft
Ocean View Blvd
Asilomar Ave
Ocean View Blvd
Surf Ave
Shell Ave
Del Monte Blvd
Lighthouse Ave
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

Planning and Environmental Consulting
PGCC 5-6-26
304
PGCC 5-6-26

CRESPI POND VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PROJECT IS/MND Page 7 Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. October 2025
III. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED AND

DETERMINATION
A. FACTORS
The environmental factors identified below are discussed within Section VI. Environmental Checklist. The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Less-Than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Sources used for analysis of environmental effects are cited throughout Section VI.

Environmental Checklist and listed in Section IX. References.

Aesthetics Agriculture/Forestry Resources Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy
Geology and Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards/Hazardous Materials Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population/Housing Public Services
Recreation Transportation Tribal Cultural Resources
Utilities/Service Systems Wildfire Mandatory Findings of Significance
PGCC 5-6-26
305
PGCC 5-6-26

CRESPI POND VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PROJECT IS/MND Page 8 Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. October 2025
B. DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:

I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

Signature Date
Daniel Gho, Director, Public Works Department
PGCC 5-6-26
306
PGCC 5-6-26

CRESPI POND VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PROJECT IS/MND Page 9 Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. October 2025
IV. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on project-specific screening analysis).
2) All answers must consider the whole action involved, including offsite as well as onsite, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less-than-significant with mitigation, or less-than-significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less-Than-Significant with Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less-Than-Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less-than-significant level. 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D).

In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less-than-Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used, or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.

PGCC 5-6-26
307
PGCC 5-6-26

CRESPI POND VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PROJECT IS/MND Page 10 Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. October 2025
This page was left intentionally blank.

PGCC 5-6-26
308
PGCC 5-6-26

CRESPI POND VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PROJECT IS/MND Page 11 Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. October 2025
V. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

1. AESTHETICS
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including,
but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the
existing visual character or quality of public views
of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are
those that are experienced from publicly
accessible vantage points.) If the project is in an
urbanized area, would the project conflict with
applicable zoning and other regulations governing
scenic quality?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare
which would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area?
Environmental Setting
The project is at Crespi Pond, located in the Point Piños Lighthouse Reservation between the 16th and 17th holes of the municipal golf course in Pacific Grove. The project site is in the Coastal Zone, adjacent to Ocean View Boulevard, the Monterey Bay Coast Trail, and the Pacific Ocean to the north. The proposed project is within the jurisdiction of the City of Pacific Grove General Plan (City General Plan) and the City LUP, which establish goals and provide guidance for protecting scenic resources in the project vicinity. The City General Plan and LUP designate the coastline north of Ocean View Boulevard as a Scenic Area and require “preservation and enhancement of public views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas” (City of Pacific Grove, 2020).

The State Scenic Highways Program is designed to protect and enhance the natural scenic beauty of California highways and adjacent corridors through special conservation treatment. The nearest designated scenic highway is SR 1, located approximately four miles southeast of the proposed project. SR 68 is approximately one mile south of the proposed project and is eligible for listing as a scenic highway (Caltrans, 2024). The project site is not visible from these highways.

Discussion/Mitigation
a) and c) Less-Than-Significant Impact. The proposed project is located between the 16th and 17th holes of the City’s municipal golf course, within an urbanized landscape that includes residences, roadways, and recreational open space. The project site is adjacent to Ocean View Boulevard and in view of the coastline, which is a designated Scenic Area (City of Pacific Grove, 2020). The project would require the use of bargemounted equipment for vegetation removal and dump trucks to haul vegetation offsite. As a result, the PGCC 5-6-26
309
PGCC 5-6-26

CRESPI POND VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PROJECT IS/MND Page 12 Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. October 2025
proposed project could temporarily impact views from a scenic vista. However, all impacts would be temporary and would cease following project activities. Additionally, impacts would primarily be intermittent, as people using the golf course, Monterey Bay Coast Trail, and Ocean View Boulevard would generally be moving and would be exposed to views of equipment or vehicles related to project activities for a short duration.

Additionally, because the project site is south of Ocean View Boulevard, impacts are unlikely to substantially degrade views, as most recreational users and residents would be enjoying views of the coastline and Pacific Ocean, north of Ocean View Boulevard, and views would not be obstructed by project equipment or project activities.

The project is governed by the City General Plan and City LUP, which require preservation and enhancement of public views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas. As discussed above, the proposed project would require temporary use and staging of equipment on the project site, which may temporarily and intermittently impact views for users of the golf course; however, the project would not substantially obstruct views of the ocean and would not involve construction or new development at the site. Therefore, the project would not conflict with the City’s General Plan or LUP policies governing the site. The project site is zoned as Open Space, which accommodates recreational uses, wildlife and forest preserves, parks, playgrounds, and public serving buildings, structures, and parking facilities. All project activities would be temporary and would not include any development that could conflict with the City’s zoning ordinance. For these reasons, the proposed project would result in a less-than-significant impact to a scenic vista, existing visual character of the site, quality of public views, and potential conflicts with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. b) and d) No Impact. The proposed project would not damage scenic resources within a state scenic highway.

The project site includes scenic resources (i.e. Crespi Pond); however, the project site is not within view of a state scenic highway. The nearest designated scenic highway is SR 1, located approximately four miles southeast of the Proposed project. SR 68 is approximately one mile south of the proposed project and is eligible for listing as a scenic highway, but is not an officially designated scenic highway (Caltrans, 2024). Due to distance and existing structures and vegetation, the project site is not visible from these highways. Therefore, no impact on scenic resources within a state scenic highway would occur. Similarly, the proposed project would not result in impacts related to light or glare. The project would not involve the construction of new development which could result in a new source of light or glare. Additionally, the proposed activities would not occur at night; therefore, no nighttime lighting would be required for the project. For these reasons, no impact would occur to scenic resources in a state scenic highway or as a result of additional light or glare.

Conclusion
The proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact on aesthetic resources.

PGCC 5-6-26
310
PGCC 5-6-26

CRESPI POND VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PROJECT IS/MND Page 13 Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. October 2025

2. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.

In determining whether impacts to forestry resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment Project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board.

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of
the California Resources Agency, to
non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,
or a Williamson Act contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public
Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as
defined by Public Resources Code section 4526),
or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as
defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use?
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could result
in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use
or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Environmental Setting
Department of Conservation’s Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) The California Department of Conservation (DOC) identifies and designates important farmland throughout the state as part of the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP). DOC classifies farmland as follows:
 Prime Farmland. Farmland with the best combination of physical and chemical features able to sustain long-term agricultural production. This land has the soil quality, growing season, and moisture supply needed to produce sustained high yields. These are Class I and Class II soils.

PGCC 5-6-26
311
PGCC 5-6-26

CRESPI POND VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PROJECT IS/MND Page 14 Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. October 2025
 Farmland of Statewide Importance. Farmland similar to Prime Farmland but with minor shortcomings, such as greater slopes or less ability to store soil moisture. Land must have been used for irrigated agricultural production at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date.  Unique Farmland. Farmland of lesser quality soils used to produce the state's leading agricultural crops.

This land is usually irrigated but may include non-irrigated orchards or vineyards as found in some climactic zones in California.
 Grazing Land. Government Code §65570(b)(3) defines Grazing Land as: "...land on which the existing vegetation, whether grown naturally or through management, is suitable for grazing or browsing of livestock." The minimum mapping unit for Grazing Land is 40 acres. Grazing Land does not include land previously designated as Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Local Importance, and heavily brushed, timbered, excessively steep, or rocky lands which restrict the access and movement of livestock.
 Urban and Built-Up Land. Land occupied by structures with a building density of at least one (1) unit to 1.5 acres, or approximately six (6) structures to a 10-acre parcel. This land is used for residential, industrial, commercial, construction, institutional, public administration, railroad and other transportation yards, cemeteries, airports, golf courses, sanitary landfills, sewage treatment, water control structures, and other developed purposes.
 Other Land. Land not included in any other mapping category. Common examples include low density rural developments; brush, timber, wetland, and riparian areas, not suitable for livestock grazing; confined livestock, poultry, or aquaculture facilities; strip mines, borrow pits; and water bodies smaller than 40 acres. Vacant and nonagricultural land surrounded by urban development and greater than 40 acres is mapped as Other Land.

The proposed project is in the City of Pacific Grove, located on the municipal golf course. The project site and surrounding land is classified as “Urban and Built-Up” and “Other” land. No commercial agriculture or forestry land is located within or surrounding the project site (DOC, 2022).

The California Land Conservation Act of 1965, commonly referred to as the Williamson Act, is the State’s primary program aimed at conserving private land for agricultural use. The DOC prepares countywide maps of lands enrolled in the Williamson Act contracts. The Williamson Act provides a voluntary, locally administered program offering reduced property taxes on lands whose owners place enforceable restrictions on land use through contracts between the individual landowners and local governments. The proposed project is not on or adjacent to any Williamson Act contracted lands (DOC, 2023).

Discussion/Mitigation
a) – e) No Impact. The proposed project is located between the 16th and 17th holes of the City’s municipal golf course. The project is surrounded by urbanized landscape (i.e., residences, roadways, recreational open space). No agricultural or forestry land is located at the project site or within the project vicinity. As a result, the proposed project would have no impact on the conversion of any condition of farmland, Williamson Act contracts, forestry production, and would not impact the environment in such a way as to encourage the conversion of agricultural or forestry resources.

Conclusion
The proposed project would have no impact on agricultural and forestry resources.

PGCC 5-6-26
312
PGCC 5-6-26

CRESPI POND VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PROJECT IS/MND Page 15 Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. October 2025

3. AIR QUALITY
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase
of any criteria pollutant for which the project
region is non-attainment under an applicable
federal or state ambient air quality?
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to
odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of
people?
Environmental Setting
The project site is located within the North Central Coast Air Basin (NCCAB), which encompasses Santa Cruz, San Benito, and Monterey counties. The NCCAB is under the jurisdiction of the Monterey Bay Air Resources District (MBARD). Air quality within the NCCAB is regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), California Air Resources Board (CARB), and the Monterey Bay Air Resources District (MBARD). Each agency provides rules, regulations, and policies to attain air quality goals.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
The EPA implements national air quality programs and mandates come from the Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA). The EPA also establishes National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for common air pollutants, known as criteria air pollutants. The NAAQS are summarized in Table 3-1 below.

California Air Resources Board
CARB is the agency responsible for oversight of state and local air pollution control programs and for implementing the California Clean Air Act (CCAA). CARB sets emission standards for motor vehicles, which differ depending on factors such as model, year, fuel, and engine used. CARB also establishes California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS), which are often more stringent than NAAQS. The CAAQS are summarized in Table 3-1 below.

PGCC 5-6-26
313
PGCC 5-6-26

CRESPI POND VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PROJECT IS/MND Page 16 Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. October 2025
Table 3-1. Summary of National Ambient Air Quality Standards Pollutant Average Time California Standards* National Standards* (Primary)
Ozone (O3) 1-hour 0.09ppm –
Ozone (O3) 8-hour 0.070ppm 0.070ppm
Particulate Matter (PM10) AAM 20µg/m3 –
Particulate Matter (PM10) 24-hour 50µg/m3 150µg/m3
Fine Particulate Matter
(PM2.5) AAM 12µg/m3 12µg/m3
Fine Particulate Matter
(PM2.5) 24-hour No Standard 35µg/m3
Carbon Monoxide (CO) 1-hour 20ppm 35ppm
Carbon Monoxide (CO) 8-hour 9ppm 9ppm
Carbon Monoxide (CO) 8-hour
(Lake Tahoe) 6ppm –
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) AAM 0.030ppm 0.053ppm
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) 1-hour 0.18ppm 0.100ppb
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) AAM – 0.03ppm
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) 24-hour 0.04ppm 0.14ppm
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) 3-hour – 0.5ppm (1300µg/m3)
**
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) 1-hour 0.25ppm 75ppb
Lead 30-day Average 1.5µg/m3 –
Lead Calendar Quarter – 1.5µg/m3
Lead Rolling 3-Month
Average – 0.15µg/m3
Sulfates 24-hour 25µg/m3 No Federal Standards
Hydrogen Sulfide 1-hour 0.03ppm
(42µg/m3) No Federal Standards
Vinyl Chloride 24-hour 0.01ppm
(26µg/m3) No Federal Standards
Visibility-Reducing
Particle Matter 8-hour
Extinction coefficient:

0.23/kilometer-visibility
of 10 miles or more (0.07-
30 miles or more for Lake
Tahoe) due to particles
when the relative
humidity is less than 70
percent.

No Federal Standards
ppm=parts per million; ppb=parts per billion; AAM=Annual Arithmetic Mean; µg/m3=micrograms per cubic meter *For more information on standards visit: http//www.arb.ca.gov.research/aaqs/aaqs2.pdf **Secondary Standard
Source: ARB, 2024; AMBIENT, 2024a
Monterey Bay Air Resources District
MBARD is the agency responsible for monitoring compliance with NAAQS and CAAQS in the NCCAB.

MBARD is responsible for preparing plans for attainment of ambient air quality standards, adopting and enforcing rules and regulations concerning sources of air pollution, responding to citizen complaints, PGCC 5-6-26
314
PGCC 5-6-26