Pacific Grove council upholds planning commission, denies appeal of Mermaid Avenue remodel
Loading...
Summary
After hours of testimony, the Pacific Grove City Council voted 6–0 (Mayor Smith absent) to deny an appeal and affirm approval of the architectural permit and Coastal Development Permit (CDP24‑0044) for 685 Mermaid Avenue, finding the project met applicable zoning and CEQA categorical‑exemption standards.
The Pacific Grove City Council on Feb. 4 upheld the Planning Commission’s approval of a rehabilitation and addition at 685 Mermaid Avenue, denying an appeal filed by neighbors and preservation advocates.
Staff and the Planning Commission found the project met the city’s zoning and historic‑resource standards and qualified for CEQA categorical exemptions, and the council voted 6–0 (Mayor Smith absent) to deny the appeal. The measure affirms the architectural permit and Coastal Development Permit CDP24‑0044.
Associate Planner Garrett McCown told the council the project proposed to rehabilitate a 950‑square‑foot residence and add a modest second‑story addition and a 339‑square‑foot attached accessory dwelling unit. McCown summarized a new phase‑2 historic assessment prepared for the applicant, changes made after HRC review and public comment, and staff’s determination that the project qualifies for class 1 and class 31 categorical exemptions under CEQA because it follows Secretary of the Interior standards for rehabilitation.
Neighbors and the appellant contested that conclusion. During a 10‑minute formal presentation, the appellant argued the project would demolish a large share of the original house fabric, that the garage is a contributing element, and that the project therefore is not eligible for the CEQA exemptions cited by staff. The appellant urged the council to pause the permit and consider alternatives (one‑story addition, reduced roofline, or sinking the garage) and said they would appeal a denial to the California Coastal Commission.
The applicant’s architect and project historian disputed those points. Architect Charlie Wernisher said the design was revised to reduce perceived massing, to set the addition back and to retain and restore character‑defining elements. Historian Dana Sopernewitz reported that the former garage had been extensively altered, no longer read as an original contributing garage, and that the proposed work would preserve the primary historic resource.
During deliberations council members acknowledged the neighborhood’s concerns about scale and loss of village character but repeatedly returned to the legal standard the council must apply: whether the record supports the findings required by the municipal code and CEQA exemptions relied on by staff. City staff and the applicant’s historic consultant told the panel that the revised design retains the historic resource and that the HRC and Planning Commission reviewed the project after a thorough, multi‑stage process. Several council members said the record supported the staff findings, though some called for clearer, more prescriptive local design standards in the future.
The council’s motion to deny the appeal and affirm the Planning Commission’s approval cited the findings and the class 1 and class 31 CEQA categorical exemptions identified in the staff report. The roll call was recorded as 6 yes, 0 no, 1 absent. Council members also noted the appellant’s right to pursue further administrative appeals, including to the California Coastal Commission.
What happens next: The project remains approved unless overturned on a subsequent appeal to the Coastal Commission or by other lawful challenge; neighbors on the record said they intend to pursue those options.
