Agenda packet — Pacific Grove City Council, May 6, 2026 (part 4 of 4)

Crespi Pond Biological Resources Report
STATUS DEFINITIONS:

Federal
FE = listed as Endangered under ESA
FT = listed as Threatened under ESA
-- = not listed
State
SE = listed as Endangered under CESA
ST = listed as Threatened under CESA
SR = listed as Rare under CESA
CSC = VDFW Species of Special Concern
CFP = California Fully Protected Species
-- = not listed
California Native Plant Society
1B = List 1B species; rare, threatened, or endangered in California 2B = List 2B species; rare, threatened, or endangered in California but more common elsewhere

POTENTIAL TO OCCUR
Present – known occurrence of species within the site; presence of suitable habitat conditions; or observed during field surveys High – known occurrence of species in the vicinity from the CNDDB or other documentation; presence of suitable habitat conditions Moderate – known occurrence of species in the vicinity from the CNDDB or other documentation; presence of marginal habitat conditions Low – species known to occur in the vicinity from the CNDDB or other documentation; presence of low quality habitat conditions Unlikely – species not known to occur in the vicinity from the CNDDB or other documentation; no suitable habitat is present Not Present – species not observed during surveys
PGCC 5-6-26
436
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 436 ends

Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

APPENDIX D
Wetland Delineation
PGCC 5-6-26
437
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 437 ends

CRESPI POND
Combined Delineation of Coastal and Federal
Wetlands and Other Waters
February 2024
Prepared for:

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

Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc
Contact: John Wandke
947 Cass Street, Suite 5
Monterey, CA 93940
PGCC 5-6-26
438
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 438 ends

This page left intentionally blank
PGCC 5-6-26
439
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 439 ends

Crespi Pond
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. i Wetland Delineation
Table of Contents
1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1

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

1.2 Federal Regulation .......................................................................................................... 1 2 METHODS ......................................................................................................................... 5

2.1 Field Methods ................................................................................................................. 5

2.2 Vegetation ....................................................................................................................... 5

2.3 Soils................................................................................................................................. 6

2.4 Hydrology ....................................................................................................................... 6

2.5 Analysis........................................................................................................................... 7 3 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ........................................................................................ 7

3.1 Vegetation ....................................................................................................................... 7

3.2 Soils................................................................................................................................. 7

3.3 Hydrology ....................................................................................................................... 8 4 RESULTS ........................................................................................................................... 8 5 DETERMINATION ........................................................................................................... 8 6 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 12 List of Figures
Figure 1 - Location Map ................................................................................................................. 2 Figure 2 - Hydrology Map .............................................................................................................. 9 Figure 3 - Wetland Delineation Map ............................................................................................ 10 List of Tables
Table 1. Wetland Vegetation Classification System ....................................................................... 6 List of Appendices
Appendix A – Wetland Delineation Forms
PGCC 5-6-26
440
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 440 ends

Crespi Pond
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. ii Wetland Delineation
This page left intentionally blank
PGCC 5-6-26
441
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 441 ends

Crespi Pond
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. 1 Wetland Delineation
1 Introduction
This wetland delineation report prepared for Crespi Pond documents the location and extent of potentially jurisdictional wetlands and/or other waters of the United States, as well as wetlands potentially protected by California law at the project site. Denise Duffy & Associates (DD&A) performed the data collection during January 2024 and considered current federal and state wetland protection policy in the analysis of results.

Crespi Pond is located at Point Piños in the City of Pacific Grove and is situated immediately adjacent to Ocean Boulevard within the Point Piños Lighthouse Reservation, between the 16th and 17th holes of the municipal golf course (Figure 1). The project site is located in the Coastal Zone within Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 007-011-006-000 and the U.S. Geological Survey 7.5-minute Monterey quadrangle.

1.1 Regulatory Background

1.2 Federal Regulation
Wetlands and Waters of the U.S.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) is the primary federal agency responsible for regulating wetlands and waters. The ACOE and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) define wetlands as:

Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas (ACOE, 1982 and EPA, 1980).

The Field Guide for Wetland Delineation: 1987 Corps of Engineers Manual (Wetland Manual) (Environmental Laboratory, 1987) describes the three environmental parameters used in delineating jurisdictional wetlands. The three parameters are:

Vegetation. The prevalent vegetation consists of macrophytes that are typically adapted to areas having hydrologic and soil conditions described in the definition of a wetland above. Hydrophytic species, due to morphological, physiological, and/or reproductive adaptation(s), have the ability to grow effectively, compete, reproduce, and/or persist in anaerobic soil conditions; Soil. Soils are present and have been classified as hydric or they possess characteristics that are associated with reducing soil conditions; and
Hydrology. The area is inundated either permanently or periodically at mean water depths of ≤ 6.6 feet, or the soil is saturated to the surface at some time during the growing season of the prevalent vegetation.

The Wetland Manual states that “evidence of a minimum of one positive wetland indicator from each parameter…must be found in order to make a positive wetland determination.” However, climatic and hydrologic conditions in the Arid West often make it difficult to identify wetland indicators. Therefore, on December 18, 2006, the San Francisco District of the ACOE distributed a public notice requiring that, as of January 1, 2007, any new delineation work within their jurisdiction follow the guidance contained in the Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region PGCC 5-6-26
442
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 442 ends

PGCC 5-6-26
443
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 443 ends

Crespi Pond
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. 3 Wetland Delineation
(Supplement) (ACOE, 2006). In September 2008, the ACOE released the final version of the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (Version 2.0) (Supplement) to replace the Interim Supplement. The Supplement provides both indicators for each parameter that are specific to the Arid West region and guidance on difficult wetland situations where indicators may be lacking.

Definition of Waters of the U.S.

In the mid-1980s, the EPA and the ACOE promulgated a definition of waters of the U.S. which has been amended and modified several times since. Four Supreme Court decisions addressed the definition of waters of the U.S.: United States v. Riverside Bayview Homes, Inc. (1985), Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (SWANCC, 2001), Rapanos v. United States (2006), Sackett v.

EPA (2023). On December 2, 2008, following Rapanos v. United States, the ACOE and EPA developed additional guidance for implementing the waters of the U.S. definition (ACOE & EPA, 2007). The EPA and the ACOE then amended the scope of waters protected under the CWA On May 27, 2015 (2015 Rule).

However, two federal district courts found that the 2015 rule suffered from errors and issued orders remanding the 2015 Clean Water Rule back to the agencies. On October 22, 2019, the EPA and the ACOE published a final rule to repeal the 2015 Rule and re-codify the regulatory text that existed prior to the 2015 Rule. This final rule became effective on December 23, 2019, but was then replaced by the Navigable Waters Protection Rule (NWPR) on June 22, 2020. Under the NWPR, four categories of waters were federally regulated, 12 categories of exclusions were detailed, and several elements related to federal CWA jurisdiction were clarified. However, following legal challenges to the NWPR, President Biden signed Executive Order 13990 on January 20, 2021, which required that the agencies review the 2020 NWPR to determine its alignment with three principles laid out in the Executive Order: science, climate change, and environmental justice. Subsequently, a revised definition of waters of the U.S. was published on January 18, 2023, and became effective on March 20, 2023.

On August 29, 2023, EPA and ACOE announced a final rule amending the January 18, 2023 rule to conform with the May 25, 2023 Supreme Court decision in the case of Sackett v. EPA. The conforming rule was published in the Federal Register and became effective on September 8, 2023 (EPA 2023). The amended rule changes certain portions of the regulatory definition of waters of the U.S., including but not limited to removing interstate wetlands from the text of the interstate waters provision, removing the significant nexus standard for tributaries and adjacent wetlands and revising the definition of adjacent to require a continuous surface connection.

The following is the current definition of waters of the U.S., per the pre-publication version of the final rule (40 CFR 120.2[a]) at the time of preparation of this document:
(1) Waters which are:
(i) Currently used, or were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide; (ii) The territorial seas; or
(iii) Interstate waters;
(2) Impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the United States under this definition, other than impoundments of waters identified under paragraph (a)(5) of this section; PGCC 5-6-26
444
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 444 ends

Crespi Pond
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. 4 Wetland Delineation
(3) Tributaries of waters identified in paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this section:

That are relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water; (4) Wetlands adjacent to the following waters:
(i) Waters identified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section; or (ii) Relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water identified in paragraph (a)(2) or (a)(3) of this section and with a continuous surface connection to those waters;
(5) Intrastate lakes and ponds not identified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this section:

That are relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water with a continuous surface connection to the waters identified in paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(3)(i) of this section; or
As identified above, “other waters,” including lakes, ponds, and streams, are subject to ACOE jurisdiction. “Other waters” are characterized by an ordinary high water (OHW) mark, which is defined as:
…that line on the shore established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as clear, natural line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in the characteristics of the soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris, or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas (ACOE, 1982).

In the field, “other waters” are identified by the presence of a defined river or stream bed, a bank, and evidence of the flow of water.

1.2.1 State Regulation
California Coastal Act Wetlands
Although wetlands are typically under the jurisdiction of the ACOE, wetlands found in the coastal zone may also be regulated under the California Coastal Act (CCA) of 1976 and the federal Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) under the jurisdiction of the California Coastal Commission (CCC). Under the CCA, wetlands are defined as:

Land within the coastal zone which may be covered periodically or permanently with shallow water and include saltwater marshes, freshwater marshes, open or closed brackish water marshes, swamps, mudflats, and fens. (Pub. Res. Code §30121).

The CCC Administrative Regulations (California Code of Regulations Title 14 [14 CCR]) provides an expanded definition:
…Wetlands are lands where the water table is at, near, or above the land surface long enough to promote the formation of hydric soils or to support the growth of hydrophytes, and shall also include those types of wetlands where vegetation is lacking and soil is poorly developed or absent as a result of frequent or drastic fluctuations of surface water levels, wave action, water flow, turbidity or high concentrations of salt or other substance in the substrate. Such wetlands can be recognized by the presence of surface water or saturated substrate at some time during each year and their location within, or adjacent to, vegetated wetlands or deepwater habitats… (14 CCR, §13577).

PGCC 5-6-26
445
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 445 ends

Crespi Pond
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. 5 Wetland Delineation
In contrast to the Federal definition of wetlands, the Coastal Commission’s regulations follow a one parameter definition that requires presence of only a single parameter to establish wetland conditions (California Coastal Commission 2011). The Coastal Commission’s regulations do not provide technical guidance for delineating wetlands in the field. Therefore, the Federal procedures to identify wetland indicators and evaluate whether a site meets any of the three parameters of vegetation, soils, or hydrology was used to delineate coastal wetlands.
2 Methods
This wetland delineation was conducted in accordance with the methods set forth in the Wetland Manual and Supplement to identify indicators and evaluate whether a site meets any or all of the three parameters.

Prior to conducting the field survey, available reference materials were reviewed, including the Web Soil Survey (USDA-NRCS 2024), the National Wetlands Inventory Wetland Mapper (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS] 2024), the National Hydrography Dataset (U.S. Geological Survey [USGS] 2023), USGS

7.5-minute Monterey topographic map, and aerial imagery of the site.

2.1 Field Methods
The delineation was conducted on January 29, 2024 by DD&A Environmental Scientists. Data collected during the field survey was recorded on Wetland Determination Data Forms for the Arid West Region provided in the Supplement using the Wildnote application. Vegetation, soils, and hydrology were assessed following the guidelines detailed in the Wetland Manual and Supplement at a total of two paired sample points. The sampling point was mapped using a Trimble Pro XH GPS unit and a picture was taken of the area immediately surrounding the point. In addition, the OHW mark was also mapped with GPS using a combination of lines and points.

Field data was analyzed to determine if wetlands and other waters were potentially present under both the “three parameter” Federal definition and/or the “single parameter” Coastal Commission definition. The boundaries of wetlands and other waters were drawn with ArcGIS software using a combination of field observations and the GPS field data. Indicators described in the Wetland Manual and Supplement that were used to make wetland determinations at each sampling point are discussed below.

2.2 Vegetation
Vegetation was broken into four strata for evaluation: tree, sapling/shrub, herb, and woody vines. Dominant plant species and approximate percent cover within five feet of the sampling point were recorded for the sapling/shrub, woody vine, and herb stratums and within 30 feet for the tree stratum. Plant species were identified using The Plants of Monterey County; an Illustrated Field Guide – Second Edition (Matthews and Mitchell 2015) and were assigned a wetland status according to the Arid West 2020 Regional Wetland Plant List (ACOE 2020). This wetland classification system is based on the expected frequency of occurrence in wetlands as described in Table 1 below.

PGCC 5-6-26
446
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 446 ends

Crespi Pond
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. 6 Wetland Delineation
Table 1. Wetland Vegetation Classification System
Symbol Indicator Category Definition Frequency of
Occurrences
OBL Obligate Wetland Plants Always found in wetlands >99% FACW Facultative Wetland Plants Most often occur in wetlands 67-99% FAC Facultative Plants Equal likelihood of occurring in wetlands and non-wetlands 33-67% FACU Facultative Upland Plants Most often occur in non-wetlands 1-33% UPL Obligate Upland Plants Always found in non-wetlands <1% NL Not Listed (Assumed Upland)
The “dominance test”, as described in the Supplement, was applied to survey point. If greater than 50 percent of the dominant plant species across all strata were rated OBL, FACW, or FAC, then the plant community “passed” the dominance test and the vegetation was determined to be hydrophytic. Neither the prevalence test nor morphological adaptations indicator were used, as the conditions described in the manual for each were absent (i.e., plant community failing the dominance test with presence of both hydric soil and wetland hydrology).

2.3 Soils
The National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils (NTCHS) defines a hydric soil as:

A soil that formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part. (USDA-NRCS 1995).

The soil at the survey point was evaluated by digging an approximately 18-inch hole and identifying soil horizons, color, and texture, as well as any hydric soil indicators (as described in the Supplement). Soil color was evaluated by comparing a small, wetted piece of soil to Munsell Soil Color Charts (Munsell Color, 2010). The last digit of the Munsell Soil Notation refers to the chroma of the sample. This notation consists of numbers beginning with zero for neutral grays and increasing at equal intervals to a maximum of about 20.

2.4 Hydrology
The Wetland Manual defines “wetland hydrology” as:

Encompassing all hydrologic characteristics of areas that are periodically inundated or have soils saturated to the surface at some time during the growing season. Areas with evident characteristics of wetland hydrology are those where the presence of water has an overriding influence on characteristics of vegetation and soils due to anaerobic and reducing conditions, respectively. Such characteristics are usually present in areas that are inundated or have soils that are saturated to the surface for sufficient duration to develop hydric soils and support vegetation typically adapted for life in periodically anaerobic soil conditions.

The survey points were evaluated for wetland hydrology using the indicators described in the Supplement.

Evidence of one Primary Indicator sufficiently identified wetland hydrology; however, two or more Secondary Indicators were necessary if no Primary Indicators were observed. However, as stated in the Supplement, the Arid West is characterized by extended dry seasons in most years and by extreme temporal and special variability in rainfall, which causes many wetlands in the region to be dry for much of the year.

PGCC 5-6-26
447
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 447 ends

Crespi Pond
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. 7 Wetland Delineation
At these times, hydrology indicators may be lacking altogether. Therefore, a “lack of an indicator is not evidence for the absence of wetland hydrology.” Guidance is provided in the Supplement for difficult wetland situations that can be encountered in the Arid West.

2.5 Analysis
Data collected at each sampling point was analyzed to determine if wetlands were present. As described above, evidence of a minimum of one positive wetland indicator from each parameter was necessary to make a positive determination of wetlands potentially under the jurisdiction of the ACOE and evidence of a minimum of one positive wetland indicator from any parameter was necessary to make a positive determination of wetlands potentially under the jurisdiction of the CCC. 3 Environmental Setting

3.1 Vegetation
Vegetation within the evaluation area consists of developed golf course and freshwater emergent wetland.

Field Observations
Dominance of hydrophytic vegetation was confirmed at both of the sample points located within the wetland. Freshwater emergent wetlands at the site are dominated by California tule (Schoenoplectus californicus). Adjacent uplands were found to be dominated by golf course turf grasses, wild radish (Raphanus sativus) and poison hemlock (Conium maculatum).

3.2 Soils
The NRCS Soil Survey (USDA-NRCS, 2024) identifies one mapping unit, Baywood Sand, within the evaluation area. The Soil Survey descriptions of these mapping units are presented below with an indication of whether the soils are classified as hydric or not according to the National Hydric Soils List (USDA 2023).

It should be noted that the National Hydric Soils List cannot be used in the field to determine hydric soils as it is only a list of soils that are likely to be hydric.

Baywood Sand consists of sand derived from eolian dunes to a depth of 60 inches. This soil is somewhat excessively drained, has a very low runoff class, and forms 1 and 15 percent slopes. This series is not classified as a likely hydric soil.

Field Observations
Except for one upland sample location, soils encountered during field activities generally differed from the Baywood Sand soil description. Although the surrounding area consists of a dune environment consistent with the Baywood Sand mapping unit description, soil textures within the Crespi Pond depression are more typical of a wetland or lacustrine environment and consist of fine-grained soils, such as silty loam and clay loam. Soils lacked clear horizons and lacked hydric indicators, despite obvious wetland conditions and presence of obligate wetland vegetation. The lack of hydric indicators could be due to a history of disturbance at this location.

PGCC 5-6-26
448
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 448 ends

Crespi Pond
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. 8 Wetland Delineation

3.3 Hydrology
Crespi Pond is approximately three feet deep at its deepest point, receives stormwater inputs as well as irrigation runoff and natural input from rainfall. Crespi Pond occasionally goes dry in drought years and when full, discharges through a culvert beneath Ocean View Boulevard to the adjacent beach. The National Wetland Inventory (NWI) classifies Crespi Pond as freshwater pond (PUBHx) and freshwater emergent wetland (PEM1Cx) (Figure 2).

The surface connection between Crespi Pond and the Pacific Ocean, a Traditional Navigable Water (TNW), is not continuous. Therefore, per the Supreme Court ruling of Sackett v. EPA and the revised definition of wetlands and waters of the U.S., the wetlands and waters of Crespi Pond would be considered isolated from TNW and therefore not under Federal jurisdiction.

Field Observations
At the time of the field activities, Crespi Pond was full and discharging though the culvert beneath Ocean View Boulevard. Wetland hydrology indicators were present at both of the wetland sample points. This includes both primary and secondary indicators. The most common primary indicators observed included surface water, saturation, non-riverine water marks, and inundation visible on aerial imagery. The most common secondary indicators included observation of drainage patterns and a positive FAC-neutral test. 4 Results
Due to the recent Supreme Court decision in the case of Sackett v. EPA and the revised federal definition of wetlands and waters of the U.S., wetlands and waters at Crespi Pond are not currently considered potentially jurisdictional under federal law due to the lack of a continuous surface connection to TNW.

However, all wetland areas at Crespi Pond with one or more parameter indicating the presence of wetland conditions, regardless of hydrologic connectivity, were considered under potential CCC jurisdiction.

The delineation determined approximately 1.30 acres of wetlands that would fall under the jurisdiction of CCC under the CCA and approximately 0.36 acres of open water (Figure 3). Wetland determination data forms are provided as Appendix A.
5 Determination
No federal wetlands or Other Waters of the U.S. potentially under jurisdiction of ACOE were identified within the evaluation area. Approximately 1.30 acres of coastal wetlands potentially under the jurisdiction of the CCC were identified within the evaluation area. A wetland delineation map that depicts the location of all potential wetlands and waters is provided as Figure 3.

PGCC 5-6-26
449
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 449 ends

PGCC 5-6-26
450
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 450 ends

PGCC 5-6-26
451
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 451 ends

Crespi Pond
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. 11 Wetland Delineation
This page left intentionally blank
PGCC 5-6-26
452
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 452 ends

Crespi Pond
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. 12 Wetland Delineation
6 References
Baldwin B. G., et al. 2012. The Jepson Manual – Vascular Plants of California, Second Edition, Thoroughly Revised and Expanded. University of California Press. Berkeley, CA. 1600 pp.

California Coastal Commission. 2011. Definition an Delineation of Wetlands in the Coastal Zone.

Background Information Handout W4-10-2011.

Cook, T.D. and others, 1978, Soil survey of Monterey County, California: United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, in cooperation with the University of California Agricultural Experiment Station, issued April 1972, 128 p., 188 plates.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1980. 40 CFR Part 230: Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines for Specification of Disposal Sites for Dredged or Fill Material. Federal Register Vol. 45 (249). pp. 85352-85353.

Environmental Laboratory. (1987). "Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual," Technical Report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss.

Greenhouse, J., Markos, S., Moe, R. L., Simono, S., Wetherwax, M., & Vorobik, L. A. 2012. The Digital Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California, Second Edition, Thoroughly Revised and Expanded (B. G. Baldwin, D. H. Goldman, D. J. Keil, R. Patterson, T. J. Rosatti, & D. H. Wilken, Eds.; 2nd ed.). University of California Press. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/j.ctt1pn9sv Munsell Color (Firm). (2010). Munsell soil color charts : with genuine Munsell color chips. Grand Rapids, MI :Munsell Color,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE). 1982. Title 33: Navigation and Navigable Waters; Chapter II, Part 328-329. Regulatory Programs of the Corps of Engineers. Available online at:
http://www.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/cfrassemble.cgi?title=200533 ACOE. 2006. Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region. Ed. J.S. Wakeley, R.W. Lichvar, and C.V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR-06-16. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. 109 pp.

ACOE. 2008. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region, Version 2.0. Ed. J.S. Wakeley, R.W. Lichvar, and C.V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR-06-16.

Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. 121 pp.

ACOE & EPA. 2008. Clean Water Act Jurisdiction Following the U.S. Supreme Court's Decision in Rapanos v. United States & Carabell v. United States.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2023. 40 CFR Part 120: Revised Definition of “Waters of the United States” Conforming. Federal Register Vol. 88 (173), pp. 61964-61969.

U.S. Department of Agriculture – Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS). 2024. Hydric Soils of the United States. Available online at:
https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/soils/use/hydric/ USDA-NRCS. 2024. Web Soil Survey. Available online at:
https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm PGCC 5-6-26
453
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 453 ends

Crespi Pond
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. 13 Wetland Delineation
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2024. National Wetlands Inventory Mapper. Available online at: https://www.fws.gov/program/national-wetlands-inventory/wetlands-mapper U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2024. National Hydrography Dataset. Available online at:
https://www.usgs.gov/programs/national-geospatial-program/national-map PGCC 5-6-26
454
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 454 ends

Appendix A
Wetland Delineation Forms
PGCC 5-6-26
455
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 455 ends

This page left intentionally blank
PGCC 5-6-26
456
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 456 ends

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Arid West Region
Project/Site: Crespi Pond City/County: Pacific Grove/Monterey Sampling Date: 01/29/2024 Applicant/Owner: City of Pacific Grove State: CA Sampling Point: 1A Investigator(s): JW Section, Township, Range: 00,15S,1W Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc): Depression Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 3% Subregion (LRR): C Lat: 36.63579839 Long: -121.9327792 Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Baywood Sand NWI classification: Freshwater Emergent Wetland Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil X , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes X No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes X No
Remarks:

Emergent wetland occurs within shallow waters of the pond and along fringes. Sample collected from toe of steep bank along edge of pond in area dominated by obligate wetland vegetation.. Area has been subject to prior maintenance and appears to have historically disturbed soils.

VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants.

Dominance Test worksheet:

Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 2 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100.0 (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species 60 x 1 = 60
FACW species 30 x 2 = 60
FAC species 0 x 3 = 0
FACU species 0 x 4 = 0
UPL species 10 x 5 = 50
Column Totals: 100 (A) 170 (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A = 1.7
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

X Dominance Test is >50%
X Prevalence Index ≤3.0¹
Morphological Adaptations¹ (Provide supporting
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation¹ (Explain )
¹Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30-ft ) % Cover Species? Status

1. 2.

3. 4.
0 = Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15-ft )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 0 = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5-ft )

1. Schoenoplectus californicus / California bulrush, Southern bulrush60 Yes OBL

2. Conium maculatum / Poison hemlock 30 Yes FACW

3. Pennisetum clandestinum / Kikuyu grass 7 No NI

4. Urtica dioica ssp. dioica / Stinging nettle 3 No NI

5. 6.

7. 8.
100 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30-ft )

1. 2.
0 = Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust Hydrophytic Vegetation
Present? Yes X No
Remarks:

US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
PGCC 5-6-26
457
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 457 ends

SOIL Sampling Point: 1A
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type¹ Loc² Texture Remarks 0-12 10YR 2/2 100 0 Silt Loam
12-18 10YR 2/2 100 0 Silty Clay
¹Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. ²Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.

Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils³:

Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Reduced Vertic (F18) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Red Parent Material (TF2) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) Depleted Matrix (F3) X Other (Explain in Remarks) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8) ³Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Vernal Pools (F9) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) unless disturbed or problematic.

Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X
Remarks:

Soil sample collected from area dominated by obligate wetland plants and saturated soils. No hydric indicators present, most likely due to previous soil disturbance. Soils do not have distinct horizons and appear disturbed.

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Primary Indicators (minimum of one required: check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) X Surface Water (A1) Salt Crust (B11) Water Marks (B1) (Riverine) X High Water Table (A2) Biotic Crust (B12) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine) X Saturation (A3) X Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine) X Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) X Drainage Patterns (B10) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) X Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) X Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) X Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Other (Explain in Remarks) X FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations:

Surface Water Present? Yes X No Depth (inches): 6
Water Table Present? Yes X No Depth (inches): 12
Saturation Present? Yes X No Depth (inches): 8
(includes capillary fringe)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:

Remarks:

Sample collected at toe of bank where saturation and water table were observed. Surface water present 5 feet away in adjacent pond. Crayfish present in pond.

US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
PGCC 5-6-26
458
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 458 ends

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Arid West Region
Project/Site: Crespi Pond City/County: Pacific Grove/Monterey Sampling Date: 01/29/2024 Applicant/Owner: City of Pacific Grove State: CA Sampling Point: 1B Investigator(s): JW Section, Township, Range: 00,15S,1W Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc): Depression Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 3% Subregion (LRR): C Lat: 36.63584282 Long: -121.93268923 Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Baywood Sand NWI classification: None Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil X , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes X No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No X
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No X
Remarks:

Sample collected in adjacent upland area
VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants.

Dominance Test worksheet:

Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 1 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0.0 (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species 0 x 1 = 0
FACW species 10 x 2 = 20
FAC species 0 x 3 = 0
FACU species 0 x 4 = 0
UPL species 90 x 5 = 450
Column Totals: 100 (A) 470 (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A = 4.7
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Index ≤3.0¹
Morphological Adaptations¹ (Provide supporting
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation¹ (Explain )
¹Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30-ft ) % Cover Species? Status

1. 2.

3. 4.
0 = Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15-ft )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 0 = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5-ft )

1. Pennisetum clandestinum / Kikuyu grass 80 Yes NI

2. Raphanus sativus / Jointed charlock, Radish 10 No NI

3. Conium maculatum / Poison hemlock 10 No FACW

4. 5.

6. 7.

8. 100 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30-ft )

1. 2.
0 = Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust Hydrophytic Vegetation
Present? Yes No X
Remarks:

US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
PGCC 5-6-26
459
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 459 ends

SOIL Sampling Point: 1B
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type¹ Loc² Texture Remarks 0-18 10YR 2/2 100 0 Silt Loam
¹Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. ²Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.

Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils³:

Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Reduced Vertic (F18) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Red Parent Material (TF2) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8) ³Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Vernal Pools (F9) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) unless disturbed or problematic.

Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X
Remarks:

Soil horizons are undefined. Appears to have been previously disturbed.

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Primary Indicators (minimum of one required: check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Salt Crust (B11) Water Marks (B1) (Riverine) High Water Table (A2) Biotic Crust (B12) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine) Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine) Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations:

Surface Water Present? Yes No X Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes No X Depth (inches):

Saturation Present? Yes No X Depth (inches):
(includes capillary fringe)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:

Remarks:

Sample is in elevated upland area adjacent to pond.

US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
PGCC 5-6-26
460
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 460 ends

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Arid West Region
Project/Site: Crespi Pond City/County: Pacific Grove/Monterey Sampling Date: 01/29/2024 Applicant/Owner: City of Pacific Grove State: CA Sampling Point: 2A Investigator(s): JW Section, Township, Range: 00,15S,1W Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc): Depression Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): 2 Subregion (LRR): C Lat: 36.63534278 Long: -121.9329999 Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Baywood Sand NWI classification: Freshwater Emergent Wetland Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil X , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes X No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes X No
Remarks:

Emergent wetland occurs within shallow waters of the pond and along fringes. Sample collected from edge of depression that forms pond in area dominated by obligate wetland vegetation. Area has been subject to prior maintenance and appears to have historically disturbed soils.

VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants.

Dominance Test worksheet:

Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 1 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100.0 (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species 90 x 1 = 90
FACW species 0 x 2 = 0
FAC species 0 x 3 = 0
FACU species 0 x 4 = 0
UPL species 10 x 5 = 50
Column Totals: 100 (A) 140 (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A = 1.4
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30-ft ) % Cover Species? Status

1. 2.

3. 4.
0 = Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15-ft )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 0 = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5-ft )

1. Schoenoplectus californicus / California bulrush, Southern bulrush90 Yes OBL

2. Tropaeolum majus / Garden nasturtium 10 No UPL

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.
100 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30-ft )

1. 2.
0 = Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust Hydrophytic Vegetation
Present? Yes X No
Remarks:

US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
PGCC 5-6-26
461
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 461 ends

SOIL Sampling Point: 2A
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type¹ Loc² Texture Remarks 0-18 10YR 2/2 100 0 Silt Loam
¹Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. ²Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.

Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils³:

Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Primary Indicators (minimum of one required: check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Salt Crust (B11) Water Marks (B1) (Riverine) X High Water Table (A2) Biotic Crust (B12) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine) X Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine) X Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) X Drainage Patterns (B10) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) X Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) X Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Other (Explain in Remarks) X FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations:

Surface Water Present? Yes No X Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes X No Depth (inches): 10
Saturation Present? Yes X No Depth (inches): 8
(includes capillary fringe)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:

Remarks:

US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
PGCC 5-6-26
462
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 462 ends

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Arid West Region
Project/Site: Crespi Pond City/County: Pacific Grove/Monterey Sampling Date: 01/29/2024 Applicant/Owner: City of Pacific Grove State: CA Sampling Point: 2B Investigator(s): JW Section, Township, Range: 00,15S,1W Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc): Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 2 Subregion (LRR): C Lat: 36.63532118 Long: -121.9331332 Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Baywood Sand NWI classification: None Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation X , Soil X , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes X No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No X
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No X
Remarks:

Sample location is in maintained golf course rough adjacent to bank of pond.

VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants.

Dominance Test worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species 0 x 1 = 0
FACW species 0 x 2 = 0
FAC species 0 x 3 = 0
FACU species 0 x 4 = 0
UPL species 100 x 5 = 500
Column Totals: 100 (A) 500 (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A = 5.0
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30-ft ) % Cover Species? Status

1. 2.

3. 4.
0 = Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15-ft )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 0 = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5-ft )

1. Pennisetum clandestinum / Kikuyu grass 100 Yes NI

2. 3.

4. 5.

6. 7.

8. 100 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30-ft )

1. 2.
0 = Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust Hydrophytic Vegetation
Present? Yes No X
Remarks:

US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
PGCC 5-6-26
463
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 463 ends

SOIL Sampling Point: 2B
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type¹ Loc² Texture Remarks 0-18 10YR 3/2 100 0 Sandy Loam
¹Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. ²Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.

Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils³:

Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Reduced Vertic (F18) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Red Parent Material (TF2) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8) ³Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Vernal Pools (F9) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) unless disturbed or problematic.

Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Surface Water Present? Yes No X Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes No X Depth (inches):

Remarks:

Sample collected in upland area adjacent to pond.

US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
PGCC 5-6-26
464
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 464 ends

PGCC 5-6-26
465
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 465 ends

PGCC 5-6-26
466
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 466 ends

PGCC 5-6-26
467
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 467 ends

Dewatering
Location
Overflow will be blocked to
ensure no flow to the bay
Staging at the treatment
plant site
PGCC 5-6-26
468
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 468 ends

Scope of work for Crespi Pond dredging
PROJECT SUMMARY: SOLitude will remove heavy vegeta�on overgrowth in the pond that is approximately 80% infested with a robust stand of Emergent plants/root mass. The density of emergent vegeta�on accumula�on in the pond is such that major mechanical interven�on is required at this point. It is no longer a manual hand removal job as this would NOT be cost effec�ve. The strategy is to use our Aquamog with a clam bucket atachment; we propose to remove a high percentage of the exis�ng stand of vegeta�on down to the root mass. It is assumed based on our site visit on March 21, 2023 that the full vegeta�on removal process will take between 20 - 25 days with at least a ten (10) day minimum so long as there are no work stoppages due to environmental or unknown factors. The Aquamog will create a marginal increase in pond depth along with drama�cally improving the aesthe�cs of the pond. Biomass that gets removed from the pond will be piled on the shoreline for ini�al dewatering. Next it will be loaded into a dump truck with a mini excavator and moved by dump truck to an agreed-upon stockpile area. For cost efficiency, it is encouraged that the customer provide a dump site within one (1) mile of the pond, however off-haul and landfill disposal can be performed by others or arranged for SOLitude to pick up later if desired for an addi�onal fee. In the event that future inspec�ons reveal the need for addi�onal work, SOLitude will no�fy the Customer immediately and will provide an es�mate to complete the work.

PGCC 5-6-26
469
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 469 ends

•
•
•
STATE OF CALIFORNIA- THE RESOURCES AGENCY ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor

CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION CENTRAL COAST DISTRICT OFFICE 725 FRONT STREET, SUITE 300
SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060
(631) 427-4663
wac
Filed:
180-day:

Staff:

Staff report:

Hearing date:

COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATION
Application number ....... 3-03-083 Crespi Pond 5-Year Long-Term Maintenance Applicant.. ....................... Mike Leach, Pacific Grove Golf Course Superintendent 9/10/03
3/8/04
CKC
12/18/03
1114/04
Project location ............... Crespi Pond at 17th Hole of Pacific Grove Golf Course, 77 Asilomar Boulevard, Pacific Grove, Monterey County (APN 007-011-002) (See Exhibits A, B and C)
Project description ....... Annual removal of up to 200 cubic yards of aquatic vegetation for pond maintenance at existing municipal golf course. (See Exhibits B and C) File documents ................ City of Pacific Grove approved Land Use Plan and uncertified Zoning Ordinance; file documents in Commission file 3-03-083.

Staff recommendation ... Approve with conditions
Summary: Crespi Pond is an environmentally sensitive area located between the 16th and 17th holes of the City of Pacific Grove Municipal Golf Course. As shown in Exhibit A and B, the City of Pacific Grove Municipal Golf Course is located near Point Pinos at the northern end of the Monterey Peninsula, in the Lighthouse Reservation area of Pacific Grove.

The City ofPacific Grove Municipal Golf Course (the Golf Course) has requested a 10-year permit for the removal of aquatic vegetation in Crespi Pond in order to maintain a balance of 70% open water and 30% vegetation as recommended in a November 2001 Biological Assessment and Restoration of Dune Habitat for the City of Pacific Grove. The project generally involves the removal of approximately 200 cubic yards of tule, penny royal and other aquatic vegetation from the perimeter and northern and central portion of the pond, as recommended to reduce eutrophication that occurs in the pond and to maintain adequate amount of open water habitat and emergent vegetation, as well as to provide storage capacity for stormwater runoff prior to entry to Monterey Bay. Dredged material will be stockpiled on the project site adjacent to the pond to allow for dewatering, and then loaded and hauled to an appropriate site for disposal.

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.

California Coastal ·~ Commission
January 14,2004 Meeting in Lcr;na Beach
Staff: C. Kelly Cuffe Approved by: L
G:\Central Coast\STAFF REPORTS\2. CCC Meeting Packet\04\01\3-03-083 Crespi Pond longterm maintenance 12.18.03.doc PGCC 5-6-26
470
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 470 ends

2 3-03-083 Crespi Pond longterm maintenance 12.18.03.doc While the Golf Course has asked for a 1 0-year permit, Commission staff recommends a term of 5-years, with potential for extension through amendment of this permit.

The site provides potential habitat for California red-legged frogs, however no frogs, or any other sensitive plant or animal species have been observed in recent surveys. However, since the site does provide potential habitat, it has been conditioned to require biological surveys prior to each dredging event in order to determine the presence or absence of CRLF, and to take appropriate actions if necessary. Additionally, dredge activities are restricted to the fall season, September 1 through November 31, to avoid CRLF breeding season. Finally, while a weir manages the maximum water level in the pond, with overflow discharged to Monterey Bay, dredging will occur when water levels are well below the top of the weir so that no discharge to Monterey Bay occurs during dredging activities. Staff is therefore recommending that the project be approved with conditions, to ensure that it is consistent with the Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act.

Staff Report Contents
I. StaffRecommendation on CDP Application ........................................................................................ .3 II. Conditions of Approval ........................................................................................................................... 3 A. Standard Conditions ......................................................................................................................... 3 •
B. Special Conditions ............................................................................................................................ 4 • III. Recommended Findings and Declarations ............................................................................................. 5 A. Standard of Review ......................................................................................................................... 5 B. Project Location and Description ...................................................................................................... 5 C. Issue Discussion .............................................................................................................................. 6

1. Environmentally Sensitive Habitat .............................................................................................. 6 a. Applicable Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA) Policies ............................... 6 b. ESHA Analysis .................................................................................................................... 7

2. Water Quality .............................................................................................................................. 9

3. Archaeological Resources ......................................... : .............................................................. 1 0 a. Applicable Archaeological Resources Policies .................................................................. 1 0 b. Archaeological Resources Analysis ................................................................................... 1 0 Local Coastal Programs ....................................................................................................................... 11 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) .................................................................................. 11 IV. Exhibits
Exhibit A: Regional Location Map
Exhibit B: Vicinity Map
Exhibit C: Aerial Photo of Crespi Pond and Vicinity
Exhibit D: City of Pacific Grove LUP Coastal Zone Land Use Plan Exhibit E: City of Pacific Grove LUP Land Habitat Sensitivity Map Exhibit F: City of Pacific Grove LUP Archaeological Sensitivity Map Exhibit G: Staff Photos of Crespi Pond
California Coastal Commission
•
PGCC 5-6-26
471
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 471 ends

,,
•
•
•
3-03-083 Crespi Pond longterm maintenance 12.18.03.doc 3 I. Staff Recommendation on CDP Application
The staff recommends that the Commission, after public hearing, approve a coastal development permit for the proposed development subject to the standard conditions below.

Motion. I move that the Commission approve Coastal Development Permit No. 3-03-084 pursuant to the staff recommendation.

Staff Recommendation of Approval. Staff recommends a YES vote. Passage of this motion will result in approval of the permit as conditioned and adoption of the following resolution and findings. The motion passes only by affirmative vote of a majority of the Commissioners present.

Resolution to Approve the Coastal Development Permit. The Commission hereby approves a coastal development permit for the proposed development and adopts the findings set forth below on grounds that the development as conditioned will be in conformity with the policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act and will not prejudice the ability of the local government having jurisdiction over the area to prepare a Local Coastal Program conforming to the provisions of Chapter 3. Approval of the permit complies with the California Environmental Quality Act because either 1) feasible mitigation measures and/or alternatives have been incorporated to substantially lessen any significant adverse effects of the development on the environment, or 2) there are no further feasible mitigation measures or alternatives that would substantially lessen any significant adverse impacts of the development on the environment.

II. Conditions of Approval
A.Standard Conditions

1. Notice of Receipt and Acknowledgment. The permit is not valid and development shall not commence until a copy of the permit, signed by the Permittee or authorized agent, acknowledging receipt of the permit and acceptance of the terms and conditions, is returned to the Commission office.

2. Expiration. If development has not commenced, the permit will expire two years from the date on which the Commission voted on the application. Development shall be pursued in a diligent manner and completed in a reasonable period of time. Application for extension of the permit must be made prior to the expiration date.

3. Interpretation. Any questions of intent or interpretation of any condition will be resolved by the Executive Director or the Commission.

4. Assignment. The permit may be assigned to any qualified person, provided assignee files with the Commission an affidavit accepting all terms and conditions of the permit.

California Coastal Commission
PGCC 5-6-26
472
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 472 ends

4 3-03-083 Crespi Pond longterm maintenance 12.18.03.doc

5. Terms and Conditions Run with the Land. These terms and conditions shall be perpetual, and it is the intention of the Commission and the Permittee to bind all future owners and possessors of the subject property to the terms and conditions.

B. Special Conditions

1. Scope of Permit. This permit allows the annual dredging and disposal of up to 200 cubic yards of Crespi Pond sediment and aquatic vegetation for wetland restoration purposes. Dredged material may be temporarily stockpiled adjacent to the pond to allow for dewatering, and then trucked to a licensed landfill or an alternate disposal site approved by the Executive Director that will not have any adverse impacts to coastal resources. All construction activities will be limited to the Fall season, between September 1 and November 31 of each year, in order to avoid California red-legged frog breeding season.

2. Term of Permit. The term of this permit shall run for the period from February 1, 2004 through January 31, 2009. If an extension of this permit is requested, it may be submitted in the form of an amendment request prior to the expiration of this permit. Such a request shall be subject to additional review, and shall consider any new material, correspondence and studies relevant to the project and available to date.

3. California Red-legged Frog Surveys. NO MORE THAN 15 DAYS PRIOR TO EACH DREDGING EPISODE, the Permittee shall conduct a biological survey to determine the presence of any California red-legged frogs in the project area. If the survey indicates that any CRLF are present, maintenance activities will be halted and the Golf course Maintenance Department will check with USFWS for adequate protocol to avoid or relocate the frogs consistent with requirements of the USFWS and will develop and implement CRLF mitigation accordingly.

Description of USFWS protocol and requirements shall be submitted for the Executive Director's review and approval. ·

4. Archaeological Mitigation. Should archaeological resources be discovered at the project site during any phase of construction, the permittee shall stop work until a mitigation plan, prepared by a qualified professional archaeologist and using accepted scientific techniques, is completed and implemented. Prior to implementation, the mitigation plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the State Historical Preservation Office and for review and approval by the Executive Director of the Commission. The plan shall provide for reasonable mitigation of the archaeological impacts resulting from the development of the site, and shall be fully implemented.

A report verifying compliance with this condition shall be submitted to the Executive Director for review and approval, upon completion of the approved mitigation.

6. Environmental Monitoring During Construction. Permittee shall employ an environmental monitor who is approved by the Executive Director and the City of Pacific Grove Community California Coastal Commission
•
•
•
PGCC 5-6-26
473
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 473 ends

•
•
•
3-03-083 Crespi Pond longterm maintenance 12.18.03.doc 5 Development Director to ensure compliance with all mitigation requirements during the construction phase.

7. Local Approval. Prior to Issuance of Permit, permittee shall provide evidence to the Executive Director that the Crespi Pond Advisory Committee has approved the proposed project, and that any required Local Government approvals have been obtained.

Ill. Recommended Findings and Declarations
The Commission finds and declares as follows:

A. Standard of Review
Crespi Pond is located on a portion of the City of Pacific Grove Municipal Golf Course which is in the Coastal zone (see Exhibit D). However, the City of Pacific Grove does not yet have a certified LCP.

The City's Land Use Plan (LUP) was certified in 1991, but the zoning, or Implementation Plan (IP) portion of the LCP has yet to be certified. Since the City does not have a certified LCP, the Coastal Commission must issue coastal development permits for projects within the coastal zone, with the standard of review being the Coastal Act. The certified Land Use Plan may serve as an advisory document to the Commission for specific areas within the City of Pacific Grove.

B. Project Location and Description
Crespi Pond is an environmentally sensitive area located between the 16th and 1 ih holes of the City of Pacific Grove Municipal Golf Course. As shown in Exhibit A and B, the City of Pacific Grove Municipal Golf Course is located near Point Pinos at the northern end of the Monterey Peninsula, in the Lighthouse Reservation area of Pacific Grove. Photos of Crespi Pond are provided in Exhibit G.

The City of Pacific Grove Municipal Golf Course (the Golf Course) has requested a 10-year permit for the removal of aquatic vegetation in Crespi Pond in order to maintain a balance of 70% open water and 30% vegetation as recommended in a November 2001 Biological Assessment and Restoration of Dune Habitat for the City of Pacific Grove. The project generally involves the removal of approximately 200 cubic yards of tule, penny royal and other aquatic vegetation from the northern and central portion of the pond in order to maintain adequate amount of open water habitat and water storage. Dredged material will be stockpiled on the project site adjacent to the pond to allow for dewatering, and then loaded and hauled to an appropriate site for disposal.

Course Superintendent, Mike Leach, is requesting a long-term maintenance permit to conduct this work.

California Coastal Commission
PGCC 5-6-26
474
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 474 ends

6 3-03-083 Crespi Pond longterm maintenance 12.18.03.doc Crespi Pond is approximately 355 feet long by approximately 180 feet wide, and approximately 3 feet in depth. It receives surface water runoff from the surrounding golf course, and has an existing outfall located under Oceanview Boulevard to the Pacific Ocean. The City of Pacific Grove has been maintaining Crespi Pond in the manner proposed by this application for several years, conducting maintenance dredging about every two years.

C. Issue Discussion

1. Environmentally Sensitive Habitat
a. Applicable Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA) Policies Coastal Act Section 30240, states:
30240(a) ... Environmentally sensitive habitat areas shall be protected against any significant disruption of habitat values, and only uses dependent on such resources shall be allowed within such areas.

The Coastal Act, in Section 30107.5, defines an environmentally sensitive area as •
30107.5 ... any area in which plant or anima/life or their habitats are either rare or especially • valuable because of their special nature or role in an ecosystem and which could be easily disturbed or degraded by human activities and developments.

Coastal Act Section 30233 provides in part that:
30233 ... (a) the diking, filling, or dredging of open coastal waters, wetlands, estuaries, and lakes shall be permitted in accordance with other applicable provisions of this division, where there is no feasible less environmentally damaging alternative, and where feasible mitigation measures have been provided to minimize adverse environmentai effects and shall be limited to the following: ... (7) Restoration purposes ... (b) dredging and spoils disposal shall be planned and carried out to avoid significant disruption to marine and wildlife habitats and water circulation ... (c) in addition to the other provisions of this section, diking, filling, or dredging in existing estuaries and wetlands shall maintain or enhance the functional capacity of the wetland or estuary.

While Coastal Act policies are the standard of review for coastal development permits until the City completes its LCP, the City's LUP also provides guidance to the Commission as it considers proposals for development in certain areas of the City.

With regards to environmentally sensitive habitat areas, the Pacific Grove LUP contains the following relevant policies:

California Coastal Commission
•
PGCC 5-6-26
475
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 475 ends

•
•
•
3-03-083 Crespi Pond longterm maintenance 12.18.03.doc
LUP Policy 2.2.4.3. In addition to the City's tidelands, Crespi Pond and the Majella Slough riparian area shall be considered as environmentally sensitive habitat areas.

LUP Policy 2.2.4.4. No diking, filling, dredging, or other uses inconsistent with the terms of the grant from the State of California shall be allowed in the City's tidelands. No significant alteration of freshwater wetlands -- Crespi Pond and Majella Slough -- shall be allowed, except for maintenance dredging and similar activities essential for restoration of natural habitats. (emphasis added)
The LUP goes on to say:

2.3.5.2.d.3. In the Lighthouse Reservation and Golf Course area, areas of extreme sensitivity (AI on the Habitat Sensitivity Map) should be protected from further trampling by a low mesh fence. Do not allow machinery in the dune area. Apply irrigation only on turf, not on the sand.

Continue to eliminate exotics and restore native dune plants on the Lighthouse Grounds. . ..

Protect Crespi Pond from any polluted runoff or other disturbances to its waterfowl habitat.

Allow carefully controlled dredging of Crespi Pond in order to prevent loss of this important wetland through eutrophication and sedimentation as approved by the City Council upon a recommendation from the Crespi Pond Technical Advisory Committee . 7 According to the Land Habitat Sensitivity Map (Exhibit E), Crespi Pond is located within an area classified as Dl (low sensitivity dune habitat). The Municipal Golf Course located within the Lighthouse Reservation land use area is designated OS-I" (Open Space-Institutional) on the LCP plan map (Exhibit D). Principal permitted uses in this area includes the following: low-intensity coastal-related recreation compatible with protection of designated natural and biotic resources, including Crespi Pond, sand dunes and existing stands of Monterey pines.
b. ESHA Analysis
Crespi Pond is described as follows in the City's certified Land Use Plan Crespi Pond, a small but valuable wetland, is located on Ocean View Boulevard between Pt.

Pinos and the western end of Asilomar Avenue. Crespi Pond provides a stopping place for migrating birds including terns, gulls, many species of ducks, and Canadian geese. In total, more than 200 different birds have been sighted. It is a site for ornithological studies, and is of interest to the scientific community. In recent years, the pond has experienced excess plant growth, and accelerated eutrophication of the pond has become a concern. Management will be necessary to retain the open pond characteristic of Crespi Pond. This may include vegetation control and dredging.

Recommendations of the November 2001 biological Assessment and Restoration of Dune Habitat for the City of Pacific Grove, prepared for the City of Pacific Grove by Rana Creek Habitat Restoration biologists, included recommendations that:

California Coastal Commission
PGCC 5-6-26
476
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 476 ends

8 3-03-083 Crespi Pond longterm maintenance 12.18.03.doc Crespi Pond [should] be maintained in the following appropriate percentages: 70 percent open water and 30 percent emergent vegetation at a general depth of 4 feet. This will require periodic dredging and vegetation removal.

The committee also recommended removing exposed debris from the edges of Crespi Pond, and planting a portion of the northeastern edge with component species of Coastal Terrace Prairie. The report further noted:

No impact to listed plant species or habitat for listed plant species will occur as a result of this project. Implementation of the City of Pacific Grove Dune Habitat Restoration Plan targets an increase in habitat area for listed species, maintains or increases listed species populations' numbers, and specifies exotic plant species control. Less than significant impact would occur as a result of implementing the management recommendations.

No description of dredge disposal accompanied application materials. However, following discussions with Golf Course staff, it has been determined that dredge disposal materials would be stockpiled onsite, north of and adjacent to the pond to allow for dewatering. The location of stockpiling will allow water to drain back to the pond, where any additional sediment would settle to the bottom. Staging for construction activities will be located in the nearby parking lot to the west of the pond, and any heavy equipment will access the site using the cart path located west of the pond. These staging and stockpiling areas do not contain environmentally sensitive habitat.

The proposed dredging is being conducted for restoration purposes: to reduce eutrophication within the pond, and to maintain adequate open water and wetland plant habitat. The restoration activities are consistent with Coastal Act policy 30233, and consistent with City of Pacific Grove LUP policy for restoration and management of Crespi Pond. Since staging and dewatering of dredge spoils have been located to avoid sensitive habitat areas, the project is consistent with Coastal act policy 30240 protecting environmentally sensitive habitat areas.

In the past, concerns have been raised about the possible presence of California red-legged frogs (CRLF) on site, thus past conditions have required biological surveys be conducted to see if any red-legged frogs were present. The area around Crespi Pond ahs been surveyed, and a Site Assessment has been conducted by the City's biological consultant, Rana Creek, to determine if there is suitable habitat for CRLF. The site assessment (prepared by Rana Creek Habitat Restoration, July 2002) indicated that Crespi Pond "provides a perennial aquatic environment with habitat for all life stages of CRLF." However, to date, no California red legged frogs, or other unidentified frogs have been observed during any of the surveys (Rana Creek, Oct 30, 2002 letter re October 28 survey). Additional correspondence from the Rana Creek biologist to the Pacific Grove Golf Course (Rana Creek letter dated September 18, 2002) indicated that no rare plant species are present in or around the pond, nor have any State or Federally listed animal species been observed. According to the biologist, the last reported sighting of CRLF on or within 3 miles of the project site was in 1904, and a comment made that "it is likely that CRLF no longer occur in Crespi Pond due to the impact of surrounding development on their habitat." California Coastal Commission
•
•
•
PGCC 5-6-26
477
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 477 ends

•
•
•
3-03-083 Crespi Pond longterm maintenance 12.18.03.doc 9 Therefore, the letter found that the proposed maintenance activities would no harm any rare plant species and would be unlikely to harm CRLF, since they did not occupy the area.

However, as a precaution to address the possibility that California red legged frogs may be present on site, now or over the time frame of this long-term maintenance project, this permit has been conditioned to require that a biological survey, following USFWS protocols, be conducted to identify the presence of any CRLF or other rare, threatened or endangered plant or animal species, no more than 15 days prior to initiating work, for each dredging event. The permit has also been conditioned to restrict dredging operations to occur in the fall season (between September 1 and November 31) only, in order to avoid California red-legged frog breeding season. Therefore, as conditioned, the project will be consistent with Coastal Act policies 30231 requiring protection of environmentally sensitive habitats, and biological productivity.

2. Water Quality
Section 30231 of the Coastal Act requires, in part, requires that the biological productivity of coastal waters be maintained and enhanced by controlling storm water runoff.

The City's certified LUP contains the following policies for protecting water quality:

2.2.5.3. The City shall investigate specific measures for reduction of pollution potential in storm water runoff, including regulations to control ·the disposal of chemicals and hazardous materials, and maintenance of the existing storm water capture program at the Golf Course, Greenwood Park, and Chase Park.

2.2.6. Recommended Actions include forming a technical advisory committee to review and determine what measures are needed to slow the eutrophication of Crespi Pond and to ensure the pond's continued existence.

Storm water runoff from the City of Pacific Grove Municipal Dolf Course is collected in Crespi Pond, where sediments are able to settle out before excess water overflows the weir located at the north end, which allows overflow to be diverted into the City's storm water system and discharged into Monterey Bay. Maintaining the storage capacity of the pond helps to minimize storm water pollution by preventing direct discharge of surface water into the stormwater system. The Crespi Pond Advisory Committee has been formed and has recommended that the dredging be conducted to maintain:
appropriate percentage of open water and emergent vegetation in order to reduce the eutrophication and ensure the pond's continued existence, consistent with LUP policy 2.2.6.

Dredging of sediments will occur in the fall, prior to the winter rainy season, when, according to Golf Course staff, water levels in the pond are only about 30" deep, and are well below the top of the weir; therefore, no water discharge to the Bay will occur during the dredging process. Also, stockpiling the dredged material adjacent to the pond will allow water drained from the sediment to flow back into the pond, where any additional sediment can be settled out well before water levels in the pond are high California Coastal Commission
PGCC 5-6-26
478
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 478 ends

10 3-03-083 Crespi Pond longterm maintenance 12.18.03.doc enough that they overtop the weir and flow directly to the Bay. The dredged material will then be loaded into trucks for disposal either at a licensed landfill or a location approved by the Executive Director that will not impact coastal resources. Thus by scheduling the work in the fall, prior to the onset of the rainy season, and with careful handling of dredged materials, water quality in the ·Monterey Bay will be protected, consistent with Coastal Act and LUP requirements.

3. Archaeological Resources
a. Applicable Archaeological Resources Policies
Section 30244 of the Coastal Act states:

Where development would adversely impact archaeological or paleontological resources as identified by the State Historic Preservation Officer, reasonable mitigation measures shall be required.

Land Use Plan Section 2.4 also provides guidance on this topic as follows:

LUP Policy 2.4.5.1. Prior to the issuance of any permit for development or the commencement of any project within the areas designated on Figure 3, the Archaeological Sensitivity Map, the City in cooperation with the State Historic Preservation Office and the Archaeological Regional Research Center, shall:
(a) Inspect the surface of the site and evaluate site records to determine the extent of the known resources.
(b) Require that all sites with potential resources likely to be disturbed by the proposed project be analyzed by a qualified archaeologist with local expertise. (c) Require that a mitigation plan, adequate to pro(ect the resource and prepared by a qualified archaeologist be submitted for review and, if approved, implemented as part of the project.
b. Archaeological Resources Analysis
Crespi Pond is located within an archaeologically sensitive area (See Exhibit F). Gary Brescinni of Archaeological Consulting conducted archaeological surveys of the site and surrounding Lighthouse Reservation Area in 1977, and more recently in 2003 for the Golf Course Clubhouse site outside the coastal zone. While archaeological maps of the area show two archaeological sites located within a I 0 meters of the project site, discussion with Mr. Breschinni indicate that dredge activities are not likely to impact these sites. However, since construction activities may unearth previously undisturbed materials, the project has been conditioned to prepare and implement an archaeological mitigation plan if archaeological resources are encountered.

California Coastal Commission
•
•
•
PGCC 5-6-26
479
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 479 ends

•
•
•
3-03-083 Crespi Pond longterm maintenance 12.18.03.doc 11 Therefore, as conditioned to require suspension of work and development of a mitigation plan if archaeological materials are found, the proposed development is consistent with Section 30244 of the Coastal Act and approved LUP archaeological resource policies.

Local Coastal Programs
The Commission can take no action that would prejudice the options available to the City in preparing a Local Coastal Program that conforms to the provisions of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act (Section 30604 of the Coastal Act). Because the project area contains unique features of scientific, educational, recreational and scenic value, the City in its Local Coastal Program will need to assure long-range protection of the Lighthouse Reservation area, in which this portion of the Golf Course is located, and the sensitive habitats therein, including the northernmost extent of the Asilomar dunes and wetlands associated with Crespi Pond.

While the northern Asilomar Dunes area was originally included in the work program for the Del Monte Forest Area LUP (approved with suggested modifications, September 15, 1983), the area was annexed by the City of Pacific Grove in October, 1980, and therefore is subject to the City's LCP process.

Exercising its option under Section 30500(a) of the Coastal Act, the City in 1979 requested the Coastal Commission to prepare its Local Coastal Program. However, the draft LCP was rejected by the City in 1981, and the City began its own coastal planning effort. The City's LUP was certified on January 10, 1991. The City is currently formulating implementing -ordinances. In the interim, the City has adopted an ordinance that requires that new projects conform to LUP policies. (Of course, the standard of review for coastal development permits, pending LCP completion, is conformance with the policies of the Coastal Act.)
The LUP contains various policies that are relevant to the resource issues raised by this permit application, particularly with respect to protection of environmentally sensitive habitat and water quality.

Finding 1 above summarizes the applicable habitat protection.policies; Finding 2 addresses the LUP's water quality policies; and Finding 3 discusses archaeological resource policies. Additionally, the conditions of this permit apply, particularly with respect to wetland restoration and maintenance.

Therefore, as conditioned, the proposed development is consistent with the policies contained in Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act and will not prejudice the ability of the City of Pacific Grove to prepare and implement a complete Local Coastal Program consistent with Coastal Act policies.

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Section 13096 of the California Code of Regulations requires that a specific finding must be made in conjunction with coastal development permit applications showing the application to be consistent with any applicable requirements of CEQA. Section 21080.5(d)(2)(A) of CEQA prohibits a proposed development from being approved if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures California Coastal Commission
PGCC 5-6-26
480
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 480 ends

12 3-03-083 Crespi Pond longterm maintenance 12.18.03.doc available that would substantially lessen any significant adverse effect that the activity may have on the environment.

The environmental review of the project conducted by commission staff involved the evaluation of potential impacts to relevant coastal resource issues, including environmentally sensitive wetland habitat, water quality and archaeologically sensitive resources. This analysis is reflected in the findings that are incorporated into this CEQA finding. No public comments were received by Commission staff.

The Coastal Commission's review and analysis of land use proposals has been certified by the Secretary of Resources as being the functional equivalent of environmental review under CEQ A. This staff report has discussed the relevant coastal resource issues with the proposal, and has recommended appropriate mitigations to address adverse impacts to said resources. Accordingly, the project is being approved subject to conditions which implement the mitigating actions required of the Applicant by the Commission (see Special Conditions). As such, the Commission finds that only as modified and conditioned by this permit will the proposed project not have any significant adverse effects on the environment within the meaning of CEQ A.

California Coastal Commission
•
•
•
PGCC 5-6-26
481
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 481 ends

•
•
•
3-03-083 Crespi Pond longterm maintenance 12.18.03.doc 13 ... :._..~
California Coastal Commission
Exhibit A
Regional Location Map
Crespi Pond, City of Pacific Grove
Municipal Golf Course
3-03-083
PGCC 5-6-26
482
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 482 ends

14 3-03-083 Crespi Pond longterm maintenance 12.18.03.doc California Coastal Commission
Exhibit B
Vicinity Map
Crespi Pond, City of Pacific Grove
Municipal Golf Course
3-03-083
•
•
•
PGCC 5-6-26
483
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 483 ends

•
•
•
3-03-083 Crespi Pond longterm maintenance 12.18.03.doc 15 California Coastal Commission
Exhibit C
Aerial Photo of Crespi Pond and Vicinity
Crespi Pond, City of Pacific Grove
Municipal Golf Course
3-03-083
PGCC 5-6-26
484
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 484 ends

0 !!!..
3 iii"
!I 0,., 3
3 iii"
Ill
c;·
j
w
I
0 w
I
0 00
w
(J q"
0 """+)
Si
(')
(JL'
c::::
-· (J
0 ll) ::s Vl
o..- S::> a
§ QN
- 0 r;· '< ::s
..... 0 (I)
'0 """+) L'
n. o.. M
>-+->nVl::"
(J (I) .....
s:: 0- ......
< § (I) (I)
•
l
" ...
......
...
"
..
"'1-
\
.,
n>
.....

CITY OF

PACIFIC GROVE
0 300 600 1200
FEET
DAAWN BY OIGJTN.. GAAPHtCI 11/10
AREA Ill
•
Nont•nry Bay
Figure 4
Coastal Zone Land Use Plan
0 LOW IXNIITY N:IICIINTLII. rN/IIC
r::=::J WII)U,II ce.rrv .. IC:JIH'FW.

E::::::J ::. MQIU
f\\\\1 MIIIIUt.l DIHmY IUDJmAI.

MDfJAJ/AC
1'71....,..._......,.,
fUIISJrmAL 10-ZO tNIN:.
01-WAY ..... JDJl Vh' Tt . IUIJ •
......

NOft: ABNCIONa) NGiffToo
011--WAY IIICIEitCJHA'TtD
1111-
F::.'l_,.,.,_ t:£::1
EJ-
·o CPIN •G IEIWAf'JOJOL
00 1M FQ.LOWM f'ADI"EiftU Nil! .. """" UNinTVT10NNJ :

MOJIKJtll MNWNI ll'AlJON CP
A.. aT.-.OAD \NVEII8T'tl
MCHTIA£Y aAY .tciUNIUN
I ,;, UCIH1MOUtC
c .. an I'CI»>r GUAIID FN::&.n'lll
D .. NAVN. P1!R1Nt CEN1'Efll
1·.. AII.CMM IJTAlE IIEACM
P • Aft.CIMM nATE KACN
--
_tf;;l """ C. WAY)
-··-N£A (It Dl!fi!JIIIEO C!fn'llrlcA'nCIN
-·-·-·-·-co..sT.-t
-··-··-··-C2TY lUT
•
...
en
w
I
Q
w
I
Q
co
w
n
ca
en
, -· "a
0 :I
a.
0 :I
CCl
cr
3 3
I»
;·
..

CD
:I
I»
:I
n
CD ...

N
.
...
co
.

Q
a.
0 n
PGCC 5-6-26
485
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 485 ends

0 !!!..
... ::s
iii"
•
0 r J
n q"
0 ....., 3
3 iii"
Ill
o·
::s
""d
g
9i
0 Q
0 < (I)
(Jl"
>-I c ""d
'E.t"""
""0§ 0 0..
::;:P..::C: s=n§.
.... q -· -· S" 0 ......
'i:S -· 0 ....., (/J e.""dg
0 g 0 -· ct. tr:l
b 0 :=..· =-
w no'< .....
.g tp.j.
l
...
.....
'ti
..
\
"1
0 -· r')
....

CITY OF

PACIFIC GROVE
0 300 600 1200
FEET
DRAWN BY DIGITAL OAAPHIC8 ,/90
•
IV-A
••
.Vcrnterf131 .Ba:v,
Figure 2
Land Habitat Sensitivity Map

SEHSITMTY

EXTAEIE
HIGH
MOOERATli
LOW
I.AHDFORM
,_. BAND DUHE
u.o COASTAL BlUFF
t COASTAL BlUFF3/MEAOOWB
7 COASTAL LOTS
t PilE FOI£ST
II 1100('( BI.'-"F8
11 SANDY BEACI£8
1t LAWH
u WEEDS
II MAJEU.A SlOUGH
- PAVED N£M
-·--·- COASTAL ZOHE

BOUNDARY
------ PI.ANNJNG N'EA

BOUHDARIES
-··-··-··-CITY UMIT
- SOU1HERN PACFIC lUI.

1....-.o!DIIGHT 01 WAY!
HOlE:

SEE NOTli OH Fa.LOWINO ·PAGE
FOil HAIIITAT 80UNIIAAIE3 8HOWH
OH FIGUAE 2.
w
I
Q
\"'
Q
C»
w
n
ftl
,
en
., -·
0 = a.
-
0 = ca
..

CD
3 3
Dl
= -· ..

CD
= Dl
= n
CD
.a. N
.
.a.

C»
.

Q
w
.
a.
0 n
.a.
.....

PGCC 5-6-26
486
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 486 ends

18 Project Location
<(
w
I[
<(
3-03-083 Crespi Pond longterm maintenance 12.18.03.doc
. ,....6· ............ ..... ~
~ ............ "'~ ~.,;·· ............
..f.lo .............. .
..................................
w
> 0
u.a:
0(.!)
>-o t-_
o_ -u..
0 <

0. Exhibit F
City of Pacific Grove LUP Archaeological Sensitivity Map Crespi Pond, City of Pacific Grove
California Coastal Commission
Municipal Golf Course
3-03-083
.
•
•
•
PGCC 5-6-26
487
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 487 ends

•
•
•
3-03-083 Crespi Pond longterm maintenance 12.18.03.doc 19 California Coastal Commission
Exhibit G
Staff Photos of Crespi Pond
City of Pacific Grove
Municipal Golf Course
PGCC 5-6-26
3-03-083
488
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 488 ends

STATE OF CALIFORNIA –NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN JR., GOVERNOR

CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION CENTRAL COAST DISTRICT OFFICE 725 FRONT STREET, SUITE 300
SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060
PHONE: (831) 427-4863
FAX: (831) 427-4877
WEB: WWW.COASTAL.CA.GOV

NOTICE OF PROPOSED PERMIT WAIVER
Date: May 28, 2014
To: All Interested Parties
From: Madeline Cavalieri, Central Coast District Manager Mike Watson, Coastal Planner
Subject: Coastal Development Permit (CDP) Waiver 3-14-0375-W Applicant: City of Pacific Grove Municipal Golf Course
Proposed Development
Five year permit for annual maintenance of Crespi Pond including up to 200 cubic yards of aquatic vegetation removal at the municipal golf course, 77 Asilomar Boulevard in the City of Pacific Grove.

Executive Director’s Waiver Determination
Pursuant to Title 14, Section 13238 of the California Code of Regulations, and based on project plans and information submitted by the Applicant regarding the proposed development, the Executive Director of the California Coastal Commission hereby waives the requirement for a CDP for the following reasons:

Vegetation removal and maintenance is required to maintain a balance of 70% open water and 30% vegetation coverage and to reduce eutrophication in the pond. Removal of aquatic vegetation around the perimeter and northern portion of the pond is also necessary to maintain open water and emergent wetland habitat as well as to provide adequate storage capacity for stormwater runoff prior to conveyance into Monterey Bay. Dredged material will be stockpiled on the project site adjacent to the pond to allow for dewatering and then disposed of at an appropriate offsite location. All activities will be limited to the Fall season between September 1 and November 31 each year in order to avoid California red legged frog (CRLF) breeding season. Pre-dredging surveys will be conducted by a licensed biologist to determine the presence of any CRLF in the project area. IF CRLF are found, the permittee will consult with the US Fish and Wildlife Service for adequate protocol to avoid or relocate the frogs consistent with the requirements of USFWS. Staging of materials and waste receptacles will occur on existing paved surfaces. Construction BMP’s are proposed to ensure that all dredge materials and related debris are appropriately contained and disposed of to ensure that the site remains clean and debris does not migrate into Crespi Pond. In sum, 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.

Coastal Commission Review Procedure
This waiver is not valid until the waiver has been reported to the Coastal Commission. This waiver is proposed to be reported to the Commission on Wednesday, June 11, 2014, in Huntington Beach. If four Commissioners object to this waiver at that time, then the application shall be processed as a regular CDP application.

If you have any questions about the proposal or wish to register an objection, please contact Mike Watson in the Central Coast District office.

PGCC 5-6-26
489
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 489 ends

CALIFORNIA

CENTRAL COAST DISTRICT OFFICE
725 FRONT STREET, SUITE 300
SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060
PHONE: (831) 427-4863
FAX: (831) 427-4877
WEB: WWW.COASTAL.CA.GOV

COMMISSION

NOTICE OF PERMIT WAIVER EFFECTIVENESS
Date: June 12, 2014
To: City of Pacific Grove Municipal Golf Course
From: Madeline Cavalieri, Central Coast District ManagerM.c__.

Mike Watson, Coastal Planner
Subject: Coastal Development Permit (CDP) Waiver 3-14-0375-W EDMUND G. BROVVN JR.. GOVERNOR
Please note that CDP Waiver 3-14-0375-W was reported to the California Coastal Commission on June 11, 2014 and became effective as of that date. CDP Waiver 3-14-0375-W allows a:

Five year permit for annual maintenance of Crespi Pond including up to 200 cubic yards of aquatic vegetation removal at the municipal golf course, 77 Asilomar Boulevard in the City of Pacific Grove.

Please be advised that CDP Waiver 3-14-0375-W only authorizes the development as proposed and described in the Commission's files; any changes to the proposed and described project may require a CDP to account for the changes or a CDP for the entire project. If you have any questions, contact Mike Watson in the Central Coast District Office at the address and phone number above.

PGCC 5-6-26
490
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 490 ends

PGCC 5-6-26
491
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 491 ends

PGCC 5-6-26
492
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 492 ends

PGCC 5-6-26
493
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 493 ends

PGCC 5-6-26
494
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 494 ends

PGCC 5-6-26
495
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 495 ends

PGCC 5-6-26
496
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 496 ends

PGCC 5-6-26
497
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 497 ends

PGCC 5-6-26
498
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 498 ends

PGCC 5-6-26
499
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 499 ends

PGCC 5-6-26
500
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 500 ends

PGCC 5-6-26
501
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 501 ends

PGCC 5-6-26
502
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 502 ends

PGCC 5-6-26
503
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 503 ends

PGCC 5-6-26
504
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 504 ends

PGCC 5-6-26
505
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 505 ends

PGCC 5-6-26
506
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 506 ends

PGCC 5-6-26
507
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 507 ends

PGCC 5-6-26
508
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 508 ends

PGCC 5-6-26
509
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 509 ends

Agenda No. 12 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
MEETING DATE: May 06, 2026
SUBJECT: Process for Submitting Applications to Fill Vacant Council Seat CEQA: Does not constitute a Project per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

RECOMMENDATION
Direct the City Clerk to post the Application on the City Council’s webpage and make it available upon request.

1. Direct the City Manager to advise potential applicants to submit applications to the City Clerk starting May 7, 2026 and until a specific date decided by the City Council.

2. Direct the City Manager to return to the City Council at a specific date for a review of the applications and the appointment of an applicant to the position of City Councilmember and the appointed applicant to be sworn in by the City Clerk.

3. DISCUSSION
Councilmember Walkingstick resigned from the City Council effective at the end of the regular City Council meeting held on April 1, 2026, and the Council now needs to fill that vacancy.

City Charter Article 12 provides as follows regarding the filling of a vacancy on the City Council:
“A vacancy in an elective office shall be filled by appointment by the Council, such appointee to hold office until the next general municipal election and until a successor is elected and qualified. Such successor shall be elected for the unexpired term of his or her predecessor at the general municipal election and until his successor is elected and qualified. Such successor shall be elected for the unexpired term of his or her predecessor at the general municipal election next succeeding such appointment. Should the Council fail to fill any such vacancy within thirty days after the same occurs, then it shall be filled by appointment by the Mayor; provided, however, that if the offices of a majority, or more, of the Council shall become vacant, then the City Clerk shall call a special election at once to fill the vacancies for the unexpired terms, and the same shall be conducted substantially in the manner provided for general municipal elections.”
The City Clerk prepared the attached Application for persons who are interested in applying for consideration of appointment to the vacated City Council seat.

Note that Pacific Grove Municipal Code section 2.70.010(c), provides in relevant part, “Mid-term vacancies in a city council seat elected at-large shall be filled from the city at-large.” Councilmember Walkingstick was elected at an at-large election before the City transitioned to by-district elections.

PGCC 5-6-26
510
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 510 ends

Walkingstick was elected at an at-large election before the City transitioned to by-district elections.

Therefore, pursuant to section 2.70.010(c), filling the mid-term vacancy cannot be limited to applicants residing in Councilmember Walkingstick’s electoral district.

Staff requests that the City Council discuss and decide on the application filing deadline. Likewise, Staff requests the City Council discuss and set a specific date for a Council meeting at which the applications will be discussed and an applicant appointed to the vacant Council seat. Note that the selected applicant will fill the vacated Council seat until the November 2026 General Election, at which the remaining term of Councilmember Walkingstick will be filled by election.

OPTIONS
Provide alternative direction to the City Manager regarding the process for the appointment of an applicant to the position of City Council Member.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact as a result of this item.

FOCUSED PRIORITY AREA: Community Development
Attachments
Application
PGCC 5-6-26
511
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 511 ends

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
www.cityofpacificgrove.org
Application for Appointment to City Council
Persons interested in being appointed to serve on the City Council of the City of Pacific Grove are invited to complete the following application. This appointment will expire upon the election and qualification of a successor at the General Election set for November 3, 2026. (City Charter, Article 12 The Council)
Name:

Street Address:

City: State: ZIP Code:

Residence Telephone Number: Work Telephone Number: E-Mail Address:

Brief Description of Background and Qualifications (Additional Information May Be Attached on Separate Sheets and Attachment of Resume is Desirable):

NOTE: The Application must be submitted by email on or before 5:00 PM on May 1, 2026, to City Clerk Sandra Kandell at [email protected] A copy of all Applications are confidential until attached to an Agenda Report for consideration at a City Council meeting currently scheduled for May 20, 2026 with the Applicant’s personal information redacted.

I hereby certify that I am a registered voter of the City of Pacific Grove.

Signature of Applicant:

Print Name:

Date:

PGCC 5-6-26
512
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 512 ends

FOR CITY USE ONLY / APPOINTMENT TO CITY COUNCIL
Date of Appointment: ____________________
End of Term: ___________________________
PGCC 5-6-26
513
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 513 ends

Agenda No. 12 B

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
MEETING DATE: May 06, 2026
SUBJECT: Consider Draft City Council Policy 000-XXX Vacancy in Elective Office and Appointment.

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

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution approving the draft City Council Policy 000-XXX Vacancy in Elective Office and Appointment .

DISCUSSION
City Charter Article 12 provides that the City Council shall fill a vacant Council seat for the remainder of the term or until the next general election; however, the process for how the City Council does so has not be been previously established.

To assist the City Council with establishing a policy that will assist with deliberating on applications and selecting an applicant to fill a vacant seat, Staff has prepared the attached draft policy for Council’s consideration and discussion. The draft policy has been informed by past practices and prior discussions. The goal of the policy is to establish a clear and structured process for Council appointments when vacancies arise.

OPTIONS
Provide alternative direction.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact as a result of this item.

FOCUSED PRIORITY AREA: Not Applicable.

Attachments
Resolution Authorizing a City Council Policy Regarding Vacancy In Elective Office and Appointments Draft Vacancy on Council and Appointment City Council Policy PGCC 5-6-26
514
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 514 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 26-XXX
Resolution Authorizing A City Council Policy Regarding Vacancy In Elective Office And Appointments

FINDINGS
WHEREAS, the City of Pacific Grove is a charter city organized under the constitution of the State of California; and
WHEEAS, City Charter Article 12 provides as follows regarding the filling of a vacancy on the City Council: “A vacancy in an elective office shall be filled by appointment by the Council, such appointee to hold office until the next general municipal election and until a successor is elected and qualified. Such successor shall be elected for the unexpired term of his or her predecessor at the general municipal election and until his successor is elected and qualified.

Such successor shall be elected for the unexpired term of his or her predecessor at the general municipal election next succeeding such appointment. Should the Council fail to fill any such vacancy within thirty days after the same occurs, then it shall be filled by appointment by the Mayor; provided, however, that if the offices of a majority, or more, of the Council shall become vacant, then the City Clerk shall call a special election at once to fill the vacancies for the unexpired terms, and the same shall be conducted substantially in the manner provided for general municipal elections.”; and
WHEREAS, the process for the City Council to deliberate on applications and select an applicant to fill a vacant seat has not been previously defined; and WHEREAS, to establish a clear and structured process for City Council appointments when vacancies arise and to guide future vacancy decisions, the City Council desires to adopt a City Council Policy regarding Vacancy in Elective Office and Appointment.

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

1. The Council determines that each of the Findings set forth above are true and correct, and by this reference incorporates them as an integral part of this Resolution.

2. The Council adopts the attached City Council Policy regarding Vacancy in Elective Office and Appointment.

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

PGCC 5-6-26
515
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 515 ends

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

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

APPROVED:
_______________________________
NICK SMITH, Mayor
ATTEST:

DATED:_______________________
_______________________________
SANDRA KANDELL, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________________
ALEX LORCA, City Attorney
PGCC 5-6-26
516
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 516 ends

City of Pacific Grove, California
City Council Policy
Policy Governing Policy No. Effective Date Page
Vacancy in Elective Office and Appointment 000-XX May ___, 2026 1 of 2

PURPOSE
This policy establishes a clear, fair, and efficient process to fill a vacancy on the City Council by appointment pursuant to City Charter Article 12, which states in part, “A vacancy in an elective office shall be filled by appointment by the Council, such appointee to hold office until the next general municipal election and until a successor is elected and qualified. Such successor shall be elected for the unexpired term of his or her predecessor at the general municipal election and until his successor is elected and qualified. Such successor shall be elected for the unexpired term of his or her predecessor at the general municipal election next succeeding such appointment.” This policy is designed to foster transparency, inclusivity, and equitable opportunity for all eligible candidates.

ELIGIBILITY
Any individual meeting the established eligibility criteria for Council may be nominated pursuant to City Charter Article 7, which states, “No person shall be eligible to hold, by election or appointment, any elective office of the City unless he/she shall have been a resident and elector of the City for at least thirty (30) days before the date of his or her election or appointment.:” Vacancies in a City Council seat that was elected in an at-large election shall be filled from the City at-large. Vacancies in a City Council seat that was elected in a by-district election shall be filled by an applicant residing in that district.

POLICY & PROCEDURE
When a vacancy is determined, City Staff will prepare an Agenda Report that will identify a future date and time that the City Council will deliberate and select an applicant to fill a vacant seat. The Agenda Report will also provide other applicable instructions for persons interested in applying for appointment for the vacancy. The Agenda Report will specify whether the appointment is at-large or district-based.

Application
The City Clerk will post an Application on the City Council’s webpage and make it available to applicants upon request. Applicants eligible for appointment must complete the Application and provide it to the City Clerk by the date and time determined by the Council.

PGCC 5-6-26
517
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 517 ends

Vacancy in Elective Office and Appointment–Council Policy No. 000-XXX

Page 2 ends

4902-0978-0646, v. 2
Applications will be posted on the City Council’s webpage for public review. Applications will be redacted as appropriate, and also be included with the Agenda Report, which will be posted in compliance with state law before the meeting at which the appointment is to be made.

Appointment Day
Nomination Process
• All stages of the nomination process must be conducted without bias or undue influence and any disputes or challenges shall be addressed promptly according to established procedures. • Each applicant will have up to five minutes to present a statement to the Council describing their interest in the position and their qualifications. • The Mayor will seek public comment.
• If there are 4 or more applications received, the following steps will be taken to narrow the nominees before voting. (If there are 3 or less applications received, the process will proceed directly pursuant to the Voting section below.)
• The Mayor will request from each Councilmember their top two nominations, and will state them on the record.
• Nominations do not require a second.
• Each nominee must be clearly stated and recorded by the presiding officer or City Clerk. • When the entire Council has announced their top two nominations, the nomination period will be formally closed.

Voting
• All stages of the voting process must be conducted without bias or undue influence and any disputes or challenges shall be addressed promptly according to established procedures. • Following Council announcements of their top two candidates (if necessary), a fair and impartial vote shall be conducted as to each nominee as follows:
o The process of voting will begin with a City Council member making a motion for a nominee. If a second is received on the motion a roll call vote will be taken. This process is repeated until a nominee receives 4 affirmative votes. o Voting will be accomplished by roll call.
o If no nominee receives four affirmative votes, the Mayor shall make the appointment.

Oath of Office
Following the appointment, the City Clerk will administer the Oath of Office to the newly appointed Council Member who will join the Council on the dais.

Recordkeeping
A record of nominations, accepted candidates, and final voting results shall be maintained for official documentation and transparency.

MAYORAL VACANCY
In the event a vacancy occurs in the office of the Mayor, the remaining Council Members shall appoint, by four affirmative votes, one of their number to serve as Mayor for the remaining term of the vacated office of Mayor. If the Council does not fill the Mayoral vacancy within thirty (30) days, its appointment power shall lapse and the Mayor Pro Tempore shall assume the office of Mayor. In PGCC 5-6-26
518
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 518 ends

Vacancy in Elective Office and Appointment–Council Policy No. 000-XXX

Page 3 ends

4902-0978-0646, v. 2
either event, a vacancy shall then exist as to the Council seat vacated by the new Mayor, which shall be filled in accord with the provisions of Article 12 of the Charter.

Adopted __________, (Resolution No. 26-XXX)
PGCC 5-6-26
519
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 519 ends

Agenda No. 13 A

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: George Fuerst, Environmental Program Manager
MEETING DATE: May 06, 2026
SUBJECT: Receive Presentation and Consider Approving ReGen Monterey's Technical Advisory Committee's Subgroup Recommendation on the 2030 Collection Franchise Planning Process.

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

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution initiating a Competitive Request for Proposal Process for future Solid Waste, Recycling, and Organic Collection Services; and Adopt related Process Integrity Policy.

DISCUSSION
Seven participating agencies including the Cities of Carmel-by-the-Sea, Pacific Grove, Del Rey Oaks, Marina, Seaside, Sand City, and the Pebble Beach Community Services District (member agencies) each hold exclusive franchise agreements with incumbent hauler GreenWaste Recovery for solid waste, recycling, and organic collection services that are set to expire in June of 2030.

Staff from each of the member agencies have cooperatively participated and served on the Franchise Agreement Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), a subgroup formed for the purpose of evaluating and implementing a regional approach for continuing collections services beyond 2030. In early 2025 the TAC subgroup, aided by staff from ReGen Monterey, engaged HF&H Consultants, LLC (HF&H) to assist member agencies in franchise agreement planning and stakeholder engagement activities necessary to evaluate the merits of either awarding a contract extension to the incumbent hauler or pursue a competitive request for proposal process.

HF&H, with assistance from Probolsky Research, conducted a regional, statistically valid survey, engaging four hundred and fifty residential customers spread amongst all member agency jurisdictions.

In summary, the results of the survey concluded that residents were very satisfied with the incumbent hauler, reporting their service was dependable and noting GreenWaste Recovery has provided good customer service. However, affordability was rated as the top concern amongst all constituents including residential, commercial, and multi-family. Additional information on the process for stakeholder engagement, analysis, and results for all sectors, can be found in the attached ReGen Monterey staff report/presentation.

Besides quality of service and affordability, other key considerations that were assessed by the TAC subgroup included the current market place with numerous regional haulers expressing a strong interest PGCC 5-6-26
520
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 520 ends

to serve the peninsula, existing infrastructure (truck yard owned by ReGen Monterey) allowing for low barrier of entry for incoming service provider, good governance, clear and transparent process, and an assurance in securing the best rates for constituents.

The TAC subgroup recommends initiating a competitive request for proposal process for future solid waste, recycling, and organic collection services, and strongly supports the adoption of the attached Process Integrity Policy to support a fair, transparent, and competitive procurement process.

OPTIONS
Alternatively, provide other direction related to this item.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

There is no financial impact to initiate a competitive RFP for solid waste, recycling, and organics collection services. ReGen is temporarily incurring costs from the consultants supporting the Member Agency procurement process, estimated at $534,620 in total, which will be reimbursed to ReGen by the seven participating Member Agencies through the recently approved Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). While the Member Agencies will be responsible for their share of the costs, please note that local government procurement costs are typically reimbursed to Member Agencies by the selected franchise service provider.

FOCUSED PRIORITY AREA: Not Applicable.

Attachments
ReGen Board of Directors Report
Probolsky Research Survey Results
Process Integrity Policy
Presentation
Resolution Waste Hauler Franchise RFP
PGCC 5-6-26
521
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 521 ends

P R E S E N T A T I O N
Meeting Date: April 17, 2026
To: Board of Directors
From: Zoe Shoats, Director of Communications
Approved by: Felipe Melchor, General Manager
Subject: Receive a presentation and endorse the Staff recommendation to Member Agency elected bodies on the 2030 collection franchise planning process

RECOMMENDATION
That the Board of Directors (Board) receive and forward the Technical Advisory Committee’s (TAC) Franchise Agreement Subgroup (Subgroup) recommendation to participating Member Agency elected bodies and consider supporting the Subgroup’s recommendation to initiate a competitive Request for Proposal (RFP) process for solid waste, recycling, and organics collection services, allowing GreenWaste Recovery, LLC (GreenWaste) and other service providers to compete for the new franchise and approve the Process Integrity Policy included in Attachment F.

BACKGROUND
Seven participating agencies, including the Cities of City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, Del Rey Oaks, Marina, Pacific Grove, Sand City, Seaside, and Pebble Beach Community Services District (Member Agencies) of ReGen Monterey’s (ReGen) nine member agencies, hold an exclusive franchise agreement with GreenWaste for solid waste, recycling, and organics collection services, expiring in 2030. As the agreements near expiration, the Member Agencies began to evaluate future service options and consider whether to issue a competitive RFP or negotiate a sole-source agreement with GreenWaste.

In early 2025, a TAC Subgroup was formed to prepare and plan. In August 2025, the ReGen Board approved a contract with HF&H Consultants, LLC (HF&H) to support the Subgroup and Member Agencies in this effort. Since that time, the Subgroup has been and will continue working on a range of activities to support collection franchise planning, including a public and stakeholder engagement process, RFP process support, negotiations, and solicitation, design, and drafting of a future franchise agreement. Since August 2025, HF&H has worked with ReGen’s Communications staff (Staff) and the TAC’s Subgroup to conduct phase one, public and stakeholder engagement.

PGCC 5-6-26
522
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 522 ends

DISCUSSION
Stakeholder Engagement Process
Community and stakeholder input provides important context for evaluating whether to pursue a competitive RFP or a sole-source negotiation for future solid waste, recycling, and organics collection services. Over the past several months, the TAC Subgroup, supported by HF&H, conducted a comprehensive engagement process across four key sectors: residential, multi-family, commercial, and industry. This included partnering with Probolsky Research to conduct a statistically valid survey of residential customers designed to assess current service satisfaction, identify community priorities, and gauge interest in additional services that are not currently provided. In addition to the survey, we hosted a number of virtual and in-person events that were intended to allow more nuanced conversations with specific customer types.

This included hosting community meetings, direct outreach to multi-family property owners and building managers, discussions with leaders in the business community, and meetings with potential service providers.

In parallel with community engagement, several industry stakeholders were engaged to better understand market conditions and to identify opportunities and potential challenges associated with providing services in the region. Industry feedback consistently identified the seven Member Agencies’ service area as an ideal market, citing operational efficiencies, established infrastructure, and long-term service viability. Multiple respondents expressed interest in proposing services, indicating that the region is well-positioned to attract competitive proposals should an RFP be issued.

Detailed information regarding the engagement methodology, outreach activities, and sectorspecific results is provided in Attachments A through E. The discussion below summarizes key themes from the engagement process and highlights the primary factors considered by the TAC’s Subgroup when recommending a competitive RFP process for future collection services.

Community Input
The TAC Subgroup reviewed results from the stakeholder engagement process and found, across engagement efforts, overall satisfaction with current service was generally high.

However, affordability emerged as the highest-rated and most strongly expressed priority across sectors (99.1%), followed closely by service quality (98.9%), convenience (98.2%), and environmental impact (96.0%).

Survey results show that perceptions of cost are mixed, with only 47% of residents indicating their garbage and recycling bill is “just about right,” while nearly 33% feel rates are too high and a significant share remain unsure, reflecting caution around affordability. When asked to evaluate community values, affordability ranked higher than any other factor, exceeding priorities such as environmental impact, convenience, and quality of service. This underscores the importance of rate impacts in residents’ evaluation of future service decisions. Survey responses also indicate limited appetite for new or expanded programs that could increase costs, reinforcing a clear expectation that decision-makers will weigh this evaluation criterion heavily. Multi-family and commercial outreach echoed these findings, with property managers and business representatives identifying rates, cost control, and predictability as primary concerns alongside service reliability.

Collectively, feedback from residential, multi-family, and commercial stakeholders demonstrates strong alignment around the need to prioritize affordability and carefully evaluate any approach that could result in rate increases. This consistent emphasis on cost sensitivity establishes PGCC 5-6-26
523
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 523 ends

affordability as a central consideration in determining the appropriate procurement path for future collection services.

Key Considerations
Good Governance:

A competitive RFP process provides the Member Agencies with a clear, transparent, and defensible path to securing a contractor that represents the best value for the community by allowing multiple qualified service providers to compete on price, service levels, reliability, environmental protection, and other relevant factors. This approach is widely regarded as the most transparent and publicly accountable method for awarding long-term franchise agreements, supporting public confidence in the decision-making process.

Affordability:

During the engagement process, GreenWaste shared an indicative range of potential future cost increases associated with continuing service under a sole-source approach. While it would be inappropriate to share the numerical values publicly, the amounts were greater than a typical inflationary amount and included some trade-offs for the Member Agencies and customers. At the level of rate adjustment suggested in this preliminary discussion, the TAC Subgroup expressed that competitive proposals would be important to better understand cost drivers, validate pricing, and ensure that future service decisions are informed by objective, marketbased information.

Satisfaction with Service:

The TAC Subgroup notes that there is a very high level of satisfaction with the current service provider throughout the service area. This is a credit to GreenWaste and especially their frontline drivers and customer service employees who interact with customers on a daily basis. The high level of satisfaction was significant to the TAC Subgroup, and the members of the Subgroup expressed their desire for GreenWaste to participate in the competitive process for the next contracts. It was also noted that there was a high level of satisfaction with Waste Management (WM) in the contract prior to GreenWaste taking over in 2015 and that many of the drivers transitioned to GreenWaste from WM in 2015. The RFP would contain a provision requiring that any current employees displaced by a change in contractors would be offered positions at the new company. As a result, many of the front-line employees that are responsible for the high quality of service would likely continue to serve the Member Agencies as they do today.

Assignment Risk:

GreenWaste was acquired by a private investment fund during the term of the current agreements and there was a greater level of turnover in executive and management staff than was expected at the time of the initial acquisition. In addition, at the time of the acquisition, the acquiring company disclosed that it typically divests itself of assets like this in seven to 10 years. That same investment firm has recently divested itself of other solid waste assets in the United States. While GreenWaste has maintained a high level of satisfaction, the new executive and management team have a different perspective and approach than was conveyed when GreenWaste proposed to get the current contracts. An RFP process would allow the Member Agencies to consider changes to the contracts that would provide greater protection for the ratepayers and Member Agencies in the event of a future acquisition.

Infrastructure and Readiness
ReGen has made significant long-term investments over many years to create an operational environment that supports efficient, reliable service delivery for the Member Agencies it PGCC 5-6-26
524
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 524 ends

represents. ReGen owns the collection Truck Yard and Maintenance Facility currently leased and used by the incumbent service provider, and has established on-site processing of recyclables and organics, as well as control over disposal through its landfill. Together, these assets create a turnkey operational setting that reduces barriers to entry and enables any qualified collection operator to efficiently serve the agencies in the future. In other markets, the private ownership of these assets creates significant incumbency advantages. In this case, the public ownership of the assets ensures cost-effectiveness and competitiveness.

RFP Timeline and Next Steps
To meet the schedule of the expiring franchise agreements in 2030, the Member Agencies would begin the RFP process in late 2026. While a typical RFP process lasts 12 to 18 months and includes drafting and finalizing an RFP, soliciting proposals, responding to prospective operators’ questions, interviewing proposers, evaluating proposals, negotiating contract terms, and seeking final approval by Member Agencies’ elected bodies, the multi-jurisdictional nature of this effort is expected to extend the overall timeline. The process will require ongoing coordination among Member Agencies, collaboration and updates with multiple elected bodies throughout key decision points, and subsequent jurisdiction-specific negotiations to tailor services and rate outcomes following a group decision. As a result, the RFP process is anticipated to extend through 2027, with the potential award of the new franchise in the first half of 2028, and the intent to maintain current services with the existing service provider through 2030, subject to the direction and outcome of the negotiations. This will allow approximately two years for the selected service provider to address any infrastructure needs, acquire vehicles, establish new programs or services, and conduct community outreach and engagement to ensure the public is aware of any changes.

Process Integrity Policy
To support a fair, transparent, and competitive procurement process, many public agencies adopt a Process Integrity Policy to guide interactions among participating agencies, proposers, advisors, and other stakeholders throughout the solicitation and evaluation phases. The policy is intended to ensure consistent treatment of all proposers, protect the integrity of the process, and maintain public confidence in the outcome. Key principles include clear communication protocols, defined roles and responsibilities, and safeguards to prevent conflicts of interest or the appearance of preferential treatment. The policy also protects the Member Agencies, their elected officials, and their staff from potential challenges to the process or public claims of impropriety.

The Process Integrity Policy establishes expectations for professionalism, confidentiality, and adherence to established procedures during the procurement process. Adoption of this policy provides a clear framework to support objective evaluation, informed decision-making, and compliance with applicable legal and ethical standards. The Process Integrity Policy is included as Attachment F, which has been reviewed by ReGen’s legal counsel and is recommended that the Board forward this along to each Member Agency-elected body.

FINANCIAL IMPACT
There is no financial impact to initiate a competitive RFP for solid waste, recycling, and organics collection services. ReGen is temporarily incurring costs from the consultants supporting the Member Agency procurement process, estimated at $534,620 in total, which will be reimbursed to ReGen by the seven participating Member Agencies through the recently approved Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). While the Member Agencies will be responsible for their share of the costs, please note that local government procurement costs are typically reimbursed to Member Agencies by the selected franchise service provider.

PGCC 5-6-26
525
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 525 ends

CONCLUSION
Staff requests that the Board receive and forward the TAC Subgroup’s recommendation to participating Member Agency elected bodies and consider supporting the Subgroup’s recommendation to initiate a competitive RFP process for solid waste, recycling, and organics collection services, allowing GreenWaste and other service providers to compete for the new franchise and approve the Process Integrity Policy included in Attachment F.

ATTACHMENTS
A. Probolsky Research Survey Results
B. Residential Community Meetings
C. Multi-Family Engagement
D. Commercial Engagement
E. Industry Engagement
F. Process Integrity Policy
PGCC 5-6-26
526
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 526 ends

Attachment A: Probolsky Research Survey Results (see separate attachment) PGCC 5-6-26
527
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 527 ends

Attachment B: Residential Community Meetings

METHODOLOGY
HF&H hosted three virtual community meetings to solicit feedback on current service satisfaction, identify community priorities, and gauge interest in additional services not currently provided for Member Agency residents. To support broad participation, HF&H developed bilingual (English/Spanish) outreach materials for distribution by ReGen and the Member Agencies. To accommodate varying schedules and convenience, HF&H hosted the virtual meetings at two different times across three separate days:
 Tuesday, February 24, 2026 from 5:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m.  Wednesday, February 25, 2026 from 12:00 p.m. to 1:00 p.m.  Thursday, February 26, 2026 from 5:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m.

To support Spanish-speaking residents, Spanish-language interpretation was provided during the February 26 meeting. Each meeting included a brief overview of the agenda, purpose, and background information before moving into an anonymous poll. This poll was followed by an open discussion period where participants could share what is working well—or not—with current solid waste, recycling, and organics collection service programs, identify which services matter most to residents moving forward, and indicate how they would prioritize value for these services.

RESULTS AND ANALYSIS
Seventeen residents participated across all three meetings and, of those, 13 submitted answers to the anonymous poll.

Residents indicated generally high satisfaction levels with their current collection services during the community meetings and in their poll responses, with 69% of participants satisfied with GreenWaste’s collection services and 69% satisfied with the helpfulness and professionalism of its customer service team. However, residents also expressed interest in targeted improvements. Although 67% reported receiving educational materials, 62.5% of those recipients found the information could have been clearer, and 25% of residents who provided additional input requested more education and outreach on available programs. Additionally, 17% expressed interest in greater service customization, such as the ability to choose cart sizes or types. During open discussion, several residents also expressed sensitivity to rate increases, noting concerns that recent rate increases were not always accompanied by perceived service improvements and emphasizing the importance of avoiding large, across-the-board increases that could disproportionately affect community members. These results indicate that, while GreenWaste is largely meeting community needs, opportunities remain to enhance education, service customization, and overall customer experience.

PGCC 5-6-26
528
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 528 ends

Attachment C: Multi-Family Engagement

METHODOLOGY
To support multi-family dwelling (MFD) engagement, a comprehensive information list of all MFDs was requested from GreenWaste, including their addresses and contact information, within the Member Agency service area. Priority MFDs were identified by Member Agency staff to support targeted outreach, while ensuring appropriate representation across participating Member Agencies.

A standardized set of questions was developed for property managers to assess satisfaction with current collection services, identify priorities for a future collection agreement, evaluate outreach effectiveness, and gauge awareness of the bulky item collection program. Outreach was conducted with the objective of engaging at least one property manager within each participating Member Agency. Where available, property managers were surveyed by phone; when unavailable, follow-up outreach was conducted through voicemail, email, or in-person visits, as appropriate.

RESULTS AND ANALYSIS
Forty-six MFDs were engaged and, of those, seven provided responses to the developed questions.

Approximately 85% of the MFDs surveyed are satisfied with GreenWaste’s services. GreenWaste had performed outreach at approximately 66% of the surveyed MFDs, but none of them knew about the bulky program. The property managers were interested in a bulky program to collect large items when residents move out. Overall, many MFDs expressed that GreenWaste has reliable and consistent collection services with responsive customer service. However, property managers identified several service-related concerns, including challenges with container lid closure, service conditions classified as “difficult to service,” occasional missed pickups, and damaged containers. Issues that could be readily addressed were generally resolved by customer service in a timely manner. Looking ahead, MFD property managers identified quality of service, customer service responsiveness, and low rates as their highest priorities for a future collection agreement.

PGCC 5-6-26
529
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 529 ends

Attachment D: Commercial Engagement

METHODOLOGY
To support commercial sector engagement, the TAC Subgroup sought to engage business and sustainability associations within the Member Agency service area to gather insight into current and future collection services. A comprehensive list of commercial businesses, including addresses and contact information was compiled. Priority commercial businesses were identified through coordination with GreenWaste and participating Member Agencies to support targeted outreach and ensure appropriate representation across jurisdictions. The outreach list was refined based on these prioritizations and agency representation.

A standardized set of questions was developed for business owners and managers to assess satisfaction with current collection services, identify key priorities for a future collection agreement, evaluate the cost and value of existing services, and assess the effectiveness of outreach efforts. Outreach was conducted with the objective of engaging at least one commercial business within each participating Member Agency. Where available, interviews were conducted by phone. When a business owner or manager was unavailable, follow-up outreach was conducted through voicemail messages or email correspondence, as appropriate.

RESULTS AND ANALYSIS
Thirty-four commercial businesses were engaged and, of those, 15 provided responses to the developed questions.

Approximately 60% of the commercial businesses surveyed are satisfied with GreenWaste’s services, but only 40% of them thought GreenWaste’s rates are reasonable. GreenWaste had performed outreach at approximately 58% of the commercial businesses surveyed. Overall, many businesses expressed that GreenWaste has reliable and consistent recycling and solid waste services with responsive customer service. However, many businesses also expressed frustration regarding GreenWaste’s immediate increases in price after they took over for WM in 2015, coupled with GreenWaste’s additional charges for non-curbside service, pushing and/or pulling containers, opening gates, and extra organics carts. In Pacific Grove, downtown businesses are unhappy with GreenWaste’s charges for bundles of cardboard and lack of assistance to help maximize space for extra containers. For a future collection agreement, most commercial businesses selected quality of service and low rates as their top priorities. They also expressed interest in additional services such as free cardboard pickup, container cleaning services, and everyday collection.

PGCC 5-6-26
530
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 530 ends

Attachment E: Industry Engagement

METHODOLOGY
To better understand industry capacity, market interest, and potential considerations associated with future collection services, the TAC Subgroup, with support from HF&H, conducted targeted outreach to private solid waste collection service providers active in California and similar regional markets. A list of firms that had either previously expressed interest in providing collection services within the Member Agency service area or were identified by the Subgroup as relevant potential proposers based on market presence and experience.

Each identified service provider was invited to participate in a formal in-person presentation to the TAC Subgroup. Presentations were structured to allow approximately 20 minutes for each company to present its qualifications, business model, and perspective on operating within the Member Agency service area, followed by a 30-minute question-and-answer session with Subgroup members. This format was intended to support a consistent, transparent exchange of information and allow for direct dialogue regarding operational considerations, infrastructure readiness, and potential partnership models.

Five service providers participated in the industry engagement presentations:
 Mid Valley Disposal
 Recology
 Republic Services
 Waste Connections
 Waste Management
In addition, GreenWaste was invited to present to the Subgroup to provide perspective on its experience serving the region and its interest in future service arrangements.

RESULTS AND ANALYSIS
Across all presentations, industry participants expressed interest in future partnerships within the Member Agency service area. Multiple presenters characterized the region as an attractive and operationally viable market due to its service density, established customer base, and publicly owned infrastructure. All service providers noted that ReGen’s ownership of key facilities—including collection yards and processing and disposal infrastructure—creates a turnkey operational environment that reduces barriers to entry and enhances market competitiveness.

GreenWaste Recovery expressed enthusiasm for continuing to provide service to the community and indicated openness to negotiating a future agreement under a sole-source approach. During preliminary discussions, GreenWaste shared an estimated range of potential future rate impacts associated with continuing service under a non-competitive negotiation. GreenWaste also noted that changes in ownership or a future asset sale or acquisition are inherent risks in the solid waste industry, particularly given broader market consolidation trends.

PGCC 5-6-26
531
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 531 ends

Attachment F: Process Integrity Policy (see separate attachment) / /
PGCC 5-6-26
532
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 532 ends

Monterey Peninsula
Franchise Collection Service Provider
Survey
Results Presentation
February 2026
Opinion Research on
Elections and Public Policy

PROBOLSKY RESEARCH
23 Corporate Plaza Suite 150 Newport Beach CA 92660
Newport Beach
(949) 855-6400
San Francisco
(415) 870-8150
Washington DC
(202) 559-0270
PGCC 5-6-26
533
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 533 ends

Monterey Peninsula – Franchise Collection Service Provider Survey
Survey Methodology*
1 Survey Details
Mode Phone (inbound and outbound)
Online (mail, email, and text to web)
Language English and Spanish
Length 10 minutes
Target
Respondents
Monterey Peninsula communities
Survey
Fielding
February 6 – 23, 2026
Margin of
Error
+/-4.7%
Survey
Participants
450
Sample
The sample was developed from the consumer data.

We mailed, called, emailed, and texted residents. We
matched the demographics of ReGen Monterey service
area residents.

Data Collection Explained
Interviews were conducted with live interviewers by
phone (4%) and online survey methods (96%). Phone
participants were interviewed through outbound (68%)
and inbound (32%) calls. Online participants were
invited by mail (57%), email (31%), and text message
(12%) to access the survey by computer, tablet, or
smart phone.

Respondents in all modes chose their preferred
language, English (99%) and Spanish (1%).

Security measures precluded individuals from
completing the survey more than once.
*Due to rounding, totals shown on charts may not add up to 100% Probolsky Research is a Latina- and woman-owned market and opinion research firm with corporate, election, government, and non-profit clients.

35.1%

24.9%

17.8%

5.6%

5.6%
Seaside
Marina
Pacific Grove
Del Rey Oaks
Carmel-by-the-Sea
PBCSD
Sand City
The distribution reflects the geographic
composition of respondents within the Monterey
Peninsula service area. To ensure adequate
representation, a minimum of 25 responses were
collected in each jurisdiction, with Del Rey Oaks,
Carmel-by-the-Sea, Pebble Beach Community
Services District, and Sand City intentionally
oversampled..

PGCC 5-6-26
534
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 534 ends

93% are satisfied with the services provided by
GreenWaste Recovery
Question 3: In general, how satisfied are you with the services provided by GreenWaste Recovery including collecting and transporting garbage, recyclables, and organic material? 2 92.9%

6.4%

0.7%
Satisfied Unsatisfied Unsure
PGCC 5-6-26
535
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 535 ends

Among those satisfied, 66% are very satisfied
Question 3: In general, how satisfied are you with the services provided by GreenWaste Recovery including collecting and transporting garbage, recyclables, and organic material? 3 92.9%

6.4%

0.7%
Total
Very satisfied

66.0%
Somewhat satisfied

34.0%
Among those who said satisfied
Very unsatisfied

27.6%
Somewhat unsatisfied

72.4%
Among those who said unsatisfied
PGCC 5-6-26
536
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 536 ends

Results by gender, age group, and home type
4 91.5%

94.6%
100.0%

95.9%

90.4%

91.7%

94.0%

93.1%

94.3%

92.9%

89.9%
100.0%
100.0%

7.5%

5.0%

4.1%

9.6%

6.7%

7.4%

5.3%

6.6%

5.7%

7.1%

7.6%
Male
Female
An identity not listed
18-29
30-39
40-49
50-64
65+
Own a single-family home
Rent a single-family home
Own condo, or townhome
Rent apartment, condo, or townhome
Own mobile home
Other
Satisfied
Unsure
Unsatisfied
Question 3: In general, how satisfied are you with the services provided by GreenWaste Recovery including collecting and transporting garbage, recyclables, and organic material? PGCC 5-6-26
537
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 537 ends

Results by household income and Jurisdiction
5 89.2%

91.8%

90.5%

96.2%

92.1%

84.0%

96.0%

94.6%

95.0%

96.0%

90.5%

10.8%

8.2%

9.5%

1.9%

3.8%

7.9%

16.0%

4.0%

4.5%

3.8%

4.0%

8.9%
$49,999 a year or less
$50,000 - $99,999 a year
$100,000 - $149,999 a year
$150,000 - $199,999 a year
$200,000 - $249,999 a year
$250,000 or more a year
Carmel-by-the-Sea
Del Rey Oaks
Marina
Pacific Grove
Pebble Beach Community Services District
Sand City
Seaside
Satisfied
Unsure
Unsatisfied
Question 3: In general, how satisfied are you with the services provided by GreenWaste Recovery including collecting and transporting garbage, recyclables, and organic material? PGCC 5-6-26
538
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 538 ends

Results by survey language and survey mode
6 92.8%
100.0%

92.8%

95.1%

88.0%

94.2%

94.7%

92.3%
100.0%

6.5%

4.5%

10.5%

5.8%

5.3%

7.7%
English
Spanish
Online [NET]
Mail
Email
Text
Phone [NET]
Outbound call
Inbound call
Satisfied
Unsure
Unsatisfied
Question 3: In general, how satisfied are you with the services provided by GreenWaste Recovery including collecting and transporting garbage, recyclables, and organic material? PGCC 5-6-26
539
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 539 ends

24.1%

10.3%

3.4%

37.9% (11 responses)
High cost compared to the level of service
Containers are frequently missed
Containers are incorrectly placed after pickup
Not enough available programs
Other

92.9%

6.4%

0.7%
Question asked of
respondents unsatisfied
with GreenWaste
Recovery, representing
6% of the total sample or
29 individuals.

PGCC 5-6-26
540
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 540 ends

8 Verbatim responses for other
Other
Do not like compost in yard waste
They don't collect everything. I have to bring batteries to Home Depot. They wouldn't take my small Christmas tree. I had to pay someone to haul it away. The green waste bin is always full and is very toxic from food waste. I was told compostables are not compostable and you can't put food waste in compostable bags. There is mold growing in the bin
Containers are often not fully emptied
Would like to separate food waste, but like so many residences in PG, we don't have yards or enough yard waste to mix with food. Seems unsanitary to place in container for a week
Not letting us use compostable bags for indoor compost collection! Green container would not allow any bags, compostable or otherwise.

There are not enough recycle bins at our apartment complex. Previous to living here we rented a duplex in Seaside. Although there was the occasional issue, whenever we contacted Greenwaste they were helpful and kind. Overall I like greenwaste, so not sure if the issue I have is with my landlord or greenwaste No containers for batteries and motor oil
Do not like putting organic waste from kitchen in yard waste, make bin stink and creates a fly problem ive had to call them to pick my garbage up when the other neighbors garbage have been picked up, they also make amess when picking up garbage from our street t's because of the pick up schedule, they only collect after 5:30 PM.

Question 4: Why aren’t you satisfied with the services provided by GreenWaste Recovery? Select all that apply. [IF ANSWERED UNSATISFIED TO Q3 (11 responses)]
PGCC 5-6-26
541
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 541 ends

67% have not contacted GreenWaste Recovery
within the past 12 months
Question 5: Have you contacted GreenWaste Recovery customer service in the past 12 months? 9 30.0%

67.3%

2.7%
Yes No Unsure
PGCC 5-6-26
542
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 542 ends

Results by gender, age group, and home type
Question 5: Have you contacted GreenWaste Recovery customer service in the past 12 months? 10 28.6%

32.4%

25.0%

13.7%

40.4%

31.7%

34.3%

31.3%

34.7%

32.9%

14.3%

15.2%

50.0%

18.2%

69.0%

65.3%

75.0%

82.2%

57.7%

65.0%

65.7%

66.0%

63.7%

58.6%

85.7%

83.5%

50.0%

81.8%
Male
Female
An identity not listed
18-29
30-39
40-49
50-64
65+
Own a single-family home
Rent a single-family home
Own condo, or townhome
Rent apartment, condo, or townhome
Own mobile home
Other
Yes
Unsure
No
PGCC 5-6-26
543
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 543 ends

Results by household income and Jurisdiction
11 27.7%

34.1%

31.1%

22.6%

50.0%

28.9%

40.0%

32.0%

25.9%

28.8%

32.0%

20.0%

32.9%

69.2%

61.2%

68.9%

77.4%

46.2%

68.4%

56.0%

68.0%

70.5%

68.8%

68.0%

80.0%

63.9%
$49,999 a year or less
$50,000 - $99,999 a year
$100,000 - $149,999 a year
$150,000 - $199,999 a year
$200,000 - $249,999 a year
$250,000 or more a year
Carmel-by-the-Sea
Del Rey Oaks
Marina
Pacific Grove
Pebble Beach Community Services District
Sand City
Seaside
Yes
Unsure
No
Question 5: Have you contacted GreenWaste Recovery customer service in the past 12 months? PGCC 5-6-26
544
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 544 ends

Results by survey language and survey mode
12 30.0%

33.3%

30.9%

32.9%

33.8%

13.5%

10.5%

7.7%

16.7%

67.3%

66.7%

66.4%

64.6%

64.7%

78.8%

89.5%

92.3%

83.3%
English
Spanish
Online [NET]
Mail
Email
Text
Phone [NET]
Outbound call
Inbound call
Yes
Unsure
No
Question 5: Have you contacted GreenWaste Recovery customer service in the past 12 months? PGCC 5-6-26
545
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 545 ends

Extra pick-ups and cart replacements are the top
reasons residents contact GreenWaste
Question 6: What was the reason for your last call to GreenWaste Recovery customer service? [IF ANSWERED YES TO Q5]
13 37.8%

27.4%

15.6%

9.6%

2.2%

5.9%

1.5%
Schedule an extra pick-up or bulk pick-up
Replace cart or bin
Missed pick-up
Question about service
Pay my bill
Other
Unsure

30.0%

67.3%

2.7%
Question asked of
respondents who have
contacted GreenWaste
Recovery in the last 12
months, representing 30%
of the total sample or 135
individuals.

PGCC 5-6-26
546
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 546 ends

93% report their issue was resolved during their
first contact with GreenWaste
Question 7: Was your concern resolved with the first call or contact to GreenWaste Recovery customer service? [IF ANSWERED YES TO Q5]
14 92.6%

5.9%

1.5%
Yes No Unsure

30.0%

67.3%

2.7%
Question asked of
respondents who have
contacted GreenWaste
Recovery in the last 12
months, representing 30%
of the total sample or 135
individuals.

PGCC 5-6-26
547
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 547 ends

50.0%

25.0%

12.5%

12.5%
Large item collection
Holiday tree collection
Trash pick-up
Payment issues
Among unresolved cases (8), large item collection
is the most frequently mentioned issue
Question 8: What was not resolved in your first call or contact with GreenWaste Recovery? [IF ANSWERED NO TO Q7]
[OPEN-ENDED QUESTION]
15 95.7%

2.3%

2.0%
Question asked of
respondents who didn’t
have their issue resolved
in the first call,
representing 2% of the
total sample or 8
individuals.

PGCC 5-6-26
548
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 548 ends

77% remember receiving information or
educational material from GreenWaste
Question 9: Have you received any information or educational material about garbage, recycling, or organics from GreenWaste Recovery? 16 77.3%

11.6% 11.1%
Yes No Unsure
PGCC 5-6-26
549
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 549 ends

Results by gender, age group, and home type
Question 9: Have you received any information or educational material about garbage, recycling, or organics from GreenWaste Recovery? 17 81.2%

74.3%
100.0%

49.3%

73.1%

83.3%

88.0%

83.3%

84.2%

70.0%

78.6%

65.8%
100.0%

63.6%

10.3%

11.3%

13.7%

11.5%

13.3%

9.3%

10.0%

9.7%

15.7%

14.3%

11.4%

8.5%

14.4%

37.0%

15.4%

3.3%

2.8%

6.7%

6.2%

14.3%

7.1%

22.8%

36.4%
Male
Female
An identity not listed
18-29
30-39
40-49
50-64
65+
Own a single-family home
Rent a single-family home
Own condo, or townhome
Rent apartment, condo, or townhome
Own mobile home
Other
Yes
Unsure
No
PGCC 5-6-26
550
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 550 ends

Results by household income and Jurisdiction
18 67.7%

77.6%

83.8%

90.6%

88.5%

78.9%

56.0%

68.0%

84.8%

81.3%

72.0%

76.0%

75.9%

12.3%

7.1%

10.5%

24.0%

9.8%

7.5%

12.0%

4.0%

20.0%

15.3%

10.8%

3.8%

10.5%

20.0%

8.0%

5.4%

11.3%

16.0%

20.0%

13.3%
$49,999 a year or less
$50,000 - $99,999 a year
$100,000 - $149,999 a year
$150,000 - $199,999 a year
$200,000 - $249,999 a year
$250,000 or more a year
Carmel-by-the-Sea
Del Rey Oaks
Marina
Pacific Grove
Pebble Beach Community Services District
Sand City
Seaside
Yes
Unsure
No
Question 9: Have you received any information or educational material about garbage, recycling, or organics from GreenWaste Recovery? PGCC 5-6-26
551
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 551 ends

Results by survey language and survey mode
19 77.3%

83.3%

77.5%

80.9%

85.0%

42.3%

73.7%

76.9%

66.7%

11.3%

11.6%

11.4%

9.8%

17.3%

11.5%

16.7%

10.9%

7.7%

5.3%

40.4%

26.3%

23.1%

33.3%
English
Spanish
Online [NET]
Mail
Email
Text
Phone [NET]
Outbound call
Inbound call
Yes
Unsure
No
Question 9: Have you received any information or educational material about garbage, recycling, or organics from GreenWaste Recovery? PGCC 5-6-26
552
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 552 ends

96% say the information was clear, educational,
and easy to understand
Question 10: Was the information about garbage, recycling, or organics from GreenWaste Recovery clear, educational, and easy to understand? [IF ANSWERED YES TO Q9]
20 95.7%

2.3% 2.0%
Yes No Unsure

77.3%

11.6%

11.1%
Question asked of
respondents who have
received information from
GreenWaste, representing
77% of the total sample or
348 individuals.

PGCC 5-6-26
553
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 553 ends

79% have had their carts emptied on their
regularly scheduled collection day every time
during the past 12 months
Question 11: Excluding holidays where service is delayed by one day, during the past 12 months, was there a time when GreenWaste Recovery did not empty any of your containers on your regularly scheduled collection day?
21 10.0%

78.9%

11.1%
Yes No Unsure
PGCC 5-6-26
554
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 554 ends

Results by gender, age group, and home type
Question 11: Excluding holidays where service is delayed by one day, during the past 12 months, was there a time when GreenWaste Recovery did not empty any of your containers on your regularly scheduled collection day?
22 9.9%

10.4%

6.8%

21.2%

5.0%

11.1%

8.7%

9.7%

11.4%

14.3%

8.9%

25.0%

9.1%

11.7%

9.5%

50.0%

21.9%

13.5%

13.3%

8.3%

5.3%

3.9%

8.6%

50.0%

32.9%

9.1%

78.4%

80.2%

50.0%

71.2%

65.4%

81.7%

80.6%

86.0%

86.5%

80.0%

35.7%

58.2%

75.0%

Page 555 ends

Results by household income and Jurisdiction
23 9.2%

14.1%

9.5%

1.9%

15.4%

10.5%

28.0%

4.0%

8.9%

11.3%

12.0%

4.0%

8.9%

27.7%

7.1%

14.9%

11.3%

7.9%

12.0%

8.0%

13.4%

15.0%

4.0%

8.0%

9.5%

63.1%

78.8%

75.7%

86.8%

84.6%

81.6%

60.0%

88.0%

77.7%

73.8%

84.0%

88.0%

81.6%
$49,999 a year or less
$50,000 - $99,999 a year
$100,000 - $149,999 a year
$150,000 - $199,999 a year
$200,000 - $249,999 a year
$250,000 or more a year
Carmel-by-the-Sea
Del Rey Oaks
Marina
Pacific Grove
Pebble Beach Community Services District
Sand City
Seaside
Yes
Unsure
No
Question 11: Excluding holidays where service is delayed by one day, during the past 12 months, was there a time when GreenWaste Recovery did not empty any of your containers on your regularly scheduled collection day?
PGCC 5-6-26
556
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 556 ends

Results by survey language and survey mode
24 10.1%

10.4%

10.2%

12.8%

5.8%

11.3%

11.4%

8.5%

12.8%

21.2%

5.3%

7.7%

78.6%
100.0%

78.2%

81.3%

74.4%

73.1%

94.7%

92.3%
100.0%
English
Spanish
Online [NET]
Mail
Email
Text
Phone [NET]
Outbound call
Inbound call
Yes
Unsure
No
Question 11: Excluding holidays where service is delayed by one day, during the past 12 months, was there a time when GreenWaste Recovery did not empty any of your containers on your regularly scheduled collection day?
PGCC 5-6-26
557
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 557 ends

Among missed collections, the top reason reported
is service not arriving as scheduled
Question 12: What was the reason your containers were not emptied by GreenWaste Recovery on their scheduled collection day? Select all that apply. [IF ANSWERED YES TO Q11]
25 40.0%

11.1%

2.2%

26.7%

24.4%
Greenwaste recovery did not arrive for service as scheduled The containers were blocked by a vehicle or other obstruction My household did not put out our containers (e.g., forgot, on vacation)
Other
Unsure

10.0%

78.9%

11.1%
Question asked of
respondents who reported
that their container was
not emptied on their
scheduled day,
representing 10% of the
total sample or 45
individuals.

PGCC 5-6-26
558
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 558 ends

Holiday tree and battery collection are the most
recognized programs
Question 13: GreenWaste Recovery offers a variety of programs to customers. Prior to taking this survey, which services were you aware of? Select all that apply. 26 59.1%

58.9%

48.2%

26.9%

20.0%

1.1%

22.4%
Holiday tree collection
Household battery collection
Large item/Electronic waste collection
Used cooking oil and motor-oil collection
Water based paint collection
Backyard service*
I was not aware of any of these programs
*Only included in Pacific Grove and PBCSD.

PGCC 5-6-26
559
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 559 ends

27 Program utilization
Question 14: Has your household ever utilized__________? [PROGRAMS SELECTED IN Q13]

44.0%

73.2%

57.1%

31.4% 34.4%

40.0%

55.3%

24.5%

41.5%

66.1%

61.1% 60.0%

0.8% 2.3% 1.4% 2.5% 4.4%
Holiday tree collection Household battery
collection
Large item/electronic
waste collection
Used cooking oil and
motor-oil collection
Water based paint
collection
Backyard service
Yes No Unsure
Among 59% of the
total sample or 266
individuals.

Among 59% of the
total sample or 265
individuals.

Among 48% of the
total sample or 217
individuals.

Among 27% of the
total sample or 121
individuals.

Among 20% of the
total sample or 90
individuals.

Among 1% of the
total sample or 5
individuals.

PGCC 5-6-26
560
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 560 ends

28 Program utilization barriers
Question 15: What prevents your household from participating in __________? [PROGRAMS SELECTED IN Q13]
[IF ANSWERED NO TO Q14]
Among 32% of the
total sample or 142
individuals.

Among 14% of the
total sample or 63
individuals.

Among 20% of the
total sample or 90
individuals.

Among 17% of the
total sample or 78
individuals.

Among 12% of the
total sample or 55
individuals.

Among 1% of the
total sample or 3
individuals.

3.5%

0.7%

62.7%

29.6%

3.5%
Not sure
where to set
items out
Schedule
conflicts
Inconsistent
service
Other
Not
interested
Unsure

19.0%

4.8%

39.7%

19.0%

14.3%
Not sure
where to set
items out
Don't know
what items
are accepted
It’s
inconvenient
Other
Not
interested
Unsure

21.1%

16.7%

2.2%

1.1%

38.9%

24.4%

6.7%
Not sure where to
set items out
Don't know what
items are accepted
It’s inconvenient
Schedule conflicts
Other
Not interested
Unsure

16.7 %

15.4 %

2.6%

41.0 %

24.4 %

7.7%
Not sure
where to set
items out
Don't know
what items
are accepted
It’s
inconvenient
Other
Not
interested
Unsure

12.7%

10.9%

47.3%

29.1%

3.6%
Not sure
where to set
items out
Don't know
what items
are accepted
Other
Not
interested
Unsure

33.3%

66.7%
Other
Not
interested
Holliday tree
collection
Household battery
collection
Large item/electronic
waste collection
Used cooking oil and
motor-oil collection
Water based paint
collection Backyard service
PGCC 5-6-26
561
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 561 ends

29 Program satisfaction
Question 16: Were you satisfied or dissatisfied with __________? [PROGRAMS SELECTED IN Q13]
[IF ANSWERED YES TO Q14]

97.4% 98.5% 97.6% 94.7% 96.8%

50.0%

2.6% 1.5% 0.8% 5.3%

50.0%

1.6% 3.2%
Holiday tree collection Household battery
collection
Large item/electronic
waste collection
Used cooking oil and
motor-oil collection
Water based paint
collection
Backyard service
Satisfied Dissatisfied Unsure
Among 26% of the
total sample or 117
individuals.

Among 43% of the
total sample or 194
individuals.

Among 28% of the
total sample or 124
individuals.

Among 8% of the
total sample or 38
individuals.

Among 7% of the
total sample or 31
individuals.

Among <1% of the
total sample or 2
individuals.

PGCC 5-6-26
562
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 562 ends

30 Reasons for dissatisfaction
Question 16: Why are you dissatisfied with __________?
[PROGRAMS SELECTED IN Q13]
[IF ANSWERED DISSATISDIED TO Q15]
Large item/electronic waste collection
They didn't pick up the items.

Used cooking oil and motor-oil collection
Do not always receive a replacement oil filter bag for the one I put out. they used to leave a container: SWAP OUT. No, I have to call and container seems to always be oily on the outside Household battery collection
I FOUND THE BAGGED BATTERIES ON THE STREET AFTER THE TRUCK LEFT.

We can't put button-cell batteries with regular alkaline batteries on top of our recycling bin. I've been told that we have to take them to the recycling station.

Don't like having to use a plastic baggie
Holiday tree collection
Too short
The dates that were given to remove the tree was not accurate or they just didnt p/u my tree? They didn't pick up our tree this year or last year.

Backyard service
There were many occasions when the truck broke many tree and bush branches on their way up the driveway. They also broke the raised asphalt were we park our car at the top of the driveway. The company did eventually repair it but took almost a year to do so. The truck also did cause erosion of the asphalt driveway although we do realize that this was not the fault of the driver but rather the weight of the truck itself.

PGCC 5-6-26
563
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 563 ends

47% think their garbage and recycling bill is just
about right
Question 18: Thinking about your quarterly garbage and recycling bill, would you say the amount you pay is:
31 28.9%

46.9%

0.7%

23.6%
Too high Just about right Too low Unsure
PGCC 5-6-26
564
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 564 ends

Results by gender, age group, and home type
Question 18: Thinking about your quarterly garbage and recycling bill, would you say the amount you pay is:
32 31.9%

25.2%

50.0%

19.2%

40.4%

18.3%

29.6%

32.0%

31.3%

35.7%

14.3%

17.7%

18.2%

46.9%

48.2%

38.4%

44.2%

58.3%

46.3%

48.7%

57.1%

40.0%

28.6%

24.1%

75.0%

45.5%

20.2%

26.1%

50.0%

42.5%

15.4%

21.7%

24.1%

18.0%

10.8%

24.3%

57.1%

57.0%

25.0%

Page 565 ends

Results by household income and Jurisdiction
33 35.4%

23.5%

28.4%

20.8%

38.5%

18.4%

40.0%

28.0%

25.9%

28.8%

24.0%

16.0%

32.3%

27.7%

45.9%

52.7%

62.3%

46.2%

60.5%

24.0%

52.0%

53.6%

37.5%

60.0%

45.6%

36.9%

29.4%

17.6%

15.1%

15.4%

21.1%

36.0%

20.0%

20.5%

32.5%

16.0%

20.0%

21.5%
$49,999 a year or less
$50,000 - $99,999 a year
$100,000 - $149,999 a year
$150,000 - $199,999 a year
$200,000 - $249,999 a year
$250,000 or more a year
Carmel-by-the-Sea
Del Rey Oaks
Marina
Pacific Grove
Pebble Beach Community Services District
Sand City
Seaside
Too high
Just about right
Too low
Unsure
Question 18: Thinking about your quarterly garbage and recycling bill, would you say the amount you pay is:

PGCC 5-6-26
566
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 566 ends

Results by survey language and survey mode
34 28.8%

33.3%

29.0%

27.2%

35.3%

21.2%

26.3%

15.4%

50.0%

47.1%

33.3%

46.9%

47.6%

47.4%

42.3%

47.4%

61.5%

16.7%

23.4%

33.3%

23.7%

24.8%

17.3%

34.6%

21.1%

15.4%

33.3%
English
Spanish
Online [NET]
Mail
Email
Text
Phone [NET]
Outbound call
Inbound call
Too high
Just about right
Too low
Unsure
Question 18: Thinking about your quarterly garbage and recycling bill, would you say the amount you pay is:

PGCC 5-6-26
567
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 567 ends

99% say affordability is important
35 99.1%

0.4% 0.4%
Important Not important Unsure
Question 19: How important are each of the following community values when thinking about your garbage and recycling services? Affordability PGCC 5-6-26
568
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 568 ends

Among those who say important, 79% say very
important
Question 19: How important are each of the following community values when thinking about your garbage and recycling services? Affordability 36 99.2%

0.4%

0.4%
Total
Very important

79.1%
Somewhat important

20.9%
Among those who said important
Not very important
100.0%
Among those who said not important
PGCC 5-6-26
569
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 569 ends

Results by gender, age group, and home type
37 98.6%

99.5%
100.0%

98.6%

98.1%
100.0%

99.1%

99.3%

99.6%
100.0%
100.0%

96.2%
100.0%
100.0%
Male
Female
An identity not listed
18-29
30-39
40-49
50-64
65+
Own a single-family home
Rent a single-family home
Own condo, or townhome
Rent apartment, condo, or townhome
Own mobile home
Other
Important
Unsure
Not important
Question 19: How important are each of the following community values when thinking about your garbage and recycling services? Affordability PGCC 5-6-26
570
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 570 ends

Results by household income and Jurisdiction
38 96.9%

97.6%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%

99.1%
100.0%
100.0%

92.0%

99.4%
$49,999 a year or less
$50,000 - $99,999 a year
$100,000 - $149,999 a year
$150,000 - $199,999 a year
$200,000 - $249,999 a year
$250,000 or more a year
Carmel-by-the-Sea
Del Rey Oaks
Marina
Pacific Grove
Pebble Beach Community Services District
Sand City
Seaside
Important
Unsure
Not important
Question 19: How important are each of the following community values when thinking about your garbage and recycling services? Affordability PGCC 5-6-26
571
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 571 ends

Results by survey language and survey mode
39 99.1%
100.0%

99.3%
100.0%

98.5%

98.1%

94.7%

92.3%
100.0%
English
Spanish
Online [NET]
Mail
Email
Text
Phone [NET]
Outbound call
Inbound call
Important
Unsure
Not important
Question 19: How important are each of the following community values when thinking about your garbage and recycling services? Affordability PGCC 5-6-26
572
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 572 ends

98% say convenience for residents is important
40 98.2%

1.6% 0.2%
Important Not important Unsure
Question 20: How important are each of the following community values when thinking about your garbage and recycling services? Convenience for residents PGCC 5-6-26
573
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 573 ends

Among those who say important, 81% say very
important
Question 20: How important are each of the following community values when thinking about your garbage and recycling services? Convenience for residents 41 98.2%

1.6%

0.2%
Total
Very important

80.5%
Somewhat important

19.5%
Among those who said important
Not very important
100.0%
Among those who said not important
PGCC 5-6-26
574
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 574 ends

Results by gender, age group, and home type
42 98.6%

98.2%
100.0%

97.3%

96.2%
100.0%

99.1%

98.0%

98.8%

97.1%
100.0%

97.5%
100.0%
100.0%
Male
Female
An identity not listed
18-29
30-39
40-49
50-64
65+
Own a single-family home
Rent a single-family home
Own condo, or townhome
Rent apartment, condo, or townhome
Own mobile home
Other
Important
Unsure
Not important
Question 20: How important are each of the following community values when thinking about your garbage and recycling services? Convenience for residents PGCC 5-6-26
575
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 575 ends

Results by household income and Jurisdiction
43 98.5%

96.5%

97.3%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%

96.0%
100.0%

96.4%

98.8%
100.0%
100.0%

98.7%
$49,999 a year or less
$50,000 - $99,999 a year
$100,000 - $149,999 a year
$150,000 - $199,999 a year
$200,000 - $249,999 a year
$250,000 or more a year
Carmel-by-the-Sea
Del Rey Oaks
Marina
Pacific Grove
Pebble Beach Community Services District
Sand City
Seaside
Important
Unsure
Not important
Question 20: How important are each of the following community values when thinking about your garbage and recycling services? Convenience for residents PGCC 5-6-26
576
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 576 ends

Results by survey language and survey mode
44 98.2%
100.0%

98.1%

98.8%

97.7%

96.2%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
English
Spanish
Online [NET]
Mail
Email
Text
Phone [NET]
Outbound call
Inbound call
Important
Unsure
Not important
Question 20: How important are each of the following community values when thinking about your garbage and recycling services? Convenience for residents PGCC 5-6-26
577
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 577 ends

96% say environmental impact is important
45 96.0%

3.6% 0.4%
Important Not important Unsure
Question 21: How important are each of the following community values when thinking about your garbage and recycling services? Environmental impact PGCC 5-6-26
578
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 578 ends

Among those who say important, 82% say very
important
Question 21: How important are each of the following community values when thinking about your garbage and recycling services? Environmental impact 46 96.0%

3.6%

0.4%
Total
Very important

81.7%
Somewhat important

18.3%
Among those who said important
Not important at all

25.0%
Not very important

75.0%
Among those who said not important
PGCC 5-6-26
579
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 579 ends

Results by gender, age group, and home type
47 93.9%

98.2%
100.0%

98.6%

92.3%

93.3%

96.3%

97.3%

94.2%

97.1%
100.0%

98.7%
100.0%
100.0%
Male
Female
An identity not listed
18-29
30-39
40-49
50-64
65+
Own a single-family home
Rent a single-family home
Own condo, or townhome
Rent apartment, condo, or townhome
Own mobile home
Other
Important
Unsure
Not important
Question 21: How important are each of the following community values when thinking about your garbage and recycling services? Environmental impact PGCC 5-6-26
580
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 580 ends

Results by household income and Jurisdiction
48 98.5%

97.6%

95.9%

98.1%

96.2%

97.4%

96.0%

92.0%

96.4%

93.8%

88.0%

92.0%

99.4%
$49,999 a year or less
$50,000 - $99,999 a year
$100,000 - $149,999 a year
$150,000 - $199,999 a year
$200,000 - $249,999 a year
$250,000 or more a year
Carmel-by-the-Sea
Del Rey Oaks
Marina
Pacific Grove
Pebble Beach Community Services District
Sand City
Seaside
Important
Unsure
Not important
Question 21: How important are each of the following community values when thinking about your garbage and recycling services? Environmental impact PGCC 5-6-26
581
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 581 ends

Results by survey language and survey mode
49 95.9%
100.0%

96.1%

94.7%

97.0%
100.0%

94.7%

92.3%
100.0%
English
Spanish
Online [NET]
Mail
Email
Text
Phone [NET]
Outbound call
Inbound call
Important
Unsure
Not important
Question 21: How important are each of the following community values when thinking about your garbage and recycling services? Environmental impact PGCC 5-6-26
582
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 582 ends

50 99% say quality of service is important

98.9%

0.9% 0.2%
Important Not important Unsure
Question 22: How important are each of the following community values when thinking about your garbage and recycling services? Quality of service PGCC 5-6-26
583
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 583 ends

Among those who say important, 85% say very
important
51 98.9%

0.9%

0.2%
Total
Very important

84.7%
Somewhat important

15.3%
Among those who said important
Not important at all

25.0%
Not very important

75.0%
Among those who said not important
Question 22: How important are each of the following community values when thinking about your garbage and recycling services? Quality of service PGCC 5-6-26
584
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 584 ends

Results by gender, age group, and home type
Question 22: How important are each of the following community values when thinking about your garbage and recycling services? Quality of service 52 98.6%

99.5%
100.0%
100.0%

96.2%

96.7%
100.0%

99.3%

98.8%
100.0%
100.0%

Page 585 ends

Results by household income and Jurisdiction
53 98.5%

98.8%
100.0%

98.1%

96.2%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%

96.4%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%

99.4%
$49,999 a year or less
$50,000 - $99,999 a year
$100,000 - $149,999 a year
$150,000 - $199,999 a year
$200,000 - $249,999 a year
$250,000 or more a year
Carmel-by-the-Sea
Del Rey Oaks
Marina
Pacific Grove
Pebble Beach Community Services District
Sand City
Seaside
Important
Unsure
Not important
Question 22: How important are each of the following community values when thinking about your garbage and recycling services? Quality of service PGCC 5-6-26
586
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 586 ends

Results by survey language and survey mode
54 98.9%
100.0%

98.8%

99.6%

97.7%

98.1%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
English
Spanish
Online [NET]
Mail
Email
Text
Phone [NET]
Outbound call
Inbound call
Important
Unsure
Not important
Question 22: How important are each of the following community values when thinking about your garbage and recycling services? Quality of service PGCC 5-6-26
587
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 587 ends

Residents show greatest interest in household
hazardous waste pickup among potential new services
Question 23: GreenWaste Recovery may offer additional services that would come at an increased cost. Please indicate which of the following services you would be interested in.

Select all that apply.
55 32.4%

18.9%

18.4%

15.6%

15.1%

7.1%

6.0%

3.6%

26.0%

10.4%
Household hazardous waste pickup such as pesticides,
cleaning chemicals, or fluorescent light bulbs
Ability to stop and start service due to a vacation
Assistance programs for low-income residents
Smaller cart size options for recycle or organics
Extra yard trimming disposal
Smaller cart size options for garbage
Backyard/Sideyard pickup service*
Collection of carts in alleyways
Not interested in any of these
Unsure
*Only included in Marina, Seaside, Del Rey Oaks, and Sand City.

PGCC 5-6-26
588
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 588 ends

Residents prefer receiving program information
by mail, followed by email
Question 35: How would you prefer to receive information about garbage and recycling programs? Select all that apply. 56 67.3%

40.0%

18.7%

15.6%

6.4%

6.2%

0.4%

3.1%
Mail to your home
Email
Greenwaste recovery website
Text message
Public events/Meetings
Social media
Other
Unsure
PGCC 5-6-26
589
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 589 ends

Demographics
57 PGCC 5-6-26
590
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 590 ends

58 19.1%

59.6%

3.1%

8.0%

5.8%

4.4%
Latino/Hispanic
White/Caucasian
Black/AfricanAmerican
Asian/Pacific
Islander
Other
Prefer not to
answer

47.3%

49.3%

0.9%

2.4%
Male
Female
An identify not listed
Prefer not to answer

16.2%

11.6%

13.3%

24.0%

33.3%

1.6%
18-29
30-39
40-49
50-64
65+
Prefer not to
answer
Respondent demographics by gender, age group, ethnicity, home type, container type, income, and City
Gender Age Group Ethnicity Home type

57.6%

15.6%

17.6%

3.1%

0.2%

0.9%

2.4%

2.7%
Own a single-family
home
Rent a single-family
home
Rent apartment,
condo, or townhome
Own apartment,
condo, or townhome
Rent mobile home
Own mobile home
Other
Prefer not to answer
Container type Income City

81.6%

18.2%

0.2%
Individual container
Shared container
Unsure

14.4%

18.9%

16.4%

11.8%

5.8%

8.4%

24.2%
$49,999 a year or less
$50,000 - $99,999
$100,000 - $149,999
$150,000 - $199,999
$200,000 - $249,999
$250,000
Prefer not to answer

35.1%

24.9%

17.8%

5.6%

5.6%
Seaside
Marina
Pacific Grove
Del Rey Oaks
Carmel-by-the-Sea
PBCSD
Sand City
PGCC 5-6-26
591
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 591 ends

Questions?
Dr. Adam Probolsky, President
O: 949-855-6400 | M: 949-697-6726
E: [email protected]
Sergio Martinez, Research Analyst
E: [email protected]
Opinion Research on
Elections and Public Policy

PROBOLSKY RESEARCH
23 Corporate Plaza Suite 150 Newport Beach CA 92660
Newport Beach
(949) 855-6400
San Francisco
(415) 870-8150
Washington DC
(202) 559-0270
PGCC 5-6-26
592
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 592 ends

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE FRANCHISE PROCUREMENT PROCESS

INTEGRITY POLICY
City of Pacific Grove is currently in the process of drafting a new franchise agreement for the collection and processing of solid waste, recyclables, and organics, and procuring vendor(s) to provide the franchised services. The intent of this City of Pacific Grove Process Integrity Policy (“Policy”) is to provide a fair opportunity for all Respondents to compete to provide franchised services, create an impartial climate during the procurement proceeding, streamline the procurement process, and achieve favorable terms of service for the public.

The City of Pacific Grove City Council, City of Pacific Grove staff, and consultants involved in the franchise procurement intend to employ careful, uniform, and equitable application of this Policy and the franchise procurement process and procedures (including Request for Proposal [RFP] deadlines and requirements) developed by City of Pacific Grove to advance the agency’s purposes and the public interest.

A sample schedule of this Policy is attached as a reference tool; the actual timeframe, sequence, and steps are subject to change.

All references herein to “Respondents” includes respondents and prospective respondents to a RFP or a request for sole source negotiations related to franchise agreement(s), and all employees, agents, consultants, lobbyists, and other entities or individuals acting on their behalf.

I. Campaign Contributions
Under state law Government Code section 84308, City of Pacific Grove City Council Members cannot accept from Respondents, and Respondents cannot provide, campaign contributions greater than $250 in the aggregate while the franchise procurement proceeding is pending and for 12 months after the City Council makes the final decision in the franchise proceeding.

The City of Pacific Grove franchise procurement proceeding is pending from the date this Policy is adopted until the date the City Council awards the final franchise agreement in the proceeding (or the agency formally terminates the franchise procurement proceeding). Note that City of Pacific Grove may award franchise agreements sequentially over the course of the proceeding; the proceeding is expected to be complete when the City Council awards the final franchise agreement. Because the franchise procurement proceeding may be pending for two or more years, more than one election cycle may be affected. If a candidate accepts the $250 contribution limit from a Respondent in one election cycle, they may not be able to accept a contribution of any amount from the Respondent in the next election cycle.

State law provides certain opportunities for City Council Members to cure; if the City Council Member returns at least the portion of the campaign contribution that exceeds $250 within 30 days from the time the City Council Member knows, or should have PGCC 5-6-26
593
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 593 ends

known, about the contribution and the franchise procurement proceeding, the City Council Member would be permitted to participate in the franchise procurement proceeding.

The state law limit on campaign contributions applies to any person that is not a current City of Pacific Grove City Council Member but is running for City Council and that is appointed to the City of Pacific Grove City Council after their election.

Candidates that are newly appointed to the City of Pacific Grove City Council may need to promptly return campaign contributions greater than $250 that were received from a Respondent within the last 12 months in order to participate in a City of Pacific Grove franchise decision.

In summary, to assist City Council Members and Respondents in complying with Government Code section 84308:

Respondents: (a) shall not make campaign contributions greater than $250 in the aggregate to any City of Pacific Grove City Council Member from the date of the adoption of this Policy until 12 months after the date the City Council awards the final franchise agreement in the proceeding (or the agency formally terminates the franchise procurement proceeding); and (b) shall disclose on the record of the franchise procurement proceeding any contribution greater than $250 made to a City of Pacific Grove City Council Member within the 12 months before a City Council decision in the franchise procurement proceeding.

City of Pacific Grove City Council Members: (a) should not accept campaign contributions greater than $250 in the aggregate from any Respondent from the date of the adoption of this Policy until 12 months after the date the City Council awards the final franchise agreement in the proceeding (or the agency formally terminates the franchise procurement proceeding); and (b) if a City Council Member has received a campaign contribution greater than $250 from a Respondent within 12 months prior to a decision on a franchise agreement, the City Council Member must disclose receipt of the campaign contribution on the record, and will be disqualified from participating in the franchise proceeding, unless the City Council Member returns the portion of the campaign contribution that exceeds $250 within 30 days from the time the City Council Member knows, or should have known, about the contribution and the franchise procurement proceeding.

Candidates for City Council: if appointed to the City of Pacific Grove City Council, should be prepared promptly to return campaign contributions greater than $250 from a Respondent received within 12 months prior to the candidate’s participation in a decision on a franchise agreement.

This Policy is intended to provide guidance to City Council Members and Respondents on how the state law is expected to apply to City of Pacific Grove’s PGCC 5-6-26
594
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 594 ends

franchise procurement proceeding; to the extent of any inconsistency, state law governs over summaries or interpretations provided in this Policy.

II. Gifts.

Under state law Government Code sections 81000 et seq. (the “Political Reform Act”), and the City of Pacific Grove Conflict of Interest Code (PGMC 2.40), City of Pacific Grove City Council Members, City of Pacific Grove staff and certain consultants that make or participate in making decisions for City of Pacific Grove must report on their Form 700 “Gifts” (as defined in the Act) from a single reportable source of $50 to $590 (in the aggregate), and may not accept Gifts from a single reportable source totaling more than $590 (in the aggregate) in a calendar year (2023- 2024 dollar thresholds; subject to change under state law).

This Policy prohibits Gifts of any value from a Respondent to a City of Pacific Grove City Council Member, staff, or consultant involved in the franchise procurement from the date this Policy is adopted and for 12 months after the City Council makes the final decision in the franchise proceeding (or the agency formally terminates the franchise procurement proceeding). Thus, this Policy is intended to be more restrictive than state law.

New appointees to the City of Pacific Grove City Council should be prepared promptly to return upon appointment to the City of Pacific Grove City Council any Gifts that were received from a Respondent after the date of adoption of this Policy.

City of Pacific Grove intends to apply the Fair Political Practices Commission regulations, interpretations, and other guidance on matters such as defining what constitutes a Gift, exceptions to the definition of Gift, determining the source of a Gift, and determining whether a payment is a behested payment.

In summary:

Respondents: shall not make Gifts of any value to City of Pacific Grove City Council Members, or City of Pacific Grove staff or consultants involved in the franchise procurement, from the date of the adoption of this Policy until 12 months after the date the City Council awards the final franchise agreement in the proceeding (or the agency formally terminates the franchise procurement proceeding).

City of Pacific Grove City Council Members: should not accept Gifts of any value from any Respondent from the date of the adoption of this Policy until 12 months after the date the City Council awards the final franchise agreement in the proceeding (or the agency formally terminates the franchise procurement proceeding).

PGCC 5-6-26
595
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 595 ends

City of Pacific Grove Staff and Consultants Involved in the Franchise Procurement: shall not accept Gifts of any value from any Respondent from the date of the adoption of this Policy until 12 months after the date the City Council awards the final franchise agreement in the proceeding (or the agency formally terminates the franchise procurement proceeding).

Nothing in this Policy is intended to relieve City of Pacific Grove City Council Members, staff, or consultants from complying with the provisions of the Political Reform Act, the agency’s Conflict of Interest Code, or other applicable law.

III. Communications
Respondents, City of Pacific Grove City Council Members, and City of Pacific Grove staff and consultants involved in the franchise procurement are expected to adhere to the communications protocols described here.

This Policy applies to communications regarding the franchise procurement proceeding and the future provision of franchise solid waste, recycling, or organics services in City of Pacific Grove’s jurisdiction. This Policy does not apply to casual social communications, communications regarding the current franchise agreements, or communications unrelated to the new franchise procurement process or the provision of future franchise services. This Policy does not apply to oral communications made on the record at open and noticed public meetings, or written communications submitted to the full City Council and that are part of the public record of City of Pacific Grove. The Policy does not apply to communications at meetings organized by City of Pacific Grove staff with Respondents.

A. Prior to Release of Procurement Documents
From the date of adoption of this Policy until the date City of Pacific Grove first releases procurement documents for some or all future franchise services (e.g., RFP or request for sole source negotiations), communication between Respondents and City Council Members about the franchise procurement process or provision of any future services in City of Pacific Grove’s jurisdiction is permitted, subject to the disclosure requirements set forth herein.

Communications, oral or written, between Respondents and City Council Members about the franchise procurement process or provision of any future franchise services in City of Pacific Grove’s jurisdiction, shall either (1) be disclosed orally by the City Council Member to the City Council at the next City Council meeting, or (2) be disclosed in writing to the City Clerk prior to the next City Council meeting; the City Clerk shall maintain such written disclosures as part of the public record of the City of Pacific Grove and promptly provide copies of the written disclosure to the other City Council Members. The disclosure shall apprise the City Council and the public of the content of the communication.

PGCC 5-6-26
596
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 596 ends

B. After Release of Procurement Documents
After the date City of Pacific Grove first releases procurement documents for some or all future franchise services, communications about the franchise procurement process or provision of any future services in City of Pacific Grove’s jurisdiction shall be made only through a person or persons designated by the Executive Director as the point of contact for the agency.

The procurement documents will provide instructions for Respondents to make requests for clarification, object to the structure or content of the RFP, ask questions about the procurement, and make other inquiries, and the process City of Pacific Grove will follow to respond to such communications.

Note that City of Pacific Grove may release procurement documents for franchise services sequentially over the course of the proceeding; this section III.B applies when the first procurement documents in the proceeding are released. This communication protocol will expire when the City Council awards the final franchise agreement in the proceeding (or the agency formally terminates the franchise procurement proceeding).

C. Civility
To preserve civility in the franchise procurement proceeding, City of Pacific Grove requests that Respondents focus their communications on the positive aspects of their company, proposal, and offered services, and refrain from engaging in disparaging communications about other Respondents. In extreme cases, (e.g., slander, libel) publicly engaging in such disparaging communications may result in the City of Pacific Grove disqualifying a Respondent from award of a franchise.

IV. Further Restrictions for City of Pacific Grove Consultants City of Pacific Grove consultants involved in the franchise procurement shall not do any work for any Respondent in connection with this City of Pacific Grove franchise procurement process from the date of the adoption of this Policy (or the date they are retained, whichever is later) until the consultant is no longer involved in the City of Pacific Grove franchise procurement.

V. Application
Respondents: By participating in the procurement, Respondents agree to adhere to this Policy, and are responsible for ensuring compliance with this Policy on behalf of their employees, agents, consultants, lobbyists, or other entities or individuals acting on their behalf. A Respondent’s failure to adhere to any section of this Policy may result in the City of Pacific Grove disqualifying the Respondent from award of a franchise.

PGCC 5-6-26
597
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 597 ends

City of Pacific Grove City Council Members : A City of Pacific Grove City Council Member’s failure to adhere to any section of this Policy may result in the City Council Member being disqualified from participating in any franchise decisions.

Staff and Consultants: Staff and consultants who do not adhere to the Policy may be disqualified from working on the franchise procurement, and City of Pacific Grove staff who do not adhere to the Policy may be subject to discipline.

All federal, state, and local laws (and any updates to those laws) continue to apply. To the extent that a member agency of the City of Pacific Grove has adopted campaign contribution laws that are more restrictive than state law or this Policy, this Policy is not intended to supersede those more restrictive laws.

Attachments:
- Sample Schedule
PGCC 5-6-26
598
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 598 ends

Sample Schedule and Application of Process Integrity Policy * Actual Timeframes, Sequence, and Steps Subject to Change * Process Collection RFP Collection FA 12 Months New FA
Integrity Policy
Adopted
Released Awarded After
Collection FA
Awarded
Begins
April/May
2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Blackout on Ex Parte Communications
Ex Parte Communications Permitted if Disclosed
Blackout on Gifts of Any Amount
Blackout on Campaign Contributions > $250 (aggregate)
PGCC 5-6-26
599
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 599 ends

Shaping Future
Garbage and
Recycling Services
City of Pacific Grove Council
Meeting
Wednesday, May 6, 2026
PGCC 5-6-26
600
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 600 ends

Agenda
• Engagement Results:
• Residential
• Multi-Family
• Commercial
• Industry
• Key Considerations
• Infrastructure and Readiness
• Timeline and Next Steps
• Final Recommendation
PGCC 5-6-26
601
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 601 ends

Engagement
Results
PGCC 5-6-26
602
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 602 ends

Residential
Survey Results
PGCC 5-6-26
603
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 603 ends

92.9%

6.4%

0.7%
PGCC 5-6-26
604
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 604 ends

6.4%

0.7%
Total
Very satisfied

66.0%
Somewhat satisfied

34.0%
Among those who said satisfied
Very unsatisfied

27.6%
Somewhat unsatisfied

72.4%
Among those who said unsatisfied
PGCC 5-6-26
605
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 605 ends

Among the 29 who are unsatisfied, high cost
compared to the level of service is the main reason
Question 4: Why aren’t you satisfied with the services provided by GreenWaste Recovery? Select all that apply. [IF ANSWERED UNSATISFIED TO Q3]
7 High cost compared to the level of service
Containers are frequently missed
Containers are incorrectly placed after pickup
Not enough available programs
Other

44.8%

24.1%

10.3%

3.4%

37.9%

92.9%

6.4%

0.7%
Question asked of
respondents unsatisfied
with GreenWaste
Recovery, representing
6% of the total sample or
29 individuals.

PGCC 5-6-26
606
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 606 ends

47% think their garbage and recycling bill is just
about right
Question 18: Thinking about your quarterly garbage and recycling bill, would you say the amount you pay is:
8 Too high Just about right Too low Unsure

28.9%

46.9%

0.7%

23.6%
PGCC 5-6-26
607
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 607 ends

99% say affordability is important
9 Important Not important Unsure

99.1%

0.4% 0.4%
Question 19: How important are each of the following community values when thinking about your garbage and recycling services? Affordability PGCC 5-6-26
608
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 608 ends

10 99% say quality of service is important
Important Not important Unsure

98.9%

0.9% 0.2%
Question 22: How important are each of the following community values when thinking about your garbage and recycling services? Quality of service PGCC 5-6-26
609
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 609 ends

98% say convenience for residents is important
11 Important Not important Unsure

98.2%

1.6% 0.2%
Question 20: How important are each of the following community values when thinking about your garbage and recycling services? Convenience for residents PGCC 5-6-26
610
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 610 ends

96% say environmental impact is important
12 Important Not important Unsure

96.0%

3.6% 0.4%
Question 21: How important are each of the following community values when thinking about your garbage and recycling services? Environmental impact PGCC 5-6-26
611
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 611 ends

Residential
Community
Meeting Results
PGCC 5-6-26
612
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 612 ends

Residential Community Meetings
• Three (3) virtual meetings
• Tuesday, 5:30pm – 6:30pm
• Wednesday, 12:00pm – 1:00pm
• Thursday, 5:30pm – 6:30pm
• Seventeen (17) community
participants
• Last meeting offered in English
and Spanish
February 24 - 26, 2026
PGCC 5-6-26
613
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 613 ends

• Satisfied overall with GreenWaste Recovery
• Commonly desired improvements:

1. More education and outreach opportunities (e.g.,
bulky item collection, other special collection
services, what can/can’t be recycled, compliance
requirements).

2. Wider breadth of customizable service options
(e.g., ability to choose bin size, textile
disposal/collection, HHW).

3. More features on the phone app (e.g.,
submitting a missed-pickup complaint, viewing a
comprehensive list of recyclable materials,
requesting on-demand services).

4. Better customer service response time and
quality of support.

Residential Feedback
PGCC 5-6-26
614
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 614 ends

Multi-Family (MFD)
Engagement Results
PGCC 5-6-26
615
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 615 ends

Multi-Family Engagement
• Initial desktop review
• Forty-six (46) total outreach
attempts
• Seven (7) teleconferences
completed
• Properties ranged from 8 to
106 units
February 9 – March 4, 2026
PGCC 5-6-26
616
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 616 ends

• Satisfied overall with GreenWaste Recovery
• Commonly desired improvements:
• Sensitivity to rates and cost impacts
• Consistent, high-quality service
• Improved customer service
• More consistent education and outreach
across sites
• Support for addressing illegal dumping
MFD Feedback
PGCC 5-6-26
617
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 617 ends

Commercial
Engagement Results
PGCC 5-6-26
618
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 618 ends

Commercial Engagement
• Initial desktop review
• Thirty-four (34) total outreach
attempts
• Fifteen (15) teleconferences
completed
February 13 – March 2, 2026
PGCC 5-6-26
619
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 619 ends

• Mixed reviews on overall satisfaction with
GreenWaste Recovery
• Commonly desired improvements:
• Rates and cost impacts
• Reliable, consistent, high-quality service
• Collection for difficult-to-access or hard-toservice locations • Cardboard collection program
• Education and outreach efforts
Commercial Feedback
PGCC 5-6-26
620
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 620 ends

Industry Engagement
Results
PGCC 5-6-26
621
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 621 ends

• Five (5) service provider presentations
• Mid Valley Disposal
• Recology
• Republic Services
• Waste Connections
• Waste Management
• All expressed interest in future partnerships
• All noted that ReGen facilities provide a
turnkey operation
Industry Engagement
PGCC 5-6-26
622
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 622 ends

Haulers
PGCC 5-6-26
623
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 623 ends

• Enthusiasm to continue providing service
to the community
• Openness to sole-source negotiations
• Projected potential future cost increase
greater than typical inflationary amount
• Indicated risk of acquisition or sale
GreenWaste Recovery
PGCC 5-6-26
624
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 624 ends

Key
Considerations
PGCC 5-6-26
625
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 625 ends

• Ensures a transparent and defensible
procurement process
• Delivers best value through competitive
pricing and performance
• Builds public accountability and confidence
in long-term contract decisions
Good Governance
PGCC 5-6-26
626
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 626 ends

• Sole-source discussions suggested potential
cost increases above typical inflation
• Preliminary pricing involved trade-offs for
Member Agencies and customers
• Competitive proposals would validate
pricing and improve insight into cost drivers
Affordability
PGCC 5-6-26
627
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 627 ends

• High customer satisfaction across the
service area
• Strong performance attributed to frontline
drivers and customer service staff
• TAC Subgroup strongly supports
GreenWaste’s participation in an RFP
• Labor protection provisions would help
maintain service continuity
Satisfaction with Service
PGCC 5-6-26
628
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 628 ends

• Prior ownership change resulted in greater
management turnover than expected
• Private equity ownership introduces longterm uncertainty • RFP allows strengthened contract
protections for future ownership changes
Assignment Risk
PGCC 5-6-26
629
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 629 ends

Infrastructure
and Readiness
PGCC 5-6-26
630
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 630 ends

• Public ownership of key collection,
processing and disposal assets
• Turnkey infrastructure lowers barriers for
qualified operators
• Asset control supports cost-effective,
competitive service delivery
ReGen Infrastructure
PGCC 5-6-26
631
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 631 ends

Timeline and
Next Steps
PGCC 5-6-26
632
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 632 ends

• Late 2026: RFP development and release
to qualified service providers
• 2027: Proposal review, interviews,
evaluations, and multi-agency coordination
• Early 2028: Contract negotiations and
approval by Member Agency elected bodies
• 2028-2030: Transition period for vehicles,
infrastructure, and community outreach
• Throughout: Process Integrity Policy
applied to ensure fairness and transparency
Timeline and Next Steps
PGCC 5-6-26
633
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 633 ends

Final
Recommendation
PGCC 5-6-26
634
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 634 ends

Recommended Action
• Adopt a Resolution approving the recommendation from
ReGen Monterey’s Technical Advisory Committee’s
Subgroup to initiate a competitive request for proposal process for solid waste, recycling, and organics
collection services, and approve the Process Integrity
Policy.

PGCC 5-6-26
635
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 635 ends

Thank you!
PGCC 5-6-26
636
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 636 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 26-xxx

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE

INITIATING COMPETITIVE REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL PROCESS FOR SOLID

WASTE, RECYCLING, AND ORGANIC COLLECTION SERVICES & ADOPTING

RELATED PROCESS INTEGRITY POLICY
WHEREAS, the City of Pacific Grove manages a franchise agreement for residential and commercial garbage, recycling, and organic collection services with GreenWaste Recovery that is set to expire in 2030; and
WHEREAS, City of Pacific Grove, City of Del Rey Oaks, City of Seaside, Sand City, City of Marina, Pebble Beach Community Services District, and City of Carmel-by-the-Sea (Member Agencies) desire to participate in a regional Request for Proposal process to collectively solicit proposals for future garbage, recycling, and organic collection services; and WHEREAS, staff recommends the City Council adopt a Process Integrity Policy as best practices and guidance for elected officials and management staff to follow while engaged in forthcoming Request for Proposal process; and
WHEREAS, on this date the City Council has received and reviewed a report from the staff recommending the City initiate a competitive Request for Proposal process for future garbage, recycling, and organic collection services and adopt related Process Integrity Policy.

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

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

2. The Council authorizes initiation of a competitive Request for Proposal process for future garbage, recycling, and organic collection and services.

3. After considering written staff report and verbal testimony, the Process Integrity Policy is hereby approved as attached to this Resolution, which by this reference are incorporated as set forth in its entirety.

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

PGCC 5-6-26
637
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 637 ends

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

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

APPROVED:
_______________________________
NICK SMITH, Mayor
ATTEST:

DATED:_______________________
_______________________________
SANDRA KANDELL, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________________
ALEX LORCA, City Attorney
PGCC 5-6-26
638
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 638 ends

Agenda No. 13 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: Installation of a 4-way Stop at the Intersection of Congress, Central and Lighthouse Avenue
CEQA: Categorical Exemption, CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, Class I, Existing Facilities

RECOMMENDATION
Receive report and authorize staff to install a 4-way stop at the intersection of Lighthouse, Congress and Central Avenue and all associated actions consistent with installation of a 4-way stop.

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

DISCUSSION
In the fall of 2025, the City Council provided direction to staff to evaluate the intersection of Lighthouse, Congress, and Central Avenue for a potential all-way stop. The Department of Public Works, along with our contract traffic engineer, began our review of the intersection in September 2025. Following the intersection evaluation, a report was prepared and presented to the Traffic Commission in March 2026. The Traffic Commission received the report and opted to make a recommendation to the City Council to endorse the installation of a 4-way stop at the intersection of Lighthouse, Congress, and Central.

Current Conditions:

Lighthouse Avenue, between Cedar Street and 13th Street, serves as the City’s principal downtown corridor. The roadway consists of one travel lane in each direction, with high-visibility crosswalks provided at selected intersections. The corridor has a posted speed limit of 15 mph.

The intersection of Lighthouse, at Congress and Central, is currently controlled by two all-way stop signs. All four legs contain ladder-style crosswalks with curb ramps that do not fully comply with current ADA standards. The east leg includes a 10-foot-wide median island accommodating U.S. Postal Service (USPS) mail drop boxes with striped approach lanes serving both directions. An eastbound left-turn lane is also provided. The intersection is adjacent to a USPS facility, a gas station, Caledonia Park, retail, and restaurants.

Observations & Intersection Performance:

Field observations conducted in September 2025 revealed that many motorists approach the intersection under the assumption that it operates as an all-way stop, leading to hesitation, confusion, and PGCC 5-6-26
639
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 639 ends

under the assumption that it operates as an all-way stop, leading to hesitation, confusion, and inconsistent yielding behavior. This uncertainty frequently results in delayed pedestrian crossings, unexpected vehicle stops, and erratic driver maneuvers, particularly during peak periods.

Intersection turning movement counts were conducted in October 2025, which resulted in a midday peak of 1,239 vehicles, 225 pedestrians, and 15 bicycles.

In accordance with CA MUTCD Section 2B.07, all-way stop control may be warranted when five or more correctable collisions occur within a 12-month period. For this location, the collision review period of August 1, 2024, to August 30, 2025, identified five right-angle (broadside) collisions within the intersection. The five-year collision history (September 22, 2020, to September 23, 2025) identified nine reported crashes within approximately 70 feet of the intersection.

When considered alongside the balanced approach of traffic volumes and substantial pedestrian crossing activity, these findings demonstrate that the intersection meets the CA MUTCD criteria for installation of all-way stop control to improve safety and operational clarity.

Recommendations noted in the Traffic Engineering Report:

Based on field observations, operational analysis, and a review of collision history, the following recommendations are provided to improve safety, accessibility, and operational performance at the intersection of Congress Avenue and Lighthouse Avenue and within the surrounding downtown corridor.

1. Install all-way stop control

2. Refresh pavement markings and signage
Additional recommendations noted in the report:

1. Implement AB 413 and ADA improvements: This recommendation has already been completed

2. Relocate the USPS drop box; this will have to be coordinated with USPS, but may not be necessary with the implementation of the all-way stop control

3. Develop a downtown specific plan

4. ADA ramps do not meet current standards: Consider upgrading in the future Next Steps:

If the Council approves City Staff to proceed with the installation of a 4-way stop at the intersection of Lighthouse, Congress, and Central Avenue, the next steps are noted below.

1. Review the layout and procure the necessary signs

2. Deploy traffic message boards informing the public of the future stop sign, in both directions of Lighthouse

3. Post on the City’s social media outlets

4. Post in City Managers news letter

5. Installation after outreach

OPTIONS
Do not approve the installation of a 4-way stop and leave the intersection as is.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

The implementation of a 4-way stop at the intersection of Lighthouse, Congress, and Central can be PGCC 5-6-26
640
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 640 ends

The implementation of a 4-way stop at the intersection of Lighthouse, Congress, and Central can be administered through the Public Works operations budget. The other recommendations, such as the development of a downtown plan or upgrading the curb ramps at the Lighthouse, Congress, and Central intersection, would have to be funded through the Capital Improvements Program.

FOCUSED PRIORITY AREA: Infrastructure
Attachments
Intersection Report
Layout
Presentation
PGCC 5-6-26
641
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 641 ends

Traffic Engineering Report
Intersection of Congress Avenue and Lighthouse Avenue
City of Pacific Grove
Prepared by: Adolfo Gonzalez
4Leaf, Inc.

Date: November 14, 2025
PGCC 5-6-26
642
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 642 ends

Traffic Engineering Report – Congress Ave and Lighthouse Ave 1 Executive Summary
This report evaluates vehicles, pedestrian, and bicycle conditions at the intersection of Congress Avenue and Lighthouse Avenue in the City of Pacific Grove. The analysis identified multiple safety and operational deficiencies associated with inconsistent traffic control, limited pedestrian protection, and obstructed sightlines caused by angled parking and median features.

Based on traffic count data, field observations, and a review of the five-year collision history, the intersection meets the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Section 2B.07 criteria for the installation of All-Way Stop Control. Implementation of AllWay Stop Control will address current deficiencies and enhance intersection safety, accessibility, and operational clarity, supporting the City’s goal of creating a safer, more walkable downtown environment.

PGCC 5-6-26
643
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 643 ends

Traffic Engineering Report – Congress Ave and Lighthouse Ave 2 INTRODUCTION
The City of Pacific Grove retained 4Leaf, Inc. to evaluate traffic, pedestrian, and bicycle conditions at the intersection of Congress Avenue and Lighthouse Avenue. The purpose of this study is to assess existing operational and safety conditions, identify contributing factors to vehicle and pedestrian conflicts, and recommend improvements consistent with California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD) standards to enhance downtown mobility and safety.

EXISTING CONDITIONS
Lighthouse Avenue, between Cedar Street and 13th Street, serves as the City’s principal downtown corridor. The roadway consists of one travel lane in each direction, with highvisibility crosswalks provided at selected intersections. The corridor measures approximately 78 feet in width and carries a posted speed limit of 15 mph.

The subject intersection is currently controlled by two-way stop signs on Congress Avenue.

All four legs contain ladder-style crosswalks with curb ramps that do not fully comply with current ADA standards. The east leg includes a 10-foot-wide median island accommodating U.S. Postal Service (USPS) mail drop boxes with striped approach lanes serving both directions. An eastbound left-turn lane is also provided.

The intersection is adjacent to several pedestrian and vehicular trip generators, including the USPS facility, a Shell gas station, Caledonia Park, and multiple retail and dining establishments. Parking configurations vary from angled parking between Cypress Avenue and Congress Avenue to parallel parking between Congress Avenue and Park Street, resulting in diverse maneuvering patterns and potential conflicts.

FIELD OBSERVATIONS
Field observations conducted in September 2025 revealed that many motorists approach the intersection under the assumption that it operates as an All-Way Stop, leading to hesitation, confusion, and inconsistent yielding behavior. This uncertainty frequently results in delayed pedestrian crossings, unexpected vehicle stops, and erratic driver maneuvers, particularly during peak periods.

Additional safety concerns were documented, including:
• Abrupt merging movements from vehicles using the USPS median mail-drop lanes, creating potential conflicts with through traffic. • Restricted sight distance caused by angled and on-street parking located too close to crosswalks.
• Non-compliant Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) curb ramps, which lack proper alignment, slopes, and tactile warning surfaces; and • Faded striping, worn pavement markings, and inconsistent speed-limit signage, all of which reduce visibility and driver awareness approaching the intersection.

PGCC 5-6-26
644
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 644 ends

Traffic Engineering Report – Congress Ave and Lighthouse Ave 3 These combined conditions contribute to operational inefficiency, reduced pedestrian comfort, and elevated collision potential at this high-activity downtown intersection.

SAFETY AND OPERATIONAL PERFORMANCE
Turning-movement counts (TMC) collected on October 14, 2025 (Attachment 1) show that the midday period exhibits the highest overall multimodal activity, followed by the PM peak.

Peak Period Time Vehicles
(veh/peak)
Pedestrians
(persons/peak)
Bicycles
(veh/peak)
AM Peak 7:00 – 9:00 a.m. 771 46 2
Midday Peak 11:00 a.m. – 1:00 p.m. 1,239 225 15
PM Peak 4:00 – 6:00 p.m. 1,111 138 3
A review of the most recent five-year collision history (September 22, 2020, to September 23, 2025) identified nine reported crashes within approximately 70 feet of the intersection.

In accordance with CA MUTCD Section 2B.07, All-Way Stop Control (AWSC) may be warranted when five or more correctable collisions occur within a 12-month period.

For this location, the collision review period of August 1, 2024, to August 30, 2025, identified five right-angle (broadside) collisions within the intersection. The CA MUTCD specifies that correctable collisions are those “susceptible to correction” through installation of multi-way stop control, including right-angle and turning-movement collisions.

The AWSC warrant analysis (Attachment 2), conducted in accordance with CA MUTCD Section 2B.07 – Multi-Way Stop Applications, confirmed that Criterion B (Crash Warrant) was satisfied. The predominance of right-angle and turning collisions is characteristic of insufficient intersection control and inconsistent driver expectations, particularly in a highactivity pedestrian corridor.

When considered alongside the balanced approach traffic volumes and substantial pedestrian crossing activity, these findings demonstrate that the intersection meets the CA MUTCD criteria for installation of All-Way Stop Control to improve safety and operational clarity.

SIGHT DISTANCE AND DAYLIGHTING
California’s Daylighting Law (AB 413), effective January 1, 2025, prohibits parking within 20 feet of any marked or unmarked crosswalk to improve sight distance for pedestrians and drivers. Review of existing conditions indicates that portions of the intersection do not fully meet this requirement due to parking located close to the crosswalks. Leg curb is currently present on the west and east sides of Central Avenue and along the north side of the west PGCC 5-6-26
645
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 645 ends

Traffic Engineering Report – Congress Ave and Lighthouse Ave 4 leg of Lighthouse Avenue, but these treatments do not provide full daylighting coverage at all crosswalk approaches.

RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on field observations, operational analysis, and a review of collision history, the following recommendations are provided to improve safety, accessibility, and operational performance at the intersection of Congress Avenue and Lighthouse Avenue and within the surrounding downtown corridor.

1. Install All-Way Stop Control
It is recommended that the intersection be converted to AWSC to establish uniform right-ofway control, reduce collision frequency and severity, and enhance pedestrian safety.

The AWSC installation should include:
• STOP (R1-1) signs on all approaches with “ALL WAY” (R1-3P) supplemental plaques. • STOP AHEAD (W3-1) advance warning signs on the major street approaches. • New or refreshed pavement markings, including limit lines, crosswalks, and “STOP” legends, in accordance with CA MUTCD (2014 Edition, Rev. 9) and Caltrans Standard Plans A20A-A24G.
• Removal of any existing or redundant signage and pavement markings that conflict with the new stop control configuration.

The AWSC installation will improve driver expectancy, reduce confusion among motorists who currently assume an all-way stop exists, and enhance pedestrian safety at this highactivity downtown location.

ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS.

1. Implement Daylighting Law (AB 413) and ADA Improvements The City may wish to consider implementing daylighting measures consistent with AB 413 to improve intersection visibility. This may include restricting parking within 20 feet of all marked crosswalks and evaluating the existing ADA parking stall on the southwest corner, which does not meet current ADA standards and limits eastbound sight distance. Relocating the ADA stall to a nearby location could maintain convenient access to surrounding businesses and public amenities while improving pedestrian visibility and overall safety.

2. Refresh Pavement Markings and Regulatory Signage
To improve consistency and visibility throughout the intersection, any faded, damaged, or non-conforming regulatory and warning signs should be replaced or reinstalled per Caltrans Standard Specification §82-2, and sign placement should be verified to meet CA MUTCD Chapter 2A standards for mounting height, lateral offset, and required sight distance. These measures will reinforce the effectiveness of the new traffic control and support long-term safety and clarity for all users.

PGCC 5-6-26
646
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 646 ends

5 Traffic Engineering Report – Congress Ave and Lighthouse Ave

3. Relocate USPS Mail Drop Boxes
The existing USPS mail drop boxes located on the median island along the east leg of Lighthouse Avenue contribute to unpredictable vehicle movements and create potential conflict points with through traffic. While the collision history does not indicate that crashes were directly attributed to vehicles exiting the drop box area, the current configuration encourages abrupt merging and hesitation near the intersection.

The city should coordinate with USPS to evaluate a suitable curbside alternative that allows safe and direct pull-out and re-entry movements, minimizes interference with intersection operations, and provides adequate sight distance for motorists and pedestrians. Relocating the drop boxes would reduce midblock merging behavior, improve intersection operations, and support the City’s broader traffic safety objectives.

4. Develop a Downtown Specific Plan
While the above measures provide immediate operational and safety benefits, the City may also wish to consider a corridor-level planning effort to support long-term, consistent improvements. Developing a Downtown Specific Plan could help standardize crosswalk, striping, and speed management strategies; ensure ADA compliance across sidewalks, ramps, and crossings; evaluate parking layout and accessibility; and incorporate streetscape, parklet, and pedestrian circulation enhancements aligned with the City’s downtown vision. Such a plan would provide a unified framework for future capital improvements and support the City’s goal of a safe, accessible and vibrant downtown Pacific Grove.

CONCLUSION
The intersection of Lighthouse Avenue and Congress Avenue exhibits clear operational and safety deficiencies warranting immediate corrective action. Installation of AWSC will reduce collision potential, improve driver behavior, and enhance pedestrian safety through uniform traffic control. Implementation of daylighting measures per AB 413 will further improve sight distance and pedestrian visibility, ensuring compliance with current state law.

Although these near-term improvements will significantly enhance local safety and operations, a corridor-level planning effort through a Downtown Specific Plan should be pursued to create consistent roadway design standards, optimize parking, and advance the City’s long-term vision of a safe, accessible, and economically vibrant downtown Pacific Grove.

Prepared by:_____________________________ Approved by:____________________________ Adolfo Gonzalez, P.M. Jon Blank, PE
TR2190
11/18/25
11/18/2025
PGCC 5-6-26
647
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 647 ends

Curb
29' Existing Red
25' Existing Red
Curb
20' Existing Red Curb
Curb
Install 20' Red
STOP
STOP
STOP
Existing Stop
Existing Stop
Lighthouse Ave
s
Ave
C
e
n
t
ra
l
Cypress
Ave
rk
St
STOP 6'
11' 12'
Cypress
Ave
Lobos
Ave
Stop Sign Layout
46'
shall conform to the 2025 Ca
pavement markings, signs, and traffic control devices
This is a schematic layout and is not to scale. All
ltrans Standard Plans &
Revision 9.

Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD), 2014 Edition,
Specifications and the California Manual on Uniform

1. Refer to Caltrans Standard Plans A20A-A24G for
details.
pavement markings and RS2, RS6 for signing

2. Striping and pavement markings shall be
thermoplastic.

3. New traffic signs shall utilize high-intensity
retroreflective sheeting and shall be in accordance
with Caltrans Standards.

4. Materials, colors, symbols and dimensions shall be
MUTCD.in accordance with Caltrans Standards and the CA
Congress Ave & Lighthouse Ave
All-Way Stop Installation
Date: 11-18-2025Prepared by:

Adolfo Gonzalez, PM
N.T.S
Congress Ave
Install Detail 38A.

Install Type VII (L) Arrow.

Remove existing Type IV LT arrow.

Remove Detail 38A.

Refresh Detail 22.
pavement message and 12" limit line.

Remove Type IV LT arrow. Install STOP
limit line.

Install STOP pavement message and 12"
Install 13' of red curb.Install R1-1 & R1-P on square post.

Install 16' of red curb.
pavement message.

Refresh Detail 38A and install YIELD
Install 20' of red curb.

STOP pavement message.
message. Install 12" limit line and
Remove existing STOP pavementRefresh crosswalks.

Refresh SLOW 15 and install MPH
Approved by:

Jon Blank, Traffic
Engineer
TR2190
PGCC 5-6-26
648
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 648 ends

Intersectio
n of
Congress,
Central
and
Lighthouse
City of Pacific Grove
City Council
May 6, 2026
PGCC 5-6-26
649
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 649 ends

Current
Condition
s
Downtown Lighthouse Corridor runs
between Cedar and 13th Street, Corridor
is 15 MPH
Has high visibility crosswalks at
intersections
Lighthouse, Central and Congress is
controlled by two-way stop signs on
Central and Congress
Intersection acts like a 4-way stop
PGCC 5-6-26
650
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 650 ends

Observations
• Mail drop off creates potential conflicts
• Curb ramps are non-compliant
• Updated signage and stripping needs to occur
• Midday Peak 11:00 am -1:00 pm
• 1,239 vehicles
• 225 Pedestrians
• 15 bikes
PGCC 5-6-26
651
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 651 ends

Traffic Commission Feedback & Next
Steps
Traffic Commission:
• Crash History: 5 within a 12-month period, which prompted recommendation. • Unintended consequences due to cueing, such as stopping, near misses, ect… • Downtown has poor sightlines,
• Downtown specific plan may be prudent,
• Next Steps
• Add advanced warning signs a month in advance to let public know the stop sign is coming • Order necessary infrastructure
• Layout and install
• Traffic Commission Motion: Recommend to Council to create 4-way stop and not move post box, add stop signs and markings and to look at potential for a downtown specific plan for circulation going forward.

PGCC 5-6-26
652
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 652 ends

PGCC 5-6-26
653
PGCC 5-6-26

Page 653 ends

Recommendations
Recommended that intersection be turned into an All-Way Stop Additional Recommendations
• Implement daylighting law (completed)
• Refresh all markings and signage
• Relocate USPS drop box (may not be necessary)
• Develop a downtown specific plan
With future construction curb ramps should also be
upgraded

Pacific Grove City CouncilMay 6, 2026

Pacific Grove City Council
May 6, 2026