PGCC 5-20-26
Feb 26 Jul '25 - Feb 26
Ordinary Income/Expense
Income
Program Income
City Assessment 0.00 29,662.20
Total Program Income 0.00 29,662.20
Total Income 0.00 29,662.20
Expense
Advertising 0.00 1,656.48
Operations 660.00 5,466.58
Total Expense 660.00 7,123.06
Net Ordinary Income -660.00 22,539.14
Net Income -660.00 22,539.14
8:19 PM Business Improvement District
03/10/26 Profit & Loss YTD Comparison
Accrual Basis February 2026
PGCC 5-20-26
Feb 28, 26
ASSETS
Current Assets
Checking/Savings
Mechanics Bank 43,093.71
Total Checking/Savings 43,093.71
Total Current Assets 43,093.71
TOTAL ASSETS 43,093.71
LIABILITIES & EQUITY
Equity
Opening Balance Equity -7,000.00
Unrestricted Net Assets 27,554.57
Net Income 22,539.14
Total Equity 43,093.71
TOTAL LIABILITIES & EQUITY 43,093.71
8:21 PM Business Improvement District
03/10/26 Balance Sheet
Accrual Basis As of February 28, 2026
PGCC 5-20-26
PGCC 5-20-26
PGCC 5-20-26
PGCC 5-20-26
PGCC 5-20-26
PGCC 5-20-26
1 CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
July 1, 2027
Christi Metzner, CEO President
Pacific Grove Chamber of Commerce
584 Central Avenue
Pacific Grove, CA 93950
Dear Christi Metzner,
This letter, once signed by both parties, is intended to serve as the agreement between the City of Pacific Grove and the Pacific Grove Chamber of Commerce regarding the expenditure of Downtown Business Improvement District (BID) revenues for FY 2026-27.
The BID Advisory Board recommended, and the City Council approved a program and budget of $31,000 for FY 2026-27 BID activities. This agreement reflects the approved activities.
Agreement:
1. The City of Pacific Grove will remit the revenues resulting from BID assessments during FY 2026-27 in two installments, with the first to occur on or about September 1, 2026, and the second to occur on or about May 1, 2027. Any BID assessment revenues received after May 1st will be remitted as part of the following year’s revenues. The City will retain 1% of the assessment revenue collected to cover administration costs related to the BID program.
2. The Pacific Grove Chamber of Commerce will spend the transferred BID proceeds exclusively in the manner specified below:
BID Expenditure Budget for FY 2026-27
● Administration $2,000
● Promotion and Events 5,500
● Downtown Improvements/Signage 14,000
● Community projects 2,500
● Marketing Opportunities/Advertising 7,000
Total $31,000
PGCC 5-20-26
2 3. The Pacific Grove Chamber of Commerce will prepare an annual report for the BID to be submitted along with the recommended program and budget for the following fiscal year.
The report shall include, but not be restricted to, the following information:
● A report of all expenditures from the current year (amount and purpose of expenditure transaction and the budgeted activity to which the expenditure is attributable)
● A statement reconciling the balances of all bank accounts holding BID revenues to the aforementioned expenditure report.
● The amount of surplus or deficit revenues projected to be carried over from a previous fiscal year.
● The amount of any contributions to be made from sources other than district assessments.
● The activities and/or improvements, along with estimated costs, to be provided for the coming fiscal year.
4. Modifications to the spending plan reflected herein may only occur with the written approval of the Pacific Grove City Manager.
Signed:
_____________________________________ _____________________________ Matthew Mogensen, City Manager Christi Metzner, CEO President City of Pacific Grove Pacific Grove Chamber of Commerce _________________________ _______________________
Date Date
PGCC 5-20-26
Agenda No. 11 C
CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Lori Frati, Finance Manager
MEETING DATE: May 20, 2026
SUBJECT: Hospitality Improvement District (HID) program for Fiscal Year 2026-27 CEQA: {CEQA}
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council:
Hold a public hearing to determine that a majority protest to the annual assessment was not received
1. Adopt the Resolution approving the annual report and program of expenditures, assessing the levy and appointing an Advisory Board for the Hospitality Improvement District for Fiscal Year 2026-27.
2. Authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement allowing the Pacific Grove Chamber of Commerce to administer the HID budget.
3. 4. Take and alternative action.
DISCUSSION
In November 2007, the City established the Hospitality Improvement District (HID), appointed an advisory board, and established an assessment for the District.
On October 29, 2018, City Council adopted Resolution No. 18-039, granting the City of Monterey to include the City of Pacific Grove in the Monterey County Tourism Improvement District (MCTID).
On November 28, 2018, Council adopted Resolution No. 18-047, amending the Hospitality Improvement District assessment, effective January 1, 2019. This amendment allowed Pacific Grove to equally bifurcate the original assessment. Under this new structure, the HID assessment of $2.00 per night for full-service lodging establishments at $1.00 per room night for all others, will be transferred to the Pacific Grove Chamber of Commerce. Resolution 12-014 defines full-service lodging accommodations as “…generally mid-price, upscale or luxury hotels with a restaurant, lounge facilities and meeting space as well as minimum service levels, often including bell service and room service.
These hotels report food and beverage revenue”. HID assessment revenues are exclusively used for the support and benefit of the hospitality economy of Pacific Grove.
At its May 6, 2026, meeting, the City Council approved a resolution of intent to levy the HID assessment for FY 2026-27 and set a public hearing for May 20, 2026, to consider the levy. California Streets and Highways Code Section 36525 provides that the District shall not be formed if written protests are received from the owners of businesses in the proposed area that will pay 50 percent or PGCC 5-20-26
protests are received from the owners of businesses in the proposed area that will pay 50 percent or more of the assessments proposed to be levied. Staff advertised the public hearing pursuant to relevant State and Municipal Code sections. Staff has received no protest petitions as of this writing.
Staff is recommending to exercise the right to retain an administration fee equal to one percent (1%) of the assessment amount collected. This 1% administration fee will be deducted quarterly and noted on the District's quarterly payout statement, which is estimated to be $2,890.00 for FY 2026-27.
Pursuant to State law and City Council Resolution 07-044, which formed the HID, an Annual Report is required that reports on District revenues and expenditures, proposes a budget for Fiscal Year (FY) 2026-27, and requests the levy of an assessment for FY 2026-27.
The Pacific Grove Hospitality Improvement District Annual Report (Attachment 1), reports on District revenues and expenditures for FY 2025-26, proposes a budget for FY 2026-27, lists the number of lodging establishments in the HID and requests the levy of an assessment for FY 2026-27. No changes to HID boundaries are recommended for FY 2026-27.
City Council Resolution 07-044 (Attachment 2) outlines the requirements for levying the annual assessment for the District. The terms of the Resolution have been met as indicated by the specific points of compliance set forth below:
Process for Advisory Board Appointment: Per the Resolution, the Chamber of Commerce facilitated a noticing of all properties in the HID and a meeting of the HID Advisory Board to fill Advisory Board seats that will expire on June 30, 2026. Results of the election from the Chamber of Commerce are included in the report, with the following recommended Advisory Board for next year:
Robert Boerner (Pacific Gardens Inn), term expires June 30, 2027 Julie Chaland (Kimpton Mirador Pacific Grove Hotel), term expires June 30, 2027 Siddharth Raj (Monarch Resort), term expires June 30, 2028 Michael Grech (Monterey Peninsula Inn), term expires June 30, 2028 Alex Marin (Asilomar Conference Grounds)
As stated in the ordinance that created the HID, “a conference facility”, in reference to Asilomar Conference Grounds, will have one representative on the board at all times.
Contract with Chamber of Commerce for Services (Attachment 3): The City will contract with the Chamber of Commerce to administer the HID program in compliance with the plan approved by the City Council. Any unspent revenues will be retained by the Chamber for performance of the FY 2027-28 contract.
Chamber of Commerce Financial Reporting: The FY 2025-26 HID report from the Chamber includes HID expenditure activity for current fiscal year to date.
All Board Advisory members are current on their licenses.
Proposed FY 2026-27 HID Program. The HID Advisory Board recommends the following allocation of HID assessment revenue for FY 2026-27 of $309,000, which includes a $20,000 carry over from the prior year. The HID Advisory Board recommends allocating HID assessment revenues for the following projected FY 2026-27 expenditures:
Proposed HID Expenditure Budget FY 2026-27
Visitor Center $145,000
Marketing Opportunities 140,000
Operations Events/Promotions 10,000
Advertising 6,000
PGCC 5-20-26
Community Projects 5,000
Bookkeeping 3,000
Total $309,000
OPTIONS
1. Decline to adopt the Resolution.
2. Adopt a modified Resolution.
3. Provide alternate direction.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The City acts as the administrative pass-through to the HID. Assessment revenues may only be used for HID purposes; and will reflect the actual amounts collected.
FOCUSED PRIORITY AREA: Not Applicable.
Attachments
Resolution for FY 26-27
HID Annual Report
Resolution 07-004
HID Agreement 2026-27
PGCC 5-20-26
RESOLUTION NO. 26---
APPROVING THE ANNUAL REPORT AND PROGRAM OF
EXPENDITURES, ASSESSING THE LEVY AND APPOINTING AN
ADVISORY BOARD FOR THE HOSPITALITY IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2026-27
1. The City Council conducted a public hearing to consider the levy of the proposed Fiscal Year 2026-27 assessment for the Pacific Grove Hospitality Improvement District on May 20, 2026 at 6:00 pm; and
2. The City Clerk gave notice of the public hearing by causing the resolution of intention, adopted by the City Council on May 6, 2026, to be published in a newspaper of general circulation at least seven days before the public hearing; and
3. At the public hearing, the City Council heard and considered all protests against the Fiscal Year (FY) 2026-27 levy of assessments for the Pacific Grove Hospitality Improvement District, and the rules and procedures used in receiving and considering protests complied with those set forth in Streets and Highways Code sections 36524, 36525 and 36534 (“Improvement Area Law”); and
4. Said Improvement Area Law provides, at California Street and Highways Code Section 36530, that the City Council shall appoint an Advisory Board to make recommendations to the City Council regarding expenditure of revenues collected from District business owners, and to make recommendations regarding the method and basis of assessment levy; and
5. The City Council requested that the Pacific Grove Chamber of Commerce recommend membership for the Advisory Board by process of public nomination and election, and the Chamber has made recommendations that the City Council desires to accept.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE:
1. The City 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 City Council hereby levies and shall collect assessments for FY 2026-27 within the Hospitality Improvement District (HID), as described in Chapter 6.54 of the Pacific Grove Municipal Code and retain 1% of assessment revenues collected to cover administration costs.
3. Pacific Grove has one full-service hotel or bed and breakfast establishments that collect the $2.00 per room night fee
4. There is no change in the boundaries of the district as established in the prior year and set forth in Section 6.54.030 of the Pacific Grove Municipal Code.
PGCC 5-20-26
5. The City Council approves the annual report prepared by the Advisory Board of the Pacific Grove Hospitality Improvement District.
6. The City Council approves the Pacific Grove Hospitality Improvement District program for FY 2026-27, as follows:
Proposed HID Expenditure for FY 2026-27
Proposed HID Expenditure Budget FY 2026-27
Total Bookkeeping $3,000
Total Advertising $6,000
Total Community Projects $5,000
Total Marketing Opportunities $140,000
Total Operations Events/Promotions $10,000
Total Visitor Center $145,000
Total $309,000
7. The City Manager is authorized to approve an agreement with the Pacific Grove Chamber of Commerce to administer the program for FY 2026-27.
8. The City Manager is authorized to approve mid-year amendments to the program and agreement with the Pacific Grove Chamber of Commerce within the total amount approved for the year.
9. Pursuant to California Streets and Highways Code Section 36530, the City Council hereby appoints the following (named with their business affiliations) as the Advisory Board for and on behalf of the Hospitality Improvement District:
o Julia Chaland (Kimpton Mirador Pacific Grove), term expires June 30, 2027 o Robert Boerner (Pacific Gardens Inn), term expires June 30, 2027 o Michael Grech (Monterey Peninsula Inn), term expires June 30, 2028 o Siddharth Raj (Monarch Resort), term expires June 30, 2028 o Alex Marin (Asilomar Conference Grounds) continuous
10. The Advisory Board hereby appointed is subject to all provisions of the Ralph M.
Brown Act, and the Advisory Board hereby is directed to comply therewith.
11. This Resolution shall become effective immediately following passage and adoption thereof.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE this 20th day of May 2026, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
PGCC 5-20-26
ABSENT:
APPROVED:
____________________________________
NICK SMITH, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
SANDRA KANDELL, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
________________________________
ALEX LORCA, City Attorney
PGCC 5-20-26
Post Office Box 167 • Pacific Grove, CA 93950 • 831-373-3304 • pacificgrove.org April 3, 2026
To: Lori Frati - Finance Manager
From: Christi Metzner - Pacific Grove Chamber of Commerce Subject: Pacific Grove Hospitality Improvement District Annual Report In accordance with the City's approved agreement with Pacific Grove Chamber of Commerce (PGCC), I am submitting the HID annual report.
Introduction
The start of the 2025–2026 fiscal year in Pacific Grove was strong, with steady visitor activity and continued interest from our key drive markets. Early summer travel and events helped support local businesses, particularly in lodging, dining, and retail. The momentum carried into peak season, with good occupancy levels and a vibrant downtown atmosphere driven by community events, live music, and an increasingly popular dining scene. Overall, Pacific Grove continues to perform well as a desirable coastal destination, with both returning visitors and new guests discovering the area.
During the more favorable weather months of May through November, large outdoor events such as Good Old Days, Car Week and Downtown Trick-or-Treat, attracted thousands to our area. Asilomar Conference Grounds has been booming this year with group and conference business bookings.
January was a strong month for Pacific Grove, with our hotels almost fully booked during the AT&T ProAm. The Chamber partnered with the Monterey Peninsula Foundation to offer complimentary shuttles for tournament ticket holders traveling into Pebble Beach, which proved to be a great success. We’re excited to build on this momentum and plan to offer the shuttle program again moving forward.
The outlook for the final quarter of this FY is looking good, and we continue to see visitors flock to Lovers Point each weekend.
Election of Board Members
On Thursday, April 16, 2026, the Pacific Grove Chamber will host a public meeting and invited all HID members to a meeting at City of Pacific Grove City Hall (City Manager’s Conference Room – 300 Forest Avenue) in order to facilitate the re-election of the following innkeepers to a two-year term from July 1, 2026 through June 30, 2028:
1. Michael Grech – Monterey Peninsula Inn
2. Siddharth Raj – Monarch Resort
The newly elected HID members will join the Advisory Board members below that are serving until June 30, 2027:
1. Julia Chaland – Kimpton Mirador Pacific Grove
2. Robert Boerner – Pacific Gardens Inn
3. Alex Marin – Asilomar Conference Grounds (permanent seat) For your information, the ordinance which created the HID stipulated that, "a conference facility,” in reference to Asilomar Conference Grounds, will have one representative on the board at all times.
PGCC 5-20-26
Post Office Box 167 • Pacific Grove, CA 93950 • 831-373-3304 • pacificgrove.org Income/Beginning Balance
The beginning balance of the HID account on July 1, 2025 was $83,399. Total income of the HID from July 1, 2025 through June 30, 2026 is projected to be $231,000.
Anticipated costs, revenues, number of lodging establishments, and activities to be provided in Fiscal Year 2026-27 include, but are not limited to, promotion, marketing, and advertising. Reporting on the estimated 2026-27 fiscal year, the HID has 25 lodging establishments and revenues are projected to be $309,000 including a $20,000 carryover.
Expenditures and Details
Total expenses from July 1, 2025 until April 17, 2026 were $129,539.59 HID expenditures have been invested in the below main areas:
1. Tourist Center (see attachment)
a. The Tourist Center at 100 Central Avenue is the largest operating expense of the HID.
The center attracts hundreds of visitors each week who are referred to all business districts in Pacific Grove.
b. From July 2025 to March 2026, the Center had a total of 12,000 guests visit the center. c. Visitors are excited to be traveling. Most are the drive markets from the Bay Area, Central Valley and Southern California. However, we continue to see travelers from across the US and international travelers as well.
d. Since its opening in May of 2011, the center has served as a connection point from the Central/Eardley District through to the downtown Lighthouse District. Its location is strategically located at the very northern edge of Pacific Grove and just one block from the entrance to the Monterey Bay Aquarium.
2. Online Marketing
a. Online marketing remains the most effective method of reaching targeted market segments in an engaging manner.
b. The chamber's total following continues to rise across all social media platforms. This year our combined accounts saw a steady following with a great increase of 25% overall, bringing the total to 39,000 – Instagram 13,000 and Facebook 26,000. c. The HID contracts with several media companies as well as a local independent marketing consultant who handles strategic campaigns that attract visitors to Pacific Grove.
d. The focus is on generating overnight visitors who will stay, dine and shop in town. e. The HID destination marketing organization has been rebranded as Visit Pacific Grove.
The advisory board has launched a new website (visitpacificgrove.org), Instagram & Facebook (@visitpacificgrove) and a new logo (see attached). This is exciting and a marketing name that everyone will relate to.
3. Print Advertising
a. The Bay Area, Los Angeles and the Central Valley are the top feeder markets for Pacific Grove.
PGCC 5-20-26
Post Office Box 167 • Pacific Grove, CA 93950 • 831-373-3304 • pacificgrove.org b. Most HID print advertising targets key markets and utilize local and Bay Area publications and travel magazines.
c. This year, the HID placed a full-page back cover ad plus two-page editorial with photos in the 2026-2027 Travel Guide to California including a full-page ad in Dreamscapes that has wide distribution to our northern neighbor. The Travel Guide to California will be sent out one time each with the LA Times and SF Chronicle. More digital advertising as well. The chamber has been working with See Monterey and Visit California and they both have added Pacific Grove to more of their advertising and on their websites and we will continue our working relationship. Streaming ads are new this year and we are targeting our fly and drive markets.
4. Video Promotions
a. The HID has approved updated photography and videography for all establishments and the photos will be used on the new Visit Pacific Grove website.
5. Promotional Brochures
a. In January 2026, our tourist guide was updated, slightly re-designed and published 35,000 copies to distribute throughout the year.
b. Printed materials are still frequently requested by travel partners; however, our Guide to Pacific Grove is also published on our website as a digital flipbook so we can also utilize QR codes in all of our marketing to point toward it. c. Again, this year our Tourist Information Center, as well as a special feature on Pacific Grove’s Point Pinos Lighthouse, has been added to the Central Coast Tourism Council’s map/brochure, gaining additional visibility.
Key Goals for 2026 – 2027
1. Continue to educate and support local innkeepers in developing stronger relationships with See Monterey. It is critical to take advantage of the services and elevation of PG-owned strategic marketing offered by See Monterey, to which our properties are now contributing a larger portion of their self-assessment.
2. Continue to collaborate with internationally recognized organizations that benefit Pacific Grove such as Asilomar Conference Grounds, CourseCo Inc., Pebble Beach Co., the Monterey Bay Aquarium, WeatherTech Raceway Laguna Seca and others.
3. Promote Pacific Grove during major events in the area such as the AT&T Pebble Beach Pro Am, Monterey Jazz Festival, Car Week, WeatherTech Raceway Laguna Seca event series, US Open 2027, Monterey Bay Half Marathon, and at our one and only professional football club - Monterey Bay Football Club.
4. Research and evaluate additional Canadian travel marketing opportunities.
5. Introduce new local’s insider destination exploration videos on a variety of social media channels, including additional paid content. – We continue to run streaming ads to our drive markets and some fly markets.
6. Consider curated influencer stays, to highlight how to be a compassionate visitor to our destination.
PGCC 5-20-26
Post Office Box 167 • Pacific Grove, CA 93950 • 831-373-3304 • pacificgrove.org
7. As Visit Pacific Grove prepares to launch at the end of the 2025–2026 fiscal year, a new website, logo and expanded Instagram and Facebook presence will help position Pacific Grove as a premier coastal destination. Our marketing strategy will continue to emphasize “Book Direct” messaging to support our lodging partners and enhance the visitor experience.
8. Research & develop a Lodging Quality Assurance (LQA) Program to ensure our lodging partners are provided with information and tools to consistently improve lodging standards, and that visitors to Pacific Grove always experience the finest in accommodations.
9. Evaluate and consider supporting new opportunities that will benefit the lodging establishments.
Reserve
Typically, the HID maintains a reserve of one year of operation. This is mainly due to the lease of the tourist center.
In the unlikely event that the HID is dissolved, the center will remain operational for as long as possible until an alternative funding source is created.
Forecasted Expenses Through June 30, 2026
Marketing Support Events $ 12,000
Advertising – Photography $ 3,900
Print Media $ 2,500
Research, Support & Development $ 32,800
Visitor Center Lease $ 16,760
Visitor Center Property Tax $ 5,578
Visitor Center Operation $ 4,040
Staffing $ 22,400
Due to Council agenda deadlines, this report was submitted by April 3, 2026, as requested by the City.
As we move into the 2026–2027 fiscal year, the Pacific Grove Chamber of Commerce continues to see strong travel sentiment, particularly from our core drive markets including the Bay Area, Central Valley and Southern California. We remain optimistic about sustained occupancy levels, supported by Pacific Grove’s appeal as a coastal destination for leisure travel, dining, and weekend getaways. At the same time, we will continue to monitor economic and political factors that may influence travel behavior and adjust our marketing strategies as needed to support our lodging partners.
Respectfully submitted by,
Christi Metzner
HID Administrator
President/CEO Pacific Grove Chamber of Commerce
PGCC 5-20-26
Hospitality Improvement District
Profit & Loss Proposed Budget Overview
July 2026 – June 2027
Ordinary Income/Expense July 1, ’26 – June 30, ‘27
Income
Program Income
Carry Over, Prior Year, Mktg 20,000.00
City Assessment 289,000.00
Total Program Income 309,000.00
Total Income 309,000.00
Expenses
Total Bookkeeping 3,000.00
Total Visitor Center 145,000.00
Total Advertising 6,000.00
Total Community Projects 5,000.00
Total Marketing Opportunities 140,000.00
Total Operations Events/Promotion 10,000.00
Total Expenses $309,000.00
Net Ordinary Income 0.00
Net Income 0.00
PGCC 5-20-26
PG Hospitality Improvement District
Balance Sheet
As of February 28, 2026
Cash Basis Tuesday, March 10, 2026 08:16 PM GMT-07:00 1/1 TOTAL
ASSETS
Current Assets
Bank Accounts
Mechanics Bank 101,961.95
Total Bank Accounts $101,961.95
Total Current Assets $101,961.95
TOTAL ASSETS $101,961.95
LIABILITIES AND EQUITY
Liabilities
Total Liabilities
Equity
C/Fwd from Prior Year -320,000.00
Retained Earnings 380,706.28
Net Income 41,255.67
Total Equity $101,961.95
TOTAL LIABILITIES AND EQUITY $101,961.95
PGCC 5-20-26
PG Hospitality Improvement District
Budget vs. Actuals: Budget_FY26_P&L - FY26 P&L
July 2025 - February 2026
Cash Basis Tuesday, March 10, 2026 08:10 PM GMT-07:00 1/1 TOTAL
ACTUAL BUDGET OVER BUDGET % OF BUDGET
Income
Carried Fwd Prior Year 20,000.00 -20,000.00
Income 170,795.26 239,000.00 -68,204.74 71.46 %
Total Income $170,795.26 $259,000.00 $ -88,204.74 65.94 % Expenses
Admin/Management 2,000.00 -2,000.00
Advertising 1,505.00 7,000.00 -5,495.00 21.50 %
Community Projects 5,000.00 -5,000.00
Event Expense 5,000.00 -5,000.00
Marketing Support Opportunities 33,231.09 92,000.00 -58,768.91 36.12 % Visitor Center 94,803.50 128,000.00 -33,196.50 74.07 %
Total Expenses $129,539.59 $239,000.00 $ -109,460.41 54.20 % NET OPERATING INCOME $41,255.67 $20,000.00 $21,255.67 206.28 % NET INCOME $41,255.67 $20,000.00 $21,255.67 206.28 %
PGCC 5-20-26
Pacific Grove Hospitality Improvement
Profit Loss Prev Year Comparison
July 2025 - February 2026
Cash Basis Tuesday, March 10, 2026 08:13 PM GMT-07:00 1/1 TOTAL
JUL 2025 - FEB 2026 JUL 2024 - FEB 2025 (PY)
Income
Income 170,795.26 195,990.08
Total Income $170,795.26 $195,990.08
Expenses
Advertising 1,505.00 0.00
Bookkeeping
Marketing Support Opportunities 33,231.09 37,169.78
Visitor Center 94,803.50 88,338.02
Total Expenses $129,539.59 $127,432.80
NET OPERATING INCOME $41,255.67 $68,557.28
NET INCOME $41,255.67 $68,557.28
PGCC 5-20-26
PG Hospitality Improvement District
Profit and Loss YTD Comparison
February 2026
Cash Basis Tuesday, March 10, 2026 08:12 PM GMT-07:00 1/1 TOTAL
FEB 2026 JUL 2025 - FEB 2026 (YTD)
Income
Income 51,125.03 170,795.26
Total Income $51,125.03 $170,795.26
Expenses
Advertising 1,505.00
Marketing Support Opportunities 2,250.00 33,231.09
Visitor Center 11,443.64 94,803.50
Total Expenses $13,693.64 $129,539.59
NET OPERATING INCOME $37,431.39 $41,255.67
NET INCOME $37,431.39 $41,255.67
PGCC 5-20-26
PGCC 5-20-26
CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE www.ci.pacific-grove.ca.us
Application for Appointment to a
Public Board, Commission, or Committee
Persons interested in being appointed to serve on a board, commission, or committee of the City of Pacific Grove are invited to complete the following application.
Name:
Street Address:
City: State: ZIP Code:
Residence Telephone Number: Work Telephone Number: E-Mail Address:
Name of Board, Commission, or Committee on which you would like to serve:
Brief Description of Background and Qualifications (Additional Information May Be Attached on Separate Sheets):
Signature of Applicant: Date:
FOR CITY USE ONLY
Appointed to: __________________________________________________________________________________ Date of Appointment: ___________________ Expiration: ________________________________________ Date of Reappointment: _________________ End of Term: ______________________________________ Date Certification of Appreciation Awarded: ________________________________________________________ PGCC 5-20-26
PGCC 5-20-26
PGCC 5-20-26
PGCC 5-20-26
PGCC 5-20-26
PGCC 5-20-26
PGCC 5-20-26
1 CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
July 1, 2027
Christi Metzner
Pacific Grove Chamber of Commerce
584 Central Avenue
Pacific Grove, CA 93950
Dear Christi Metzner,
This letter, once signed by both parties, is intended to serve as the agreement between the City of Pacific Grove and the Pacific Grove Chamber of Commerce regarding the expenditure of Hospitality Improvement District (HID) revenues for FY 2026-27.
The HID Advisory Board recommended, and the City Council approved a program and budget of $309,000 for FY 2026-27 HID activities. This agreement reflects the approved activities.
HID Expenditure Budget for FY 2026-27
Proposed HID Expenditure Budget FY 2026-27
Total Bookkeeping $3,000
Total Advertising $6,000
Total Community Projects $5,000
Total Marketing Opportunities $140,000
Total Operations Events/Promotions $10,000
Total Visitor Center $145,000
Total $309,000
Agreement:
1. The City of Pacific Grove will remit the revenues resulting from HID assessments during FY 2026-27 on a quarterly basis within 30 days of the City’s due date for Transient Occupancy Tax payments from lodging establishments. The City will retain 1% of the assessment revenue collected to cover administration costs related to the HID program.
2. The Pacific Grove Chamber of Commerce will spend the transferred HID proceeds exclusively in the manner specified below:
PGCC 5-20-26
2 The Pacific Grove Chamber of Commerce will prepare an annual report for the HID to be submitted along with the recommended program and budget for the following fiscal year. The report shall include, but not be restricted to, the following information:
● Proposed changes to district boundaries
● A report of all expenditures from the current year (amount and purpose of expenditure transaction and the budgeted activity to which the expenditure is attributable)
● A statement reconciling the balances of all bank accounts holding HID revenues to the aforementioned expenditure report.
● The amount of surplus or deficit revenues projected to be carried over from a previous fiscal year.
● The amount of any contributions to be made from sources other than district assessments.
● The activities and/or improvements, along with estimated costs, to be provided for the coming fiscal year.
3. Modifications to the spending plan reflected herein may only occur with the written approval of the Pacific Grove City Manager.
Signed:
_____________________________________ _____________________________ Matthew Mogensen, City Manager Christi Metzner, CEO President Pacific Grove Chamber of Commerce
_________________________ _______________________
Date Date
PGCC 5-20-26
Agenda No. 11 D
CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Lori Frati, Finance Manager
MEETING DATE: May 20, 2026
SUBJECT: Master Fee Schedule for Fiscal Year 2026-27
CEQA: {CEQA}
RECOMMENDATION
Approve a Resolution adopting the City's FY 2026-27 Master Fee Schedule, including the annual Consumer Price Index (CPI) adjustment and other changes as directed by Council
1. 2. Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item.
DISCUSSION
Chapter 6.02 of the Pacific Grove Municipal Code (PGMC) requires a schedule of fees to be reviewed annually in conjunction with the budget process and established by City Council resolution. Notice of the public hearing was published in accordance with PGMC Chapter 6.02 and relevant California Government Code sections.
In accordance with the process adopted by Council for FY 2012-13, the current fee schedule has been adjusted, where applicable, by the 2.7% increase in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for the San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose area for the period ending December 31, 2025. The CPI adjustment applies to all fees not controlled by other entities (e.g. State of California) or fees that are market-driven (cemetery site sales, facility rentals, etc.). In addition to the CPI adjustment, staff has proposed changes to fees based on the City’s Fees, Charges and Cost Recovery Policy (No. 400-4- Attachment II) and Council’s direction to recover 100% of the costs associated with providing services to the public (with certain specific exceptions).
In the process of City staff reviewing the current fee schedules for Recreation, Community Development and the Cemetery, staff is proposing an increase that is higher than the 2.7% CPI, for reasons listed below. The fees associated with providing services and programs for Recreation and Community Development, staff is proposing a 5% rate increase. With this continuing scale of rate increases carried into FY 2027-28 and 2028-29, it is estimated that the City will reach its long-term goal of having between 80-100% cost recovery for the Community Development Department and 30% for the Recreation Division. Cemetery fees are also proposed to increase by 10% to address the current annual deficit in the Cemetery Fund.
Recreation
Recreation fees are one of the enterprise services in which the City offers products or services for which the customers have a broad market choice. The City may choose to set rates based on current market PGCC 5-20-26
the customers have a broad market choice. The City may choose to set rates based on current market conditions, which includes facility rental, recreation programs, and land use. To help address the City Council goal of recovering at least 30% of costs, staff is proposing a 5% fee increase for all fees and charges, allowing the department to make continued progress towards meeting this goal.
Community Development
Community Development fees are recommended by staff to be increased by 5%, allowing the department to move towards achieving the goal of 80–100% of cost recovery of and aligning with the City's Cost Recovery Policy.
Cemetery
The Cemetery is an enterprise fund, which means it is self-supported and does not rely on the General Fund for funding. The Cemetery is facing a revenue deficit due to the reduction of plots available for in-ground burials and the cost of water to maintain the cemetery grounds. To address the continued reduction of in-ground burial site sales and the increasing cost of water, staff is proposing a 10% rate increase for all fees and charges to assist in funding cemetery operations and expenses.
Parking Meter Rates
Parking meter hourly rates are proposed to increase by .25 (25 cents) per hour. These parking meters are located on Ocean View Blvd. near the American Tin Cannery and the Monterey Bay Aquarium. This rate increase will mirror the City of Monterey parking meter rates for meters that are in the same area.
The attached Master Fee Schedule document is structured to maintain the current fiscal year fees, with CPI increases, where appropriate, and to add the new proposed fees for FY 2026-27. Changes other than those resulting from the CPI increase are highlighted on the schedule. The Sewer Rate Table fees will continue at the FY2024-25 rates as staff will look to bring back an updated rate table for consideration by City Council at a future council meetingntil Public Works meets with a consultant to create a new Sewer Rate Table.
OPTIONS
Provide alternative direction.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Staff anticipates the recommended fee additions and changes correspond to the costs of providing services for FY 2026-27.
FOCUSED PRIORITY AREA: Financial Sustainability
Attachments
Resolution Adopting Master Fee Schedule
Council Policy 400-04
Consumer Price Index
Master Fee Schedule
PGCC 5-20-26
RESOLUTION NO. 26-xxx
ESTABLISHING FEES AND CHARGES FOR CERTAIN ACTIVITIES
FINDINGS
1. Pacific Grove Municipal Code (PGMC) Chapter 6.02 provides for the establishment of fees and charges for service, and;
2. The City of Pacific Grove held a public hearing on May 20, 2026 regarding changes to the Master Fee Schedule, and;
3. Notice of a Public Hearing to be held on May 20, 2026 was published in accordance with PGMC Chapter 6.02 and relevant California Government Code sections, and;
4. The City Council desires to adopt an amended Master Fee Schedule for FY 2026-27, and;
5. The Action proposed by this Resolution does not constitute a “Project” as that term is defined under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), CEQA Guideline section 15378.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE 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. After receiving a report of the proposed changes in fees, charges, and costs contained in the City of Pacific Grove FY 2026-27 Master Fee Schedule, and having held a public hearing on the changes, the City Council hereby authorizes the changes including any changes as directed by Council.
3. Per Government Code 66017, approved changes that relate to community development services shall be effective 60 days following final action by the City Council on the resolution. In the case of reductions, the reductions can be implemented on July 1, 2026, on a case-by-case basis, by decision of the City Manager.
4. Approved changes shall be effective July 1, 2026.
5. Every City Department is requested to reproduce, display, and distribute copies of their fee schedules as deemed appropriate. The Master Fee Schedule shall also be posted on the City’s website and available at the Library.
PGCC 5-20-26
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE this 20th day of May 2026, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
APPROVED:
____________________________________
NICK SMITH, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
SANDRA KANDELL, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
________________________________
ALEX LORCA, City Attorney
PGCC 5-20-26
CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
CITY COUNCIL POLICY
Policy Governing Policy No. Effective Date Page No.
Fees, Charges, and Cost Recovery 400-4 June 15, 2011 1 of 2 I. PURPOSE
The purpose of the policy is to guide the City Council’s establishment of fees for service, fines, and other charges for service, in order to help ensure consistency in fee setting rationale. The policy is intended to provide broad guidance for service areas, without providing detailed guidance for all fee categories
It is the City Council’s intent that the policy may be amended over time to address additional services and evolving economic circumstances.
II. POLICY OF THE CITY
The City establishes fees according to Pacific Grove Municipal Code Chapter 6.02. Pursuant to Article XIIIB of the California Constitution, it is the intent of the City Council to recover a portion or all costs reasonably borne for providing government services to the extent such cost recovery reflects the appropriate balance of general revenue support and fees paid by the individual(s) benefiting from the service.
For enterprise services, in which the City is offering products or services for which the customer has broad market choices, the City may choose to set rates based on current market conditions.
This includes facility rentals, cemetery sales, recreational programs, land use, or similar enterprises. This market-based approach provides the City with the ability to optimize revenue beyond recovering the cost of providing the service. These market-based rates accurately reflect the value received by the customer.
In setting fees, City staff shall prepare fees for City Council consideration, based on cost recovery levels in the subsequent table. The listed percentage or methodology represents the combined cost recovery level for the department. Individual fees within each department may be established at a lower rate to encourage a desired performance; however the overall departmental fees should be within the listed ranges.
All staff assigned to hourly-based services, such as special events, inspections, or related tasks will be charged at the fully burdened hourly rate.
PGCC 5-20-26
Pacific Grove City Council Policy No. 400-4 Page 2 of 2 Service Cost Recovery Method
Administration, City Clerk, Libraries At least 30% of costs Consideration may need to be given to the recovery percentage, such as limitations on certain fees imposed by the State, election code; or similar entities.
Community Development 80-100% of costs
Public Works 80-100% of costs
Public Safety 30-50% of costs
Hyperbaric Chamber 80-100% of costs
City Facility Rental
Private parties Market
Non-profit organizations Market
Ongoing, frequent, or unique rental
(e.g., weekly classes, or street closure)
Discount from Market
City–sponsored events No charge
Special Events
For-profit sponsor Market; however at least 100% costs
Non-profit sponsor 100% of costs
Events designated “traditional” by City Council No charge Recreation Market; however at least 30% of costs
Cemetery Market; however at least 80% of costs
Golf Determined through concessionaire
Adopted June 2, 2010 (Resolution No. 10-044)
Adopted June 15, 2011 (Resolution No. 11-052)
Adopted September 19, 2018 (Resolution No. 18-033)
PGCC 5-20-26
!"#
$% &$ '
% ( ()
*+,-./,01 /.234506/3.7 89 :;< = ,>/?/.23@A1BCD3E = FFFCA1BCD3EG,>/ H+I/0 ,3.60,67 89 :;J: = K4+BBL22/,+@A1BCD3E MNOPQR"S TSUM" UOV"W X V"M"RY"S ( (Z *-+ [3.B\5+4 K4/,+ ].I+^ 234 _11 4A0. [3.B\5+4B 8[K]9 /.,4+0B+I C` >+4,+.6 3. 0 B+0B3.011a 0Ib\B6+I A0B/B /. +,+5A+4c 6-+ CC d\4+0\ 32 0A34 606/B6/,B 4+>346+I 63I0aC LE+4 6-+ 10B6 ; 53.6-Bc 6-+ 011 /6+5B /.I+^ /.,4+0B+I C< >+4,+.6 A+234+ B+0B3.01 0Ib\B65+.6C *-+ /.I+^ 234 B-+16+4 43B+ C >+4,+.6 /. +,+5A+4 0.I F0B 6-+ 104D+B6 20,634 /. 6-+ 011 /6+5B 53.6-1a /.,4+0B+C *-+ 233I /.I+^ /.,4+0B+I C< >+4,+.6 3E+4 6-+ 53.6- 0B I/I 6-+ 233I 06 -35+ /.I+^ 0.I 6-+ 233I 0F0a 2435 -35+ /.I+^C *-+ /.I+^ 234 +.+4Da 43B+ C` >+4,+.6 /. +,+5A+4C *-+ /.I+^ 234 011 /6+5B 1+BB 233I 0.I +.+4Da 43B+ C >+4,+.6 /. +,+5A+4C ].I+^+B 6-06 /.,4+0B+I 3E+4 6-+ 53.6- /.,1\I+ 4+,4+06/3.c 0/41/.+ 204+Bc 5+I/,01 ,04+c 0>>04+1c >+4B3.01 ,04+c 0.I +I\,06/3.C *-+ /.I+^+B 234 ,355\./,06/3.c \B+I ,04B 0.I 64\,eBc 0.I -3\B+-31I 2\4./B-/.DB 0.I 3>+406/3.B F+4+ 053.D 6-+ 50b34 /.I+^+B 6-06 I+,4+0B+I /. +,+5A+4C *-+ 011 /6+5B /.I+^ 43B+ C< >+4,+.6 234 6-+ ; 53.6-B +.I/.D +,+5A+4c 6-+ B05+ /.,4+0B+ 0B 3E+4 6-+ ; 53.6-B +.I/.D f3E+5A+4C *-+ 011 /6+5B 1+BB 233I 0.I +.+4Da /.I+^ 43B+ C >+4,+.6 3E+4 6-+ 10B6 ; 53.6-BC *-+ +.+4Da /.I+^ /.,4+0B+I C` >+4,+.6 234 6-+ ; 53.6-B +.I/.D +,+5A+4C *-+ 233I /.I+^ /.,4+0B+I `C; >+4,+.6 3E+4 6-+ 10B6 a+04C ghijk ilm hno pqr gst uvuw rpop tpxymz p{m qso ptp|xp}xm rym os olm uvuw xp~zm |q p~~{s~{|po|sqz PGCC 5-20-26
!"#$!%&!'(&)
'*!+,'-$./0%" 1%
'-0'+23!%+4-$.51671#8#&,(9
:!%
*!
;
<=
PGCC 5-20-26
City of Pacific Grove
MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
FISCAL YEAR 2026-27
PGCC 5-20-26
Administration (Fees Applicable to All Departments and Programs) 3 Cemetery 5
City Clerk 9
Community Development 10
Fire 18
Library 21
Lighthouse 22
Local Water Project 23
Police 24
Public Works 28
Recreation 30
Sewer Rate Sheet 34
MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PGCC 5-20-26
ADMINISTRATION F/Y 25-26
Fees
F/Y 26-27
Fees Acct. #
CREDIT CARD PAYMENT PROCESSING FEE 01-4534
$1.00 - $50.00 $2 $2
$51.00 - $100.00 $3 $3
$101.00 - $200.01 $5 $5
Greater than $201.00 - and up @ 3.5% of charged amount 3.5% of charged
amount
3.5% of
charged
amount
Transient Occupancy Taxes may not be charged on a credit card BUSINESS LICENSE ADMINISTRATION FEE, Per License 01-4121 If paid by August 1 (on time payment/standard) $38 $39
If paid after August 1 (late payment) $47 $48
CITY HALL FACILITY RENTAL FEES 01-4674
Security Deposit (SECURITY) $72 $74
Clean-up Fee Actual Costs Actual Costs
Special Audio Visual Equipment Use Deposit $287 $295
Council Chambers – first four hours of use $152 $156
Per hour after four hours $38 $39
Forest Avenue Conference Room – first four hours $59 $61 Per hour after four hours $15 $15
City Manager Conference Room – first four hours $119 $122 Per hour after four hours $31 $32
WATER ENTITLEMENT RIGHTS 01-4457
Per Acre Foot Per Year $262,250 AFY $269,331 AFY
Per one tenth (.10) Acre Foot Per Year $26,225 AFY $26,933 AFY 60% discount expires 06/30/27
Application processing fee $496 $509
TRANSIENT USE LICENSES 01-4213
Initial STR Application Review $144 $148
Application Renewal $99 $102
Annual License $127 $130
Home Sharing License Annual Renewal $271 $278
Initial Home Sharing License Application Review $83 $85 Transient License Change or Reprint Fee $27 $28
The City may bill for special services, such as support for special events, cleanup of hazardous materials spills, protection of public property and public safety due to unusual events based on total actual and direct costs. Billings may be waived or reduced by action of the City Manager.
3 PGCC 5-20-26
ADMINISTRATION F/Y 25-26
Fees
F/Y 26-27
Fees Acct. #
FILMING FEES 01-4201
Use of Public Areas for Motion Picture and Still Photography Productions (PGMC §16.64.030), Daily Fee Calculated for 100% Cost Recovery and Approved by the Administrative Services Director (May be reduced not more than 50% with City Manager approval)
Minor Film Permit This is a permit would primarily apply to still photography and really minor filming applications such as little or no crew.
This type of permit typically would only require review from Police Personnel with little to minimal involvement from other departments. $187 $192
Mid-Level Film Permit This is a permit that would primarily apply to a major photoshoot or minor commercial filming application. It would require coordination between Police Personnel and Parks and Recreation staff for use of City property.
$644 $661
Major Film Permit This is a permit that would primarily apply to a major commercial filming - Movies or Television shows. It could be productions that would require building stages, sites with unique environmental or location conditions; or crews with crews of 30 or more personnel. This type of application review would require significant review and input from a variety of City staff, including Police, Fire, Parks and Recreation, and Public Works.
$1,134 $1,165
Land Lease for Filming (Fee subject to negotiation; fee study and recommended baseline amounts are provided for reference, parking lots may be charged by space)
$0.24 / square
foot per hour
$0.25 / square
foot per hour
The City may, at its discretion, choose to apply a late payment fee to outstanding amounts due to the City that remain unpaid thirty days after the due date. The penalty will be set at 10% of the amount owed, but no less than $25.
Min. $25 Min. $25
OTHER FEES Various
Special Services Actual Cost Actual Cost 01-4406
Document Photocopy and Report Fees (Soft or Hard) (per page) $0.25 $0.25 01-4406 Digital Production - CD, DVD, Flash drives for PRA information requests and presentations at meetings by the public (City will not allow the use of flash drives provided by the public for reasons of virus protection) Actual Cost Actual Cost 01-4406
Notary fees (per signature/page signed) * 01-4406
* Unless otherwise specified in Government Code § 8211 $15 per signature
$15 per
signature
1st Check Returned check processing (per item) $25 $25 01-4513 2nd Check and Subsequent Checks $35 $35 01-4513
Copy of Annual Budget or Annual Financial Report Actual Costs Actual Costs 01-4406 Fuel sales to outside agencies Cost + 10% Cost + 10% 01-4516 Tobacco Retailer License - State Fee $407 $450 01-4201
The City Manager may decrease fees set forth in this schedule if s/he determines that the cost of providing a particular service will be substantially less than the normal cost of such service or if programs or services are reduced. 4 PGCC 5-20-26
EL CARMELO CEMETERY F/Y 25-26 Fees F/Y 26-27 Fees Acct. # CEMETERY SITE SALES 75-4481
Single Burial Site, Adult $5,686 $6,255
Single Burial Site, Child $2,846 $3,131
Double Garden Crypt-In Ground $9,849 $10,834
Urn Garden, Double-In Ground $4,249 $4,674
Urn Garden, Single-In Ground $2,659 $2,925
Urn Sites, Single Other than Urn Garden $2,881 $3,169
Urn Sites–Double Other than Urn Garden $4,724 $5,196
Urn Sites - Triple $5,078 $5,586
Columbarium Niche (1-4 urns) $9,442 $10,386
Historic Site Unit 1 - Mausoleum-Inurnment
Single Niche $3,763 $4,139
Double Niche $7,377 $8,115
Single Crypt $17,778 $19,556
Modern Site Unit 2 - Mausoleum
Double Niche $7,377 $8,115
Single Crypt $17,777 $19,555
Double Crypt $32,617 $35,879
Memorial Garden $387 $426
Memorial Wall Plaque Site (Standard Size: 8 inches by 6 inches) $82 $90 ENDOWMENT CARE 86-4480
Adult Burial Site $1,224 $1,346
Child Burial Site $629 $692
Double Garden Crypt $1,224 $1,346
Urn Garden, Double $753 $828
Urn Garden, Single $673 $740
Urn Sites, Other than Urn Garden (In Ground, per Urn) $673 $740 Urn Sites, Double - Other Than Urn Garden $753 $828
Urn Sites - Triple $1,224 $1,346
Columbarium Niche (1-4 urns) $821 $903
Mausoleum Single Niche $753 $828
Mausoleum Double Niche $821 $903
Mausoleum Memorial Garden Vault $137 $151
Mausoleum Crypt $821 $903
Note: a 10% increase is also planned for FY 27-28 and 28-29 to improve the cost recovery rate. 5 PGCC 5-20-26
EL CARMELO CEMETERY F/Y 25-26 Fees F/Y 26-27 Fees Acct. # Note: a 10% increase is also planned for FY 27-28 and 28-29 to improve the cost recovery rate.
LABOR CHARGES 75-4484
Grounds Maintenance - One Time Fee for Memorial Garden Vault Sites $314 $345 Grounds Maintenance - One Time Fee for Child Sites $629 $692 Grounds Maintenance - One Time Fee - All Other Sites $1,255 $1,381 Open/Close Burial Site, Adult $2,284 $2,512
Open/Close Burial Site, Child $1,135 $1,249
Open/Close Double Garden Crypt (1st opening) $2,047 $2,252 Open/Close Double Garden Crypt (subsequent opening) $1,966 $2,163 Set or Removal In-Ground
Set In-Ground Marker $640 $704
Set In-Ground Marker with Border $954 $1,049
Remove In-Ground Marker or In-Ground Marker with Border $308 $339 Urn / Vase
Set In-Ground Urn and Marker $978 $1,076
Set In-Ground Urn and Marker with Border $1,213 $1,334
Remove In-Ground Urn & Marker or In-Ground Urn
& Marker with Border
$308 $339
Set or Remove In-Ground Vase $190 $209
Set In-Ground Vase with Border $426 $469
Addition of Border After Original Placement
To Marker $624 $686
To Vase $466 $513
Historic Site Unit 1 Mausoleum-Inurnment
Open Mausoleum Niche for Inurnment $1,135 $1,249
Place plaque or vase on Mausoleum Niche at inurnment $237 $261 Place/Remove plaque or vase on Mausoleum Niche after inurnment $624 $686 Replace Vase Holder (Niche & Columbarium) - vase holder cost plus one & one-half hour labor
$269 + Vase Pkg $296 + Vase Pkg
Remove Urn Niche $308 $339
Modern Site Unit 2 Mausoleum - Inurnment
Open Mausoleum Niche for inurnment $899 $989
Place plaque or vase on Mausoleum Niche at inurnment $275 $303 Place/Remove plaque or vase on Mausoleum Niche after inurnment $505 $556 Replace Vase Holder (Niche, New Columbarium) $190 + Vase Pkg $195 + Vase Pkg Remove Urn - Niche $347 $382
6 PGCC 5-20-26
EL CARMELO CEMETERY F/Y 25-26 Fees F/Y 26-27 Fees Acct. # Note: a 10% increase is also planned for FY 27-28 and 28-29 to improve the cost recovery rate.
Columbarium - Inurnment
Open Columbarium Niche to Place Urn $1,292 $1,421
Place/Remove Plaque or Vase on Columbarium niche at Inurnment $158 $174 Place Plaque or Vase on Columbarium niche after Inurnment $702 $772 Remove Urn - Columbarium Niche $308 $339
Open New Columbarium Niche to Place Urn $741 $815
Place Plaque or Vase on New Columbarium niche $186 $205 Remove plaque or urn from New Columbarium niche $186 $205 Mausoleum Crypt - Inurnment
Open Mausoleum Crypt for inurnment $1,057 $1,163
Open Mausoleum Crypt for burial $1,687 $1,856
Historic Site Mausoleum - Burial
Open Underground Unit 2 Mausoleum Crypt for Burial $2,001 $2,201 Place Plaque or Vase on Mausoleum Unit 1 Crypt at Burial $237 $261 Place Plaque or Vase on Mausoleum Unit 1 Crypt other than at Burial $505 $556 Place plaque or vase on Mausoleum Unit 2 Crypt at Burial $315 $347 Place Plaque or Vase on Mausoleum Unit 2 Crypt after Burial $686 $755 Memorial Garden
Open Memorial Garden Vault Site (place urn) $561 $617
Place Plaque on Memorial Garden Vault Site/Memorial Wall $190 $209 Remove Urn from Memorial Garden Vault Site $426 $469
Remove Plaque from Memorial Garden Vault Site/Memorial Wall $505 $556 Remove Niche/Crypt Slug $404 $444
Replace Cracked Mausoleum Granite Plate (Unit 1) $191 + Plate Cost $210 + Plate Cost Place Cameos $158 Per Hour $174 Per Hour
Marker Rubbing $158 Per Hour $174 Per Hour
Disinter Casket, Double Garden Crypt (lower level) $1,529 $1,682 Disinter Casket, Double Garden Crypt (upper level) $1,529 $1,682 Disinter In-Ground Casket, Child $1,057 $1,163
Disinter In-Ground Casket, Adult $1,529 $1,682
Pallbearers – weekdays only includes 4 Staff $676 $744
Saturday Service (4-hour minimum at overtime rate) Per Staff Hour $784 $862 Hourly Rate (Minimum 2 Staff for 2-hours each) $169 Per hour / ($676)
$186 Per hour /
($744)
Overtime Hourly Rate (Minimum 2 staff for 2 hours each) $197 Per hour / ($788)
$217 Per hour /
($868)
7 PGCC 5-20-26
EL CARMELO CEMETERY F/Y 25-26 Fees F/Y 26-27 Fees Acct. # Note: a 10% increase is also planned for FY 27-28 and 28-29 to improve the cost recovery rate.
DEED PROCESSING 75-4481
Deed Fee $261 $287
Replacement Deed Fee $39 $43
Deed Transfers, Document Processing Fee $261 $287
CA Disposition of Human Remain permit fee $22 $24
PRODUCTS 75-4481
Adult Liner, Single At Cost At Cost
Liner, Double Garden Crypt (taxable portion)
(Pre-set – charge sales tax only)
At Cost At Cost
Child Liner, Single At Cost At Cost
Vase Package – in-ground At Cost At Cost
Vase Package – Columbarium At Cost At Cost
Vase Package – Mausoleum Unit 1 At Cost At Cost
Vase Package B58– Mausoleum Unit 2 crypts At Cost At Cost Vase Package – Mausoleum Unit 2 niches At Cost At Cost
Vase Package – New Columbarium At Cost At Cost
Vase Holder - In-Ground At Cost At Cost
Vase Insert - In Ground At Cost At Cost
Endowment transfer fee: Upon transfer, the party transferring deed shall pay the difference between the endowment care rate paid with initial deed and the current endowment care rate.
Grounds Maintenance One-Time Fee. Upon transfer, the new site owner shall pay the one-time Grounds Maintenance Fee based on the type of burial site.
(1) The City Manager has the ability to approve a 10% resident discount on Cemetery Site sales only for a specified period of time during the year. This discount would be included in an advertisement and designed to assist with advance planning. 8 PGCC 5-20-26
CITY CLERK F/Y 25-26 Fees F/Y 26-27
Fees Acct #
CLERK CERTIFICATION 01-4406
Certification of Pacific Grove Residency and or Proof of Life (Per signature) $15 $15
Certification of Documents (Per document) $15 $15
PUBLIC RECORDS 01-4406
Copies standard 8.5" x 11", black and white
(ordinances, resolutions, campaign finance and economic statements) $0.10 per page $0.10 per page ELECTIONS 01-4513
Under certain circumstances, the City must collect fees as prescribed by other governing bodies, such as the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC). The City has no control over these fees.
Nomination Papers Filing Fee (EC Section 10228) $25 $25 Candidates Statement Filing Set by County Set by County Intent to File Initiative (EC Section 9202(b)) $200 $200 Late filing fee per late day (As set forth by State) $10 $10 MISCELLANEOUS 01-4513
Administrative Records (Compilation/Creation) Actual Costs Appeal Fee (Beautification and all others not listed elsewhere) $47 $48 Annual Subscription Service: Agenda and Minutes $139 $143 Marriage Soleminization (As set forth by State) $25 $25 9 PGCC 5-20-26
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT F/Y 25-26 Fees F/Y 26-27 Fees Acct. # GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING AMENDMENTS 01-4413
General Plan Amendment $10,240 $10,752
General Plan Land Use Map Amendment $10,240 $10,752
General Plan Update 5% of permit
f
5% of permit
f
55-4485
Zoning Ordinance Amendment $10,240 $10,752
Zoning Map Amendment $10,240 $10,752
Zoning Ordinance Interpretations $1,636 $1,718
Interpretations of Permitted Uses Lists $1,636 $1,718
SUBDIVISIONS 01-4401
Tentative Tract Map
Tentative Tract Map - Base $3,336 $3,503
Tentative Tract Map - Per Lot $331 $348
Final Tract Map
Final Tract Map - Base + Recording Fee $3,336 $3,503
Final Tract Map - Per Lot $331 $348
Lot Line Adjustment (Inland Zone - Outside the Coastal Zone) $2,597 $2,727 Parcel Legality Determination (PLD) $1,077 $1,131
Final Parcel Map (plus recording fees) $2,895 $3,040
Tentative Parcel Map - Base $2,895 $3,040
Lot Mergers $2,597 $2,727
Certificate of Compliance $2,166 $2,274
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW 01-4407
Environmental Impact Report (EIR)* - This represents a deposit for staffing time for a full EIR. All staff time will be charged at the fullyburdened rate against the deposit, along with all publishing and noticing costs
$10,240 $10,752
Initial Studies/Mitigated Negative Declaration $7,680 $8,064 Mitigation Monitoring $5,632 $5,914
Environmental Enhancement Fund (Fund 5) $2.00/sq. ft. $2.10/sq. ft. 05-4607 USE PERMITS 01-4401
Use Permit and Amendments
Use Permit and Amendments – Single Family $2,707 $2,842 Use Permit and Amendments –
Multi-Family, Commercial, Institutional, Other
$3,790 $3,980
Administrative Use Permits $1,415 $1,486
Note: a 5% increase is also planned for FY 27-28 and 28-29 to improve the cost recovery rate. 10 PGCC 5-20-26
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT F/Y 25-26 Fees F/Y 26-27 Fees Acct. # Note: a 5% increase is also planned for FY 27-28 and 28-29 to improve the cost recovery rate.
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW 01-4401
Architectural Permit
Architectural Permit – Single Family $3,790 $3,980
Multi Family
Four units or less $4,454 $4,677
Five units or more $4,896 $5,141
Commercial, Industrial, Institutional, all others
10,000 sq. ft. or less $3,790 $3,980
10,001-50,000 sq. ft. $5,513 $5,789
50,001- 100,000 sq. ft. $11,043 $11,595
Over 100,000 sq. ft. $13,757 $14,445
Administrative Architectural Permit $1,845 $1,937
Administrative Design Change $1,802 $1,892
COUNTER REVIEW PERMITS 01-4402
Counter Review & Determination
No new square footage (Plus hourly fee if more than ½ hour required) $431 $453 New square footage (Plus hourly fee if more than 3 hours required) $1,072 $1,126 Zoning Confirmation for Business License Permit $215 $226 Massage Permit Application $457 $480
SIGN PERMITS 01-4402
Downtown Sign Permit $1,160 $1,218
Administrative Sign Permit $973 $1,022
Sign Permit $1,160 $1,218
HISTORIC REVIEW 01-4402
Historic Demolition Permit $6,001 $6,301
Off-site relocation permit $6,001 $6,301
Historic Resources Inventory Determinations (Additions/Deletions) $2,045 $2,147 On-site relocation permit $3,151 $3,309
Historic Preservation Permit $2,045 $2,147
Initial Historic Screening $519 $545
VARIANCES 01-4401
Variances and Amendments $3,790 $3,980
Administrative Variances and Amendments $2,080 $2,184
11 PGCC 5-20-26
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT F/Y 25-26 Fees F/Y 26-27 Fees Acct. # Note: a 5% increase is also planned for FY 27-28 and 28-29 to improve the cost recovery rate.
APPEALS - Per Appeal 01-4401
Appeals of enforcement and zoning ordinance interpretations $2,731 $2,868 Appeals/hearings of planning permits $3,237 $3,399
Request for Zoning Administrative Hearing or Decision $803 $843 Appeal fees for Coastal Development Permits are waived. $0 $0 OVERLAY FEES 01-4401
Area of Special and Biological Significance 5% of permit f
5% of permit
f Butterfly Buffer 5% of permit
f
5% of permit
f
NOTICING 01-4401
Mailing Actual Cost Actual Cost
Publishing Actual Cost Actual Cost
COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMITS 01-4401
Waiver of De Minims Development plan permit $3,028 $3,179 Single Family Residence $4,155 $4,363
Multi-family Residential - Base $5,259 $5,522
Multi-family Residential - Per Unit $1,126 $1,182
Commercial or Industrial $6,783 $7,122
Lot Line Adjustment $5,480 $5,754
Subdivision $3,834 Per Lot $4,026 Per Lot
Emergency Permit $1,723 $1,809
Amendment 50% of permit
f
50% of permit
f Temporary Event $5,369 $5,637
Extension (% of Permit Fee) $233 $245
CODE ENFORCEMENT 01-4503
Abandonment or Purchase of City property $3,834 $4,026
Abandoned Property Registration Fee $313 $329
Investigation fees, Code violations (Actual Cost) Actual Cost Actual Cost VACANT PROPERTIES 01-4503
Inspection per property (min. or actual cost) $209 $219 Registration per property $209 $219
12 PGCC 5-20-26
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT F/Y 25-26 Fees F/Y 26-27 Fees Acct. # Note: a 5% increase is also planned for FY 27-28 and 28-29 to improve the cost recovery rate.
MISCELLANEOUS 01-4401
County Filing Fees As determined
by County
As determined
by County
Density bonus $2,942 $3,089
General File Research $215 $226
Hourly Fee $215 $226
Multiple Permits for Single Family residential applications only.
Highest fee no discount; all lower fees discounted 25%
For single family
applications only
For single family
applications only
Outdoor Sidewalk Dining Permit $961 $1,009
Sidewalk Vendor Permit $314 $330
Permit Extension
(Fee may be waived if permit is subject to Water Waiting List) $232 $244
Pre-Application Meeting / Preliminary Project Review $314 $330 Records Management and Retention (per file) $199 $209
Rental Property Registration $408 $428
Revocable License for Encroachments (plus hourly fee after 2 hours) $1,060 $1,113 Statement of Compliance (hourly fee if more than 4 hours required) $862 $905 Tree Permit with Development $414 $435
Tree Permit with Development Violation $414 $435
ABC License Review Fee $207 $217
Animal Keeping Permit $371 $390
Animal Keeping Permit Annual Renewal $105 $110
Commercial Breeding Permit, Cats $1,250 $1,313
Commercial Breeding Permit, Dogs $1,250 $1,313
Incidental Breeding Permit, Cats (per litter) $291 $306 Incidental Breeding Permit, Dogs (per litter) $291 $306 HOUSING FEES 15-4701
Rehabilitation & Sewer Loan Payoff Demand - Per Statement $314 $330 Reconveyance Fee $314 $330
County Recording Fee (billed by Monterey County Recorder) Actual Cost Actual Cost ANIMAL REGULATION - KEEPING AND BREEDING PERMITS § 10.16.040 13 PGCC 5-20-26
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT F/Y 25-26 Fees F/Y 26-27 Fees Acct. # Note: a 5% increase is also planned for FY 27-28 and 28-29 to improve the cost recovery rate.
Housing Rehab Loan Fees (CalHOME Loan Funded Projects) 15-4701 Loan Processing $3,429 $3,600
Underwriting $646 $678
Property Tax Verification $314 $330
Loan Document Preparation – SFD $1,177 $1,236
Loan Document Preparation – Manufactured Housing $2,254 $2,367 Inspection To Determine Scope of Work (Actual Cost) $422 $443 Contractor Selection (Actual Cost) $3,645 $3,827
Development of Work Write-up & Specifications (Actual Cost) $4,507 $4,732 Project Bidding (Actual Cost) $4,407 $4,627
Progress Inspection/Payment Authorization (Actual Cost) $530 $557 Affordable Housing Monitoring - Annual Fee Per Household 15-4701 Affordable Units $199 $209
Registered Units $199 $209
MISCELLANEOUS BUILDING PERMITS 01-4203
Electrical Permit (not requiring plan check) $243 $255
Plumbing Permit (not requiring plan check) $243 $255
Mechanical Permit (not requiring plan check) $243 $255
Solar voltaic system $686 $720
Single Family Residential Reroof $686 $720
Multi-Family / Commercial Reroof
First Building $686 $720
Each Additional Building $133 $140
Kitchen / Bathroom Remodel (non-structural no exterior changes) $1,400 $1,470
BUILDING AND PERMITTING FEES
14 PGCC 5-20-26
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT F/Y 25-26 Fees F/Y 26-27 Fees Acct. # Note: a 5% increase is also planned for FY 27-28 and 28-29 to improve the cost recovery rate.
PLAN CHECK 01-4404
Single Family Residential Plan Check 75% of building
permit fee
75% of
building permit
f Commercial Plan Check 95% of building
permit fee
95% of
building permit
f Non-Structural Plan Review (hourly not included in a larger project) $178 $187 Structural Plan Review (hourly not included in a later project) $178 $187 Plan review extension $292 $307
On-site storm water management plan review and inspection (assumes nonLow Impact Development; includes plan review of 1-hour and the required field inspections.)
$571 $600
Additional fee if LID requirements or additional time required, per hour $141 $148 Building Permits Extension $944 per 90
days
$991 per 90
days
OTHER INSPECTIONS AND REVIEWS Various
Inspections outside of normal business hours (4 hour minimum) $198 $208 Re-inspection fees assessed under provisions of CBC § 108.8 $141 $148 Inspections for which no fee is specifically indicated $212 $223 Traffic control plan review $245 $257
Change of Street Address $311 $327
Alternate methods of construction (hourly fee, 2 hour minimum) $771 $810 Owner/building surcharge in addition to permit fee 20% 20% Electric Vehicle Charging Station - residential $683 $717 Electric Vehicle Charging Station - commercial $1,255 $1,318 Temporary Occupancy $1,041 $1,093
ASBS Stormwater Inspection Fee min. deposit
(Fee calculation of 26 rainy season inspections)
$3,841 $4,033
Stormwater Annual Post-Construction BMP Inspection $296 $311 Additional plan review due to changes/additions/revisions to approved plans per hour (1/2 hour min.)
$89 $93
Plan Checking — A combination permit fee shall be payable in cases of new construction in lieu of the separate fees. A plan review fee equal to 75 percent of the fee for single-family residential projects and 95 percent of the permit fee for all other projects shall be paid at the time of submitting plans and specifications for review. Permit fees shall be based on the value of improvements as follows:
The following are minimum hourly fees. If the total cost to the City is greater than the fees shown below, the actual cost shall be recovered. This cost shall include supervision, overhead, equipment, the hourly wages and benefits of the employees involved: and reimbursement for any professional services that are directly related to the inspection or review. 15 PGCC 5-20-26
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT F/Y 25-26 Fees F/Y 26-27 Fees Acct. # Note: a 5% increase is also planned for FY 27-28 and 28-29 to improve the cost recovery rate.
Wireless Encroachment / Public Right of Way Permit. $728 $764 Grading Inspection (hourly fee, 1-hour minimum) $197 $207 Grading Plan Checking (hourly fee, ½-hour minimum) $197 $207 Residential Zoning Records Report (RZRR) & Sewer Lateral Report (combined)
$502 $527
Sewer Lateral Report Review $334 $351
PARKLETS Various
New Parklet / Sidewalk Dining Permit $927 $973
Parklet Renewal / Sidewalk Dining Permit Renewal $307 $322 Investigative fee for work without proper City permits Cost equal to the permit plus
staff time to
investigate
Cost equal to
the permit
plus staff time
to investigate
Excavation and Inspection Services 01-4203
Inspections for which no fee is specifically indicated (per hour with a ½- hour minimum)
$197 $207
Encroachment permit: street opening/excavation $424 $445 Encroachment permit: driveway $424 $445
Encroachment permit: sidewalk $424 $445
Encroachment: temporary (e.g., building construction requiring scaffolding in Right-of-Way
$424 $445
Encroachment permit: permanent underground (e.g. utility line) $424 $445 Encroachment permit: permanent above ground (e.g. retaining wall, fence, etc.)
$424 $445
Encroachment permit hourly processing fee, if more than 2 hours review or inspection required.
$197 $207
Annual encroachment permit (Encompasses up to 40 utility openings per year)
$10,727 $11,263
16 PGCC 5-20-26
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT F/Y 25-26 Fees F/Y 26-27 Fees Acct. # Note: a 5% increase is also planned for FY 27-28 and 28-29 to improve the cost recovery rate.
CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION: Based on Project Valuation) 01-4203 Combination Permit Fees: (Building or Building + M + E + P) Value $0 to $500.99 $196 $206
Value of $501.00 to $2,000.00 (first $500.00) $196 $206 Each additional $100.00 or fraction thereof $16 $17
Value of $2,001.00 to $25,000.00 (first $2,000.00) $436 $458 Each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof) $59 $62
Value of $25,001.00 to $50,000.00 (first $25,000.00) $1,793 $1,883 Each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof) $40 $42
Value of $50,001.00 to $100,000.00 (first $50,000.00) $2,793 $2,933 Each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof) $30 $32
Value of $100,001.00 to $500,000.00 (first $100,000.00) $4,293 $4,508 Each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof) $25 $26
Value of $500,001.00 to $1,000,000.00 (first $500,000.00) $14,293 $15,008 Each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof) $22 $23
Value of $1,000,001.00 - 5,000,000.00 (first $1,000,000.00) $25,293 $26,558 Each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof) $12 $13
Value of $5,000,001.00 - 10,000,000.00 (first $1,000,000.00) $73,293 $76,958 Each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof) $12 $13
Value of $10,000,001.00 + (first $10,000,000) $133,293 $139,958 Each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof) $12 $13
Single Permit: (M/ E/ P)
Value $0 - to $500.99 $196 $206
Value of $501.00 to $2,000.00(first $500.00) $196 $206
Each additional $100.00 or fraction thereof $11 $12
Value of $2,001.00 to $25,000.00 (first $2,000.00) $364 $382 Each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof) $40 $42
Value of $25,001.00 to $50,000.00 (first $25,000.00) $1,272 $1,336 Each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof) $31 $33
Value of $50,001.00 to $100,000.00 (first $50,000.00) $2,032 $2,134 Each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof) $20 $21
Value of $100,001.00 and up (first $100,000.00) $3,053 $3,206 Each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof) $15 $16
17 PGCC 5-20-26
FIRE F/Y 25-26
Fees
F/Y 26-27
Fees Acct. #
Engine Company Inspections 01-4436
Iinitial inspection $0 $0
First re-inspection $0 $0
Subsequent re-inspections $92 $94
Fire Prevention Inspections 01-4436
Initial inspection, rough & final $0 $0
Subsequent re-inspections & missed inspections $174 $179 Life and Safety Inspection - First & Second inspection $0 $0 Life and Safety Inspection - Third & each subsequent reinspection $524 $538 State Mandated Community Care Facilities Inspections 01-4436 Pre-Inspection Fee ≤25 occupants $178 $183
Pre-Inspection Fee ≥26 occupants $311 $319
Fire Clearance Fee 7 to 50 occupants $178 $183
Fire Clearance Fee >50 occupants $311 $319
Annual Inspection Fee 7 to 50 occupants $178 $183
Annual Inspection Fee >50 occupants $311 $319
High Rise Inspection $1034 $1,062
Annual Day Care Inspections (6 or more children) $78 $80 Fire False Alarm Response (For any 12 month period) 01-4504 First False Alarm $0 $0
Any Additional False Alarms Full Cost Full Cost
CPR Various
Heart Saver Class - cost per student $56 $58
Heart Saver Skill Verification $34 $35
Healthcare Provider Class (BLS) - cost per student $67 $69 Healthcare Provider (BLS) Skill Verification $25 $26
First Aid - cost per student $108 $111
First Aid Skill Verification $46 $47
The City of Pacific Grove mirrors the City of Monterey's fee schedule for prevention services. This ensures that Pacific Grove's fee structure accurately reflects and captures the various services provided by the City of Monterey 18 PGCC 5-20-26
FIRE F/Y 25-26
Fees
F/Y 26-27
Fees Acct. #
Fire Plan Review and Inspections 01-4437
Trade show set-up review $78 $80
Liquid Propane Gas installations $241 $248
Field Inspections Full Cost Full Cost
Medical Gas $241 $248
Tent Installation (400 - 1000 sq ft) $144 $148
Tent Installation (1000 - 2000 sq ft) $211 $217
Tent Installation (>2000 sq ft) $278 $286
Unauthorized Work Double Permit
Fee
Double Permit
Fee
Unauthorized Occupancy $102 $105
Fire Department Review of Building Plans, Residential 10% of Building Plan
Check Fee
10% of
Building Plan
Check Fee
Fire Department Review of Building Plans, Commercial 20% of Building Plan
Check Fee
20% of
Building Plan
Check Fee
Project Consultation Fee Actual Costs Actual Costs
Expedited Plan Checks Actual Costs Actual Costs
Fire Protection System Plan Check Fees 01-4437
Fire Alarm System (1-9 Devices) $241 $248
Fire Alarm System (10-50 Devices) $438 $450
Fire Alarm System (50+ Devices) $638 $655
Automatic Fire Sprinkler System 1-180 Heads $438.00 +
contractor
cost
$450.00 +
contractor
cost
Automatic Fire Sprinkler System 181-360 Heads $637.00 + contractor
cost
$654.00 +
contractor
cost
Automatic Fire Sprinkler System 361+ Heads $816.00 +
contractor
cost
$838.00 +
contractor
cost
Fixed Fire Protection System, other than Sprinklers (i.e.., spray booth, clean agent, hood system), new system
$638 $655
Fixed Fire Protection System, other than sprinklers (i.e.., spray booth, clean agent, hood system) - alteration to existing system $438 $450
Underground Systems (includes plan review, inspection, permit approval, system test flush) system test flush)
$836 $859
19 PGCC 5-20-26
FIRE F/Y 25-26
Fees
F/Y 26-27
Fees Acct. #
Fire Protection System Plan Check Fees - Emergency Responder Communication Coverage System
$428.00 +
Contractor
Cost
$440.00 +
Contractor
Cost
Defensible Space Inspection $178 $183
Other Fees Various
Hazardous Materials Response Fully
Burdened
Cost
Fully
Burdened
Cost
DUI Incident Reimbursement1 Not to exceed
$12,000
Not to exceed
$12,000
Fire Hydrant Flow Tests $77 $79
Special Events Stand-by (Fire) Actual Costs Actual Costs 01-4436 Penalty if appointment is made for a system test or inspection and contractor/developer (or their representative) is not ready and did not call to cancel/reschedule.
Actual Costs Actual Costs 01-4502
1. Including but not limited to personnel, apparatus, vehicles, reports, booking. *Subject to 2.9% Service Fee
Carbon Monoxide Treatment $1,202 $1,234 04-4609
Standard Hyperbaric Treatment for Decompression Illness (first 5 hours) $6,747 $6,929 Standard Hyperbaric Treatment Extensions (per each 75 minutes of extended treatment)
$638 $655
Facility Use Fee - Per Hour - In lieu of Treatment Fees (First hour) $1,350 $1,386 Fees not paid within a reasonable period of time will be subject to the City’s late payment fee. Min. $25 Min. $25
20 PGCC 5-20-26
LIBRARY F/Y 25-26
Fees
F/Y 26-27
Fees Acct. #
OTHER FEES AND RENTALS 01-4455
Photocopies / Printouts (per black & white copy) $0.25 $0.25 Photocopies / Printouts (per color copy) $0.50 $0.50
LOST /DAMAGED MATERIAL REPLACEMENT/REPAIR 01-4455
Charges for lost or damaged items will be made at "Cost, replacement price " as listed in the item record of the Koha Library Catalog. Actual Cost Actual Cost 21 PGCC 5-20-26
POINT PINOS LIGHTHOUSE F/Y 25-26 Fees F/Y 26-27 Fees Acct. # Private Lighthouse Tour Fee (Tours organized by schools and non-profit entities are not subject to Lighthouse Fees.)
$154 based on 2
hour fully burden
rate of one staff
member cost +
admission fees
based on
participants
$158 based on 2
hour fully burden
rate of one staff
member cost +
admission fees
based on
participants
27-4451
Pt. Pinos Lighthouse Entrance Fee (Suggested Donation) - Adult $7 $7 27-4601 Pt. Pinos Lighthouse Entrance Fee (Suggested Donation) - Children 7-17 $3 $3 27-4601 One-Time Events Actual Costs +
10%
administrative
costs
Actual Costs +
10%
administrative
costs
27-4451
22 PGCC 5-20-26
LOCAL WATER PROJECT F/Y 25-26
Fees
F/Y 26-27
Fees Acct.. #
Recycled Water Fee 0.041 per
gallon
0.041 per
gallon 74-4475
23 PGCC 5-20-26
POLICE F/Y 25-26
Fees
F/Y 26-27
Fees Acct. #
PARKING ENFORCEMENT, MUNICIPAL CODE VIOLATIONS: Stated in the PGMC 01-4426
14.08.010 Parking on ice plant $48 $49
14.12.010 Parking on golf course $268 $275
14.12.020 Violation to turf – Golf Course/Park $64 $66
16.12.055 Tamper with chalk marks $125 $128
16.32.130 Parking on park grounds $48 $49
16.40.030 Storing vehicle on street $48 $49
16.40.040 Storing vehicle on street - Removal by Police $125 $128
16.40.045 Overnight Parking of Oversize Vehicles or Trailers (10pm-5am) $48 $49
16.40.050 Parking for repair $48 $49
16.40.060 Parallel parking $48 $49
16.40.070 Parallel parking, one-way street $48 $49
16.40.080 Parallel parking, one-way roadway $48 $49
16.40.110 Angle Parking $48 $49
16.40.130 Angle Parking/12” from barrier $48 $49
16.40.160 Parking Adjacent to Schools - Sign Compliance $48 $49
16.40.170 Parking On Narrow Streets $48 $49
16.40.185 Parking on North Side of Mermaid Avenue $48 $49
16.40.190 Failure to Set Parking Brake $91 $93
16.40.200(b) Parking Within 20’ of Intersection $48 $49
16.40.260 Temporary No Parking $48 $49
16.40.210 Peddlers, vendors - Unlawful Parking $48 $49
16.40.280 City Lots, Angle Parking $48 $49
16.40.290 City Lot, Use of Single Space Only $48 $49
16.40.300 City Lots, Reserved Spaces $48 $49
16.40.360(a) No Parking – Red Zone $48 $49
16.40.360(b-d) Curb markings – yellow/white/green $48 $49
16.40.360(f) Handicapped Zone $350 $359
16.40.430 Blocking Alley $48 $49
16.40.500 Bus Zone $48 $49
16.40.510-535 Overtime Parking or Evasion of Parking Restrictions $48 $49
16.40.540 Parking in Business District $48 $49
16.40.550 No Parking Anytime $48 $49
16.40.555 No Parking Certain Hours $48 $49
16.40.560 No Parking 4 am-6 am $48 $49
16.40.575 Parking - Commercial Vehicle in Residential 2:00 AM to 4:00 AM $48 $49
16.40.580 Parking, Over Marked Space $48 $49
16.40.585 Parking in Privately Owned Lots $48 $49
16.40.610 Displaying Vehicle for Sale $48 $49
16.41.040 Resident Parking $48 $49
16.40.710 Electric Vehicle Violation $48 $49
16.42.100(a) Meter Violation – expired $48 $49
16.68.020 No tour bus parking $268 $275
16.68.030 Parked bus with engine running $268 $275
18.36.030 House Cars on Private Property $48 $49
24 PGCC 5-20-26
POLICE F/Y 25-26
Fees
F/Y 26-27
Fees Acct. #
18.36.040 House Cars on Streets /Public Property $48 $49
PARKING ENFORCEMENT,
MUNICIPAL CODE VIOLATIONS (Cont.)
01-4426
5200 (a) No Front Plates $48 $49
5204 (a) No Current Tab Displayed $48 $49
4000 (a) Expired Registration $48 $49
21211 (b) Parking in bicycle path $48 $49
2500.1 Parked in Fire Lane $125 $128
22500(a) Parking in intersection $48 $49
22500(b) Parking in crosswalk $48 $49
22500(e) Parking driveway $48 $49
22500(f) Parking on sidewalk $48 $49
22500 (g) Obstructing Traffic $48 $49
22500(h) Double parking $48 $49
22500 (i) Blocking Wheelchair Access $350 $359
22502(a) Parking more than 18” from curb or on wrong side of roadway $48 $49 22505 (e) (1) Parked Wrong Way on One Way $48 $49
22507.8(a) Unauthorized parking in Handicapped zone $350 $359 22507.8 (c) (2) Parked in Crosshatched Portion of Disabled Space $350 $359 22514 Park, stop or leave vehicle within 15 feet of Fire hydrant $48 $49 22515 Unattended Vehicle with Engine On $48 $49
Parking Citation Late Fee (If Not Paid or Contested within 21 Days) $25 $26 Correctable Code Violation - Admin Fee $17 $18
MUNICIPAL CODE VIOLATIONS 01-4502
Municipal Code Violation - 1st Violation $100 $103
Municipal Code Violation - 2nd Violation within 1 year $200 $205 Municipal Code Violation - Each Additional Violation within 1 year $500 $513 Municipal Code Violation Late Fee (Not Paid/Contested within 30 Days) $25 $26 ANIMAL REGULATION — DOG LICENSES - PGMC § 10.04.010 01-4204 Annual Dog License Fee, Altered Dog $26 $27
Annual Dog License Fee, Unaltered Dog $56 $58
Dog License, Delinquent Penalty (after 30 days) $31 $32 Dog License, Replacement Tag $11 $12
ANIMAL REGULATION - IMPOUND FEES - PGMC § 10.04.100 01-4425 Impound Fee (Initial Impound) Licensed & Altered $56 $58 Impound Fee (Initial Impound) Licensed and Unaltered $92 $94 Impound Fee (Initial Impound) Unlicensed & Altered $80 $82 Impound Fee (Initial Impound) Unlicensed & Unaltered $92 $94 Impound Fee (2nd & Subsequent) Altered $92 $94
Impound Fee (2nd & Subsequent) Unaltered $184 $189
Boarding Fee, per day PG Kennels $51 $52
Boarding Fee, transported to SPCA $188 $193
25 PGCC 5-20-26
POLICE F/Y 25-26
Fees
F/Y 26-27
Fees Acct. #
ALARM REGISTRATION & RESPONSE 01-4429
Alarm Registration $39 $40
Alarm Renewal (within 30 Days of Alarm Permit Expiration Date) $5 $5 False Alarm 01-4504
First Response - Unpermitted Alarm $159 $163
First Response No Fee No Fee
Second Response $67 $69
Third Response $184 $189
Fourth Response $188 $193
Fifth and Subsequent Response $188 $193
Duress/Panic/Robbery Alarm Violation $369 $379
Late Fee (if not paid within 30 days) $29 $30
ADMINISTRATIVE AND MISCELLANEOUS 01-4502
Accident Report, Compilation and Copying (per report) $11 $12 Booking Fee $37 $38
Clearance Letter – No Record on File $41 $42
Clearance Letter – Record on File $31 $32
Crime Report, Compilation and Copying (per report) $22 $23 Hearing Examiner Services - Parking Citation Hearings (per hearing) $40 $41 Hearing Examiner Services - Administrative Citation Hearings (per hearing) $50 $51 Information Report, Compilation and Copying (per report) $39 $40 Evidence Video Reproduction $160 $164
Fingerprint Processing (Live Scan administration) $36 $37 Removal of Traffic Boot $148 $152
Repossession Receipt $15 $16
Sign-off of tickets by other agencies $20 $21
Vehicle Release Fee $246 $253
PARKING PERMITS & FEES 01-4205
Contractor’s Parking Permit, Monthly $50 $51
Parking Meter Rate per Hour $2 $2.25
Public Parking Lot Permit Processing, Delinquency Penalty $31 $32 Public Parking Lot Permit, Annual $425 $436
Public Parking Lot Permit, 12-Month, TRANSFERABLE $538 $553 Public Parking Lot Permit, Monthly $47 $48
Residential Parking Permit Processing, per permit, Annual $15 $16 Temporary Overnight Parking Permit-Initial Residential Registration $27 $28 Temporary Overnight Parking - 72 Hour Resident Permit $5 $6 Temporary Overnight Parking Permit - Weekly - Exemption $99 $102 Temporary Overnight Parking Permit - Annual - Exemption $202 $207 Timed Space - Daily $5 $6
26 PGCC 5-20-26
POLICE F/Y 25-26
Fees
F/Y 26-27
Fees Acct. #
POLICE RESPONSE -
DUI, Peace Disturbance, Social Hosting, Special Events
01-4421
Hourly Rates
Police Commander $224 $230
Police Sergeant $216 $222
Police Officer $200 $205
Police Services, Animal Control & Parking Enforcement Community Service Officer
$146 $150
Patrol Vehicle $72 $74
MISCELLANEOUS PERMITS & DEPOSITS 01-4201
Amplified Sound Permit $97 $100
Drone Permit Fee - Daily $26 $27
Drone Permit Fee - Annual $97 $100
Film Permit Application Fee $164 $168
Firearms Storage: Administrative Release Fee $476 $489
Garage Sale Permit Processing $15 $16
Refuse Container or Storage Container Permit $67 $69
Refuse Container or Storage Container Permit Renewal/Extension $32 $33 Transportation of Large Structure deposit – variable fee based on size/type of structure - unused portion to be reimbursed
$153 $157
Transportation of Large Structure permit – per structure $655 $673 27 PGCC 5-20-26
PUBLIC WORKS FEES F/Y 25-26
Fees
F/Y 26-27
Fees Acct. #
MISCELLANEOUS FEES 01-4445
Special Engineering Actual Cost Actual Cost
Requested Special Traffic Review (Personnel time to be charged based on time and hourly rate)
$194 $199
Banner Installation and Removal (Downtown Street Lights) per pole $78 $80 Memorial Bench (1) Fee represents labor costs associated with installing the bench. Materials for bench are charged at the additional actual cost. $647 $664
Memorial Bench maintenance (5 years) $777 $798
Memorial Tree Fee represents labor costs associated with the planting the tree.
Tree to be charged at cost. This cost will be in addition to the labor fee. $1,138 $1,169
Tree Permit violation - Trimming Prior to Approval $768 $789 Tree Permit violation - Removal Prior to Approval $1,536 $1,577 Annual Solid Waste Exemption Application $348 $357
Trash receptacle left on sidewalk/street Violation PGMC 9.16.030 $94 $97 Tree Appeal $348 $357
Newsrack Annual Application Fee $96 $99
Newsrack Program Fee Half Rack $78 $80
Newsrack Program Fee Full Rack $117 $120
Electrical Vehicle Charging Stations Equivalent
to PG&E
Peak
Demand
Rate
Equivalent
to PG&E
Peak
Demand
Rate
TREE FEES
Application Fee $195 $200
Removal or Trimmimg
Single Tree $51 $52
Each Additional Tree $20 $21
Tree Replacement In-Lieu Fee $512 $526
Tree Removal with Development
Single Tree $318 $327
Each Additional Tree $318 $327
Tree Appeal $348 $357
STORMWATER 01-4401
Tier 3 and 4 - 15,000 square feet impervious surface of greateer (2 reviews) $1,969 $2,022 Tier 2 - 5,000-15,000 square feet impervious surface (included 2 reviews) $1,280 $1,315 Tier 1 -2,500-5,000 square feet impervious surface $887 $911 Each subsequent Tier review $591 $607
Inspection Fee $197 $202
Annual Inspection and re-inspection $296 $304
Each subsequent Tier 1 review $394 $405
28 PGCC 5-20-26
PUBLIC WORKS FEES F/Y 25-26
Fees
F/Y 26-27
Fees Acct. #
OTHER FEES 01-4445
Equipment Use Charges
(when responding to emergencies on private property)
Current FEMA Schedule of Equipment Rates
https://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/136901 (Personnel to be charged based on time and hourly rate) Standard size barricade, each per day ($100 deposit required) $3 $4 Four-foot delineator, each per day ($100 deposit required) $4 $5 Eight-foot barricade, each per day ($100 deposit required) $12 $13 18-inch traffic cone, each per day ($100 deposit required) $3 $4 24-inch traffic cone, each per day ($100 deposit required) $3 $4 Temporary Directional Signage Per Day $3 $4
Temporary Parking Signage Per Day $2 $3
(1) The Memorial Bench is charged at the listed fee, plus actual cost of bench. 29 PGCC 5-20-26
PARKS AND RECREATION
FY 25-26
Fees
Resident /
Non-Profit
F/Y 25-26
Fees NonResident /
Commercial
FY 26-27 Fees
Resident /
Non-Profit
F/Y 26-27
Fees NonResident /
Commercial
Acct. #
PRE-SCHOOL (MONTHLY FEES) 01-4467
2 Days Per Week $205 $225 $215 $236
3 Days Per Week $323 $358 $339 $376
5 Days Per Week $522 $565 $548 $593
Weekly Fees $104 $115 $109 $121
YOUTH SPORTS (3-18 years) 01-4462
Class / Clinic - 3-5 years $104 $115 $109 $121
Tournament or Clinic - 5-18 years $112 $122 $118 $128
Camp $230 $236 $242 $248
League $112 $122 $118 $128
ADULT SPORTS (18+ Years) 01-4462
Tournament or Clinic - non-contact $112 $122 $118 $128
Tournament or Clinic - contact $213 $244 $224 $256
League or Clinic - non-contact $61 $72 $64 $76
League or Clinic - contact $92 $102 $97 $107
YOUTH CAMPS 01-4463
Full Day Youth Camp (5 day week) $210 $231 $221 $243
Full Day Youth Camp (4 day week) $167 $186 $175 $195
Full Day Youth Camp (3 day week) $124 $138 $130 $145
Daily Drop-In (per Day) $51 $54 $54 $57
Note: a 5% increase is also planned for FY 27-28 and 28-29 to improve the cost recovery rate. 30 PGCC 5-20-26
PARKS AND RECREATION
FY 25-26
Fees
Resident /
Non-Profit
F/Y 25-26
Fees NonResident /
Commercial
FY 26-27 Fees
Resident /
Non-Profit
F/Y 26-27
Fees NonResident /
Commercial
Acct. #
Note: a 5% increase is also planned for FY 27-28 and 28-29 to improve the cost recovery rate.
SWIMMING (during the Summer Season) fees listed are for a 2 hour session.
01-4468
Progressive Swim Lessons, 8 class sessions, per child $92 $102 $97 $107 Private Swim Lessons, per class, per child per 30 minute lesson $43 $48 $45 $50 Semi-private Swim Lessons, per class, per child (2 students required) per 20 minute lesson Group Swim Lessons
$24 $26 $25 $27
Recreational Swimming: Lovers Point, 2 hours $3 $4 $3 $4 Private use of swimming pool (rental fee per hour) Subject to Rental Policies
$118 $124 $124 $130
OTHER PROGRAMS, CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENTS 01-4462
Kids Night Out $28 $28 $29 $29
Contracts for Recreational Programs in Facilities and Parks Contract Contract Contract Contract Adult Contract Recreation Programs Contract Contract Contract Contract Youth Special Trips/Excursions (85% of cost) Contract Contract Contract Contract FACILITY RENTAL 01-4670
1 – 50 persons $46 $82 $48 $86
51 + persons: Permit applications for over 99 persons will require additional review by the Recreation Manager and may be subject to the Special Event permitting process.
$102 $154 $107 $162
Court Reservation Fees: Volleyball, Basketball, Tennis and Pickleball $26 $46 $27 $48 Parks/Facilities Reservable (under Contract) w/ Liability Insurance Contract Contract Contract Contract Community Center, Lebeck Room (2 hr. minimum rental) $123 $205 $129 $215 Community Center, Lebeck Room – Damage Deposit $570 $570 $599 $599 Community Center, Kuwatani/Scout Room per hr. (Minimum 2 hours) $46 $77 $48 $81 Chautauqua Hall Facility 2 hr. minimum rental) $123 $143 $129 $150 Chautauqua Hall Facility – Damage Deposit $570 $570 $599 $599 Youth Center (2 hr. minimum rental) $77 $220 $81 $231
Youth Center – Damage Deposit $570 $570 $599 $599
Little House at Jewell Park per hour $20 $41 $21 $43
The City Manager or his designee may reduce Recreation fees based on unanticipated reductions in activity days/hours.
Programs, activities, or events that are co-sponsored by the Pacific Grove Recreation Department and non- profit recreation organizations are not subject to facility rental fees. The City also does not charge facility rental fees for official City of Pacific Grove activities and those of any other public agency that has a reciprocal use arrangement with the City.
Picnic Facility Reservation Permit: Per Day Fee
Caledonia, George Washington, Arnett Park, and similar Picnic Facilities. All other facility rentals are on a per hour basis. 31 PGCC 5-20-26
PARKS AND RECREATION
FY 25-26
Fees
Resident /
Non-Profit
F/Y 25-26
Fees NonResident /
Commercial
FY 26-27 Fees
Resident /
Non-Profit
F/Y 26-27
Fees NonResident /
Commercial
Acct. #
Note: a 5% increase is also planned for FY 27-28 and 28-29 to improve the cost recovery rate.
FACILITY RENTAL (Cont.) 01-4670
Lovers Point Park – Per Hour Fee for 1 – 100 Persons (Special Events or Special Use)
$195 $338 $205 $355
Lovers Point Park – Per Hour Fee for Over 100 Persons (Special Events or Special Use)
$399 $594 $419 $624
Lovers Point Wedding or Staging Area; Berwick Park, Jewell Park, Pt.
Pinos Lighthouse and Elmarie Dyke Gazebo reservation fee per hour. (Minimum 2 hours Min.)
$287 $573 $301 $602
Damage Deposit Point Pinos Lighthouse $570 $570 $599 $599 Recreation Trail Rental Fee Per Hour for 1 – 100 Persons $256 $307 $269 $322 Recreation Trail Rental Fee Per Hour for over 100 Persons $340 $410 $357 $431 MUNICIPAL SOFTBALL PARK RENTAL POLICY 01-4670
Daily Use $236 $410 $248 $431
Field Use, Per Hour $36 $61 $38 $64
Lights per hour $31 $31 $33 $33
Staff, Per hour Fully
burdened rate
Fully
burdened rate
Fully burdened
rate
Fully
burdened rate
Restrooms (Previously charged under other Class rates) No charge No charge No charge No charge Deposit on daily rate (same as prior Class II, Class III, Class IV) $191 $191 $201 $201 MISCELLANEOUS RECREATION FEES & CHARGES 01-4462
Refund Processing Fee (if within written time frame) 25% of refund 25% of refund 25% of refund 25% of refund
SPECIAL EVENT FEES
Application fee – Events with 1 – 999 participants $256 $256 $269 $269 Application fee – Events with more than 1,000 participants $870 $870 $914 $914 01-4462
All private parties, wedding receptions, anniversaries, and events with or without alcohol or admissions fees
Cost + 10%
administrative
costs
Cost + 10%
administrative
costs
Cost + 10%
administrative
costs
Cost + 10%
administrative
costs
Note: If insurance is provided by the event holder, the City requires $2,000,000 coverage per event and the City must be named as Additional Insured under the policy.
Programs, activities, or events that are co-sponsored by the Recreation Department and a civic, community, or local organization are not charged Softball Park Rental rates. The City also does not charge facility rental fees for official City of Pacific Grove activities and those of any other public agency that has a reciprocal use arrangement with the City. Fees for direct costs, such as staffing and utilities are charged to these entities.
SPECIAL EVENT INSURANCE PREMIUMS (Note: This is a pass through of rates charged to the City by insurance carrier, so fees will change as premium rates change)
32 PGCC 5-20-26
PARKS AND RECREATION
FY 25-26
Fees
Resident /
Non-Profit
F/Y 25-26
Fees NonResident /
Commercial
FY 26-27 Fees
Resident /
Non-Profit
F/Y 26-27
Fees NonResident /
Commercial
Acct. #
Note: a 5% increase is also planned for FY 27-28 and 28-29 to improve the cost recovery rate.
RESERVATIONS
RENTAL POLICIES
2. The City may require appropriate deposits or extra payments for special charges incurred.
3. All senior citizen nutrition programs serving Pacific Grove residents are exempt from rental fees and charges.
4. To the fullest extent permitted by law, all renters shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City, its elected officials, officers, agents, and employees, both severally and collectively from and against any and all claims, liabilities, and losses whatsoever (including damages to property and injuries to or death of persons, court costs, and reasonable attorneys’ fees), howsoever the same may be caused, except in cases of City’s sole negligence, resulting directly or indirectly from or arising out the negligence or willful misconduct of the renter, its employees, agents, subcontractors, anyone directly or indirectly employed by any of them or anyone for whose acts any of them may be liable with respect to the performance of this Agreement and without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the same shall include: (1) bodily injury, (2) death to any person or persons or, (3) injury to or destruction of tangible and/or property including that of the City, whether direct or consequential including the loss of use resulting therefrom. Such obligation shall not be construed to negate, abridge, or otherwise reduce any other right or obligation of indemnity, which would otherwise exist as to any party or person described herein. The City, at its sole option, may choose to provide all or a portion of the defense of claims, damages, losses, liability, costs, and expenses as set forth above, and in such event, the renter shall indemnify and hold harmless the City from the costs and expenses, including attorney’s fees, of such defense.”
5. Official Pacific Grove youth groups, under 18 years of age are exempt from rental fees and charges for activities on a space available basis.
Examples of qualified users would be the PONY Baseball League, Pop Warner league, Girl Scouts, Scouts BSA, Cub Scouts and Brownies.
6. If the person or organization imposes a cover charge, sells alcoholic beverages, or otherwise comes under the jurisdiction of the State Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, the City must be provided with evidence of a valid license from the State Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control.
7. Insurance may be required for specific facilities and additional provisions may be included on rental application.
VOLUNTEER SPORTS COACH DISCOUNT
The volunteer head coach of a sports team may receive a discount of 75% of the program registration fees for their child for the sports activity coached. A limit of 1 head coach is eligible per team, with a limit of 1 child allowed to receive the discount. If the volunteer chooses to coach more than 1 team, then they will receive 1 discount per team coached. Coaches are required to complete the full duration of the season for the discount. Discounts are not transferable to other participants.
HOLIDAYS
Permits for city buildings or Point Pinos Lighthouse ceremony area will not be issued for the following days: New Year’s Eve, New Year’s Day, Martin Luther King Day, President’s Day, Easter Sunday, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Veterans Day, Thanksgiving Day and the day following, Christmas Eve and Christmas Day.
No verbal reservations will be accepted. Facility is not reserved until all fees have been paid, and a contract has been executed. All reservations will be made on a first-come, first-served basis.
Park ceremony site permits can be issued at a maximum of 12 months and minimum of 10 business days prior to use. All other permits (facilities, picnic/BBQ, ballfields, courts or similar) can be issued at a maximum of 6 months and a minimum of 10 business days prior to use. Additional staffing considerations may be applied to indoor facility or Point Pinos Lighthouse ceremony area permits.
Cancellation requests received prior to 10 business days before the event will follow standard refund policy outlined in fee schedule. No refunds if cancelled within 10 business days of event. Damage deposit refund to be made within 30 business days following the event if City determines no damage resulted from usage.
1. All renters of City facilities shall complete a rental application and have it on file with the Recreation Department. City facilities may not be sublet without the express authorization of City.
33 PGCC 5-20-26
Description Units 7/1/2020 7/1/2021 7/1/2022 7/1/2023 7/1/2024 7/1/2025 7/1/2026 Business/Gov't Location/Each Business $48.48 $49.76 $51.06 $52.40 $53.78 $53.78 $53.78 Residential-Vacant Each Living Unit $20.94 $21.49 $22.05 $22.63 $23.22 $23.22 $23.22 Residential Each Living Unit $62.82 $64.46 $66.14 $67.88 $69.66 $69.66 $69.66 Residential/Apartments Each Living Unit $62.82 $64.46 $66.14 $67.88 $69.66 $69.66 $69.66 Residential/Apartments- Each Living Unit $20.94 $21.49 $22.05 $22.63 $23.22 $23.22 $23.22 Condominium Each Living Unit $62.82 $64.46 $66.14 $67.88 $69.66 $69.66 $69.66 Condo/Retirement Each Living Unit $62.82 $64.46 $66.14 $67.88 $69.66 $69.66 $69.66 Minimum/Vacancy Location/Each Business $20.94 $21.49 $22.05 $22.63 $23.22 $23.22 $23.22 Motel/Hotel Each Room $27.26 $27.96 $28.70 $29.46 $30.22 $30.22 $30.22 Bed & Breakfast Inn Each Room $17.96 $18.42 $18.92 $19.40 $19.92 $19.92 $19.92 Supermarkets Location $264.90 $271.84 $278.98 $286.28 $293.78 $293.78 $293.78 Medical Office Each Licensed Physician $64.82 $66.52 $68.26 $70.06 $71.88 $71.88 $71.88 Dental Office Each Licensed Dentist $89.38 $91.72 $94.14 $96.60 $99.12 $99.12 $99.12 Rest Home/Convalescent Capacity $17.96 $18.42 $18.92 $19.40 $19.92 $19.92 $19.92 General Hospital Capacity $106.34 $109.14 $112.00 $114.92 $117.94 $117.94 $117.94 Animal Hospital Business $118.34 $121.44 $124.62 $127.90 $131.24 $131.24 $131.24 Restaurant 1 meal/day Each Restaurant Seat $2.32 $2.38 $2.44 $2.50 $2.56 $2.56 $2.56 Restaurant 2 meals/day Each Restaurant Seat $3.64 $3.72 $3.82 $3.92 $4.04 $4.04 $4.04 Restaurant 3 meals/day Each Restaurant Seat $6.96 $7.14 $7.34 $7.52 $7.72 $7.72 $7.72 Restaurant with Bar Each Restaurant Seat $6.96 $7.14 $7.34 $7.52 $7.72 $7.72 $7.72 Bar Location/Each Business $105.34 $108.10 $110.94 $113.84 $116.82 $116.82 $116.82 Nightclub Location/Each Business $315.74 $324.00 $332.50 $341.20 $350.14 $350.14 $350.14 Takeout Food - Small Location/Each Business $117.66 $120.74 $123.90 $127.14 $130.48 $130.48 $130.48 Takeout Food - Medium Location/Each Business $289.48 $297.06 $304.84 $312.82 $321.02 $321.02 $321.02 Takeout Food - Large Location/Each Business $527.82 $541.64 $555.84 $570.40 $585.34 $585.34 $585.34 Bakery Location/Each Business $95.42 $97.92 $100.48 $103.12 $105.82 $105.82 $105.82 Theater Per Screen @ Each $156.54 $160.64 $164.86 $169.18 $173.60 $173.60 $173.60 Bowling Center Location/Each Business $476.30 $488.78 $501.58 $514.74 $528.22 $528.22 $528.22 Gym Per 500 members $48.48 $49.76 $51.06 $52.40 $53.78 $53.78 $53.78 Mortuary Location/Each Business $128.64 $132.02 $135.48 $139.02 $142.68 $142.68 $142.68 School (Minimum) Student Population $48.48 $49.76 $51.06 $52.40 $53.78 $53.78 $53.78 School (Grades 0-6) Student Population $0.68 $0.70 $0.72 $0.74 $0.76 $0.76 $0.76 School (7-College) Student Population $1.30 $1.34 $1.38 $1.42 $1.46 $1.46 $1.46 Boarding School Student Population $13.30 $13.66 $14.02 $14.38 $14.76 $14.76 $14.76 Instructional Facility Student Population $48.48 $49.76 $51.06 $52.40 $53.78 $53.78 $53.78 Church Per 100 members $48.48 $49.76 $51.06 $52.40 $53.78 $53.78 $53.78 Photo / Laboratory / Per 10 employees $48.48 $49.76 $51.06 $52.40 $53.78 $53.78 $53.78 Service Station/Garage Location/Each Business $46.54 $47.76 $49.02 $50.30 $51.62 $51.62 $51.62 Paint and Body Shops Per 10 employees $48.48 $49.76 $51.06 $52.40 $53.78 $53.78 $53.78 Dry Cleaner Location/Each Business $160.56 $164.76 $169.08 $173.52 $178.06 $178.06 $178.06 Laundromat Each Washing Machine $42.20 $43.32 $44.44 $45.62 $46.80 $46.80 $46.80 Special User [2] Individual Determination NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Sewer Rate Bimonthly City of Pacific Grove Portion ONLY (effective dates) - Acct 76-4471 Sewer Connection Fee (Account 76-4470) 85% of fee charged by Monterey One Water 34 PGCC 5-20-26
Agenda No. 11 E
CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Garrett McCown, Associate Planner
MEETING DATE: May 20, 2026
SUBJECT: Appeal of Architectural Permit (AP), Historic Preservation Permit, and Coastal Development Permit (CDP) 25-0186 for 689 Mermaid Avenue (APN 006-085-001-000)
CEQA: {CEQA}
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council reverse the action of the Planning Commission and approve Architectural Permit (AP), Historic Preservation Permit (HPP), and Coastal Development Permit (CDP) 25-0186, subject to the findings, recommended conditions, and Class 1 and 31 Categorical Exemptions (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15301, Existing Facilities, and 15331, Historical Resource Restoration and Rehabilitation).
DISCUSSION
Project Description
The proposed development on a 1,320 square foot lot consists of a remodel and addition to an existing 986 square-foot two-story residence and 187 square foot detached accessory structure to include the construction of a 40 square-foot first-floor addition and a 98 square-foot second-floor addition, resulting in a 1,311 square-foot two-story residence. This property is on the Historic Resources Inventory (HRI).
BACKGROUND
On January 28, 2026, the project was first presented to the Historic Resources Committee (HRC). Upon consideration, the HRC voted 3-0 (3 yes, 0 noes) to recommend approval of the Architectural Permit (AP) and the Historic Preservation Permit (HPP) to the Planning Commission.
On April 9, 2026, the project was presented to the Planning Commission (PC). Upon consideration, the PC had questions for the applicant, in regards to why they were requesting the Historic Preservation Permit (HPP).
The PC wanted to better understand:
Complications of building the staircase and the rationale for needing to go beyond the setback.
Why the staircase could not be built to the allowed setback of the zoning district.
Why the staircase could not be moved forward to meet the allowed setback.
Applicants response:
PGCC 5-20-26
The existing staircase is small and narrow with steps that are of different heights, which do not meet building code; thereby, creating a life safety hazard.
Rather than taking space from the bedrooms, it seems logical to use the space between the building to locate the proposed staircase.
The first motion to approve the project failed by 3-1-3 (3, yes, 1 no, 3 absent) vote. The commissioner who voted no was not satisfied with the setback discussion, and the rationale for why the applicant is requesting the Historic Preservation Permit (HPP).
The second motion to continue the project to a date certain failed by a 3-1-3 (3, yes, 1 no, 3 absent) vote. Therefore, the Planning Commission had two failed motions and only 4 commissioners present, which led to a technical denial of the permits.
On April 10, 2026, the applicant applied and paid applicable fees for the appeal of the Planning Commissions technical denial of the project.
Grounds for appeal (listed in the appeal application):
Technical denial at Planning Commission with only 4 members present.
Unspecified objection to setback by one member of the Planning Commission, who also voted to deny a continuation to a date certain.
Site Description
The 1,320-square-foot interior lot is located on Mermaid Avenue between Marine Street and Naiad Street. The site is currently developed with a 1,173-square-foot non-conforming (regarding setbacks, building coverage, and site coverage) two-story single-family residence and detached garage. The subject property is located within the City’s Area of Special Biological Significance (ASBS), an archaeologically sensitive area, within the Coastal Zone, and is listed on the City's Historic Resources Inventory (HRI). It is not located in an Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA).
Staff Analysis
Staff is recommending approval of this Historic Preservation Permit. The Historic Preservation Permit process allows for exceptions to site development standards when they facilitate the preservation and restoration of a historic resource, especially for historic homes that were built prior to the adoption of the current site development standards.
In the case of the single-family home at 689 Mermaid Avenue, the owners want to improve the function and use of the home by adding a restroom to the second floor to bring it in line with contemporary living practices. To achieve this in a reasonable manner, the architect proposes a staircase designed to current building code and safety standards. A compliant stairway requires a greater footprint to accommodate a set of stairs with appropriate riser heights and tread lengths. The staircase with a larger footprint results in an increase in building coverage; therefore, the requested exception for building coverage. It is also situated back from the prominent front feature of the house and requires a minor encroachment into the rear yard setback. Setting this addition back from the prominent front helps preserve the historic integrity of this resource and streetscape along this segment of Mermaid Avenue where homes of similar design are found.
The Historic Preservation Permit, if granted, will allow living space in the home to be compatible with contemporary living standards and help preserve the historic integrity of the resource plus contribute to the streetscape in a manner that compliments and does not detract from it. All coupled together this project contains elements that help support preservation of the resource well into the future. Staff supports the project for these reasons, and the Historic Resource Commission's recommendation to PGCC 5-20-26
approve the application helps bolster staff's recommendation.
The following are the applicable City Policies staff analyzed in review of the project:
Surrounding Land Uses
The parcel is located in an area of medium to large one- and two-story single-family residences in the Beach Tract residential neighborhood (R-3-PGB Zoning District).
LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM (LCP)
Coastal Development Permit Required
An application was filed with the Community Development Department (CDD) on January 14, 2026.
The application submittal is consistent with PGMC Section 23.90.060. Findings and related conditions of approval are included in the draft permit (attached). Pursuant to PGMC Sections 23.90.050, City CDP Determinations, and 23.90.040, CDP Exemptions, staff determined the proposed development would require a Coastal Development Permit (CDP), and forwarded this determination to the Coastal Commission on March 24, 2026.
Applicable Land Use Plan Policies
The Pacific Grove Land Use Plan (LUP), certified on March 11, 2020, provides a framework for future growth and development within the City's Coastal Zone. The subject neighborhood is designated Medium High Density Residential with an allowed density of 10 - 20 dwelling units per acre, LUP Figure 6. The proposed residential project is consistent with applicable LUP policies, including the following:
DES-1: All new development shall be consistent with requirements of the certified Local Coastal Program, including the certified Land Use Designations, Figure 6.
DES-2: Residential densities, except for allowable second units, shall not exceed those specified on the Land Use Designations figure. All residential development shall be sited and designed to be low scale, provide appropriate building articulation, and avoid dominating blue water ocean views or domineering over other development in the adjacent vicinity. Building heights shall be limited to 25 feet in height, except that residential development within Areas I and II in Figure 6 may be allowed up to a maximum of 30 feet so long as public views are not significantly impacted.
DES-6: New lighting fixtures shall be mounted at low elevations and fully shielded to direct lighting downward, and away from the shoreline. Lighting along walkways should be mounted on low bollards or ground buttons. Lighting shall be focused on targeted use areas, and floodlighting shall be prohibited.
Exterior lighting fixtures should complement the architectural style of structures. Lighting shall be limited to that necessary to provide for public safety, and shall be sited and designed to limit glares and light spill off-site.
DES-7: Legally established non-conforming structures (outside of the Asilomar Dunes Residential Area) may be maintained, repaired, redeveloped and expanded so long as the degree of any non-compliance is not increased.
LUD-6: Allowed uses for Coastal Zone areas designated MHD 10-20: a. single-family residences; b. multi-family residential units; c. guest/auxiliary/second housing units at the permitted densities; d. boarding houses; e. professional office uses; f. assembly halls; g. bed and breakfast facilities; and h. uses accessory to the above listed uses.
CRS-2: The City will ensure the protection, preservation, and proper disposition of archaeological resources within the Coastal Zone by assessing the potential impact of proposed development and ensuring, to the maximum extent feasible, that tribal concerns are considered before actions on proposed development are taken and that such impacts are avoided, minimized, or mitigated in conformity with the Coastal Act and other applicable legal requirements.
CRS-3: The City will assist developers and landowners by providing early identification of sensitive PGCC 5-20-26
sites so that archaeological resources can be considered and protected during the early phases of project design. The City shall require new development to prepare an archaeological report by a qualified professional and where appropriate, shall require mitigation measures to adequately protect and preserve potential archeological resources.
CRS-7: Rehabilitation, reconstruction, remodeling, or exterior modification of existing structures with historic or architectural significance in the Pacific Grove Retreat, and other neighborhoods in the Coastal Zone, shall relate to or retain the lines of the original design as much as possible and alterations shall provide evidence of substantial compliance to the Secretary of the Interior standards for historic resources.
CRS-8: Design review shall be required as part of the Coastal Development process in order to maintain historical continuity and visual harmony of new development within the Pacific Grove Retreat and other neighborhoods in the Coastal Zone.
Local Coastal Program (LCP) Implementation Plan (IP)(PGMC 23.90) The Pacific Grove IP serves to carry out the policies of the LCP and LUP, including providing the requirements for issuance of coastal development permits. As proposed, the project complies with the Pacific Grove Municipal Code (PGMC) Chapter 23.90 LCP Implementation Plan including the following:
Coastal Hazards
Per PGMC Section 23.90.140, Coastal Hazards, CDD staff reviewed LUP Figure 3 (Coastal Hazards and Areas of Potential Sea Level Rise), aerial and topographic imagery, plan set, and conducted a site visit on January 16, 2026, and determined the site and proposed development would not be subject to coastal hazards over its lifetime. The lowest point of the subject property is at an elevation of approximately 43 feet above mean sea level and approximately 220 feet from the shoreline. The property is further separated from the shoreline by a Recreation Trail, two city streets, and a block of single-family residences. In this case, submittal of a Coastal Hazards Report is not required or warranted.
Water Quality and Marine Resources
Consistent with PGMC Section 23.90.150, Water Quality and Marine Resources, the City did not require a water quality assessment because the proposed new development is under 2,500 square feet of new coverage, and will fall within the City’s policies. The proposed project includes a 40 square foot first-floor addition and a 98 square foot second-floor addition to accommodate code compliant staircase.
The proposed project site coverage is not increasing and will remain at the 82.5% coverage.
Scenic Resources
Per PGMC Section 23.90.160, Scenic Resources, CDD staff reviewed LUP Figure 4 (Scenic Areas), aerial and street view imagery, and conducted a site visit on January 16, 2026. This review determined the site and proposed development are not within a designated scenic view area, is not visible seaward of Ocean View Boulevard or the Recreational Trail, and would not adversely impact public views along Ocean View Boulevard. As designed, the proposed first - and second-story additions - are consistent with adjacent development. In this case, submittal of a site-specific visual analysis is not required or warranted.
Biological Resources
Per PGMC Section 23.90.170, Biological Resources, CDD staff reviewed LUP Figure 5, Land Habitat Sensitivity Map, aerial imagery, and conducted a site inspection on January 16, 2026. This review determined the proposed development would not have the potential to adversely affect biological resources or an environmentally sensitive habitat area. LUP Figure 5 identifies the site as having a moderate habitat value, and the property is a previously-developed site in a residentially zoned district PGCC 5-20-26
surrounded by residential structures. The property is separated from any sensitive habitat by a recreation trail, two city streets, and open space. Additionally, the project site is approximately 220 feet from the nearest beach area. The project site is over 1,970 feet from the 5th Street beach and over 4,370 feet to the Hopkins Marine Station West Beach, and neither beach has a direct line of sight to the subject property. As designed and conditioned, the project would not impact natural habitats or resources; therefore, in this case, submittal of an initial site assessment for biological resources is not required or warranted.
Coastal Community Design Standards
The residence is existing non-conforming with regard to building coverage, site coverage, front yard, rear yard, and east side yard setbacks.
The applicant has applied for a Historic Preservation Permit (HPP) per PGMC 23.76.060 to seek an exception from the zoning district regulations to improve livability and life safety with the installation of a code-compliant staircase and an upstairs bathroom accessible to the existing upstairs. The project does not comply with the zoning regulations set forth in Pacific Grove Municipal Code (PGMC) Chapter 23.57 (R-3-PGB District), and 23.90 (LCP Implementation Plan). This includes, allowable site and building coverage, new construction setbacks, and parking. The HPP would allow exception for the following:
Allow building coverage to be increased by 40 square feet, resulting in 55% building coverage for the subject property site (50% allowed).
Allow the proposed first-floor rear addition to exceed the 5-foot rear setback by 5 inches, resulting in a 4-foot 7-inch setback, to accommodate a code-compliant staircase.
Allow the proposed second-floor addition to exceed the 8-foot rear setbacks by 3-feet 5-inches, resulting in a 4-foot 7-inch setback, to accommodate a code-compliant staircase.
Allow the continuation of the existing non-conforming site coverage of 83% (60% allowed).
Reduce parking requirement from one (1) covered parking space to one (1) uncovered parking space.
Cultural Resources
Per PGMC Section 23.90.200, Cultural Resources, the application includes a Phase I archaeological assessment (Achasta Archaeological Services, September 2025) prepared for the subject property and concluded that, "The project has undergone moderate to high use resulting in moderate to high ground disturbance from at least 1890 through 1922 until the present... The results of the Phase I were negative.
The results of the Phase I pedestrian survey were also negative for significant resources... Although fragments of shell were observed in highly disturbed soils with modern refuse, the shell fragments lack integrity and do not qualify as a significant resource pursuant to California Public Resources Code 5024 and 15064.5(c)(4)...The results of the Sacred Lands File search were positive. Pursuant to Public Resources Code 15064.5(c)(4), the results of the Phase I assessment indicate the likelihood the proposed Project will have impacts on significant cultural resources is low. Implementation of the following recommendations will reduce the Project’s potential impacts to unknown resources to a less significant level." (See Draft Permit Condition Nos. 8, 9, 10, 11) Per PGMC Section 23.90.200, Cultural Resources, the application includes a Phase II Historic assessment (Past Consultants, LLC, August 2025) prepared for the subject property and concluded, "The proposed second-story addition is to the rear of the elevation, retaining the streetscape of two-story vernacular houses along Mermaid Avenue. The addition is within scale and proportion to the original residence and does not overwhelm the building. The addition utilizes the same historic materials as the historic house and will achieve differentiation by extending the rear of the house roof line to accommodate the addition. The installation of wood aluminum-clad windows to replace the vinyl-clad sash will also achieve differentiation; and the window mullion pattern will be more appropriate for the house’s vernacular style."
PGCC 5-20-26
"Because the proposed alterations to the building meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, the alterations are considered as mitigated to a level of less than a significant impact on the historic resource and do not constitute a substantial adverse change to the historic resource, thus conforming to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)." Lighting
All exterior lighting must conform to Land Use Plan Policy DES-6. Condition No. 6 has been included in the draft permit to address exterior lighting.
Applicable General Plan Policies
The Pacific Grove General Plan provides a framework for future growth and development within the City. The Land Use Element includes goals and polices that call for orderly, well-planned, and balanced development, consistent with the historic nature of Pacific Grove, the capacity of the City’s infrastructure, and ability to assimilate new growth. This proposed project is consistent with applicable General Plan policies, including the following:
Chapter 2 - Land Use
Policy 2: Ensure that new development is compatible with adjacent existing development.
Policy 4: Continue to preserve Pacific Grove’s character and regulate development.
Chapter 3 - Housing
Policy 8: Strive to provide the City’s share of the region’s housing needs.
Chapter 7 - Historic Preservation
Policy 6: Encourage individual efforts to restore historic neighborhoods and homes.
Policy 9: Promote the preservation and enhancement of historic neighborhoods, commercial areas, and governmental districts.
Policy 10: Require owners of properties on the Historic Resources Inventory to maintain such structures.
The policies above are implemented through the R-3-PGB zoning district, which allows single-family residential development in areas with adequate public services.
In addition to the General Plan goals and policies, the General Plan provides land use categories for all land within Pacific Grove. These categories are shown on the land use maps provided in the General Plan. The land use category for the Beach Tract neighborhood is designated Medium High Density Residential with an allowed density of up to10-20 du/ac (MHD 10-20).
Applicable Zoning Code Regulations
The applicable zoning code regulations are found in Pacific Grove Municipal Code (PGMC) Chapter
23.57 (R-3-PGB District), 23.64.190 (off-street parking, storage), and 23.90 (LCP Implementation Plan). As mentioned above, the existing residence is non-conforming with regard to building coverage, site coverage, front yard, rear yard, and east side yard setbacks and parking, however, the applicant has applied for a Historic Preservation Permit (HPP) per PGMC 23.76.060 to seek an exception from the zoning district regulations to improve livability and life safety with the installation of a code-compliant staircase and an upstairs bathroom accessible to the existing upstairs.
PGCC 5-20-26
The applicant provided a Project Data Sheet (attached) indicating the development standards of the zoning district, existing conditions, and proposed conditions. The Architectural Permit (AP) and Historic Preservation Permit (HPP) are required per PGMC section 23.70.070(c)(1)(B), PGMC section
23.57.070, and PGMC 23.76.060. The required findings for the AP and HPP are located in the draft permit (attached).
The proposed project does not encroach any further into required setbacks than the existing structure and as noted the lot coverage, which is currently non-conforming, does increase. Staff can support this increase in lot coverage because the site is smaller than required (note: it still qualifies as a building site given the site's long-standing improvement with a single-family residence) and because it provides space to accommodate a building code compliant interior staircase, which allows access to the upper floors. The additions and space for the code compliant staircase allow the existing residence to be improved to accommodate current living standards, which in the long term helps preserve and retain the historic residence.
Architecture and Design Considerations
Pacific Grove Historic Context Statement
The Pacific Grove Historic Context Statement is intended to be used as a tool to better understand and evaluate the City's historical resources and provides a narrative of the area's development history and architectural context that can be used to evaluate the neighborhood compatibility of a development project. The proposed project is located in the Beach Tract neighborhood and the following text from the PG Historic Context Statement provides the development history and architectural context of the Pacific Grove Beach Tract neighborhood and its surrounding neighborhoods:
"Bounded by Mermaid Avenue on the north, Ocean View Boulevard on the south, Lorelei Street on the east, and Sea Palm on the west, the area was labeled both as “Tent City” and “Bungalow City” on the P[acific] I[mprovement] C[ompany]’s promotional map, and was distinguished from the larger Beach Tract by its noticeably smaller lots." pg. 134
"As a general rule, most residences are rectangular, and most frequently only one story in height. Wood frame construction is near universal, although brick and stone structural systems are possible. Gable and hip roofs are by far the most common, although flat roofs (or combination roofs, such as gable and flat roofs) are also apparent." pg 170
"All residential buildings dating to this period would originally have had double-hung or casement wood-sash windows and wood paneled or glazed doors. Typical cladding varied depending on the age of construction. Through about 1910, wood board and batten and channel drop siding would have remained commonplace, while afterward wood shiplap, bevel and novelty siding grew in popularity." pg 171
The Phase II Historic Assessment states, "The subject property developed as a late addition to the Beach Tract and adopted a similar footprint as the Vernacular-style house located at 685 Mermaid Avenue (listed on the Pacific Grove Historic Resources Inventory) Completed in 1936, the subject property was constructed, along with 687 Mermaid Ave., as a pair of street-facing, two-story gable-roofed forms with a simple, side-entry porch, to accommodate the narrow lot. This basic home plan is repeated (with subsequent additions and/or alterations) along Mermaid Avenue and was earmarked for local workers of modest incomes." pg. 8
The Phase II Historic Assessment also states, "The project will retain and rehabilitate the building’s existing character-defining features, with all historic features of the primary elevations (south and west) PGCC 5-20-26
to remain in place." pg. 14
The house is Vernacular in design and, as proposed, the property would remain compatible with the neighborhood, consisting of one and two-story single-family residences of varying heights and architectural styles as described in the Pacific Grove Historic Context Statement.
Appendix I: Working with buildings on the Historic Resources Inventory Architectural Guidelines for Historic Buildings
1. Neighborhood Context: Any additions to historic buildings must take into account the effect of the proposed addition on the existing neighborhood, including but not limited to setbacks, mass, architectural style, and design.
The original existing historic building exceeds zoning regulations in regard to setbacks, building coverage, and site coverage. The applicant has applied for a Historic Preservation Permit to seek exceptions from the zoning district regulations. Additionally, the architectural style, mass, and design are consistent with the Historic Context statement, neighborhood context, and existing neighborhood in regard to its rectangular shape, wood frame construction, massing, heavy butt composition roof shingles and square-cut siding shingles.
2. Effects of additions on historic scale and character: Additions to historic buildings should be designed to preserve, as much as possible, the scale and overall character of the original structure.
The Phase II Historic Assessment (Past Consultants, LLC, August 2025) states that, " The proposed second-story addition is to the rear of the elevation, retaining the streetscape of two-story vernacular houses along Mermaid Avenue. The addition is within scale and proportion to the original residence and does not overwhelm the building. The addition utilizes the same historic materials as the historic house and will achieve differentiation by extending the rear of the house roofline to accommodate the addition. The installation of wood aluminum-clad windows to replace the vinyl-clad sash will also achieve differentiation; and the window mullion pattern will be more appropriate for the house's vernacular style."
3. Preservation of character-defining features: The city encourages the preservation of distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that serve to characterize and define properties of historic significance. Likewise, the city discourages the addition of inappropriate features or architectural elements from other buildings.
The Phase II Historic Assessment (Past Consultants, LLC, August 2025) states, "The proposed project is an interior remodel of the house and a proposed east elevation, second-floor addition over the existing storage shed. The proposed addition will enable installation of a bathroom on the second floor adjacent to the existing second floor bedrooms and to provide for code compliant stairs. The project will retain and rehabilitate the building's existing character-defining features, with all historic features of the primary elevations (south and west) to remain in place."
4. Compatibility of new work with the old: Additions and remodels should be compatible with the original historic building in forms, scale, and materials and not compromise the architectural integrity of the original.
The Phase II Historic Assessment (Past Consultants, LLC, August 2025) states that, "While unlikely, the proposed additions could be removed and the building reversed to its present appearance in the future, if desired. It should be noted that the proposed building alterations retain nearly all of the historic character-defining features of the original house, allowing it to maintain adequate historic integrity and satisfy this standard (Standard 10)."
5. Replacements: When important character-defining features, such as windows, need to be replaced, the replacements should be of similar design and material. If using the same kind of material is not PGCC 5-20-26
technically feasible, then a compatible substitute material may be considered.
The proposed project includes replacement of damaged or deteriorated windows with wood aluminum-clad windows to replace the vinyl-clad sash. The Phase II Historic Assessment (Past Consultants, LLC, August 2025) states, "the window mullion pattern will be more appropriate for the house's vernacular style."
6. De facto demolitions: Certain alterations that are so extensive that they are tantamount to demolition of the original structure may be treated as demolitions rather than remodels.
The proposed project includes minimal exterior demolition and does not meet the PGMC definition of demolition or partial demolition. Therefore, this project is treated as a remodel.
Conclusion
Based on the Historic Resources Committee recommendation, the Phase II Historic Assessment (Past Consultants, LLC, August 2025), consistency with General Plan Policies, consistency with the Local Coastal Program, and PGMC 23.76.060 which allows for exceptions to zoning district regulations with a Historic Preservation Permit, staff recommends the City Council approve Architectural Permit (AP), Historic Preservation Permit (HPP), and Coastal Development Permit 25-0186, subject to the findings, recommended conditions, and Class 1 and Class 31 Categorical Exemption (CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 Existing Facilities, and Section 15331, Historical Resources Restoration/Rehabilitation).
Noticing for Architectural and Coastal Development Permits City staff completed the required noticing pursuant to PGMC 23.86.040(b) as follows:
1. Mailing. On May 8, 2026, Notices of Public Hearing were mailed to owners of all property abutting the exterior boundaries of the subject lot. Since the project includes a Historic Preservation Permit, Notices of Public Hearing were also mailed to owners within a 300-foot boundary of the subject lot as identified on the updated equalized county assessment roll.
2. Posting. On May 8, 2026, a Notice of Public Hearing was posted on the site's street frontage in a location that may be viewed from the street.
3. Publication. On May 7, 2026, a Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Monterey Weekly, a newspaper of general circulation.
Story Poles and Netting
The applicant installed the story poles and netting on January 12, 2026, consistent with current policy requirements. City staff confirmed installation of the story poles and netting on March 24, 2026 and May 8, 2026.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
In reviewing this action, the City has followed the CEQA statute adopted by the State of California as published in the California Public Resources Code, Division 13, §21000, et seq., and the associated guidelines as published in the California Code of Regulations, Title 14, §15000, et seq. (i.e., CEQA Guidelines). The proposed project is found to be categorically exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15331 (Class 31), Historical Resource Restoration/Rehabilitation. The Class 31 exemption consists of projects limited to maintenance, repair, stabilization, rehabilitation, restoration, preservation, conservation or reconstruction of historical resources in a manner consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the treatment of historic properties with Guidelines for preserving, rehabilitating, restoring and reconstructing historic buildings. As proposed, the project is consistent with the parameters of the Class 31 categorical exemptions. The project is also exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Class 1), Existing Facilities. The Class 1 exemption applies to expansions of existing structures not exceeding 10,000 square feet in areas where public utilities and services are available and are not environmentally sensitive.
PGCC 5-20-26
The exceptions to exemptions in Section 15300.2 of the CEQA Guidelines pertaining to location, cumulative impacts, significant effects, scenic highways, hazardous waste sites, and historical resources do not apply to this project. Also, no adverse environmental effects were identified during staff review of the development application, and there is no substantial evidence of an unusual circumstance because there is no feature or condition of the project that distinguishes the project from the exempt classes.
Additionally, there is no substantial evidence that the project has a reasonable possibility of having a significant effect on the environment or that it would result in a cumulative significant impact.
OPTIONS
1. Approve the project as recommended by staff.
2. Decline to approve the project.
3. Refer the project to the applicant and continue to a future meeting to allow the applicant to address concerns raised by the Council.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Not applicable.
FOCUSED PRIORITY AREA: Community Development
Attachments
Appeal Application
CDD Application
HPP Application
CDP Application and Checklist
Project Data Sheet
HRC Recommendation
Draft Permit AP-HPP
Draft Permit CDP
CEQA Exemption Form
Phase II Historic Assessment
Plan Set
PGCC 5-20-26
PGCC 5-20-26
PGCC 5-20-26
PGCC 5-20-26
PGCC 5-20-26
PGCC 5-20-26
PGCC 5-20-26
PGCC 5-20-26
PGCC 5-20-26
PGCC 5-20-26
PGCC 5-20-26
PGCC 5-20-26
PGCC 5-20-26
PGCC 5-20-26
PGCC 5-20-26
PGCC 5-20-26
PGCC 5-20-26
PGCC 5-20-26
CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
Community Development Department – Planning Division
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA 93950
T: 831.648.3183 • F: 831.648.3184 • www.ci.pg.ca.us/cdd ARCHITECTURAL PERMIT (AP) AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION PERMIT (HPP) 25-0186 FOR A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 689 MERMAID AVENUE TO ALLOW THE REMODEL OF AN EXISTING 986 SQUARE FOOT TWO-STORY RESIDENCE AND A 187 SQUARE FOOT DETACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE TO INCLUDE THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 40 SQUARE FOOT FIRST-FLOOR ADDITION AND A 98 SQUARE FOOT SECOND FLOOR ADDITION, RESULTING IN A 1,311 SQUARE FOOT TWO-STORY RESIDENCE. THE PROPERTY IS LISTED ON THE HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY.
FACTS
1. The subject site is located at 689 Mermaid Avenue, Pacific Grove, APN 006-085-001-000.
2. The subject site has a land use designation of Medium High Density Residential (24.8 du/ac) in the adopted City of Pacific Grove General Plan Land Use Map.
3. The project site is located in the R-3-PGB zoning district.
4. The subject site is approximately 1,320 square feet in size, and currently developed with an existing two-story square foot single-family residence.
5. The property is located within the City’s Area of Special Biological Significance, the Coastal Zone, an archaeologically sensitive area, and is listed on the City’s Historic Resources Inventory (HRI).
6. The proposed development consists of major remodel of an existing 986 square-foot two-story residence and 187 square foot detached accessory structure to include the construction of a 40 square-foot first-floor addition, a 98 square-foot second-floor addition, resulting in a 1,311 square-foot two-story residence. As designed, the project would not conform to all of the required zoning development standards.
7. The existing residence is non-conforming with regard to building coverage, site coverage, front yard, rear yard, and east side yard setbacks and parking. The proposed project would increase building coverage by 40 square feet and the first and second floor rear setbacks would exceed the allowed setbacks set forth in R-3- PGB zoning district.
8. A Phase I archaeological assessment (Achasta Archaeological Services, September 2025) was prepared for the subject property and concluded that, "The project has undergone moderate to high use resulting in moderate to high ground disturbance from at least 1890 through 1922 until the present...The results of the Phase I were negative. Implementation of the following recommendations will reduce the Project’s potential impacts to unknown resources to a less significant level." (See Draft Recommendation Condition Nos. 8, 9, 10, 11).
9. A Phase II Historic assessment (Past Consultants, LLC, August 2025) was prepared for the subject property and concluded, "The proposed second-story addition is to the rear of the elevation, retaining the streetscape of two-story vernacular houses along Mermaid Avenue. The addition is within scale and proportion to the original residence and does not overwhelm the building. The addition utilizes the same historic materials as the historic house and will achieve differentiation by extending the rear of the house roofline to accommodate the addition. The installation of wood aluminum-clad windows to replace the vinyl-clad sash will also achieve differentiation; and the window mullion pattern will be more appropriate for the house’s vernacular style." "Because the proposed alterations to the building meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, the alterations are considered as mitigated to a level of less than a significant impact on the historic resource and do not constitute a substantial adverse change to the historic resource, thus conforming to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)." PGCC 5-20-26
10. This project has been determined to be Categorically Exempt per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Section 15301, Class 1 and Section 15331, Class 31, Categorical Exemption for Existing Facilities and Historical Resource Restoration/Rehabilitation, and the exceptions to the exemptions in Section 15300.2 of the CEQA Guidelines do not apply.
FINDINGS
For an Architectural Permit per PGMC Section 23.70.070(h)
1. The architecture and general appearance of the completed project are compatible with the neighborhood.
The proposed development consists of a major remodel of an existing 986 square-foot two-story residence and 187 square foot detached accessory structure to include the construction of a 40 squarefoot first-floor addition, a 98 square-foot second-floor addition, resulting in a 1,311 square-foot two-story residence. As designed, the project would be compatible with the neighborhood of medium- to largesized one- and two-story residences. The surrounding streetscapes are comprised of residences with varying architectural styles, alignments, and scales. The proposed project would use exterior colors and materials (i.e.; Aluminum clad windows, square-cut shingle siding, and heavy butt composition roof shingles) that will be compatible with residences in the vicinity and will blend with the surrounding natural streetscape.
2. The completed project will neither be detrimental to the orderly and harmonious development of the city nor impair the desirability of investment or occupation in the neighborhood.
There is no indication or evidence that the proposed project would either negatively affect the orderly and harmonious development of the city or impair the desirability of investment in the neighborhood.
The proposed development would improve the subject property and contribute to the desirability of investment in the Beach Tract neighborhood.
3. The committee has been guided by and referenced applicable provisions of the architectural review guidelines in making its determinations on single-family residences.
The architectural style, materials and site design are in substantial conformance with the City’s Architectural Review Guidelines, including but not limited to guidelines Nos. 1, 2, 7, 31, 32, and 38.
Appendix I: Working with Buildings on the Historic Resources Inventory Architectural Review Guidelines for Historic Resources
Guideline #1: Neighborhood Context: Any additions to historic buildings must take into account the effect of the proposed addition on the existing neighborhood, including but not limited to setbacks, mass, architectural style, and design.
The proposed project does not conform with the zoning regulations set forth in the R-3-PGB zoning district as well as the Local Coastal Program Implementation plan (23.90); however, the applicant is seeking an exception from the zoning district regulations to improve livability and life safety with the installation of a code-compliant staircase and an upstairs bathroom accessible to the existing upstairs. The original existing historic building has non-conforming setbacks, site coverage, and building coverage. However, the proposed project is modest in size and the architectural style and design is consistent with the Historic Context statement neighborhood context and existing neighborhood in regard to its rectangular shape, wood frame construction, square-cut shingle siding, and heavy butt composition roof shingles.
Guideline #2: Effects of additions on historic scale and character: Additions to historic buildings should be designed to preserve, as much as possible, the scale and overall character of the original structure.
PGCC 5-20-26
The Phase II Historic Assessment (Past Consultants, LLC, August 2025) states that, " The proposed secondstory addition is to the rear of the elevation, retaining the streetscape of two-story vernacular houses along Mermaid Avenue. The addition is within scale and proportion to the original residence and does not overwhelm the building. The addition utilizes the same historic materials as the historic house and will achieve differentiation by extending the rear of the house roofline to accommodate the addition. The installation of wood aluminum-clad windows to replace the vinyl-clad sash will also achieve differentiation; and the window mullion pattern will be more appropriate for the house's vernacular style." Guideline #3: Preservation of character-defining features: New additions and alterations should be designed and constructed so that the character-defining features of the historic building are not radically changed, obscured, damaged, or destroyed.
The Phase II Historic Assessment (Past Consultants, LLC, August 2025) states, "The proposed project is an interior remodel of the house and a proposed east elevation, second-floor addition over the existing storage shed. The proposed addition will enable installation of a bathroom on the second floor adjacent to the existing second floor bedrooms and to provide for code compliant stairs. The project will retain and rehabilitate the building's existing character-defining features, with all historic features of the primary elevations (south and west) to remain in place."
Guideline #4: Compatibility of new work with old: Additions and remodels should be compatible with the original historic building in forms, scale, and materials and not compromise the architectural integrity of the original.
The Phase II Historic Assessment (Past Consultants, LLC, August 2025) states that, "While unlikely, the proposed additions could be removed and the building reversed to its present appearance in the future, if desired. It should be noted that the proposed building alterations retain nearly all of the historic characterdefining features of the original house, allowing it to maintain adequate historic integrity and satisfy this standard (Standard 10)."
Guideline #5: Replacements: When important character-defining features, such as windows, need to be replaced, the replacements should be of similar design and material. If using the same kind of material is not technically feasible, then a compatible substitute material may be considered.
The proposed project includes replacement of damaged or deteriorated windows with wood aluminum-clad windows to replace the vinyl-clad sash. The phase II Historic Assessment (Past Consultants, LLC, August 2025) states, "the window mullion pattern will be more appropriate for the house's vernacular style."
6. De facto demolitions: Certain alterations that are so extensive that they are tantamount to demolition of the original structure may be treated as demolitions rather than remodels.
The proposed project includes minimal exterior demolition and does not meet PGMC definition of demolition or partial demolition. Therefore, this project is treated as a remodel.
For a Historic Preservation Permit per PGMC 23.76.060 Incentive – Exceptions to land use regulations - Historic Preservation Permit
The Historic Resources Committee and Planning Commission were directed and guided by the list of purposes found in PGMC 23.76.010 and by PGMC 23.04.010. The proposed project was found to be consistent with the list of purposes found in PGMC 23.76.010 and PGMC 23.04.010.
PERMIT
Approve Architectural Permit (AP) and Historic Preservation Permit 25-0186 for a property located at 689 PGCC 5-20-26
Mermaid Avenue to allow major remodel of an existing 986 square-foot two-story residence and 187 square foot detached accessory structure to include the construction of a 40 square-foot first-floor addition and a 98 square-foot second-floor addition, resulting in a 1,311 square-foot two-story residence. This property is on the Historic Resources Inventory (HRI).
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. Permit Expiration. This permit shall expire and be null and void if a building permit has not been applied for within one (1) year from and after the date of approval. Application for extension of this approval must be made prior to the expiration date.
2. Construction Compliance. All construction must occur in general compliance with the proposal as set forth in the application, subject to any special conditions of approval herein. Any deviation from approvals must be reviewed and approved by staff and may require subsequent discretionary approval.
3. Terms and Conditions. These terms and conditions shall run with the land and bind to all future owners and possessors of the subject property, unless amended. Amendments to this permit may be achieved only if an application is made and approved, pursuant to the Zoning Code.
4. Public Works, Fire and Building. Review and approval by the Public Works and Fire Departments, and Building Division, are required prior to issuance of a building permit. Work taking place in the public right-of- way shall require an encroachment permit prior to issuance of the building permit.
5. Conformance to Plans. Development of the site shall conform to the approved plans for “Dutra” dated October, 27, 2025, on file with the Community Development Department and to the Building Code, with the exception of any subsequently approved changes.
6. Lighting. All exterior lighting must conform to LUP Policy DES-6.
7. Building Plans. All conditions of approval for the Planning permit(s) shall be printed on a full-size plan sheet and included with the construction plan set submitted to the Building Division.
8. Archaeological Monitoring. As recommended in the Phase I Archaeological Assessment (Achasta Archaeological Services, September 2025) prepared for the property, a qualified archaeologist with requisite experience working in Monterey County shall be retained to provide on-call monitoring services for all Project related ground disturbing activities in the event of inadvertent discoveries of unknown resources. Following the completion of Project related ground disturbing activities, the Project archaeologist shall prepare a final memorandum documenting any inadvertent discoveries requiring professional evaluation, treatment, and/or full time monitoring, if applicable.
9. Sensitivity training. A cultural resource sensitivity training led by a qualified archaeologist for all construction personnel shall be conducted prior to ground disturbing activities. The training shall include how to identify potentially significant resources and the protocols to follow in case of inadvertent discoveries.
10. Archaeology and Inadvertent Discovery. In the event that human remains are encountered on site, ground disturbing activities on site shall immediately halt. The remains shall be covered with steel plates (where feasible), and the location shall be kept confidential among Project personnel to prevent vandalism and additional disturbance. The Monterey County Sheriff-Coroner shall be notified immediately, and no work shall resume in within a 150-ft radius of the find until a Most Likely Descendent (MLD) has been assigned to the Project and provided the Project proponent with treatment recommendations. Photographs of remains shall be prohibited, unless requested by the coroner and permitted by the MLD.
11. Cultural and/or Archaeological Artifacts. In the event significant cultural resources are impacted during construction, work shall stop within 150-ft of the find until a qualified archaeologist has an opportunity to evaluate the find and provide treatment recommendations. If the resource is considered significant and/or unique, ground disturbance shall be halted until an archaeological consultant has been retained, and a comprehensive Archaeological Research Design and Treatment Plan is developed and approved by the PGCC 5-20-26
Lead Agency and Project proponent. All isolated materials and/or potentially significant materials shall be assessed in the field and shall not be removed from the Project site for off-site laboratory analysis without prior authorization of the Project proponent.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE:
1. The City 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 Permit.
2. The City Council approves Architectural Permit (AP) and Historic Preservation Permit (HPP) 25-0186 as proposed and conditioned, pursuant to Categorical Exemptions for Existing Facilities and Historical Resource Restoration/Rehabilitation (CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, Class 1 and Section 15331, Class 31).
3. This permit shall become effective upon the expiration of the 10-day appeal period after the final approval.
4. This permit shall not take effect until the owner acknowledges and agrees to all terms and conditions and agrees to conform to and comply with those terms and conditions.
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacific Grove on the 20th day of May 2026, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
APPROVED:
Nick Smith, Mayor
The undersigned hereby acknowledge and agree to the approved terms and conditions, and agree to fully conform to, and comply with, said terms and conditions. ______________________________ ____________________
Dominic D. Dutra, Owner Date
____________________________________________________________________ Lisa M. Dutra, Owner Date
PGCC 5-20-26
CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
Community Development Department – Planning Division
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA 93950
T: 831.648.3183 • F: 831.648.3184 • www.ci.pg.ca.us/cdd COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT (CDP) 25-0186 FOR A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 689 MERMAID AVENUE TO ALLOW THE REMODEL OF AN EXISTING 986 SQUARE FOOT TWOSTORY RESIDENCE AND A 187 SQUARE FOOT DETACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE TO INCLUDE THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 40 SQUARE FOOT FIRST-FLOOR ADDITION AND A 98 SQUARE FOOT SECOND FLOOR ADDITION, RESULTING IN A 1,311 SQUARE FOOT TWOSTORY RESIDENCE. THE PROPERTY IS LISTED ON THE HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY.
FACTS
1. The subject site is located at 689 Mermaid Avenue, Pacific Grove, APN 006-085-001-000.
2. The subject site has a land use designation of Medium High Density Residential, 10-20 dwelling units per acre (MHD 10-20 du/ac) in the certified City of Pacific Grove Coastal Land Use Plan (LUP Figure 6).
3. The project site is located in the R-3-PGB zoning district.
4. The property is located within the City’s Area of Special Biological Significance, the Coastal Zone (LUP Figure 1), an archaeologically sensitive area (LUP Figure 7), and is listed on the City’s Historic Resources Inventory (HRI).
5. The subject site is approximately 1,320 square feet in size and currently developed with an existing two-story single-family residence.
6. The existing residence is non-conforming with regard to building coverage, site coverage, front yard, rear yard, and east side yard setbacks and parking. The proposed project would increase building coverage by 40 square feet and the first and second floor rear setbacks would exceed the allowed setbacks set forth in R-3- PGB zoning district.
7. Pursuant to Pacific Grove Municipal Code (PGMC) Sections 23.90.050, City CDP Determinations, and
23.90.040, CDP Exemptions, Community Development Department (CDD) staff determined the proposed project would require a Coastal Development Permit (CDP), and forwarded this determination to the Coastal Commission on March 24, 2026.
8. Per PGMC Section 23.90.140, Coastal Hazards, CDD staff reviewed LUP Figure 3 (Coastal Hazards and Areas of Potential Sea Level Rise), aerial and topographic imagery, plan set, and conducted a site visit on January 16, 2026, and determined the site and proposed development would not be subject to coastal hazards over its lifetime. The lowest point of the subject property is at an elevation of approximately 43 feet above mean sea level and approximately 220 feet from the shoreline. The property is further separated from the shoreline by a Recreation Trail, two city streets, and a block of single-family residences. In this case, submittal of a Coastal Hazards Report is not required or warranted.
9. Per PGMC Section 23.90.150, Water Quality and Marine Resources, the City did not require a water quality assessment because the proposed new development is under 2,500 square feet of new coverage, and will fall within the City’s policies. The proposed project includes a 40 square foot first-floor addition and a 98 square foot second-floor addition to accommodate code compliant staircase. The proposed project site coverage is not increasing and will remain at the 82.5% coverage.
10. Per PGMC Section 23.90.160, Scenic Resources, CDD staff reviewed LUP Figure 4 (Scenic Areas), aerial and street view imagery, and conducted a site visit on January 16, 2026. This review determined the site and proposed development are not within a designated scenic view area, is not visible seaward of Ocean View Boulevard or the Recreational Trail, and would not adversely impact public views along Ocean View Boulevard. As designed, the proposed first - and second-story addition is consistent with adjacent development. In this case, submittal of a site-specific visual analysis is not required or warranted.
PGCC 5-20-26
11. Per PGMC Section 23.90.170, Biological Resources, CDD staff reviewed LUP Figure 5, Land Habitat Sensitivity Map, aerial imagery, and conducted a site inspection on January 16, 2026. This review determined the proposed development would not have the potential to adversely affect biological resources or an environmentally sensitive habitat area. LUP Figure 5 identifies the site as having a moderate habitat value, and the property is a previously-developed site in a residentially zoned district surrounded by residential structures. The property is separated from any sensitive habitat by a recreation trail, two city streets, and open space. Additionally, the project site is approximately 220 feet from the nearest beach area. The project site is over 1,970 feet from the 5th Street beach and over 4,370 feet to the Hopkins Marine Station West Beach, and neither beach has a direct line of sight to the subject property. As designed and conditioned, the project would not impact natural habitats or resources; therefore, in this case, submittal of an initial site assessment for biological resources is not required or warranted.
12. Per PGMC Section 23.90.180, Community Design, The residence is existing non-conforming with regard to building coverage, site coverage, front yard, rear yard, east side yard setback, and parking. The applicant has applied for a Historic Preservation Permit (HPP) per PGMC 23.76.030 to seek an exception from the zoning district regulations to improve livability and life safety with the installation of a code-compliant staircase and an upstairs bathroom accessible to the existing upstairs living space. The project does not comply with the zoning regulations set forth in Pacific Grove Municipal Code (PGMC) Chapter 23.57 (R-3-PGB District), and
23.90 (LCP Implementation Plan). This includes, allowable site and building coverage, new construction setbacks, and parking. The HPP would allow exception for the following:
• Allow building coverage to be increased by 40 square feet, resulting in 55% building coverage for the subject property site (50% allowed).
• Allow the proposed first-floor rear addition to exceed the 5-foot rear setback by 5 inches, resulting in a 4-foot 7-inch setback, to accommodate a code-compliant staircase. • Allow the proposed second-floor addition to exceed the 8-foot rear setbacks by 3-feet 5-inches, resulting in a 4-foot 7-inch setback, to accommodate a code-compliant staircase. • Allow the continuation of the existing non-conforming site coverage of 83% (60% allowed). • Reduce parking requirement from one (1) covered parking space to one (1) uncovered parking space.
13. Per PGMC Section 23.90.200, Cultural Resources, the application includes a Phase I archaeological assessment (Achasta Archaeological Services, September 2025) prepared for the subject property and concluded that, "The project has undergone moderate to high use resulting in moderate to high ground disturbance from at least 1890 through 1922 until the present... The results of the Phase I were negative. The results of the Phase I pedestrian survey were also negative for significant resources... Although fragments of shell were observed in highly disturbed soils with modern refuse, the shell fragments lack integrity and do not qualify as a significant resource pursuant to California Public Resources Code 5024 and 15064.5(c)(4)...The results of the Sacred Lands File search were positive. Pursuant to Public Resources Code 15064.5(c)(4), the results of the Phase I assessment indicate the likelihood the proposed Project will have impacts to significant cultural resources is low. Implementation of the following recommendations will reduce the Project’s potential impacts to unknown resources to a less significant level." (See Draft Permit Condition Nos. 8, 9, 10, 11)
14. Per PGMC Section 23.90.200, Cultural Resources, the application includes a Phase II Historic assessment (Past Consultants, LLC, August 2025) prepared for the subject property and concluded, "The proposed second-story addition is to the rear of the elevation, retaining the streetscape of two-story vernacular houses along Mermaid Avenue. The addition is within scale and proportion to the original residence and does not overwhelm the building. The addition utilizes the same historic materials as the historic house and will achieve differentiation by extending the rear of the house roof line to accommodate the addition. The installation of wood aluminum-clad windows to replace the vinyl-clad sash will also achieve differentiation; and the window mullion pattern will be more appropriate for the house’s vernacular style." PGCC 5-20-26
"Because the proposed alterations to the building meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, the alterations are considered as mitigated to a level of less than a significant impact on the historic resource and do not constitute a substantial adverse change to the historic resource, thus conforming to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)."
15. On January 28, 2026, the Historic Resources Committee voted 3-0 (3 yes, 0 noes) to recommend the Planning Commission approve the project.
16. This project has been determined to be Categorically Exempt per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Section 15301, Class 1 and Section 15331, Class 31, Categorical Exemption for Existing Facilities and Historical Resource Restoration/Rehabilitation, and the exceptions to the exemptions in Section 15300.2 of the CEQA Guidelines do not apply.
FINDINGS
For a Coastal Development Permit per PGMC Section 23.90.080
1. LCP Consistency. The project is consistent with the LCP. (Local Coastal Program) The project meets the requirements of the LCP including, but not limited to, the applicable Coastal Resource Protection Standards (PGMC § 23.90.130) of the Implementation Plan (IP) and the Biological, Cultural, Scenic, and Community Design policies of the Land Use Plan (LUP). These standards and policies are addressed in the Facts above and in the following findings.
2. Public Views. The project protects or enhances public views.
Per LUP Figure 4, Scenic Areas, the project site is not located within a designated Scenic View Area. As designed, the project would not impact public views or adversely impact public views. The proposed development would also not result in adverse visual impacts as viewed seaward from Oceanview Boulevard, the Recreation Trail, and would be consistent with the height and massing of residences in the immediate vicinity of the project area.
3. Habitat Protection. The project protects vegetation, natural habitats, and natural resources consistent with the LCP.
Per LUP Figure 5, Land Habitat Sensitivity Map, the project site is identified as having a moderate habitat value, and the property is a previously-developed site in a residentially zoned district surrounded by residential structures. The property is separated from any sensitive habitat by a recreational trail, two city streets, and open space. Additionally, the project site is approximately 220 feet from the nearest beach area. The project site is over 1,970 feet to the 5th Street beach and over 4,370 feet to the Hopkins Marine Station West Beach, and neither has a direct line of sight of the subject property. As designed, the project will not impact natural habitats or resources and is consistent with the LCP, including PGMC § 23.90.170 regarding biological resources and/or environmentally sensitive habitat areas.
4. Design Consistency. The design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the proposed development is consistent with applicable LCP design requirements, including design plans and area plans incorporated into the LCP.
The project does not conform to all applicable LUP polices and IP community design standards (PGMC
23.90.180, Coastal Community Design) however, the applicant has applied for a Historic Preservation Permit (HPP) per PGMC 23.76.030 to seek an exception from the zoning district regulations to improve livability and life safety with the installation of a code-compliant staircase and an upstairs bathroom accessible to the existing upstairs.
5. Coastal Access. The project protects or enhances public access to and along the coast.
As designed, the project will have no effect on coastal access to or along the coast.
PGCC 5-20-26
6. Visitor Serving. The project supports the LCP goal of providing for visitor-serving needs as appropriate, including providing low and no cost visitor and recreational facilities.
The project includes residential development and will have no visitor-serving features, yet may qualify for a Short-Term Rental (STR) license given its location within the coastal zone. As of this date, there is no indication that the applicant intends to pursue an STR license.
7. Appropriate Use. The project is consistent with the allowed LCP uses associated with the property.
Per LUP Figure 6, the subject property has a Coastal Zone Land Use Designation of Medium High Density Residential 10-20 du/ac (MHD 10-20). LUP Policy LUD-6 identifies single-family residences as allowed uses in areas designated MHD 10-20. Therefore, the proposed use is consistent.
8. Coastal Resources. The proposed development protects or enhances coastal resources, where applicable.
The 1,320 square foot property is a previously-developed site in a residentially zoned district surrounded by residential structures and is currently developed with an existing two-story 986 square foot single-family residence and a 187 square foot accessory structure. As proposed and designed, the project will not impact coastal resources. See also Facts 9 – 15 and supporting information.
PERMIT
Approve Coastal Development Permit (CDP) 25-0186 for a property located at 689 Mermaid Avenue to allow the remodel of an existing 986 square-foot two-story residence and 187 square foot detached accessory structure to include the construction of a 40 square-foot first-floor addition and a 98 square-foot second-floor addition, resulting in a 1,311 square-foot two-story residence. This property is on the Historic Resources Inventory (HRI).
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. Permit Expiration. This permit shall expire and be null and void if a building permit has not been applied for within two (2) years from and after the date of approval. Application for extension of this approval must be made prior to the expiration date.
2. Construction Compliance. All construction must occur in general compliance with the proposal as set forth in the application, subject to any special conditions of approval herein. Any deviation from approvals must be reviewed and approved by staff and may require subsequent discretionary approval.
3. Terms and Conditions. These terms and conditions shall run with the land and bind to all future owners and possessors of the subject property, unless amended. Amendments to this permit may be achieved only if an application is made and approved, pursuant to the Zoning Code.
4. Public Works, Fire and Building. Review and approval by the Public Works and Fire Departments, and Building Division, are required prior to issuance of a building permit. Work taking place in the public right-of- way shall require an encroachment permit prior to issuance of the building permit.
5. Conformance to Plans. Development of the site shall conform to the approved plans for “Dutra” dated October 27, 2025, on file with the Community Development Department and to the Building Code, with the exception of any subsequently approved changes.
6. Lighting. All exterior lighting must conform to LUP Policy DES-6.
7. Building Plans. All conditions of approval for the Planning permit(s) shall be printed on a full-size plan sheet and included with the construction plan set submitted to the Building Division.
8. Archaeological Monitoring. As recommended in the Phase I Archaeological Assessment (Achasta Archaeological Services, September 2025) prepared for the property, a qualified archaeologist with requisite experience working in Monterey County shall be retained to provide on-call monitoring services for all Project related ground disturbing activities in the event of inadvertent discoveries of PGCC 5-20-26
unknown resources. Following the completion of Project related ground disturbing activities, the Project archaeologist shall prepare a final memorandum documenting any inadvertent discoveries requiring professional evaluation, treatment, and/or full time monitoring, if applicable.
9. Sensitivity training. A cultural resource sensitivity training led by a qualified archaeologist for all construction personnel shall be conducted prior to ground disturbing activities. The training shall include how to identify potentially significant resources and the protocols to follow in case of inadvertent discoveries.
10. Archaeology and Inadvertent Discovery. In the event that human remains are encountered on site, ground disturbing activities on site shall immediately halt. The remains shall be covered with steel plates (where feasible), and the location shall be kept confidential among Project personnel to prevent vandalism and additional disturbance. The Monterey County Sheriff-Coroner shall be notified immediately, and no work shall resume in within a 150-ft radius of the find until a Most Likely Descendent (MLD) has been assigned to the Project and provided the Project proponent with treatment recommendations. Photographs of remains shall be prohibited, unless requested by the coroner and permitted by the MLD.
11. Cultural and/or Archaeological Artifacts. In the event significant cultural resources are impacted during construction, work shall stop within 150-ft of the find until a qualified archaeologist has an opportunity to evaluate the find and provide treatment recommendations. If the resource is considered significant and/or unique, ground disturbance shall be halted until an archaeological consultant has been retained, and a comprehensive Archaeological Research Design and Treatment Plan is developed and approved by the Lead Agency and Project proponent. All isolated materials and/or potentially significant materials shall be assessed in the field and shall not be removed from the Project site for off-site laboratory analysis without prior authorization of the Project proponent.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE:
1. The City 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 Permit.
2. The City Council approves Coastal Development Permit (CDP) 25-0186 as proposed and conditioned, pursuant to Categorical Exemptions for Existing Facilities and Historical Resource Restoration/Rehabilitation (CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, Class 1 and Section 15331, Class 31).
3. This permit shall become effective upon the expiration of the 10-day appeal period after the final approval.
4. This permit shall not take effect until the owner acknowledges and agrees to all terms and conditions and agrees to conform to and comply with those terms and conditions.
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacific Grove on the 20th day of May 2026, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
APPROVED:
PGCC 5-20-26
Nick Smith, Mayor
The undersigned hereby acknowledge and agree to the approved terms and conditions, and agree to fully conform to, and comply with, said terms and conditions. ______________________________ ____________________
Dominic D. Dutra, Owner Date
____________________________________________________________________ Lisa M. Dutra, Owner Date
PGCC 5-20-26
PGCC 5-20-26
689 MERMAID AVENUE, PACIFIC GROVE, CA
PHASE TWO HISTORIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
Applicant: Consultant:
Dominic and Lisa Dutra PAST Consultants, LLC
539 Barcelona Dr. P.O. Box 721
Fremont, CA 94536 Pacific Grove, CA 93950
August 5, 2025
PGCC 5-20-26
689 Mermaid Ave., Pacific Grove, CA Phase Two Historic Assessment Report PAST Consultants, LLC August 5, 2025
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................. 1 Property Description ................................................................................................. 1 Project Team ............................................................................................................. 1 PAST Consultants, LLC: Firm Qualifications .......................................................... 2 Methodology ............................................................................................................. 3 Proposed Project ....................................................................................................... 4 Report Format ........................................................................................................... 4
2. Historical Background ........................................................................................... 5 Sanborn Map Analysis .............................................................................................. 6 Summary Property History ....................................................................................... 7 Property Occupancy .................................................................................................. 8
3. Description of the Historic Resource ...................................................................... 10 Building Chronology ................................................................................................ 11 Character Defining Features ..................................................................................... 11
4. Evaluation of Historic Significance ........................................................................ 12 Historic Significance Conclusions ............................................................................ 12 Historic Integrity Analysis ........................................................................................ 12
5. Impacts of the Proposed Project ............................................................................. 14 The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards ................................................................. 14 Evaluation of Proposed Alterations .......................................................................... 15
6. Mitigation of the Proposed Project ........................................................................ 18
7. Bibliography ............................................................................................................. 19 Appendix A. DPR523 Forms by PAST Consultants, LLC. 7/3/2025.
PGCC 5-20-26
689 Mermaid Ave., Pacific Grove, CA Phase Two Historic Assessment Report PAST Consultants, LLC August 5, 2025
1 1.0 INTRODUCTION
PAST Consultants, LLC (PAST) presents this Phase Two Historic Assessment Report for the property located at 689 Mermaid Ave., in Pacific Grove, California (APN 006-085-001). The following report evaluates proposed alterations to the subject property to ensure that the proposed changes comply with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties.
Property Description
The property contains a c-1936 house and attached storage shed constructed in the Vernacular style. The subject property encompasses ½ Lot 30 and Lot 31, Block 241, of the Pacific Grove Beach Tract and has been determined to be eligible for the City of Pacific Grove’s Historic Resources Inventory (HRI).
PAST completed an intensive survey of the subject property on July 3, 2025. Presented on DPR523 Forms (Appendix A), the survey concludes that the subject property is eligible for local listing according to the City of Pacific Grove Historic Context Statement, under the theme of residential development, illustrating the time period, “City of Homes (1927 – 1945).” The Context Statement classifies the subject building as constructed in the Vernacular style.
Project Team
Client Designer/Applicant
Dominic and Lisa Dutra Jeanne C. Byrne, FAIA, Architects 539 Barcelona Dr. 591 Lighthouse Ave., Suite 5
Fremont, CA 94536 Pacific Grove, CA 93950
Regulatory Agency Historic Preservation Consultant
City of Pacific Grove Planning Division PAST Consultants, LLC 300 Forest Ave., 2nd Floor P.O. Box 721
Pacific Grove, CA 93950 Pacific Grove, California 93950 Architectural Historian: Seth Bergstein
Principal Seth Bergstein meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards in Architectural History and History
PGCC 5-20-26
689 Mermaid Ave., Pacific Grove, CA Phase Two Historic Assessment Report PAST Consultants, LLC August 5, 2025
2 PAST Consultants: Qualifications
Seth A. Bergstein, Principal of PAST Consultants, LLC, began his technical career as a civil, structural and geotechnical engineer for a variety of commercial and transportation engineering projects. This experience created an appreciation for historic engineering and architectural structures and led him to architectural study at the University of Oregon, Eugene, and a Master of Arts in Historic Preservation from Cornell University. After Cornell, Seth was a materials conservator and project manager for Architectural Resources Group and managed projects for a diverse range of historic building types, including the Point Reyes Lighthouse, Bernard Maybeck’s First Church of Christ, Scientist - Berkeley, Pasadena City Hall, the John Muir House, and a number of historic bridges, including project management for the restoration of the Wawona Covered Bridge in Yosemite National Park.
In 2004, Mr. Bergstein founded PAST Consultants, LLC (PAST), a historic preservation consulting firm specializing in preservation planning, documentation, and conservation for historic and cultural resources. PAST’s clients include the State of California, public agencies, architectural and engineering firms, museums, nonprofit organizations, preservation advocates and private property owners. PAST is represented on the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) list of qualified historic consultants sponsored by the California Office of Historic Preservation and is on numerous certified consultants lists for public agencies throughout California.
PAST has prepared numerous successful National Register nominations, written historic context statements for public agencies, photo-documented historic buildings for HABS/HAER projects, prepared historic structure reports and evaluated numerous historic buildings throughout central and northern California for both public and private clients. PAST is often hired to evaluate proposed changes to historic buildings for conformance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. PAST is presently the on-call historic preservation consultant for the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea and the City of Capitola.
Previous Certified Local Government (CLG) Experience
In 2010 and 2011 PAST was awarded two CLG-funded projects through the California State Office of Historic Preservation (SHPO): the 2010 Historic Context Statement for Agricultural Resources in the North County Planning Area, Monterey County and the 2011 Agricultural Resources Evaluation Handbook, Monterey County, California. The latter project was a collaborative effort with Monterey County, the California State Office of Historic Preservation (SHPO) and the community to develop a methodology for evaluating historic agricultural resources as a model for all regions of
California. Both public reports are published on the Monterey County housing and community development website.
In 2022, PAST completed the Certified Local Program (CLG)-funded Carmel Historic Context Statement 20-year Update for the time period of 1966 – 1986. In 2024, PAST was awarded PGCC 5-20-26
689 Mermaid Ave., Pacific Grove, CA Phase Two Historic Assessment Report PAST Consultants, LLC August 5, 2025
3 another CLG-funded project to prepare an entirely new historic context statement for the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea. Completed in 2025, this report has become part of the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance and is posted on the City’s historic preservation website.
Principal Seth A. Bergstein has over 30 years combined experience in civil and structural engineering, materials conservation, architectural history and historic preservation planning. Seth meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards in Architectural History and History. Mr. Bergstein has been keynote speaker at preservation conferences, has written articles on historic contexts and the preparation of historic context statements, provided historic preservation training to city planning staff and has led architectural tours. He is a member of the Alliance of Monterey Area Preservationists (AMAP) and is founding board member of the Monterey Area Architectural Resources Archive (MAARA).
Methodology
Site Visits
PAST conducted a site visit to the subject property on June 25, 2025, for site photography and the conditions assessment.
Research Design
Research was conducted in the following repositories:
• City of Pacific Grove Planning Department;
• Monterey County Assessor’s Office;
• Pacific Grove Public Library;
• California History Room, Monterey Public Library;
• Heritage Society of Pacific Grove Archives;
• On-line Archive of California; and
• On-line genealogy websites, including Ancestry.com and Newspapers.com Registration
The property is not listed on the National Register of Historic Places or the California Register of Historical Resources. Based on the results of our intensive survey, the subject property is determined to be eligible for local listing according to the City of Pacific Grove Historic Context Statement, under the theme of residential development, illustrating the time period, “Pacific Grove Comes of Age (1903 – 1926).” The Context Statement classifies the subject building as constructed in Vernacular style. See Appendix A for the DPR523 Forms.
PGCC 5-20-26
689 Mermaid Ave., Pacific Grove, CA Phase Two Historic Assessment Report PAST Consultants, LLC August 5, 2025
4 Proposed Project
Design Drawings by Jeanne C. Byrnne, FAIA, Architects, dated July 2, 2025, and submitted to the City of Pacific Grove’s Planning Department were the design drawings reviewed for this document. The proposed Scope of Work is:
• Construct new interior remodel of house, with a new staircase and a bathroom on the upper level adjacent to existing bedrooms.
• Construct 138-sf second-story east elevation addition over detached shed to provide for a code compliant interior stairway.
• Install wood aluminum clad windows in existing window openings including addressing egress requirements.
Report Format
The next section, Chapter 2.0: Historical Background, describes the historical development of the subject property. The subject house’s physical description, building chronology and list of historic character defining features are described in Chapter 3.0: Description of the Historic Resource. Chapter 4.0: Evaluation of Historic Significance summarizes the historic significance the of the subject property, as presented on the attached DPR523 Forms, for National Registerand California Register-eligibility, as well as the City of Pacific Grove HRI criteria. Chapter
5.0: Impacts of the Proposed Project describes how the project will affect the existing property and evaluates the proposed alterations for conformance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. Chapter 6.0: Mitigation states the adequacy of mitigation for the subject project. Chapter 7.0: Bibliography lists the literature cited for this project.
PGCC 5-20-26
689 Mermaid Ave., Pacific Grove, CA Phase Two Historic Assessment Report PAST Consultants, LLC August 5, 2025
5 2.0 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
The location of the property is 689 Mermaid Ave., in Pacific Grove, CA (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Location of the subject property (Courtesy: Google Maps).
PGCC 5-20-26
689 Mermaid Ave., Pacific Grove, CA Phase Two Historic Assessment Report PAST Consultants, LLC August 5, 2025
6 Sanborn Map Analysis
The 1926 Sanborn map shows the Beach Tract slowly being developed by this time. The subject property appears undeveloped on the 1926 Sanborn map (Figure 2).
Figure 2. Cropped image of the 1926 Sanborn map showing the subject property.
The 1962 Sanborn map shows the Beach Tract developed with modest wood-framed vernacular cottages and bungalows. The subject house with detached shed appears on the 1962 Sanborn map.
Figure 3. Cropped image of the 1962 Sanborn map showing the subject property.
PGCC 5-20-26
689 Mermaid Ave., Pacific Grove, CA Phase Two Historic Assessment Report PAST Consultants, LLC August 5, 2025
7 Summary Property History
The subject house (1936) was completed during the City of Homes (1927-1945) thematic time period, when substantial additions to the City’s building stock were constructed, with emphasis on new suburban neighborhoods and infill of empty lots throughout the city. Developments on the outskirts of town included the construction of the Country Club Heights subdivision in the 1930s and the Spazier’s Addition in 1931. The Fairway Homes subdivision, constructed in 1932 around a golf course on the northwest side of the City was also added to the City’s residential building stock. However, individual lot development of Fairway Homes was sparse, particularly as the nation crept towards the Great Depression. Civic improvements included the Pacific Grove Natural History Museum in 1935 and the Pacific Grove Post Office in 1938 – both buildings are currently extant and retain their original use.1
However, the development of the Pacific Grove Beach Tract (1916) occurred prior to this thematic time period. The primary development of this subdivision was bounded by the intersection of Seapalm and Mermaid avenues on the east, Monterey Bay to the north, Asilomar Avenue to the west and the Southern Pacific Railroad right of way to the south. Laid out along City Beautiful tenets, the subdivision utilized a wide north-south boulevard (Esplanade) bisecting the property, with radiating streets from this central location out to the edges of the development. Lot sizes were larger, allowing for more substantial homes.
Figure 4. 1927 map of the Pacific Grove Beach Tract (Pacific Grove Historic Context Statement, 133). 1 Page & Turnbull, Inc., City of Pacific Grove Historic Context Statement, 2011, 195-202.
PGCC 5-20-26
689 Mermaid Ave., Pacific Grove, CA Phase Two Historic Assessment Report PAST Consultants, LLC August 5, 2025
8 The May 1916 edition of the Monterey American noted that the Beach Tract development by the Pacific Improvement Company would utilize “… streets (are being) cut to conform with the contour of the land. The main streets converge to a civic center which is intersected by the 17 Mile Drive. An esplanade, two hundred feet wide runs from the civic center to the ocean front… (Mark) Daniels is incorporating a number of new ideas, including a tent city to be perfected along the lines of the tent homes, which have won favor in many places.
This “tent city” was to be located on the eastern end of the Beach Addition, locally referred to as the Mermaid Alley subdivision. It is bounded by Mermaid Avenue to the south, Seapalm Avenue to the west, Ocean View Blvd. to the north and Lorelei Street to the east (see Figure 2).
Promotional brochures by the Pacific Improvement Company labeled this area the Tent City or Bungalow City. The narrow strip of land was laid out with small lots, designed to accommodate either vacation or modest worker residences, as these lots were available for as little as $50.
Construction of small homes on the narrow lots replaced the notion of a “Tent City” at this location. As the 1926 Sanborn map (see Figure 6) shows, development was modest well into the 1920s, with about 30% of the lots occupied, primarily by modest wood-framed vernacular- and bungalow-style homes. Several of the vernacular type, a wood-clad cottage with an upper story to afford a view of the ocean, are on the Pacific Grove Historic Resources Inventory, including 685, 703 and 705 Mermaid Avenue.2
The subject property developed as a late addition to the Beach Tract and adopted a similar footprint as the Vernacular-style house located at 685 Mermaid Avenue (listed on the Pacific Grove Historic Resources Inventory) Completed in 1936, the subject property was constructed, along with 687 Mermaid Ave., as a pair of street-facing, two-story gable-roofed forms with a simple, side-entry porch, to accommodate the narrow lot. This example was constructed with a shed-roofed shed attached to the east elevation. This basic home plan is repeated (with subsequent additions and/or alterations) along Mermaid Avenue and was earmarked for local workers of modest incomes.
Property Occupancy
Manuel F. Cardoza, listed as a gardener in local city directories, is the original owner of both 687 and 689 Mermaid Avenue. He lived at 689 Mermaid Avenue from 1936 to 1966 and rented the subject house at 687 Mermaid Avenue to local workers. The following lists the occupants for 689 Mermaid Avenue:
• 1936-1966: Manuel F. Cardoza
• 1966-1975: Vacant.3
2 Page & Turnbull, Inc., City of Pacific Grove Historic Context Statement, 2011, 134-135. 3 Polk’s Monterey, Pacific Grove City Directories: 1936-1975.
PGCC 5-20-26
689 Mermaid Ave., Pacific Grove, CA Phase Two Historic Assessment Report PAST Consultants, LLC August 5, 2025
9 A native of Portugal, Manuel F. Cardoza (1878-1966) is listed as a gardener during his ownership of the subject property. His spouse, Isabella B. Cardoza, was a homemaker and passed away in 1958. The couple had four children: Joe L., Lewis F., Sylvester F. and Mary C. Cardoza (later, Miranda). Manuel F. Cardoza’s obituary noted that he was a resident in Pacific Grove for 28 years. The obituary did not list any significant affiliations or accomplishments (“Mr. Cardoza,” Monterey Herald, 2/26/1966, 2). Based on the existing research, Manuel F. Cardoza did not make any significant contributions to national, California or Pacific Grove history.
PGCC 5-20-26
689 Mermaid Ave., Pacific Grove, CA Phase Two Historic Assessment Report PAST Consultants, LLC August 5, 2025
10 3.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE HISTORIC RESOURCE
The site contains a two-story residence (1936) constructed in the Vernacular style. The house has a gable roof with exposed rafters, an east elevation entrance beneath a shed roof supported by knee braces, an entrance on the rear (south) elevation under a similar shed roof, shingle wall cladding over the original rustic wood siding and replaced windows in original openings. The roof contains a metal flue formerly attached to a wood-burning stove. A detached, gable-roofed shed (1936) with shingle wall cladding is located adjacent to the east elevation. (Figures 5 - 8).
Figures 5 and 6. Left image looks southeast at the two Vernacular-style houses, with 689 Mermaid Ave in the foreground. Right image details the west and rear (south) elevations of 689 Mermaid Ave.
Figures 7 and 8. Left image details the east elevation at the entrance and the detached shed. Right image shows the rear elevation.
PGCC 5-20-26
689 Mermaid Ave., Pacific Grove, CA Phase Two Historic Assessment Report PAST Consultants, LLC August 5, 2025
11 Building Chronology
Based on the existing Sanborn maps, the Monterey County Assessor records, the permit record obtained from the City of Pacific Grove Planning and Building departments, and the archives of the Heritage Society of Pacific Grove, the site’s building chronology is:
• Permit No. 1105, 11/12/1936: Build single-family residence and detached shed in the Vernacular style. Original building contained wood windows and rustic V-groove wood siding. Manuel F. Cardozo, owner.
• Permit No. AA 482-79, 5/17/79: Install wood shingles over original wood siding. Replace entry doors.
• Permit No. 86-0619, 12/17/86: Install wood burning stove. • No permit, circa-2000s: Replace window sash with vinyl-clad sash in all locations.
Character Defining Features
• Two-story symmetrical massing
• Street-facing gable roof with exposed rafters and wide fascia boards • Side entrance beneath shed roof supported by squared knee braces • Wood details, including wide roof fascia boards, exposed rafters and wood window surrounds • Wood shingle wall cladding (original rustic V-groove siding beneath) • Detached shed-roofed storage shed adjacent to east elevation PGCC 5-20-26
689 Mermaid Ave., Pacific Grove, CA Phase Two Historic Assessment Report PAST Consultants, LLC August 5, 2025
12 4.0 EVALUATION OF HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE
Historic Significance Conclusions
With the exception of the shingle wall cladding added over the original rustic V-groove wood siding, the relocation of various window openings, and the replacement of original wood windows with vinyl-clad sash, the subject house retains sufficient character defining features for its inclusion on the Pacific Grove HRI as an example of the Vernacular style with intact stylistic features, forms and construction methods under the theme, “City of Homes (1927-1945).” A number of houses of similar Vernacular-style form, massing and construction methodology are currently listed on the HRI, including 672 and 685 Mermaid Avenue. The house retains sufficient character defining features to establish historic integrity.
For these reasons, the subject property is eligible under this Criterion, in the area of architecture, illustrating the theme “City of Homes (1927-1945).” However, a local listing on the City of Pacific Grove Historic Resources Inventory (HRI) is the more appropriate listing.
Historic Integrity Analysis
The following lists the seven aspects of historic integrity with an analysis in italics:
1. Location: the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred.
The buildings are in their original locations and maintain integrity of location.
2. Design: the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property.
The removal of original windows and replacement with vinyl-clad sash has slightly reduced the integrity of design of the house..
3. Setting: the physical environment of a historic property.
The house remains in its original neighborhood setting of single-family homes and has integrity of setting.
4. Materials: the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property.
The replacement of original windows with modern sash has slightly reduced the integrity of materials from the subject residence.
5. Workmanship: the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory.
Integrity of workmanship is retained in the presence of the original form and massing, the wood details at the roofline and the wood window surrounds. While the cladding was PGCC 5-20-26
689 Mermaid Ave., Pacific Grove, CA Phase Two Historic Assessment Report PAST Consultants, LLC August 5, 2025
13 changed to cedar shingles applied over the original rustic V-groove wood siding, this cladding type was common in Vernacular-style homes in Pacific Grove.
6. Feeling: a property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time.
The building retains sufficient character defining features to represent an example of the Vernacular style.
7. Association: the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property.
This does not apply, as no historic association for a significant event or significant persons has been determined for the subject property.
Conclusion
The subject house maintains sufficient historic integrity as an example of 1930s Vernacular design, similar to other properties located on Mermaid Avenue that are listed on the HRI.
PGCC 5-20-26
689 Mermaid Ave., Pacific Grove, CA Phase Two Historic Assessment Report PAST Consultants, LLC August 5, 2025
14 5.0 IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
The proposed project is an interior remodel of the house and a proposed east elevation, second floor addition over the existing storage shed. The proposed addition will enable installation of a bathroom on the second floor adjacent to the existing second floor bedrooms and to provide for code compliant stairs. The project will retain and rehabilitate the building’s existing character defining features, with all historic features of the primary elevations (south and west) to remain in place.
The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards
The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (the Standards) provides the framework for evaluating the impacts of additions and alterations to historic buildings. The Standards describe four treatment approaches: preservation, rehabilitation, restoration and reconstruction. The Standards require that the treatment approach be determined first, as a different set of standards apply to each approach. For the proposed project, the treatment approach is rehabilitation. The Standards describe rehabilitation as:
In Rehabilitation, historic building materials and character-defining features are protected and maintained as they are in the treatment Preservation; however, an assumption is made prior to work that existing historic fabric has become damaged or deteriorated over time and, as a result, more repair and replacement will be required. Thus, latitude is given in the Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitation to replace extensively deteriorated, damaged, or missing features using either traditional or substitute materials.
Of the four treatments, only Rehabilitation includes an opportunity to make possible an efficient contemporary use through alterations and additions The Standards “are to be applied to specific rehabilitation projects in a reasonable manner, taking into consideration economic and technical feasibility.” In addition, the Standards note that “some exterior and interior alterations to a historic building are generally needed as part of a rehabilitation project to ensure its continued use.”4
The ten Standards for rehabilitation are:
1. A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships.
2. The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided.
4 Grimmer, Anne E., The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring & Reconstructing Historic Buildings, 2017, 77, 78.
PGCC 5-20-26
689 Mermaid Ave., Pacific Grove, CA Phase Two Historic Assessment Report PAST Consultants, LLC August 5, 2025
15 3. Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historic properties, will not be undertaken.
4. Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved.
5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved.
6. Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence.
7. Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used.
8. Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken.
9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment.
10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.
Evaluation of Proposed Alterations
The goals of the proposed project are to improve livability and life safety with the installation of a code compliant staircase, and an upstairs bathroom accessible to the existing upstairs bedrooms. An additional goal is to minimize view shed impact and to keep the Mermaid Avenue streetscape of two-story vernacular buildings consistent.
To achieve these goals, a second-story addition set back from the front elevation and placed over the existing detached shed is proposed, allowing maintenance of the streetscape.
The following lists the ten Standards for rehabilitation in italics, with an evaluation given below each Standard.
1. A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships.
The proposed alterations will allow the building to keep its residential and improve its life safety, while retaining the existing character-defining features and satisfying this Standard.
PGCC 5-20-26
689 Mermaid Ave., Pacific Grove, CA Phase Two Historic Assessment Report PAST Consultants, LLC August 5, 2025
16 2. The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided.
The proposed rehabilitation design removes three original windows on the west elevation to accommodate the second-floor addition and the interior remodel. However, these window opening details are present on the other three elevations. The loss of several window openings is therefore minimal and will not jeopardize historic integrity, in support of this Standard.
3. Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historic properties, will not be undertaken.
The proposed alterations do not add conjectural features or elements from other historic properties that would confuse the character-defining features of the subject property.
4. Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved.
This Standard does not apply because no changes to the property have acquired historic significance.
5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved.
Distinctive materials and character defining features that define the house’s style, including all of the building’s remaining character defining features, will be retained and rehabilitated, in keeping with this Standard.
6. Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence.
Deteriorated wood window surrounds and wood shingle wall cladding will be repaired rather than be replaced in support of this Standard.
7. Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used.
Physical treatments to repair the existing wood shingle wall cladding, wood windows and wood details will be applied using methods that will not damage the historic substrate, in keeping with this Standard.
8. Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken.
This Standard does not apply, as archaeological features are evaluated under a separate study undertaken by a qualified archaeologist, if deemed necessary by the City of Pacific Grove.
PGCC 5-20-26
689 Mermaid Ave., Pacific Grove, CA Phase Two Historic Assessment Report PAST Consultants, LLC August 5, 2025
17 9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment.
The proposed second-story addition is to the rear of the elevation, retaining the streetscape of two-story vernacular houses along Mermaid Avenue. The addition is within scale and proportion to the original residence and does not overwhelm the building. The addition utilizes the same historic materials as the historic house and will achieve differentiation by extending the rear of the house roofline to accommodate the addition. The installation of wood aluminum-clad windows to replace the vinyl-clad sash will also achieve differentiation; and the window mullion pattern will be more appropriate for the house’s vernacular style.
For these reasons the proposed project meets this Standard.
In conclusion, the proposed rehabilitation design meets Standard No. 9.
10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.
While unlikely, the proposed additions could be removed and the building reversed to its present appearance in the future, if desired. It should be noted that the proposed building alterations retain nearly all of the historic character-defining features of the original house, allowing it to maintain adequate historic integrity and satisfy this Standard.
PGCC 5-20-26
689 Mermaid Ave., Pacific Grove, CA Phase Two Historic Assessment Report PAST Consultants, LLC August 5, 2025
18 6.0 MITIGATION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
Because the proposed alterations to the building meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, the alterations are considered as mitigated to a level of less than a significant impact on the historic resource and do not constitute a substantial adverse change to the historic resource, thus conforming to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
PGCC 5-20-26
689 Mermaid Ave., Pacific Grove, CA Phase Two Historic Assessment Report PAST Consultants, LLC August 5, 2025
19 7.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Boland, Beth G. National Register Bulletin 32: Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Properties Associated with Significant Persons, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1998.
City of Pacific Grove Planning and Building Department Files, Pacific Grove, CA.
Grimmer, Anne E., The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring & Reconstructing Historic Buildings. Washington, D.C.: National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, 2017.
Heritage Society of Pacific Grove, Historical Files.
McAlester, Virginia and Lee. A Field Guide to American Houses. New York, NY: Alfred A.
Knopf, 1991.
McLane, Lucy Neely. A Piney Paradise by Monterey Bay. Baltimore, MD: Gateway Press, Inc., 2004.
“Mr. Cardoza,” Monterey Herald, 2/26/66.
National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation.
United States, Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 1998.
Page and Turnbull, City of Pacific Grove Historic Context Statement, 2011.
Page and Turnbull, Pacific Grove Historic Resources Inventory Update Survey Report 2019.
Seavey, Kent and the Heritage Society of Pacific Grove, Pacific Grove: Images of America. San Francisco, CA: Arcadia Publishing Company, 2005.
U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. Washington, D.C.: National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1997.
PGCC 5-20-26
689 Mermaid Ave., Pacific Grove, CA Phase Two Historic Assessment Report PAST Consultants, LLC August 5, 2025
APPENDICES
Appendix A: DPR523 forms by PAST Consultants, LLC, 7/3/25.
PGCC 5-20-26
State of California ¾ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial
NRHP Status Code
Other Listings
Review Code Reviewer Date
P1. Other Identifier:
*P2. Location: n Not for Publication o Unrestricted *a. County: Monterey and (P2b and P2c or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.) *b. USGS 7.5' Quad: N/A Date: N/A T ; R ; ¼ of ¼ of Sec ; M.D. B.M. c. Address: 685 Mermaid Ave. City: Pacific Grove Zip: 93950 d. UTM: Zone: 10 ; mE/ mN (G.P.S.)
e. Other Locational Data: (e.g., parcel #, directions to resource, elevation, etc., as appropriate) Elevation: A.P.N. 006-085-001-000 *P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries) The site contains a two-story residence (1936) constructed in the Vernacular style. The house has a gable roof with exposed rafters, an east elevation entrance beneath a shed roof supported by knee braces, an entrance on the rear (south) elevation under a similar shed roof, shingle wall cladding over the original rustic wood siding and replaced windows in original and new openings. The roof contains a metal flue formerly attached to a wood-burning stove. A detached, gable-roofed shed (1936) with board-and-batten wood siding is located adjacent to the east elevation. See continuation sheet, page 3 for existing conditions photographs (Figures 1- 5).
*P3b. Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) HP2, HP4: Storage Shed (detached) *P4. Resources Present: nBuilding oStructure oObject oSite oDistrict oElement of District oOther (Isolates, etc.) P5b. Description of Photo: (View, date, accession #)
North and East Elevations, 2025
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and Sources:
nHistoric oPrehistoric oBoth
1936 (Building Permit)
*P7. Owner and Address:
Dominic and Lisa Dutra
539 Barcelona Dr.
Fremont, CA 94536
*P8. Recorded by: (Name, affiliation, and address)
Seth A. Bergstein, Principal
PAST Consultants, LLC
P.O. Box 721
Pacific Grove, CA 93950
*P9. Date Recorded: 7/3/25
*P10. Survey Type: (Describe)
Owner-requested
*P11. Report Citation: None
*Attachments: oNONE oLocation Map oSketch Map nContinuation Sheet nBuilding, Structure, and Object Record oArchaeological Record oDistrict Record oLinear Feature Record oMilling Station Record oRock Art Record oArtifact Record oPhotograph Record o Other (List):
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information
P5a. Photo or Drawing (Photo required for buildings, structures, and objects.) PGCC 5-20-26
DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information
State of California ¾ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD
*Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 689 Mermaid Ave.
B1. Historic Name: None
B2. Common Name:
B3. Original Use: Residential B4. Present Use: Residential *B5. Architectural Style: Vernacular
*B6. Construction History: (Construction date, alterations, and date of alterations) The residence has been modified with replacement of all original windows with vinyl-clad sash in various pane configurations.
Shingle wall cladding was added on top of the original rustic wood siding in 1979. See continuation sheet, page 4, for the building chronology.
*B7. Moved? nNo pYes oUnknown Date: Original Location: Same *B8. Related Features: N/A
B9a. Architect: Unknown b. Builder: Unknown
*B10. Significance: Theme: Architecture: Vernacular Area: Pacific Grove Period of Significance: 1936 Property Type: Residence Applicable Criteria:
(Discuss importance in terms of historical or architectural context as defined by theme, period, and geographic scope. Also address integrity.) See continuation sheets, pages 5 – 12 for the historic significance statement, historic significance evaluation and historic integrity assessment.
B11. Additional Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) *B12. References:
See continuation sheet, page 13
B13. Remarks::
*B14. Evaluator: Seth A. Bergstein, Principal
PAST Consultants, LLC
*Date of Evaluation: 7/3/25
(This space reserved for official comments.)
PGCC 5-20-26
State of California ¾ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
*Recorded by: PAST Consultants, LLC *Date: 7/3/25 n Continuation o Update P3a. Description: Photographs
Figures 1 and 2. Left image looks southeast at the two Vernacular-style houses, with 689 Mermaid Ave in the foreground. Right image details the west and rear (south) elevations of 689 Mermaid Ave.
Figures 3 - 5. Left image details the east elevation at the entrance and the detached shed. Center image details the north and east elevations. Right image shows the rear elevation.
PGCC 5-20-26
State of California ¾ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
*Recorded by: PAST Consultants, LLC *Date: 7/3/25 n Continuation o Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
P3a. Description:
Building Chronology
Based on the existing Sanborn maps, the Monterey County Assessor records, the permit record obtained from the City of Pacific Grove Planning and Building departments, and the archives of the Heritage Society of Pacific Grove, the site’s building chronology is:
- Permit No. 1105, 11/12/1936: Build single-family residence in the Vernacular style, with detached shed.
Original building contained wood windows and rustic V-groove wood siding. Manuel F. Cardozo, owner. - Permit No. AA 482-79, 5/17/79: Install wood shingles over original wood siding. Replace entry doors. - Permit No. AA 86-0619, 12/17/86: Install wood burning stove. - No permit, circa-2000s: Replace window sash with vinyl-clad sash in all locations.
Character Defining Features
- Two-story symmetrical massing
- Street-facing gable roof with exposed rafters and wide fascia boards - Side entrance beneath shed roof supported by squared knee braces - Brick chimney on east side of roof
- Wood details, including wide roof fascia boards, exposed rafters and wood window surrounds - Wood shingle wall cladding (original rustic V-groove siding beneath)
PGCC 5-20-26
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
*Recorded by: PAST Consultants, LLC *Date: 7/3/25 ◼ Continuation Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
B10. Significance: Sanborn Maps Presented in Chronological Order The applicable Sanborn maps appear below. The 1926 Sanborn map shows the Beach Tract slowly being developed by this time. The subject property appears undeveloped on the 1926 Sanborn map. The 1962 Sanborn map shows the Beach Tract developed with modest wood-framed vernacular cottages and bungalows. The subject house with detached shed appears on the 1962 Sanborn map (Figure 6).
1926
1962
Figure 6. Chronological Sanborn map images, showing the subject property.
PGCC 5-20-26
State of California ¾ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
*Recorded by: PAST Consultants, LLC *Date: 7/3/25 n Continuation o Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
B10. Significance: Significance Statement
Summary Property History
The subject house (1936) was completed during the City of Homes (1927-1945) thematic time period, when substantial additions to the City’s building stock were constructed, with emphasis on new suburban neighborhoods and infill of empty lots throughout the city. Developments on the outskirts of town included the construction of the Country Club Heights subdivision in the 1930s and the Spazier’s Addition in 1931.
The Fairway Homes subdivision, constructed in 1932 around a golf course on the northwest side of the City was also added to the City’s residential building stock. However, individual lot development of Fairway Homes was sparse, particularly as the nation crept towards the Great Depression. Civic improvements included the Pacific Grove Natural History Museum in 1935 and the Pacific Grove Post Office in 1938 – both buildings are currently extant and retain their original use (Pacific Grove Historic Context Statement, 2011, 195, 201, 202).
However, the development of the Pacific Grove Beach Tract (1916) occurred prior to this thematic time period. The primary development of this subdivision was bounded by the intersection of Seapalm and Mermaid avenues on the east, Monterey Bay to the north, Asilomar Avenue to the west and the Southern Pacific Railroad right of way to the south. Laid out along City Beautiful tenets, the subdivision utilized a wide north-south boulevard (Esplanade) bisecting the property, with radiating streets from this central location out to the edges of the development. Lot sizes were larger, allowing for more substantial homes.
Figure 7. 1927 map of the Pacific Grove Beach Tract (Pacific Grove Historic Context Statement, 133).
PGCC 5-20-26
State of California ¾ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
*Recorded by: PAST Consultants, LLC *Date: 7/3/25 n Continuation o Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
B10. Significance: Significance Statement
The May 1916 edition of the Monterey American noted that the Beach Tract development by the Pacific Improvement Company would utilize “… streets (are being) cut to conform with the contour of the land.
The main streets converge to a civic center which is intersected by the 17 Mile Drive. An esplanade, two hundred feet wide runs from the civic center to the ocean front… (Mark) Daniels is incorporating a number of new ideas, including a tent city to be perfected along the lines of the tent homes, which have won favor in many places (Pacific Grove Historic Context Statement, 2011, 134).
This “tent city” was to be located on the eastern end of the Beach Addition, locally referred to as the Mermaid Alley subdivision. It is bounded by Mermaid Avenue to the south, Seapalm Avenue to the west, Ocean View Blvd. to the north and Lorelei Street to the east (see Figure 6). Promotional brochures by the Pacific Improvement Company labeled this area the Tent City or Bungalow City. The narrow strip of land was laid out with small lots, designed to accommodate either vacation or modest worker residences, as these lots were available for as little as $50. Construction of small homes on the narrow lots replaced the notion of a “Tent City” at this location. As the 1926 Sanborn map (see Figure 6) shows, development was modest well into the 1920s, with about 30% of the lots occupied, primarily by modest wood-framed vernacular- and bungalow-style homes (Pacific Grove Historic Context Statement, 2011, 135). Several of the vernacular type, a wood-clad cottage with an upper story to afford a view of the ocean, are on the Pacific Grove Historic Resources Inventory, including 685, 703 and 705 Mermaid Avenue.
The subject property developed as a late addition to the Beach Tract and adopted a similar footprint as the Vernacular-style house located at 685 Mermaid Avenue (listed on the Pacific Grove Historic Resources Inventory) Completed in 1936, the subject property was constructed as one of a pair of street-facing, twostory gable-roofed forms with a simple, side-entry porch, to accommodate the narrow lot. This example was constructed with a detached, gable-roofed shed adjacent to the east elevation. This basic home plan is repeated (with subsequent additions and/or alterations) along Mermaid Avenue and was earmarked for local workers of modest incomes.
PGCC 5-20-26
State of California ¾ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
*Recorded by: PAST Consultants, LLC *Date: 7/3/25 n Continuation o Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
B10. Significance: Significance Statement
Property Occupancy
Based on a survey of available city directories (Polk’s Monterey City Directories: 1936 – 1975), the Block/Lot and Assessment files of the Heritage Society of Pacific Grove archives and the City of Pacific Grove Planning and Building Departments, the following lists the property’s occupants.
Manuel F. Cardoza, listed as a gardener in local city directories, is the original owner of both 687 and 689 Mermaid Avenue. He lived at 689 Mermaid Avenue from 1936 to 1964 and rented the subject house at 687 Mermaid Avenue to local workers. However, occupancy was inconsistent and alternated with long periods of vacancy. The following lists the occupants for 687 Mermaid Avenue:
- 1939-1964: Manuel F. Cardoza.
- 1965-1975: Vacant.
The biography of the building’s owner, Manuel F. Cardoza appears below.
Ownership Biographies
A native of Portugal, Manuel F. Cardoza (Born 1878-1966) is listed as a gardener during his ownership of the subject property. His spouse, Isabella B. Cardoza, was a homemaker and passed away in 1958. The couple had four children: Joe L., Lewis F., Sylvester F. and Mary C. Cardoza (later, Miranda). Manuel F.
Cardoza’s obituary noted that he was a resident in Pacific Grove for 28 years. The obituary did not list any significant affiliations or accomplishments (“Mr. Cardoza,” Monterey Herald, 2/26/1966, 2). Based on the existing research, Manuel F. Cardoza did not make any significant contributions to national, California or Pacific Grove history.
PGCC 5-20-26
State of California ¾ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
*Recorded by: PAST Consultants, LLC *Date: 7/3/25 n Continuation o Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
B10. Significance: Evaluation of National Register (NR), California Register (CR) and Pacific Grove Historic Significance
1. NR-A, CR-1: Association with significant events, patterns or trends.
The subject property is not eligible under this Criterion, as no specific event led to its creation. The subject property was constructed several decades after the subdivision of the Beach Tract in 1916. This development proceeded slowly after its initial layout and was dotted with wood-framed vernacular-style homes and bungalows during the 1920s and 1930s. The subject property was constructed relatively late within the Beach Tract and is built in a modest two-story Vernacular style, with a street-facing gable and detached, gable-roofed shed, similar to other properties on Mermaid Avenue that are included on the Pacific Grove HRI. This house type accommodated the narrow lot size and afforded a view out to Monterey Bay. It should be noted that this building style (along with 687 Mermaid Ave.) is similar to its neighbor to the south, 685 Mermaid Avenue (1926), which may have been an inspiration for the subject house’s construction. However, the subject house was constructed for local workers of modest means as they slowly occupied the Beach Tract, an area laid out for more affordable home construction and not the result of a specific event. The subject property is not eligible under this Criterion.
2. NR-B, CR-2 : Association with significant persons.
Genealogical research of the subject property’s owner, Manuel F. Cardoza, presented previously in this intensive survey did not reveal him to be a person significant to national, California or City of Pacific Grove history.
The subject property is not eligible under this Criterion.
3. NR-C, CR-3: Association with significant architecture and/or design.
With the exception of the shingle wall cladding added over the original rustic V-groove wood siding and the replacement of original wood windows with vinyl-clad sash, the subject house retains sufficient character defining features for its inclusion on the Pacific Grove HRI as an example of the Vernacular style with intact stylistic features, forms and construction methods under the theme, “City of Homes (1927-1945).” A number of houses of similar Vernacular-style form, massing and construction methodology are currently listed on the HRI, including 672 and 685 and 687 Mermaid Avenue. The house retains sufficient character defining features to establish historic integrity.
For these reasons, the subject property is eligible under this Criterion, in the area of architecture, illustrating the theme “City of Homes (1927-1945).” However, a local listing on the City of Pacific Grove Historic Resources Inventory (HRI) is the more appropriate listing.
PGCC 5-20-26
State of California ¾ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
*Recorded by: PAST Consultants, LLC *Date: 7/3/25 n Continuation o Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
B10. Significance:
Historic Integrity Analysis
1. Location: the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred. The building maintains integrity of location.
2. Design: the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property.
The removal of original windows and replacement with vinyl-clad sash has slightly reduced the integrity of design.
3. Setting: the physical environment of a historic property.
Although building replacements and alterations have occurred on the street, the house maintains its residential integrity of setting around the subject property.
4. Materials: the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property.
The replacement of original windows with modern sash has slightly reduced the integrity of materials from the subject residence.
5. Workmanship: the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory. Integrity of workmanship is retained in the presence of the original form and massing, the wood details at the roofline and the wood window surrounds. While the cladding was changed to cedar shingles applied over the original rustic V-groove wood siding, this cladding type was common in Vernacular-style homes in Pacific Grove.
6. Feeling: a property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time.
The building retains sufficient character defining features to represent an example of the Vernacular style.
7. Association: the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property.
This does not apply, as no historic association for a significant event or significant persons has been determined for the subject property.
Conclusion
The subject house maintains sufficient historic integrity as an example of 1930s Vernacular design, similar to other properties located on Mermaid Avenue that are listed on the HRI.
PGCC 5-20-26
State of California ¾ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
*Recorded by: PAST Consultants, LLC *Date: 7/3/25 n Continuation o Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
B10. Significance:
Pacific Grove Historic Context Statement
The Pacific Grove Historic Context Statement (page 174-175), lists a variety of building designs that are considered Vernacular in style. While the style includes a range of wood-clad buildings, an image of the houses at 701-705 Mermaid Avenue, illustrate the Vernacular style that is similar to the subject property.
Minimum Eligibility Requirements (Page 225)
- Clear example of residential architecture from this period (should represent tent cottage, modest dwelling, or grander residence typology). The building continues to exhibit the character defining features of the Mermaid Avenue Vernacular-style building typology.
- Retains original form and roofline. The original form and roofline are retained. - Retains the original pattern of windows and doors. The residence retains the original pattern of windows and doors, particularly on the front elevation and the side entrances. - Retains some of its original cladding (or the original cladding has been repaired/replaced in kind such that it substantially duplicates the original pattern). The original V-groove wall cladding remains on the building beneath the cedar shingles installed in 1979.
- Retains most of its original ornamentation, if applicable. The building ornamentation is minimal, as is typical with this style. Original wood details remain on the building, particularly at the roofline and the entrances.
Historic Integrity Conclusions
The subject residence retains sufficient historic integrity to represent the historic theme, City of Homes (1927-1945), and the residence as an example of the Vernacular style with intact stylistic features.
PGCC 5-20-26
State of California ¾ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
\*Recorded by: PAST Consultants, LLC *Date: 7/2/25 n Continuation o Update DPR4. Xx5. Xx6. Xx7. xx 523L (1/95) *Required information B10. Significance:
Pacific Grove Historic Resources Inventory Criteria
The following lists the criteria with a response in italics:
a. Whether the structure has significant character, interest or value as part of the development, heritage or cultural characteristics of the city of Pacific Grove, the state of California, or the United States. The subject house retains sufficient architectural stylistic features to communicate the significant character of the Vernacular style on Mermaid Avenue, adding to the architectural value in Pacific Grove.
b. Whether it is the site of a significant historic event.
The subject property is not the site of a significant event. c. Whether it is strongly identified with a person who, or an organization that significantly contributed to the culture, history or development of the city of Pacific Grove. The subject property is not identified with a significant person in the culture, history or development of Pacific Grove. d. Whether it is a particularly good example of a period or style. The building maintains sufficient character defining features as an example of the Vernacular style on Mermaid Avenue in Pacific Grove. e. Whether it is one of the few remaining examples in the city of Pacific Grove possessing distinguishing characteristics of an architectural type or specimen. The subject property is one of a handful of remaining examples of this building type, located on Mermaid Avenue in Pacific Grove. f. Whether it is a notable work of an architect or master builder whose individual work has significantly influenced the development of the city of Pacific Grove. The subject property is not the notable work of an architect or master builder.
g. Whether it embodies elements of architectural design, detail, materials or craftsmanship that represent a significant architectural innovation. The building retains its Vernacular style in the Beach Tract, but the building would not be considered a significant architectural innovation. h. Whether it has singular physical characteristics uniquely representing an established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood, community, or of the city of Pacific Grove. The subject property is in a unique and established visual location and represents a building type that maintains several listings on the HRI:
672 and 685 Mermaid Avenue.
i. Whether a resource with historical or cultural significance retains historic integrity. The subject property does retain sufficient integrity of its original design.
PGCC 5-20-26
State of California ¾ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
*Recorded by: PAST Consultants, LLC *Date: 7/3/25 n Continuation o Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
B12. References:
Boland, Beth G. National Register Bulletin 32: Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Properties Associated with Significant Persons, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior.
City of Pacific Grove, Planning and Building Department Records.
Heritage Society of Pacific Grove Archives.
McLane, Lucy Neely, A Piney Paradise by Monterey Bay. Baltimore, MD: Gateway Press, 2004.
Monterey County Assessor’s Records.
“Mr. Cardoza,” Monterey Herald, 2/26/66.
National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. United States, Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 1998.
Page & Turnbull, Inc., Pacific Grove Historic Context Statement, 2011.
Polk’s Monterey, Pacific Grove City Directories: 1936-1975.
Seavey, Kent L. and the Heritage Society of Pacific Grove, Pacific Grove: Images of America. Charleston, SC: Arcadia Publishing Company, 2005.
PGCC 5-20-26
OF SHEETS
DRAWN BYJOB NUMBERDATESCALE AS NOTED
A R C H I T E C T S
591 LIGHTHOUSE AVE., SUITE #5
PACIFIC GROVE, CALIFORNIA 93950
(831)372-6585 FAX (831)372-8159
ALL PLANS, DOCUMENTS, COMPUTER FILES, SPECIFICATIONS AND RELATED MATERIAL PREPARED BY JEANNE C. BYRNE, FAIA ARCHITECTS AS INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF THE ARCHITECT. THE ARCHITECT SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW, STATUTORY, AND OTHER RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO. THE USE OF THESE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS IS RESTRICTED TO THE ORIGINAL SITE FOR WHICH THEY WERE PREPARED.
JEANNE C. BYRNE, FAIA
HRC - REV 10.22.25.HRC - REV 01.19.26.
A1.1
PROJECT DATA
Project Number
Dutra
Author
01/20/26
INTERIOR REMODEL FOR:
689 MERMAID AVENUE, PACIFIC GROVE, CA 93950
A.P.N.: 006-087-001
PROJECT DATA
OWNER: DOMINIC DUTRAPROJECT ADDRESS: 689 MERMAID AVENUE PACIFIC GROVE, CA 93950
LOT: 31 w/ 1/2 of lot 30 BLOCK: 241 TRACK: PACIFIC GROVE BEACHA.P.N.: 006-087-001MAILING ADDRESS: 539 BARCELONA DRIVE FREMONT, CA 94536
PHONE: (510) 366-9931
ZONING INFORMATION
LOT SIZE: 1,320 SQ. FT.ZONING:
R-3-PGB
SETBACKS: FRONT YARD: 8'-0"
SIDE YARD: 3'-4" REAR YARD: 5'-0"/8'-0"
HEIGHT LIMIT: 25'BLDG.COV.: 50% = 660 SQ. FT.G.F.A.: N/ASITE COV.: 60% = 792 SQ. FT.HISTORIC INVENTORY: YES ARCHAEOLOGICAL ZONE: YESCOASTAL ZONE: YESASBS WATERSHED: YESBUTTERFLY ZONE: NOWUI ZONE: NOCODES: 2022 CBC, CRC, CMC, CPC, CEC, CEnC & CALGREEN CODES
OCCUPANCY: R-3 / U
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCEATTACHED GARAGE
CONST. TYPE: V-BSPRINKLERS: NOSTORIES: 2
CODE DATA:
DUTRA RESIDENCE
EXISTING RESIDENCE
(E) 1ST FLOOR RESIDENCE & STORAGE: 680 SQ.FT.(E) 2ND FLOOR RESIDENCE: 493 SQ.FT.(E) TOTAL FLOOR AREA (GFA): 1,173 SQ.FT.(E) BUILDING LOT COVERAGE: 680 SQ.FT. = 51.5 %(E) TOTAL PAVING COV.: 410 SQ.FT. = 31.0 %(E) TOTAL SITE COV.: 1,090 SQ.FT. = 82.5%(N) 1ST FLOOR RESIDENCE & STORAGE: 720 SQ.FT.(N) 2ND FLOOR RESIDENCE: 591 SQ.FT. (N) TOTAL FLOOR AREA (GFA): 1,311 SQ.FT.(N) BUILDING LOT COVERAGE: 720 SQ.FT. = 54.5%(E) TOTAL PAVING COV.: 370 SQ.FT. = 28.0%(E) TOTAL SITE COV.: 1,090 SQ.FT. = 82.5%
PROPOSED RESIDENCE
EXISTING 2-STORY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE TO REMAIN.40 SQUARE FOOT 1ST FLOOR ADDITION AT INFILL BETWEEN (E) HOUSE AND (E) STORAGE.98 SQUARE FOOT 2ND FLOOR ADDITION, OVER EXISITNG 1STFLOOR STORAGE AND INFILL.REPLACE VINYL WINDOWS WITH ALUMINUM CLAD WOOD WINDOWS.REPLACE NON-ORIGINAL DOORS.REPAIR SHINGLE SIDING AS REQUIRED. AT ADDITION AREA, NEW SHINGLES TO BE DISTINCT FROM ORIGINAL IN DETAIL OR DIMENSION FROM ORIGINAL, PER SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR STANDARDS.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A1.1 PROJECT DATAA1.2 SITE PLAN / ROOF PLANA2.1 FLOOR PLANSA3.1 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSA3.2 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSA4.1 DETAILSA8.1 DOOR AND WINDOW SCHEDULE SHEET INDEX:
PROJECT TEAM
ARCHITECT OF RECORD:JCB ARCHITECTS JEANNE C. BYRNE, FAIA PAUL A. SIMPSON, AIA591 LIGHTHOUSE AVE.SUITE #5PACIFIC GROVE, CA 93950PH: 831-372-6585EMAIL: [email protected]:ACHASTA ARCHAEOLOGICAL SERVICESSUSAN MORLEY, M.A., RPA BRENNA WHEELIS, B.A.3059 BOSTICK AVENUEMARINA, CA 93933PH: 831-262-2300 / 831-277-9071EMAIL: [email protected] [email protected]:PAST CONSULTANTS, LLCSETH A. BERGSTEIN, PRINCIPALP.O. BOX 721PACIFIC GROVE, CA 93950PH: 415-515-6224EMAIL: [email protected]
VICINITY MAP
PROJECTLOCATION
ISSUED FOR: DATE:
PGCC 5-20-26
EXISTING
RESIDENCE
EXISTING
STORAGE
MERMAID AVENUE
PROPERTY LINE: 40.00'
PROPERTY LINE: 40.00'
PROPERTY LINE: 33.00'
PROPERTY LINE: 33.00'
REAR SETBACK: 8'-0" (2ND FL.)
FRONT SETBACK: 8'-0"
SIDE SETBACK: 3'-4"
SIDE SETBACK: 3'-4"
REAR SETBACK: 5'-0" (1ST FL.)
ASPHALT PAVED PUBLIC STREETNO CURBS, GUTTERS, SIDEWALKS W.M.
G.M.
E.M.
STEPS
CONCRETE DRIVEWAY
CONCRETE WALKWAY
PLANTING AREA
PLANTING AREA
CONCRETE PLANTING CURB
STEP
PLANTING AREA
PLANTING AREA
PLANTING AREA
5' - 7"
4' - 2"
3' - 8"
EAVE
4' - 7 1/4"
EAVE
2' - 8 1/4"
EAVE
3' - 1 3/4"
12' - 7 1/4" DRIVEWAY
3' - 0"
2' - 8"
13' - 0 1/4"
20' - 5 3/4" DRIVEWAY
1' - 3"
0' - 9"
(N) ADDITION
2ND FLOOR
98 S.F.
REMODELED
STORAGE/
LAUNDRY
REMODELED
RESIDENCE
5' - 7"
(E) 4' - 2"
(E) 3' - 8"
6' - 6 1/2" 6' - 5 1/2"
13' - 0 1/4"
MERMAID AVENUE
PROPERTY LINE: 40.00'
PROPERTY LINE: 40.00'
PROPERTY LINE: 33.00'
PROPERTY LINE: 33.00'
REAR SETBACK: 8'-0" (2ND FL.)
FRONT SETBACK: 8'-0"
SIDE SETBACK: 3'-4"
SIDE SETBACK: 3'-4"
REAR SETBACK: 5'-0" (1ST FL.)
ASPHALT PAVED PUBLIC STREETNO CURBS, GUTTERS, SIDEWALKS W.M.
G.M.
E.M.
STEPS
CONCRETE DRIVEWAY
CONCRETE WALKWAY
PLANTING AREA
PLANTING AREA
CONCRETE PLANTING CURB
STEP
PLANTING AREA
PLANTING AREA
EAVE
4' - 7 1/4"
EAVE
(E) 2' - 8 1/4"
EAVE
(E) 3' - 1 3/4"
PLANTING AREA
2ND FL. EAVE
5' - 5 3/4"
(E) 20' - 5 3/4" DRIVEWAY
12' - 7 1/4" DRIVEWAY
3' - 0"
(E) 1' - 3"
(E) 0' - 9"
true
north
reference
north
4 1/4" / 1'-0" 4 1/4" / 1'-0" 2 1/4" / 1'-0" 2 1/4" / 1'-0" 4 1/4" / 1'-0" 4 1/4" / 1'-0" 2 1/4" / 1'-0" 2 1/4" / 1'-0"
OF SHEETS
DRAWN BYJOB NUMBERDATESCALE AS NOTED
A R C H I T E C T S
591 LIGHTHOUSE AVE., SUITE #5
PACIFIC GROVE, CALIFORNIA 93950
(831)372-6585 FAX (831)372-8159
ALL PLANS, DOCUMENTS, COMPUTER FILES, SPECIFICATIONS AND RELATED MATERIAL PREPARED BY JEANNE C. BYRNE, FAIA ARCHITECTS AS INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF THE ARCHITECT. THE ARCHITECT SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW, STATUTORY, AND OTHER RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO. THE USE OF THESE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS IS RESTRICTED TO THE ORIGINAL SITE FOR WHICH THEY WERE PREPARED.
JEANNE C. BYRNE, FAIA
HRC - REV 10.22.25.HRC - REV 01.19.26.
A1.2
SITE PLAN/ROOF PLAN
Project Number
Dutra
Author
01/20/26
INTERIOR REMODEL FOR:
689 MERMAID AVENUE, PACIFIC GROVE, CA 93950
A.P.N.: 006-087-001
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
Site Plan - Existing
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
Site Plan - Proposed
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
Existing Roof Plan
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
Proposed Roof Plan
ISSUED FOR: DATE:
PGCC 5-20-26
6' - 9" 4' - 0" 2' - 6" 3' - 0"
8' - 0 1/2" 7' - 4"
1.07 W/D
1' - 2" 13' - 8 1/2" 0' - 6"
6' - 11"
2' - 11 1/2"
3' - 4"
3' - 0" FIN.
3' - 0"
7' - 8"
BATH 1
STORAGE/
LAUNDRY
LIVING ROOM
KITCHEN DINING
2' - 8" 3' - 10 1/2"
6' - 6 1/2" 6' - 4 1/2"
14' - 11" 3' - 4 1/2" UP 1.05
1.01 1.03
1.04 1.05
1.02 1.02 1.01
1.06 1.03 1.06
1.04 (E) STORAGE DOORS TO REMAIN.BASED ON DISCOVERY, REPAIROR REPLACE AS REQUIRED INLIKE KIND
REPLACE (E)
REPLACE (E)
REPLACE NON - ORIGINAL DOORWITH NEW PAINTED WOOD DOOR
STATIONARE
DOOR
OPERABLE
DOOR
REPLACE (E)
REPLACE (E)
NEW WINDOW
REPLACE NON - ORIGINAL DOORWITH NEW PAINTED WOOD DOOR
NEW EXTERIOR WALLS: 2X4 STUDS @ 16" O.C. SHEAR PLYWD., MOISTURE BARRIER, AND SIDING TO MATCH EXISTING.
FLOOR PLAN LEGEND:
EXISTING WALLS TO BE REMOVED.NEW ALUMINUM CLAD WOOD WINDOWS TO REPLACE (E) VINLYL WINDOWS. (E) PAINTED TRIM AND SILLS, REPAIR OR REPLACE TO MATCH EXISTING AS REQ.( T ) = TEMPERED GLASS ,TYP. SEE PLAN/ELEV. FOR HEADER HT.EXISTING DOORS TO REMAIN. PAINTED.(E) PAINTED TRIM AND SILLS, REPAIR OR REPLACE TO MATCH EXISTING AS REQ.(E) EXTERIOR LIGHT LOCATIONS. REPLACEMENT FIXTURE TO BE EQUIPPED WITH MOTION / LIGHT SENSORS WITH MANUAL OVER-RIDE SWITCH, TYP. SEE POWER / LIGHTING PLAN. EXISTING WALLS TO REMAIN.
STORAGE/
LAUNDRY
KITCHEN/
DINING
BATH 1
LIVING ROOM
UP
true
north
reference
north
BEDROOM 2
CLOSET
BEDROOM 1
CLOSET
DN
6' - 0 1/2"
3' - 4" 6' - 4"
3' - 0"
9' - 10"
2' - 0"
3' - 4" 3' - 4"
1' - 3"1' - 3" 4' - 0"
3' - 4"
3' - 9"
3' - 0"
2 1/4" / 1'-0"
DN
BEDROOM 1
BATH 2
BEDROOM 2
6' - 6 1/2"
2.05 2.02
2.07 2.01
2.04 2.06
2.06 2.05 2.01
2.03 2.02
2.04 2.03
2.08 2.09 2 1/4" / 1'-0"
REPLACE (E)
REPLACE (E) REPLACE (E)REPLACE (E)NEW WINDOW
REPLACE (E)
NEW WINDOW
BATH 1
STORAGE/
LAUNDRY
LIVING ROOM
KITCHEN/
DINING
UP
1' - 8" 13' - 8 1/2"
1' - 6"
4' - 10 1/2"
12' - 0 1/2" 3' - 4"
10' - 2"
2' - 6"
14' - 8"
14' - 11"
5' - 6"
2' - 2"
TOTAL LATERAL WALL LENGTH - 81' - 10"TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE OF WALL AREA - 540.2 SF DEMOLITION CALCULATION:
2' - 7"
2' - 2"
BEDROOM 2
CLOSET
BEDROOM 1
CLOSET
DN
1' - 8" 13' - 8 1/2"
5' - 8 1/2" 9' - 4"
1' - 6"
12' - 0" 3' - 4" 3' - 0"
14' - 0"
12' - 0 1/2"
TOTAL LATERAL WALL LENGTH - 64' 2"TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE OF WALL AREA - 409,7 SF DEMOLITION CALCULATION:
1' - 6"
OF SHEETS
DRAWN BYJOB NUMBERDATESCALE AS NOTED
A R C H I T E C T S
591 LIGHTHOUSE AVE., SUITE #5
PACIFIC GROVE, CALIFORNIA 93950
(831)372-6585 FAX (831)372-8159
ALL PLANS, DOCUMENTS, COMPUTER FILES, SPECIFICATIONS AND RELATED MATERIAL PREPARED BY JEANNE C. BYRNE, FAIA ARCHITECTS AS INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF THE ARCHITECT. THE ARCHITECT SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW, STATUTORY, AND OTHER RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO. THE USE OF THESE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS IS RESTRICTED TO THE ORIGINAL SITE FOR WHICH THEY WERE PREPARED.
JEANNE C. BYRNE, FAIA
HRC - REV 10.22.25.HRC - REV 01.19.26.
A2.1
FLOOR PLANS
Project Number
Dutra
Author
01/20/26
INTERIOR REMODEL FOR:
689 MERMAID AVENUE, PACIFIC GROVE, CA 93950
A.P.N.: 006-087-001
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
Proposed First - Floor Plan
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
Existing First - Floor Plan
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
Existing Second - Floor Plan
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
Proposed Second - Floor Plan
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
Demo First - Floor Plan
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
Demo Second - Floor Plan
ISSUED FOR: DATE:
PGCC 5-20-26
(E) 1ST FL +0'-0" F.F.
0' - 0"
(E) 1ST FL T.P.
8' - 0"
Grade -1' - 6"
2ND FLOOR
8' - 10"
T.P. 2ND FLOOR
15' - 7"
(E) 20' - 04"
REPLACE (E) WINDOW WITH NEWALUMINUM CLAD WOOD WINDOW IN(E) OPENINGPAINTED WOOD TRIM SIM TO (E) NEW SQUARE - CUT SHINGLESIDING AT ADDITIONSIM. TO EXISTING EXISTING STORAGE DOORSTO REMAIN. LEFT - HAND DOOR TO BE OPERABLE,RIGHT HAND DOOR TO BESTATIONARY. (E) PLANTER WALL TO REMAIN
(E) SQUARE - CUT SHINGLE SIDING TO REMAIN.BASED ON DISCOVERY, REPAIR OR REPLACEAS REQUIRED IN LIKE KIND NEW ALUMINUM - CLAD WOOD WINDOWWITH PAINTED WOOD TRIM SIM. TO (E)NEW ALUMINUM - CLAD WOOD WINDOW WITH PAINTED WOOD TRIM SIM. TO (E) (E) 1ST FL +0'-0" F.F.
0' - 0"
(E) 1ST FL T.P.
8' - 0"
Grade -1' - 6"
2ND FLOOR
8' - 10"
T.P. 2ND FLOOR
15' - 7"
(E) SQUARE - CUT SHINGLE SIDING TO REMAIN.BASED ON DISCOVERY, REPAIR OR REPLACEAS REQUIRED IN LIKE KIND NEW SQUARE - CUT SHINGLE SIDING AT ADDITION SIM. TO EXISTING
(E) 20' - 04"
REPLACE (E) WINDOW WITH NEWALUMINUM CLAD WOOD WINDOW IN (E) OPENINGPAINTED WOOD TRIM SIM TO (E)REPLACE NON - ORIGINAL DOORWITH NEW PAINTED WOOD DOOR NEW HEAVY - BUTT COMP. SHINGLES, SIM. TO (E).
OF SHEETS
DRAWN BYJOB NUMBERDATESCALE AS NOTED
A R C H I T E C T S
591 LIGHTHOUSE AVE., SUITE #5
PACIFIC GROVE, CALIFORNIA 93950
(831)372-6585 FAX (831)372-8159
ALL PLANS, DOCUMENTS, COMPUTER FILES, SPECIFICATIONS AND RELATED MATERIAL PREPARED BY JEANNE C. BYRNE, FAIA ARCHITECTS AS INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF THE ARCHITECT. THE ARCHITECT SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW, STATUTORY, AND OTHER RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO. THE USE OF THESE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS IS RESTRICTED TO THE ORIGINAL SITE FOR WHICH THEY WERE PREPARED.
JEANNE C. BYRNE, FAIA
HRC - REV 10.22.25.HRC - REV 01.19.26.
A3.1
EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
Project Number
Dutra
Author
01/20/26
INTERIOR REMODEL FOR:
689 MERMAID AVENUE, PACIFIC GROVE, CA 93950
A.P.N.: 006-087-001
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
Proposed North Elevation
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
Proposed East Elevation
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
Existing North Elevation
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
Existing East Elevation
ISSUED FOR: DATE:
PGCC 5-20-26
(E) 1ST FL +0'-0" F.F.
0' - 0"
(E) 1ST FL T.P.
8' - 0"
Grade -1' - 6"2ND FLOOR
8' - 10"
T.P. 2ND FLOOR
15' - 7"
REPLACE (E) WINDOW WITH NEWALUMINUM CLAD WOOD WINDOW IN (E) OPENINGPAINTED WOOD TRIM SIM TO (E) NEW HEAVY - BUTT COMP. SHINGLES, SIM. TO (E).
NEW SQUARE - CUT SHINGLESIDING AT ADDITIONSIM. TO EXISTING (E) SQUARE - CUT SHINGLE SIDING TO REMAIN.
BASED ON DISCOVERY, REPAIR OR REPLACE
AS REQUIRED IN LIKE KIND
REPLACE NON - ORIGINAL DOORWITH NEW PAINTED WOOD DOOR
(E) 1ST FL +0'-0" F.F.
0' - 0"
(E) 1ST FL T.P.
8' - 0"
Grade -1' - 6"2ND FLOOR
8' - 10"
T.P. 2ND FLOOR
15' - 7"
(E) PLANTER WALL TO REMAINREPLACE (E) WINDOW WITH NEWALUMINUM CLAD WOOD WINDOW IN (E) OPENINGPAINTED WOOD TRIM SIM TO (E) (E) SQUARE - CUT SHINGLE SIDING TO REMAIN.BASED ON DISCOVERY, REPAIR OR REPLACEAS REQUIRED IN LIKE KIND NEW ALUMINUM - CLAD WOOD WINDOWWITH PAINTED WOOD TRIM SIM. TO (E) REPLACE NON - ORIGINAL DOORWITH NEW PAINTED WOOD DOORREMOVE WINDOW. FILL OPENING TO MATCH EXISTING ADJACENT WALL FINISH"
OF SHEETS
DRAWN BYJOB NUMBERDATESCALE AS NOTED
A R C H I T E C T S
591 LIGHTHOUSE AVE., SUITE #5
PACIFIC GROVE, CALIFORNIA 93950
(831)372-6585 FAX (831)372-8159
ALL PLANS, DOCUMENTS, COMPUTER FILES, SPECIFICATIONS AND RELATED MATERIAL PREPARED BY JEANNE C. BYRNE, FAIA ARCHITECTS AS INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF THE ARCHITECT. THE ARCHITECT SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW, STATUTORY, AND OTHER RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO. THE USE OF THESE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS IS RESTRICTED TO THE ORIGINAL SITE FOR WHICH THEY WERE PREPARED.
JEANNE C. BYRNE, FAIA
HRC - REV 10.22.25.HRC - REV 01.19.26.
A3.2
EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
Project Number
Dutra
Author
01/20/26
INTERIOR REMODEL FOR:
689 MERMAID AVENUE, PACIFIC GROVE, CA 93950
A.P.N.: 006-087-001
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
Proposed South Elevation
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
Proposed West Elevation
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
Existing South Elevation
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
Existing West Elevation
ISSUED FOR: DATE:
PGCC 5-20-26
EXTERIOR DOORS
SOLID CORESINGLE PANEL INTERIOR DOORS
BARN STYLE DOOROFCI
SOLID CORESINGLE PANEL
'A''B' 'C'
WINDOW TYPES
CASEMENT PICTURE
(FIXED)
'A' 'B' 'C'
OF SHEETS
DRAWN BYJOB NUMBERDATESCALE AS NOTED
A R C H I T E C T S
591 LIGHTHOUSE AVE., SUITE #5
PACIFIC GROVE, CALIFORNIA 93950
(831)372-6585 FAX (831)372-8159
ALL PLANS, DOCUMENTS, COMPUTER FILES, SPECIFICATIONS AND RELATED MATERIAL PREPARED BY JEANNE C. BYRNE, FAIA ARCHITECTS AS INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF THE ARCHITECT. THE ARCHITECT SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW, STATUTORY, AND OTHER RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO. THE USE OF THESE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS IS RESTRICTED TO THE ORIGINAL SITE FOR WHICH THEY WERE PREPARED.
JEANNE C. BYRNE, FAIA
HRC - REV 10.22.25.HRC - REV 01.19.26.
A8.1
DOOR AND WINDOW
SCHEDULE
Project Number
Dutra
Author
01/20/26
INTERIOR REMODEL FOR:
689 MERMAID AVENUE, PACIFIC GROVE, CA 93950
A.P.N.: 006-087-001
ISSUED FOR: DATE:
Window Schedule
Mark Width Height
Head
Height Type Family Room Comments
1.01 2' - 5 1/2" 4' - 5" 6' - 4" A Casement LIVING ROOM REPLACE IN (E) OPENING V.I.F
1.02 2' - 5 1/2" 4' - 5" 6' - 4" A Casement LIVING ROOM REPLACE IN (E) OPENING V.I.F1.03 2' - 7" 4' - 5" 6' - 4" A Casement LIVING ROOM REPLACE IN (E) OPENING V.I.F
1.04 1' - 11" 2' - 4" 6' - 4" A Casement BATH 1 REPLACE IN (E) OPENING V.I.F TEMPERED GLASS1.05 2' - 1" 3' - 0" 5' - 9" A Casement DINING NEW1.06 2' - 7" 4' - 5" 6' - 4" A Casement LIVING ROOM REPLACE IN (E) OPENING V.I.F
2.01 2' - 1" 3' - 0" 5' - 5" A Casement STAIRS NEW - TEMPERED GLASS2.02 1' - 11" 3' - 0" 5' - 5" A Casement BEDROOM 2 REPLACE IN (E) OPENING V.I.F
2.03 2' - 5 1/2" 4' - 5" 6' - 5" A Casement BEDROOM 2 REPLACE IN (E) OPENING V.I.F EGRESS2.04 2' - 5 1/2" 4' - 5" 6' - 5" A Casement BEDROOM 2 REPLACE IN (E) OPENING V.I.F2.05 1' - 11" 3' - 0" 5' - 5" A Casement BEDROOM 2 REPLACE IN (E) OPENING V.I.F
2.06 1' - 6" 3' - 0" 5' - 5" A Casement BATH 2 NEW - TEMPERED GLASS2.07 1' - 7" 3' - 0" 5' - 5" A Casement BEDROOM 1 REPLACE IN (E) OPENING V.I.F
2.08 2' - 3 1/2" 4' - 5" 6' - 5" A Casement BEDROOM 1 REPLACE IN (E) OPENING V.I.F EGRESS2.09 2' - 3 1/2" 4' - 5" 6' - 5" A Casement BEDROOM 1 REPLACE IN (E) OPENING V.I.F EGRESS Door Schedule
Mark Height Width Type Family Room Comments
1.01 6' - 4" 2' - 8" A Exterior Single LIVING ROOM REPLACE (E)1.02 6' - 8" 3' - 0" C Door-Double-Flush_Panel DINING1.03 6' - 8" 2' - 6" B Interior Single BATH 11.04 6' - 6" 2' - 6" A Exterior Single STAIRS1.05 6' - 6" 2' - 0" A Exterior Single STORAGE/LAUNDRY1.06 6' - 8" 4' - 0" C Door-Double-Flush_Panel STORAGE/LAUNDRY1.07 7' - 0" 7' - 2" - (E) Door-Double-Flush_Panel STORAGE/LAUNDRY REPAIR EXISTING2.01 6' - 8" 3' - 0" B Interior Single BEDROOM 12.02 6' - 8" 3' - 0" C Door-Double-Flush_Panel BEDROOM 12.03 6' - 8" 3' - 0" C Door-Double-Flush_Panel BEDROOM 12.04 6' - 8" 2' - 8" B Interior Single BATH 22.05 6' - 8" 3' - 0" B Interior Single BEDROOM 22.06 6' - 8" 3' - 0" C Door-Double-Flush_Panel BEDROOM 2 PGCC 5-20-26
PGCC 5-20-26
PGCC 5-20-26
PGCC 5-20-26
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 20, 2026
SUBJECT: Re-Consider the Draft City Council Policy Entitled Vacancy in Elective Office and Appointment.
CEQA: {CEQA}
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution approving the City Council Policy entitled Vacancy in Elective Office and Appointment.
DISCUSSION
The purpose of this policy is to provide the City Council with a clear, consistent, and structured process for deliberating on applications and selecting candidates to fill Council vacancies now and in the future.
Staff has revised the attached draft policy for the Council’s reconsideration and further discussion. The revisions reflect direction provided by the Council at its May 6, 2026 meeting, including applicant speaking time limits, online posting of applications, consideration of top applicants, and other related recommendations.
The Council discussed questions posed to applicants. In response, staff has incorporated proposed language for the Council’s consideration.
OPTIONS
Provide alternative direction.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact as a result of this item.
FOCUSED PRIORITY AREA: Not Applicable.
Attachments
Proposed Reso
Proposed Policy
PGCC 5-20-26
RESOLUTION NO. 26-011
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 5-20-26
2 PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE this 20th 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 5-20-26
1 City of Pacific Grove, California
City Council Policy
Policy Governing Policy No. Effective Date Page
Vacancy in Elective Office and
Appointment
000-XX __________, 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. 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.”
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.” PGCC 5-20-26
Vacancy in Elective Office and Appointment–Council
Policy No. 000-XXX
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 appointee residing in that district.
POLICY & PROCEDURE
When a vacancy is determined, City Staff will prepare an agenda report requesting a future date and time that the City Council will deliberate and make an appointment to fill the vacant seat. The agenda report will also provide other applicable instructions for persons interested in applying for appointment to the vacancy and 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 persons upon request. Persons eligible for appointment must complete the application and provide it to the City Clerk by the date and time determined by the City Council.
Redacted applications will be posted on the City Council’s webpage for public review and will be attached to the agenda report to be posted in compliance with state law before the meeting at which the appointment is to be made.
Questions
Members of the Council may submit one question to the City Manager/City Clerk.
Questions will be compiled and attached to the agenda report packet to be posted in compliance with state law before the meeting at which the appointment is to be made.
Appointment Day
Nomination Process/Voting
All stages of the nomination process must be conducted fairly without bias or undue influence and any disputes or challenges shall be addressed promptly according to established procedures.
Each applicant shall have five to ten minutes, at the Mayor’s discretion, to present a statement to the Council describing their desire for appointment and their qualifications. (The set time will be dependent upon number of PGCC 5-20-26
Vacancy in Elective Office and Appointment–Council
Policy No. 000-XXX
applicants and will be included in the agenda report to be posted in compliance with state law before the meeting at which the appointment is to be made.)
Each member of the Council will be assigned one question to ask each applicant.
The Mayor will seek public comment.
The matter will be returned to Council for discussion and each member of the Council will state for the record their top applicant. If one applicant receives 4 affirmations, a vote shall be conducted to ratify the top applicant.
In no applicant receives 4 affirmations, the following steps will be taken to narrow the applicants before voting.
o The process of voting will begin with a City Council member making a motion to nominate an applicant. If a second is received on the motion a roll call vote will be taken. This process is repeated until an applicant receives 4 affirmative votes.
o Voting will be accomplished by roll call only.
o If no applicant 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, applicants, 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 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.
PGCC 5-20-26
Vacancy in Elective Office and Appointment–Council
Policy No. 000-XXX
Adopted May __, 2026 (Resolution No. 26-XXX)
PGCC 5-20-26
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: Joyce Halabi, Deputy City Manager
MEETING DATE: May 20, 2026
SUBJECT: Ownership Analysis and Control Analysis for Cannabis Business License Applications
CEQA: {CEQA}
RECOMMENDATION
1. Receive the Ownership and Control Analysis
2. Provide staff direction on next steps
DISCUSSION
On March 18, 2026, the City Council directed the City Manager and City Attorney to conduct a formal ownership and control analysis of all applications submitted in the Storefront Retail Commercial Cannabis Business Licensing Process, consistent with the definitions of "Owner" under California's Medicinal and Adult-Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (MAUCRSA), Business and Professions Code § 26001, and Pacific Grove Municipal Code (PGMC) Chapter 11.100.
To conduct this analysis, the City requested each applicant submit an Affidavit providing additional details around ownership. The Affidavit Form is included as Attachment 1. 9 of the 10 applicants submitted affidavits by the May 6, 2026, deadline. 1 applicant submitted the affidavit after the deadline on May 12, 2026.
Responses from each applicant have been aggregated and color-coded to help visually identify similar names and information. See Attachment 2. This information serves as the Cannabis Ownership and Control Analysis.
In addition to the attached materials, the questions posed in the March 18, 2026, Agenda Report and responses are included below:
Whether any of the applicants share common ownership, direction, or control as defined under MAUCRSA § 26001 and PGMC Chapter 11.100.
See Attachment 2, Question 2.
Whether a single owner was involved in the direction, control, or management of 2 or more applicant entities.
See Attachment 2.
Whether common ownership or affiliation in parent companies (such as employment, family ties, shared proprietary data etc.) is relevant to the ownership analysis.
PGCC 5-20-26
The City’s cannabis licensing ordinance and regulations do not include any provisions that prohibit or restrict common ownership interests or other business or personal affiliations between applicants for a license.
What written legal authority supports the City's interpretation that the Permitting Process as currently administered is consistent with MAUCRSA and PGMC Chapter 11.100.
The City’s Application Materials and Application Procedures and Guidelines were vetted by legal counsel and HDL. MAUCRSA does not “supersede or limit the authority of a local jurisdiction to adopt and enforce local ordinances to regulate businesses licensed under this division, including, but not limited to, local zoning and land use requirements, business license requirements, and requirements related to reducing exposure to secondhand smoke, or to completely prohibit the establishment or operation of one or more types of businesses licensed under this division within the local jurisdiction.” (Business & Professions Code § 26200(a)(1)). PGMC Chapter 11.100 does not contain any limitation on common ownership or other business or personal affiliations between applicants for a license.
If affiliated submissions exist, whether consolidation of such affiliated submissions into a single application is permissible.
Consolidation may leave the City subject to legal challenges. The City’s cannabis licensing ordinance and regulations do not contemplate requiring applications to be consolidated and the City has no established procedures for consolidation, such as determining what common ownership interests and/or affiliations should result in applications being consolidated and which are acceptable to allow the applications to be processed independently.
OPTIONS
Staff is seeking council direction.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact associated with receiving this report.
FOCUSED PRIORITY AREA: Not Applicable.
Attachments
Affidavit Form
Ownership and Control Analysis
Submitted Affidavit
PGCC 5-20-26
CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
AFFIDAVIT OF APPLICANT FOR STOREFRONT RETAIL CANNABIS LICENSE [Please attach sheets as necessary.]
I, _________________________________, verify the following facts are true and correct:
1. I am the authorized representative of ___________________________ (“Applicant”). Applicant has submitted a storefront retail cannabis license application (“Application”) to the City of Pacific Grove.
2. As of the date of this Affidavit, the following persons are or will be participating in the direction, control, or management of Applicant if granted a storefront retail cannabis license from the City of Pacific Grove:
____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________
3. For ANY person listed in the “Owner Information” section of the Application, please confirm whether they currently have, or in the past have had, any family, personal, or business relationship with ANY person listed in the “Owner Information” section of any pending storefront retail cannabis license application(s) with the City of Pacific Grove (other than Applicant’s own Application):
____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________
4. For ANY person listed in the “Owner Information” section of the Application, please confirm whether they currently share, or in the past have shared, a place of business with ANY person listed in the “Owner Information” section of any pending storefront retail cannabis license application(s) with the City of Pacific Grove (other than Applicant’s own Application):
____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________
5. As of the date of this Affidavit, the following persons participated in the drafting of, provided input on the content of, or otherwise assisted in the submission of this Applicant’s retail cannabis license application, or this Affidavit:
____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ PGCC 5-20-26
4930-8408-4129, v. 5
2 6. The agent for service of process for the Applicant/entity is:
______________________________________________________________________________
7. Please list all employment positions (e.g., manager, employee) that will be filled, and the names of those who will fill those positions. If unknown who will fill those positions at this time, please indicate as much.
____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________
8. Is there any other information you would like to share with the City regarding the ownership structure of the Applicant?
____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ I hereby certify, under penalty of perjury, on behalf of myself and all owners, managers, and supervisors of Applicant that the statements and information furnished in this Affidavit are true and accurate.
I understand that a misrepresentation of fact may be cause for rejection of my underlying application.
In addition, I understand that the filing of this Affidavit grants the City of Pacific Grove permission to reproduce submitted materials for distribution to staff, Commissions, Boards and City Council Members, and other Agencies to process it.
Under penalty of perjury, I hereby declare that the information contained herein and submitted with this Affidavit is true, complete, and accurate. I understand that a misrepresentation on the facts is cause for rejection of my underlying application.
Executed on this ____ day of ___________, 2026, at_______________________________.
By: ________________________________
Name: ____________________________
Title/Capacity: ____________________
On behalf of: _______________________
PGCC 5-20-26
Application Information
Ownership Listed in Initial Application
Submission
QUESTION 2
As of the date of this affidavit, the
following persons are or will be
participating in the direction,
control, or management of
Applicant if granted a storefront
retail cannabis license from the City
of Pacific Grove:
QUESTION 3
For ANY person listed in the "Owner Information" section of the Application, please confirm whether they currently have, or in the past have had, any family, personal, or business relationship with ANY person listed in the "Owner Information" section of any pending storefront retail cannabis license application(s) with the City of Pacific Grove (other than Applicant's own Application):
QUESTION 4
For ANY person listed in the "Owner Information" section of the Application, please confirm whether they currently share, or in the past have shared, a place of business with ANY person listed in the "Owner Information" section of any pending storefront retail cannabis license application(s) with the City of Pacific Grove (other than Applicant's own Application):
QUESTION 5
As of the date of this Affidavit, the following persons participated in the drafting of, provided input on the content of, or otherwise assisted in the submission of this Applicant's retail cannabis license application, or this Affidavit:
QUESTION 6
The agent for service of
process for the
Applicant/entity is:
QUESTION 7
Please list all employment positions (e.g., manager, employee) that will be filled, and the names of those who will fill those positions. If unknown who will fill those positions at this time, please indicate as much.
QUESTION 8
Is there any other information you would like to
share with the City regarding the ownership
structure of the Applicant?
Nug Pacific Grove,
LLC*
John Oram (27% Ownership)
Jamie Besaw (27%
Ownership)
Adam Peterson (11%
Ownership)
73 other individuals
collectively (35% ownership)
collectively each
individually less than 20%
John Oram
Jamie Bensaw
Adam Peterson
None. None.
John Oram
Jamie Besaw
Adam Peterson
John Oram, Individual
Owners: John J Oram, PhD - Owner, Co-Founder, Chief Executive Officer; Adam Peterson- Owner, Co-Founder, President; Jamie Besaw - Owner, Co-Founder, Director of Security & Facilities.
Management and Advisory Qualifications (Non-Owners); Matt Rakow - NonOwner, Chief Financial Officer; Jessamynn Stephania Partida - Non-Owner, Chief Technology Officer, VP of Retail Operations; Pedro Fonseca - Non-Owner, VP of Retail Operations; Alissa Berihu - Non-Owner, Chief Operations Officer; Viktoria Devinova- Non-Owner, VP of Finance; Russell Greenman - Non-Owner, General Counsel; Nico S Enea - Non-Owner, Co-Founder, Community Relations; Robert Enea- Non-Owner, Advisor
Remaining individuals not yet identified. See attachment to affidavit for listing of position names.
None.
Pacific Grove
Responsible and
Compliant Retail, LLC
dba Embarc
Dispensary
Lauren Carpenter (80%
Ownership)
Dustin Moore (20%
Ownership)
Lauren Carpenter
Dustin Moore
Dustin Moore knows Sean Maddocks, John Oram,
and Norman Yousif in their capacity as competing
business owners in the cannabis industry. Lauren
Carpenter knows Sean Maddocks and Norman
Yousif in their capacity as competing business
owners in the cannabis industry. Applicant has no
other personal, family, or business, relationships with any of the persons listed in the "Owner Information"
sections of the other pending applications.
Applicant does not currently share, and has
not previously shared, a place of business with
any of the persons listed in the "Owner
Information" sections of the other pending
applications.
Lauren Carpenter - Owner/CEO, Dustin Moore - Owner/CCO, Katie Whinnery - VP of Licensing and Business Administration, Jamie Schniedwind - Director of Finance, Matthew Carroll - Security Consultant, Kirk Miller - Architect, Devon Wardlow, VP of Public Affairs, Eric Lightman - Legal Counsel
Registered Agents
Inc.
Lauren Carpenter - Officer/Owner, Dustin Moore - Officer/Owner, General Manager - unknown, Assistant General Manager - unknown, Sales Manager - unknown, Inventory Manager - unknown, 3 Lead Guides - unknown, 7 Guides - unknown
No.
Rawy Rogers, LLC Rawy Yousif (100% ownership) Rawy Yousif Dillon Marogy; Robbin Yousif, Norman Yousif, Darline
Yousif, Sean Maddocks, Adam Mernit. In
accordance with the definition of Owner outlined in
PGMC §11.100.030 ("Definitions") and BPC
§26001(av), none of the listed individuals has
Ownership of Applicant and is not currently or in the
future contemplated to participate in the direction,
control, or management of Applicant if Applicant is
granted a storefront retail cannabis license from the
City of Pacific Grove
Dillon Marogy; Robbin Yousif; Norman Yousif;
Darline Yousif. In accordance with the
definition of Owner outlined in PGMC
§11.100.030 ("Definitions") and BPC §26001(av),
none of the listed individuals has Ownership of
Applicant and is not currently or in the future
contemplated to participate in the direction,
control, or management of Applicant if
Applicant is granted a storefront retail
cannabis license from the City of Pacific Grove
Sean Maddocks; Adam Mernit; Jessica Morley. In accordance with the definition of Owner outlined in PGMC §11.100.030 and BPC §26001(av), none of the individuals who participated in the drafting of Applicant's retail cannabis business license application has Ownership of Applicant and is not currently or in the future contemplated to participate in the direction, control, or management of Applicant if Applicant is granted a storefront retail cannabis license from the City of Pacific Grove.
Attorney Sean
Maddocks
Applicant does not currently know what individuals will fill employment positions for Applicant.
Applicant has no further information
that it would like to share with the City
regarding Applicant's Ownership
structure.
OTC Pacific Grove,
LLC
Norman Yousif (100%
ownership) Norman Yousif
Dillon Marogy; Darline Yousif; Robbin Yousif; Rawy
Yousif; Sean Maddocks; Adam Mernit; Matthew
Jones. Pursuant to the ownership definitions in PGMC
§11.100.030 and BPC §26001(av), none of the
individuals listed herein hold an ownership interest in the Applicant. Furthermore, these individuals are not
envisioned to serve in any capacity involving the
direction, control, or management of the Applicant
should a storefront retail cannabis license be
granted by Pacific Grove.
Dillon Marogy; Darline Yousif; Robbin Yousif;
Rawy Yousif. Pursuant to the ownership
definitions in PGMC §11.100.030 none of the
individuals listed herein hold an ownership
interest in the Applicant. Furthermore, these
individuals are not envisioned to serve in any
capacity involving the direction, control, or
management of the Applicant should a
storefront retail cannabis license be granted by
Pacific Grove.
Sean Maddocks; Adam Mernit; Jessica Morley. The contracted drafting of Applicant's license application does not authorize any direction, control or management of Applicant or Applicant's Storefront Retail Cannabis Business if Applicant is granted a Storefront Retail Cannabis License from the city of Pacific Grove and such contracted drafting does not amount to ownership of Applicant pursuant to PGMC §11.100.030 (“Definitions") and BPC §26001(av).
Attorney Sean
Maddocks
Applicant has not determined individuals who will fill employment positions at this time.
Applicant has no further information to
share with the City regarding its
ownership structure.
PG Retail, LLC Sean Maddocks (100% ownership) Sean Maddocks Adam Mernit, Norman Yousif, Darline Yousif, Rawy
Yousif, Dillon Marogy, Robbin Yousif, Matthew Jones.
No one listed in this response is now or is
contemplated to be participating in the direction,
control, or management of Applicant if Applicant is
granted a storefront retail cannabis license from the
City of Pacific Grove and no one listed qualifies as
an owner of Applicant pursuant to PGMC
§11.100.300 ("Definitions") and BPC §26001(av).
No person listed in the Owner Information
section of the Application currently shares, or
has shared in the past, a place of business with
ANY person listed in the "Owner Information"
section of any pending storefront retail
cannabis license application(s) with the City of
Pacific Grove.
Adam Mernit, Jessica Morley, Sean Maddocks.
Adam Mernit and Jessica Morley served solely as drafters for this retail cannabis business license application. Per PGMC
§11.100.030 and BPC $26001(av), these individuals are not owners of, and hold no ownership interest in, the Applicant. Furthermore, there are no plans for them to participate in the direction, management or control of the business should the City of Pacific Grove grant the license
Attorney Sean
Maddocks It is not currently known who will fill employment positions for Applicant.
There is no further information Applicant
would like to share with the City
regarding the ownership structure of the
Applicant.
OTC PG, LLC Darline Yousif (100% ownership) Darline Yousif Dillon Marogy; Norman Yousif; Robbin Yousif; Rawy
Yousif; Sean Maddocks; Adam Mernit; Matthew
Jones.
Pursuant to the ownership definitions in PGMC
§11.100.030 and BPC §26001(av), none of the
individuals listed herein hold an ownership interest in the Applicant. Furthermore, these individuals are not
envisioned to serve in any capacity involving the
direction, control, or management of the Applicant
should a storefront retail cannabis license be
granted by Pacific Grove.
Dillon Marogy; Norman Yousif; Robbin Yousif;
Rawy Yousif; Pursuant to the ownership
definitions in PGMC §11.100.030 none of the
individuals listed herein hold an ownership
interest in the Applicant. Furthermore, these
individuals are not envisioned to serve in any
capacity involving the direction, control, or
management of the Applicant should a
storefront retail cannabis license be granted by
Pacific Grove.
Sean Maddocks; Adam Mernit; Jessica Morley. The contracted drafting of Applicant's license application does not authorize any direction, control or management of Applicant or Applicant's Storefront Retail Cannabis Business if Applicant is granted a Storefront Retail Cannabis License from the city of Pacific Grove and such contracted drafting does not amount to ownership of Applicant pursuant to PGMC §11.100.030 ("Definitions") and BPC §26001(av).
Attorney Sean
Maddocks
Applicant has not determined individuals who will fill employment positions at this time.
Applicant has no further information to
share with the City regarding its
ownership structure.
Affidavit Information
Applicant
Cannabis Ownership & Control Analysis
PGCC 5-20-26