How do we give us a hug Recording in progress.

All right.

I would like to call this meeting to order.

It's currently four o'clock.

Today we're hosting the City of Monterey Zoning Administrator meeting.

On today's date is September 18th, 2025.

My name is Chris Schmidt.

I'll be serving as the zoning administrator for the city today.

Spencer, could you announce the staff present?

Staff present today are Senior Associate Planner Schmidt, Senior Associate Planner Buggert, and myself recording Secretary Arginbright.

Information on participating in this meeting and providing public comment, including remotely by Zoom or telephone, is on this meeting's agenda, which is online at Monterey.gov forward slash agendas.

Remote commenters will be muted until it is their turn to speak, and a timer will be shown on the screen.

If you are connected on Zoom, the timer is accurate with no delay.

And in the chamber, we recommend keeping phones and devices muted to prevent audio interference with the meeting.

Thank you for participating in your city government.

Thank you, Spencer.

And so the first item on the agenda that we have is the consent agenda, and there's only one item in the consent agenda that is approval of the minutes of the zoning administrator meeting for September 4th.

I do not see any attendees online currently with their hands raised.

So that item is approved.

The next item, item number three is considered 22 dormant court, use permit application UP twenty-five zero.

Oh, excuse me.

I have to go back.

Uh, we do have to open this would now be the time for public comments not uh relating to items not on the agenda.

So uh do we have any public comments for items not on the agenda?

There are still currently no attendees with their hands raised.

Online.

And seeing no one in the chamber, uh I will move on to our first public hearing item.

Uh so that was considered 22 dormitory court, use permit application UP twenty-five zero one zero five to allow conversion of an existing commercial office to a single family dwelling and construction of a new garage, HRM and DAC.

Applicant Glenn Warner, property owner, Eureka Group LP, uh C O E S zoning district and mixed use neighborhood general plan, land use designation.

Do we have a staff report?

We do.

I will share my screen.

Good afternoon.

My name is Matthew Buggert, and I am a senior associate planner with the City of Monterey's Planning Division.

Today we're here to talk about 22 dormity court APN 001 591033-000 for a use permit for a new residential unit at the existing office site at today's zoning administrator meeting.

The recommendation from staff is that the zoning administrator adopt the resolution to approve the use permit.

The subject property is in the central south central area of the city near downtown.

The zoning district is COES for commercial office emergency shelter overlay and a land use of commercial in the general plan.

Some of the address markings on site include 20 dormity, our GIS identifies the site as 22 Normati, which is why it's referenced by APN near the beginning.

The project description.

Here it marks that there's an existing 2,499 square foot office building.

That's actually the proposed square footage after addition of the garage.

Regardless, the office building is anticipated to be converted to a single family residence and includes a new garage, an enlarged heightened atrium, and a new deck at the rear of the structure, in addition to the removal of tree or trees.

Staff is already discussed with the city's urban forester regarding removal of those trees, and that would be done as part of the architectural review application with associated tree removal permits.

A use permit is required for residential uses in the commercial office district, which is why we are here today.

And the structure was assessed for historic significance and was found not significant.

Here's the site plan.

A new garage at the front, a new atrium on an existing deck, somewhere in the middle, and then a new deck at the rear.

All additions would comply with required development standards for the CO zone district.

Here's a closer plan of the building.

This is as it would be proposed.

And these are the three areas that would receive new additions to the structure.

And here's an elevation of the east side that most clearly shows the three portions: the garage, a heightened atrium area, and the rear deck.

Findings required for approval from the zoning administrator include that the proposed use is in accordance with the objectives of the chapter and purposes of the zoning district, residential uses are permitted with a use permit.

And the project includes required parking, meets all development standards.

Additionally, the proposed use and conditions under which it would be operated would be consistent with the general plan, would not be detrimental to public health and safety and welfare of persons in the area.

The project was found to be consistent with the commercial land use and density, and there is uh parking provided.

And finally, that the proposed use will comply with any specific conditions required for that use.

There are no specific conditions that are put on this project.

If my memory serves, and my memory was wrong.

There are two special conditions that are put on this project.

One that the applicant is required to obtain that architectural review permit that was mentioned in the preceding slide.

And additionally, in the case that pavement or concrete adjacent to the sidewalk is replaced, the three-foot-wide planting area should be installed by the owner, except for those areas required for vehicle access.

This is to comply with one of the development standards for the CO district and is not anticipated at this time under this project.

There was no public comment received for this use permit.

And staff uh staff's recommendation is to adopt the resolution approving the use permit with special conditions.

That concludes staff's presentation.

Thank you, Mr.

Muggate.

I just have one question.

What is the parking requirement for this project?

The parking requirement defers to residential, which is one covered and one uncovered.

In the case of the garage, there would be two spaces.

Okay, thank you.

Um I don't have any further questions.

Do we have a presentation or any any comments from the applicant?

Len Warner Architect.

How are you doing?

Um I would just agree with everything Matthew just said, and then we should approve it.

I don't see any reason not to.

We need housing, right?

So let's do it.

Great.

Uh do you would you like to come?

Are you the owner?

Uh yes.

Yeah, please.

Please, yeah.

Well, you're welcome to make a comment as well.

Would you like to make a comment?

Yes.

You can speak your name into the link.

Um, my name is Ken Nelson.

My wife is here.

It's our future residents.

Uh, as we get older, we'd like to be able to walk into town and uh not have to drive.

And that's a perfect location.

Uh and so we would appreciate approval.

Okay, thank you for your comments.

Uh now would be the time for public comments relating to this item.

Do we have anybody that would like to make public comments from the public?

I currently see no hands raised in the online, but I'll remind the public that information on how to participate remotely by Zoom or telephone is found at monterey.gov forward slash agendas.

If you are joining by telephone, dial star nine to raise your hand and star six to unmute.

Uh there are still no attendees with their hands raised.

Thank you, Spencer.

Uh, seeing no public commenters remaining in the chamber, uh, I will go on close to close public comment uh for my own deliberation.

Um, I do agree with the staff's recommendation and findings.

Um, I think that this is uh an appropriate project for this site.

Uh, this zone does permit single family dwelling uses by use permit and does have does have all the uh necessary requirements of the code, including the parking.

Um, it is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, which we have seen uh additional housing units slowly uh come into this area, and I think we'll continue to see so over time.

Um, it would not be uh detriment to the neighborhood or uh really have any sort of impacts to the surrounding neighborhood, and the pro the applicant will comply with the required conditions of approval for an architectural review permit uh as well as uh landscaping if the project includes new driveway.

So with that, um I will approve the project.

Um this approval is appealable to the planning commission within 10 days with forms that are found in the planning department or on the planning website.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Do you guys yeah?

Yep.

Architectural review.

It'll be the architectural reviews.

Um, thank you guys.

Thank you.

Congratulations.

Okay.

Uh we'll move on to item number four, which is consider seven White Tail Lane use permit application UP 250137 for replacement retaining wall over six feet in height, 11 feet proposed.

Applicant Alison Bauer, Central Coast Engineers, Inc., and owner is uh Chapel Martin and Cynthia M.

Oh, it's the trend their trust.

Excuse me.

Uh, the zoning is R120 D1 uh and has a low density residential general plan designation.

Do we have a staff report?

I will share my screen.

Today we are also here to talk about seven White Tail Lane for a use permit for a retaining wall over six feet in height at today's zoning administrator meeting.

Some background on this project.

Seven Whitetail Lane is located in the southern southeastern portion of the city, and there is an existing one-story single-family dwelling.

Uh, there's some under floor basement area in the rear of the structure.

Uh, the land use is low density residential, and the zoning is for single family R120 D1.

The background on the proposed project.

The zoning ordinance requires a use permit when a retaining wall over six feet in height is proposed at an R-zoned lot, and the proposed retaining wall would be up to 11 feet tall, the lowest area closer to five feet, and uh there would be about 1.5 feet of backfill.

So maximum about 9.5 feet would be exposed.

The retaining wall length would be approximately 71 linear feet with two five-foot projections on each side, and uh this would be in response to a failing existing retaining wall that's already on the site.

Here are some photos of the site to the left and right, and you can see tarps trying to retain the soil on the existing retaining wall.

This is about where it would be installed.

The retaining wall would be placed about two feet beyond uh this area.

So it would widen the area that's behind this structure already, and there would be an existing rail, or there would be a proposed railing on top of it for safety.

Some additional information on the proposed project, like I mentioned, it would be constructed in front of the existing retaining wall with two feet of backfill.

It would be constructed above lower existing retaining walls on and within previously disturbed soils.

There would be a 42-inch high railing on top of the 11-foot tall retaining wall, and a new stair access would be included to the lower wall areas.

Here is an aerial of the site, or at least the back portion of the site.

There's an existing retaining wall.

Uh that is at the middle portion here, and there are some existing staircases that go down.

They're slightly starting to erode.

And the uh walkway upper area would be expanded slightly for the new retaining wall that would be placed on top of it.

There would be new stairs constructed at the middle of the retaining wall.

And all of this would be on top of existing retaining walls located further down the slope.

Here's an elevation of it.

You can see at the bottom the dashed line.

That is how far the retaining wall footing would go down to.

And a good amount of it would be uh covered with soil on top of that.

Here is a cross section of the retaining wall.

On the left is the staircase landing, and on the right is the retaining wall without the staircase.

You can see it's an L-shaped retaining wall, and the uh the backfill of the retaining wall would allow for some drainage down to piping at the bottom.

Findings required of the zoning administrator, is that the proposed use is in accordance with the objectives of the zoning ordinance and the purposes of the zone.

The general plan use map designates the site for residential, and the improvements are consistent with continued use as a residential site by providing stability.

Retaining walls exceeding six feet in height are permitted in this zone with a use permit.

The proposed project must be found to not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare.

And in the case of this project, it helps provide stability and promotes improved safety, is located entirely on site.

A geotechnical engineer review was provided that confirmed the design of the retaining wall.

Additionally, the proposed use must be must comply with any specific condition as listed in the conditions of approval and standard of conditions of approval would apply.

This project also requires an architectural review permit, which has been submitted to the planning department.

The recommendation from staff is that the zoning administrator approve the use permit with conditions.

That concludes staff's presentation.

I am not sure if the applicant's online.

Spencer, could you take a look and see if uh anybody is online that would like to make a comment for this project, including the applicant or any members of the public.

There are currently no attendees online.

Okay, thank you.

Well, I do have one question for staff.

Um, there is a special condition in the resolution that reads uh in the event that protected trees are removed or impacted to a degree that would require removal, a tree removal permit shall be obtained prior to final inspection.

Um I was just wondering if uh the intent was that a tree removal permit shall be obtained prior to removal as well as final inspection.

That is correct.

Uh that amendment could be made to the special condition.

There's a tree that is south of or not south, downhill of the lower retaining walls that uh the project is not anticipated to impact that route system.

However, since a portion of it encroaches into that area, there's the possibility if the routes went upslope that it may be affected.

Um is nowhere near where the improvements are anticipated.

Thank you.

Um, I have no further questions.

Um, so with that, I agree with the staff's recommendation and recommended findings.

Um, in that this project is consistent with the general plan because it supports the continued residential use of the property and and supports stability of the hill sign and safety in the rear yard.

Um, the zoning ordinance does allow a use permit to be issued for these types of projects.

Uh, retaining walls exceeding six feet in height.

Uh the project will not be detrimental to the health safety or welfare.

Two persons residing in the vicinity.

Um, and staff uh I think made the correct finding here.

Um, so with that, I'd I would like to approve the project just with that.

With with the the amendment to that special condition um that the tree permit shall be obtained prior to removal of any trees on site uh and prior to final inspection.

Uh with that we have no further business, so I'll close the meeting.

It is 420.

Thank you.