| RECOMMENDATION |
| Staff recommends approval of an Amendment (25-0348) to the previously approved Coastal Development Permit (CDP 22-0158) and Architectural Permit/Use Permit/Variance (AP/UP/VAR 22-0158), subject to the recommended findings and conditions, and consistent with the previously adopted Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. |
| DISCUSSION |
Project Description of Approved CDP/AP/UP/VAR 22-0158
The project as approved by the Planning Commission at the March 14, 2024, regular meeting included on-site relocation and rehabilitation of an historic building, reconstruction of an existing boardwalk, construction of a single-family home containing approximately 2,195 square feet attached to the historic building by a bridge/corridor, and construction of a detached garage in the current location of an existing, nonconforming carport. The approval included a use permit to allow for the roof ornamentation of the historic building to extend above the height limit of 25 feet and to reconstruct the nonconforming carport as a garage. Finally, the approval included a variance to allow two corners of the historic building and the new home to encroach into a portion of the east side yard setback.
Proposed Amendment (25-0348)
The proposed amendments are for the previously approved Architectural Permit (AP) and Coastal Development Permit (CDP) only. No amendments are proposed that would affect the approved Use Permit (UP) and Variance (VAR).
As proposed, Amendment 25-0348 would allow the following:
- Increase the lower floor gross floor area by 190 square feet by adding four (4) feet westward of the previously approved foundation;
- This modification is below grade and does not create any elevation changes to the previously approved design. While this proposes an increase in gross floor area, it does not increase the Primary Coverage Area as it is below the approved front patio.
- Maintain the existing lower-level tea house floor with its existing eight-foot ceilings;
- The applicant provided a letter of recommendation from Randy Braun, CE of GFDS Engineers (attached) dated February 13, 2026, which recommends retaining the lower-level of the Tea House to maintain first floor lateral stability during the relocation process and save a significantly larger percentage of the original historic building material.
- Removal of a multi-stemmed Monterey Cypress due to poor health and future construction impacts due to reconstructing the detached carport;
- The applicant provided a Tree Resource Assessment/Construction Impact Analysis Amendment prepared by Certified Arborist, Frank Ono (July 30, 2025, attached), that concluded "the tree is not a candidate for retention because it is structurally poor and exhibits insect and fungal activity, and the tree is not expected to survive construction impacts. These impacts are due to required significant pruning of limbs for construction access and expected root disturbance for the foundation of the new garage. It is recommended that the tree be removed and replaced with a healthier 15-gallon Monterey cypress after construction of the garage. All other elements of the previous construction impact assessment remain the same."
- The applicant also provided a letter from Coastal Biologist, Thomas K. Moss, supporting the removal and replanting of the tree stating that "removal of the tree will benefit nearby rare plans and habitat by preventing the eventual shading of the area as the tree grows" and replanting in the proposed area "will not negatively impact existing rare plants or their potential habitat on the property or the neighboring properties."
- Reconfigure the door and window locations at the ground level of the corridor connecting the Tea House and new structure;
- Widen the exterior wood screen spacing on the east elevation.
Background
January 2024 Historic Resources Committee Meeting (HRC)
On January 24, 2023, the HRC considered the Architectural Permit, Use Permit, and Variance, as well as an associated request to add the existing building to the Historic Resources Inventory (HRI). After consideration, the HRC voted (5 yes, 0 no) to add the historic building to the HRI and (4 yes, 1 no) to recommend the Planning Commission approve the project, subject to the recommended conditions of approval.
March 2024 Planning Commission Meeting
On March 14, 2024, the Planning Commission (PC) considered Architectural Permit, Use Permit and Variance (AP/UP/VAR 22-0158), Coastal Development Permit (CDP 22-0158) and the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. After careful consideration, the PC voted (5 yes, 1 no, and 1 absent) to approve AP/UP/VAR 22-0158, CDP 22-0158, and adopt the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration.
Site Description
The project site is approximately 0.6 acre (27,713 square feet) and is located at 420 La Calle Corte, south of Pico Avenue at the terminus of the La Calle Corte cul-de-sac. The property is zoned R-1-B-4 and has a land use designation of Low Density Residential (1.0 dwelling unit per acre). It is located in the Asilomar Dunes, in the coastal zone, and within the Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area and Archeologically Sensitive Area of the City’s Local Coastal Program.
The property is currently developed with an historic building designed as a Chinese tea house that is approximately 1,628 square feet, a nonconforming carport, and a boardwalk providing a designated and sole pathway from the carport to the tea house.
Surrounding Land Uses
The immediately surrounding areas to the north, east, and west are primarily developed with low-density single-family residences. The property to the south is developed as the Asilomar Hotel and Conference Grounds (Asilomar State Park) with multiple buildings and surface parking lots.
Applicable General Plan Policies
The neighborhood is designated Low Density Residential with a density of up to 1.0 dwelling unit per acre. 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 the 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. The proposed amendment 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 6 – Natural Resources
- Policy 4: Mitigate development in environmentally sensitive areas.
Chapter 7 – Historic and Archeological Resources
- Policy 13: Encourage citizen efforts to preserve and enhance historic resources.
Applicable Zoning Code Regulations
As proposed, the project complies with the zoning regulations set forth in the Pacific Grove Municipal Code (PGMC) Chapter 23.16 (R-1-B-4), Chapter23.90 (Local Coastal Program Implementing Plan).
Architectural Review Guidelines
The City of Pacific Grove maintains a list of Architectural Review Guidelines to help applicants develop projects that fit in with the nature of Pacific Grove. The proposed changes to design elements are in substantial conformance with the City's Architectural Review Guidelines. Including, but not limited to, the following:
- Guideline No. 6: Try to place new windows where they will respect privacy between properties.
- Guideline No. 33: Door and window proportions should relate to the scale and style of the building.
Applicable Land Use Plan Policies
The Pacific Grove Land Use Plan (LUP), as initially certified on March 11, 2020, and subsequently amended and certified (August 12, 2021, and April 11, 2025), provides a framework for future growth and development within the City's Coastal Zone. The subject neighborhood is designated Low Density Residential with an allowed density of 1 - 2 dwelling units per acre in LUP Figure 6 (Coastal Zone Land Use Designations). The residential project, as amended, would be consistent with applicable LUP policies, including the following
- SCE-1: Public views to and along the shoreline shall be protected and enhanced, and alteration of natural landforms shall be minimized.
- BIO-2: Development in Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas, as defined in BIO-1 and Coastal Act §30107.5, shall be limited to uses dependent on the resource (e.g., habitat restoration, scientific research, and low-intensity public access and recreation), and shall be sited and designed to protect against significant disruption of habitat values including to rare and endangered species. Other stabilizing native dune plants shall also be protected, relocated, or replanted with similar native plants...Notwithstanding, one house may be constructed on legal lots of record within the Asilomar Dunes Residential Area provided that the development area is limited in size and located in the portion of the lot that results in the least impact on sensitive habitat.
- BIO-19: Within Pacific Grove, certain trees and native vegetation within Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas are considered “major vegetation,” where the removal of which constitutes development that requires a Coastal Development Permit. A Coastal
Development Permit is required for removal of all native trees, including all Gowen Cypress regardless of size, Coast Live Oak, Monterey Cypress, Shore Pine, Torrey Pine, and Monterey Pine six (6) inches or greater in trunk diameter when measured at 54
inches above grade. New tree planting shall be an on-going effort in order to replace diseased and dead Monterey pine, Monterey cypress and coast live oak trees, taking care that new plantings do not adversely affect public views. Replanting of a tree as
replacement of major vegetation is required within the same vicinity. Dead trees (snags) on City property within the Coastal Zone should be retained, where possible, to provide habitat, including for cavity-nesting birds.
- BIO-22: Within the Asilomar Dunes Residential Area contiguous areas of undisturbed dunes shall be maintained and reestablished, wherever feasible, to help protect Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas and associated habitat values….
- BIO-24: Development in the Asilomar Dunes Residential Area that consists of new development on vacant parcels or development that must conform to all LCP requirements according to
- BIO-30: Development associated with conforming Asilomar residential development shall only be allowed if the total site coverage remains at or below the maximum Residential Development Envelope coverage allowed per the LCP; new coverage is located immediately adjacent to existing coverage areas and in the least sensitive area of the lot in terms of dune resources and public views; contiguous areas of dune habitat are not fragmented and, if feasible, made less fragmented;
- DES-1: All new development shall be consistent with requirements of the certified Local Coastal Program, including the certified Land Use Designations figure (Figure 6).
Coastal Development Permit (CDP) Amendment Determination
Pursuant to PGMC Sections 23.90.050, City CDP Determinations, and 23.90.040, CDP Exemptions, Community Development Department (CDD) staff determined the proposed changes would require an Amendment to the previously-approved CDP, as well as the AP.
Applicable Coastal Resource Protection Standards
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, the plan set, and determined the site and proposed development, as amended, would not be subject to coastal hazards over its lifetime.
Water Quality
Per PGMC Section 23.90.150, Water Quality and Marine Resources, the proposed amendments with tree removal and replacement would not result in water quality impairment. In this case, a Water Quality Assessment is not required nor warranted.
Scenic Resources
Per PGMC Section 23.90.160, Scenic Resources, CDD staff reviewed LUP Figure 4 (Scenic Areas) and aerial and street view imagery. This review determined the site is within a designated scenic view area. However, the proposed amendments do not alter the visual impacts of the previously approved Coastal Development Permit (CDP 22-0158) and Architectural Permit/Use Permit/Variance (AP/UP/VAR 22-0158).
Biological Resources
Per Chapter 23.90.170, Biological Resources, qualified Coastal Biologist, Thomas K. Moss, provided a letter dated January 1, 2026 (attached), supporting the removal and replanting of the Monterey Cypress tree stating that "removal of the tree will benefit nearby rare plans and habitat by preventing the eventual shading of the area as the tree grows" and replanting in the open area northeast of the Tea House and proposed building "will not negatively impact existing rare plants or their potential habitat on the property or the neighboring properties."
Certified Arborist, Frank Ono, provided a Tree Resource Assessment/Construction Impact Analysis Amendment (July 30, 2025, attached) which concluded that "the tree is not a candidate for retention because it is structurally poor and exhibits insect and fungal activity, and the tree is not expected to survive construction impacts. These impacts are due to required significant pruning of limbs for construction access and expected root disturbance for the foundation of the new garage. It is recommended that the tree be removed and replaced with a healthier 15-gallon Monterey cypress after construction of the garage. All other elements of the previous construction impact assessment remain the same."
The conservation easement, held by the California Coastal Conservancy, encompasses the majority of the property and limits development to a small area of the street frontage and the southeast corner of the irregular lot. The proposed amendment would not have any affect on the existing conservation easement.
Cultural Resources
Archeological Resources
Per PGMC section 23.90.200, Cultural Resources, the previously approved project involves ground disturbance in an archaeologically sensitive area. Therefore, an archaeological report was prepared by a qualified archaeologist (Susan Morley, M.A., and Brenna Wheelis, B.A. Register of Professional Archaeologists; January 2022). The report found that due to its proximity to a previously recorded archaeological resource, the sensitivity of the area, and the potential for inadvertent discovery of cultural resources, CDD staff has included conditions of approval to include tribal monitoring and inadvertent discovery throughout the course of the project.
Historic Resources
Qualified Historian, Kent Seavey, provided a letter reviewing the proposed amendments for consistency with the previously approved permits. This letter, dated January 19, 2026 (attached), concludes "that the Proposed Amendment in no way impacts City and public interests in the expansions regarding the historic rehabilitation of the Tea House as approved by the Permit."
Noticing
City staff completed the required noticing pursuant to PGMC sections 23.86.040 and 23.90.070, as follows:
- Mailing. On March 2, 2026, Notices of Public Hearing were mailed to properties within a 100-foot radius of the subject property.
- Posting. On March 2, 2026, Notices of Public Hearing were posted on the site’s street frontage in a location that may be viewed from the street at 420 La Calle Corte.
Story Poles and Netting
The proposed Amendment does not involve changes to the massing or scale of the previously approved project; therefore, in this case, installation of story poles and netting is not required, nor warranted.
California Environmental Quality Act
An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) and a Mitigation and Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP) were prepared for CDP/AP/UP/VAR 22-0158 in accordance to Article 6, CCR Title14, California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and circulated to the State Clearinghouse. On March 14, 2024, the Planning Commission adopted the final IS/MND and MMRP when approving CDP/AP/UP/VAR 22-0158. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(b), when none of the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent negative declaration have occurred, then no subsequent IS/MND shall be prepared. Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(b), the lead agency may prepare an addendum to the adopted negative declaration; however, the preparation of an addendum is not required.
Pursuant to Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, when an IS/MND has been adopted, no subsequent IS/MND shall be prepared for the project unless the agency determines that substantial changes are proposed or substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken. In this case, no new information has been presented to warrant further environmental review, preparation of an addendum, or recirculation of the previously-adopted IS/MND, and none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent negative declaration have occurred.
Pursuant to Sections 15162 and 15164(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, the Planning Commission has reviewed the proposed amendments to the project, considered the final IS/MND, and finds that the project does not require subsequent environmental analysis based on the following:
- No substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions to the previous IS/MND due to involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified impacts;
- No substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions to the previous IS/MND due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects;
- No new information of substantial importance has been provided which was not known at the time of the previous IS/MND.
- The following facts remain as adopted by the Planning Commission on March 14, 2024: The final IS/MND was completed in compliance with CEQA;
- The final IS/MND was presented to the Planning Commission, and the decision-making body reviewed and considered the information contained in the final IS/MND prior to approving the project and amendment;
- The final IS/MND reflects the lead agency's independent judgment and analysis; and
- The custodian for these documents shall be the Community Development Department for the City of Pacific Grove, found at 300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950.
|
| OPTIONS |
- Agree with the recommendation of staff.
- Decline to agree with the recommendation of staff.
- Refer to the applicant and continue to a regular meeting of the Planning Commission to allow the applicant an opportunity to address concerns raised by the Commission.
|
| FINANCIAL IMPACT |
| No significant fiscal impact is associated with the consideration of the proposed project as the permit application fees are set at levels intended to obtain cost recovery of City resources. |
|
