Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

So welcome to the September twenty third, two thousand twenty-five meeting of the City of Monterey's Planning Commission.

Sure.

Um Chair Silva has notified us he will be absent as commissioner as well as Commissioner Dawson.

So tonight with us, we have Vice Chair Latasa.

Here.

Commissioner Brassfield.

Present.

And Commissioner Freeman.

Here.

And our staff members present are planning manager Levi Hill, Principal Planner Fernanda Roveri, Principal Planner Christy Sabdo, Senior Associate Planner Chris Schmidt, and myself, recording Secretary Erica Brera.

Thanks.

So the first item on tonight's agenda is the um the approval of the consent agenda and the approval of the minutes from the September eleventh, two thousand twenty-five uh planning commission.

I'll make a motion to the ship.

Sorry, I did want to uh let the public know how to participate.

I apologize.

Go ahead.

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's their turn to speak, and a timer will be shown on the screen.

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

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.

Thanks, Erica.

So consent agenda.

Any uh comments or motions?

I believe we had a motion on the floor.

Okay.

Some minutes.

Okay.

I'm sorry, before we move on with the vote.

Did we open it up for public comment?

Well, the procedures that comes next.

No, not general public comment, but public comment on the consent agenda, which would be the minutes.

Oh, okay, good.

Thank you.

Uh, are there any uh comments from the public on the um this uh consent agenda item, the approval of the September 11th uh uh agenda minutes?

Anybody online?

I see no hands raised.

Okay.

So uh we'll move on.

So I believe we have a motion and a second, and um you wanna do a roll call?

Sure.

Vice Traça?

Yes, Commissioner Blue, yes.

Commissioner Brassfield, yes, and Commissioner Freeman.

Yes, okay, the minutes have been approved.

Great.

So uh next item is uh general public comments.

Is there anyone in the audience that would like to make a comment on an item not on this evening's agenda?

Okay, anybody online?

There are still no hands raised.

Okay, so we'll move right along to the uh regular uh public hearing.

Uh, the first item is item number three.

Um recommend the city council amend chapter 38, section 38-112.5 of the Monterey City Code to establish local density incentives for qualifying housing projects.

Uh so uh we'll start off with a staff report.

Yes, thank you, Commissioner Letassa.

Uh so yes, as Commissioner Latasa noted, we are getting started tonight with our first item.

This is an update to the city's local density bonus, and this comes out of section 38-115 of the Monterey uh City Code.

Jump into what this is.

So the staff recommendations that the planning commission hold a public hearing and adopt a resolution recommending that the city council amend the zoning code to establish local density incentives for qualifying housing projects.

So a little bit of background on this item.

Uh if you recall on in July of 2024, the city council adopted Monterey's uh general plan update, which included an update to our six-cycle housing element.

Uh, and within that housing element included our housing action plan, which was a list of about 50 some odd uh programs and initiatives the city was going to take on to incentivize or increase our production of housing in the city, and included in those programs were programs 2F and 3C.

So those are commitments that the city made at that time to in those programs to make certain updates to uh our density bonus ordinance at the city.

Uh in particular, program 2F uh said that we would uh bring our density bonus ordinance up to date with all the more recent state law changes that had happened since their original adoption of our density bonus ordinance.

And then program 3C said that we were going to implement additional uh local incentives, whether that be density incentives or development incentives for uh projects as well that met certain affordability levels.

And then uh so where we landed was a uh with an existing local density bonus that got adopted uh in December of 2024 with our first phase of implementation of our housing element.

And so what exists today under our local density bonus that extends beyond what the state density bonus already allows, uh, is on your slide before you, and that includes three different provisions that uh creates additional incentives for developments when they meet certain criteria.

And so these are the existing provisions of our local density bonus that are in the code today, and it includes a provision uh for law consolidation, where if a project proposes to create a single lot of at least a half acre, they may obtain 10 uh a 10% density bonus.

And that was to incentivize the consolidation of the many small lots that we have here in the city that would allow for a higher density development.

And then another provision in our existing local density bonus is for two and three bedroom units to incentivize those in the way of uh if a development proposes 70% of the units to be two or three bedroom units, they may obtain an additional 10% density bonus.

And then we the third provision uh involves moderate income units to help the city achieve its goal uh and meeting arena in the way of uh at the moderate affordability level.

And that states that uh projects that provide 40% of the units for moderate income household may obtain a 10% density bonus.

And so uh where the proposed amendment comes in is after this was adopted, it became apparent that the a little bit of a gap in our existing local density bonus as well as the state density bonus law uh is for 100% affordable housing projects, which obviously the city supports and wants to incentivize in the ways that we can.

Uh so what uh seeing that gap, staff has now proposed an additional provision that would add to the three that you just saw that would specifically target 100% affordable housing developments and it would incentivize uh the increased deed restricted units at lower uh income affordability levels.

And what I mean by that is that's uh units that are deed restricted to uh uh families making either in the low or very low income categories.

So that would be uh exclude market rate and moderate income levels.

So this is specifically for developments that have 100% of the units available or deed restricted to uh low and very low income or affordable levels.

And so the exact text of the uh proposed amendment is uh also on this slide, stating that 100% affordable housing developments meeting criteria government code section 65915 uh subsection B, subsection one G, which that's a reference to the state density bonus uh law, uh, may obtain a 50% density bonus independent from and additional to the provisions of state density bonus law.

So with that, the staff is recommending that the planning commission hold a public hearing and adopt a resolution recommending the city council amend the zoning code to establish local density incentives for qualifying housing projects, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Great.

Thanks, Levi.

Any questions of staff?

I was reading an article today, but in some places they're having a hard time finding contractors to build with these kind of restrictive uh mechanisms in place.

The city monterey running into that issue.

So it's uh we always have a lot of uh conversation with our developers on meeting our existing inclusionary requirement, which is 20% uh distributed 10% moderate and 10% low or very low.

Um so that's what are existing for just any development with the six units or more.

Um, as far as uh, so we we definitely have heard from developers that there's challenges in meeting that requirement and still getting projects to pencil out.

Um, we are looking in uh ways that we can perhaps uh allow for the affordable um requirements or inclusionary requirements to be met in other ways, whether that be in an NLU fee or off-site, but that's all uh at this point just conceptual, hasn't actually been put into a draft ordinance that would come before this group as well as our city council before the city would start uh accepting that as fulfillment of our inclusionary requirement.

This specific uh amendment here targets 100% affordable housing projects, which are typically uh being proposed by affordable housing developers that want to do 100% affordable.

So that's kind of their mission or goal typically with those types of developers that are looking to do 100% affordable uh housing projects, and they usually get those to finance through other means, whether that be through grants that are available or financial assistance that uh comes from independent financing funding sources, whether those be nonprofits or again just government grants and uh tax credits and things of that, housing vouchers, things of that nature.

So you are seeing some resistance.

I think uh resistance is I don't know if I'd use that word.

I think it's gonna be challenging uh in this current economic climate for developers to get projects to financially uh pencil out and that the inclusionary requirement can at times be seen as an additional challenge.

We've seen that on North Fremont right now.

That's why I asked.

Is there going to be a review process in one year or two years?

What do you mean by review process?

If it starts running into these kind of problems, are we going to be reviewing it for actionable process to resolve it?

To see how it's performing and to evaluate that.

Yeah.

So every year we have to do a uh annual progress report for the State Department of Housing and Community Development.

Um, so as a part of that report, we have to provide data on all the units that we've produced in the previous year and all the progress that we've made in uh implementing our housing element, which means you know, how are we doing uh in the way of uh fulfilling our RENA requirement?

So those are times where we're always looking at where we're doing uh what we're doing well, what we could do better, and whether or not the programs that we're um implementing are effective or not.

So kind of annually we take a look at those things.

Has there been any discussion at policy level of trying to identify just employee housing separate from the general population?

Um so we have so I think what you're referring to is more like uh you know workforce housing that's being sponsored by perhaps an employer.

Is that correct?

Well, in general, we're I I talk to people and they're saying they have a hard time having finding employees that can live here.

And basically, they want just a small place that they can live, but they're nothing on the market.

That's why.

I talking to them, we're gonna be running into more of this problem.

That's why I asked the question.

Yeah, we're seeing a lot of uh, actually seeing a lot that varies the spectrum as far as different housing products that are being proposed right now.

We've had some, we have uh some of the units uh very mixed uh unit type that's going in and garden road and our new overlay areas, and then some of the other developments are 100% studios.

So we're seeing um as developers come in, especially for redevelopment projects, they're looking at what makes the most sense from a feasibility standpoint, whether or not they should go to something that's more of a mixed bedroom, because kind of working within the bones of the existing building.

Um, but we are starting to see more of a variety of housing products being proposed.

Thank you.

Sure.

Um, Bill.

Um, I just um out of curiosity, given the water issues, I mean, if you overlay that in terms of the discussion that we just had, I mean, are we seeing any projects that are coming in?

Um, that the water is not the primary factor in terms of um limiting what developers are attempting to do?

Excellent question.

Um it's not typical, but we are seeing it at times.

So this provision would still benefit projects that we have uh discussed with with various developers, but you're correct.

Most of the time it's the water uh credits, their water situation that is limiting uh the density of projects.

But with there being talk of perhaps that landscape changing in the future, we want to be ahead of that and make sure that we have the proper tools in place that makes it work for um potential housing projects.

Oh Sandy.

Just a question, um, so that people understand what the word density bonus means.

So on a hundred percent affordable housing, let's say it's a three-bedroom apartment, and it used to be that six people would be allowed in the three-bedroom apartment.

With a 50% density bonus, does that mean that nine people could live in the apartment now?

So it's not based on occupant, but rather the actual unit count.

So that's something that's kind of interesting about density bonus.

And when you talk about density in general, it doesn't really uh make much of a distinction between the size of a unit, how many occupants or bedrooms a unit might have.

So when you look at a unit, it's uh, you know, a development that's 50 units, whether those are studios or or I'm sorry, whether those are one bedroom or two-bedroom, doesn't really come into play.

It's still a 50-unit development.

So density bonus doesn't actually touch the occupant count, rather the unit count.

So I think the better way of probably describing it would be if you had a project that the density allowed 10 units, 50%, if it was 100% affordable, 50% of that being five additional units would be allowed rather than looking at how many people or bedrooms are there.

Not necessarily not based on the density, they wouldn't.

So there could be other development standards like a floor area ratio or a lot coverage that may require the units to be reduced based on the size, but the density itself doesn't actually look at that.

You know, in one of these that isn't being discussed tonight, number two.

Somebody can get a one additional story and building height to facilitate achieving maximum density densities.

What from what base height to what new height would that be?

Yeah, so that that provision specifically is in the Alvarado district, so that uh we increased the allows additional stories to meet that maximum density, I believe, capped at seven stories in the Alvarado district.

Seven.

So that provision actually only applies in that specific area of town.

I don't think there is a building except for the Marriott that's higher than seven feet presently in the city.

Not presently, I don't believe so.

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay.

Uh I just have one question.

So following up on Bob's um question about the water, um, so I mean, right now, I understand that the Monterey One project is going to result in an allocation for the city.

I it was just in the pine cone last week that the um city of Carmel has decided their priority for the water.

I uh this is related to this item.

So where do we stand with the water that we probably will be getting from Monterey uh one water and how much is it?

And is there going to be a priority list?

So we uh based on the ordinance that was adopted by the Monterey uh Peninsula Water District Management District, we are allocated, I believe, is 143 acre feet of water, um roughly 140 acre feet of water.

Um there is there will have to be some level of policy that the council adopts that would you know set our direction on how that water is to be allocated or whether or not that water is to be accepted based on the provisions of the cease and desist order that still is is applicable.

So that'll be a conversation the council is expected to have this year at some point to that water is actually not physically available until 2026, even from the water district.

Uh so there's so we do expect that our city council will have that discussion and and um we'll discuss the the water policy before then.

Okay, yeah, I mean 26 was just it's not far away.

Yeah, less than three months, yeah.

So okay.

Uh well thank you.

Um so are there any um comments from the audience on this item?

Okay, seeing none, are there any online?

I don't see any hands raised, but once again, information on how to participate remotely by Zoom or telephone is found at monterey.gov forward slash agendas.

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

And there is a hand that just went up.

Okay, I'll go ahead and allow Jean Rash to speak.

Hi, I just have a question for Levi.

As to the percentage in the in the 100% affordable development, what would be the percentage of the low and the very low under that under that code?

And and um, I understand that he doesn't necessarily have to answer the question.

That's my question, though.

Thank you.

Would the commission like for me to respond?

I I would like you to answer that question.

Thank you.

Okay, um, I think perhaps we can make sure there's no more public comments, then I'm happy to answer that question.

Okay.

Any other um comments from the public?

I see no hands raised.

Okay.

Go ahead and uh give us your comments on that, please.

Yes.

So of the I believe I believe the question was of the bonus.

What would be it's for 100% affordable housing uh project?

So that additional 50% would also have to be low and very low income units.

And the original 100% would also have to be all low and very low income units.

Okay.

Sorry.

Thank you.

So uh no more comments.

So we will bring it back to the commission for deliberation and a vote.

Any comments, Mike?

Bob?

Andy?

No, I it was when I first read it, it seemed like all three elements were being discussed, but it's just the one, it's the 100% affordable housing one that's being discussed.

That is correct.

Okay.

Okay.

So I will entertain a motion from somebody.

I'll make the motion that we recommended council.

That to make the changes in this ordinance.

Or to amend chapter 38, section 38-11.5 for the moderate city code to establish low density incentive for qualifying housing projects.

Okay, I have a motion.

Is there a second?

Second.

Okay, we have a motion and a second.

Uh can we do a roll call, please?

Sure, Vice Chair Letassa.

Yes.

Commissioner Blue.

Yes.

Commissioner Brassfield.

Yes.

And Commissioner Freeman.

Yes.

Okay.

That motion carries with a vote of four.

Great.

Motion is approved, and uh we'll move on to tonight's main item uh number four.

Uh consider 2400 garden road use permit application, UP 25-0013 for a daycare general use and variance application, VA 25-0075 for reduced front and side yard setbacks.

Applicant Sean Caps, Wild Runkey, and Dose Architects.

Owner, WR Mont LLC.

So we'll start off with a staff report.

Uh thank you, Chair Latassa.

Uh, my name is Chris Schmidt.

I'm a senior associate planner with the city.

I've been working with the applicant on this project uh since about the beginner beginning of 2025.

Uh so again, we're looking at a use permit for a uh monitory daycare as well as a uh setback variance for two components that I'll describe a little bit further.

Um but to start with the staff recommendation, the staff recommends that the planning commission adopt resolution.

Two we have two separate resolutions as part of this staff report.

Uh the first being uh denying of the use of denial of the use permit, and then the second is uh the recommendation to approve the variants for the proposed waste enclosure with conditions of approval, but uh but denying the deck variance.

Uh so to begin, just some basic information about the subject property it is uh located on garden road, um accessible from garden court, as you can see here.

This is the site 2400 Garden Road.

It contains an existing office uh office building.

Uh, and there's also access that goes through these lots to another uh driveway here.

So the project description includes conversion of the approximately 11,000 square foot commercial office building to a daycare use.

Uh daycare operations would include hours of operation from 7 a.m.

to 6 p.m.

104 students on site is the maximum that would be permitted based on the uh available water credits to the site, ages would range from six months to six years.

Uh the applicant has in their project description proposed uh staggered drop-off for um, you know, ensuring that there's not uh a traffic impact associated with drop-off and pickup.

Uh they would have 16 staff members on site.

Uh and as I mentioned in the beginning of the PowerPoint, there is a new waste enclosure proposed and deck uh within setback areas requiring a variance.

So here we see the site.

Um, and so if you can see my mouse, this is the existing structure at the site.

There's the proposed deck in orange on the uh, I guess this is the west side of the lot.

And then on the south side, this is the proposed trash enclosure location.

Here is that cul de sac that I called out in the aerial.

So the site circulation would be as such that you would enter the site from here, they would do their drop off at this location.

Um, and then they could exit the site from that same site.

Um if you can see again see my cursor here.

These areas would uh there's existing uh landscaping here, but these areas would be essentially turned into play areas.

Uh the proposed deck at this area.

This is actually fairly uh there's there's quite a bit of topography on this side of the lot.

So the applicants uh intent is to build this deck structure for more lay area.

You can see there's kind of a grass area proposed here with with like a turf material.

Um, and then they would uh as part of the proposal kind of re resurface the lot and create this drop-off area.

Um, so the project does include 17 parking spaces meeting the requirement for this, the intensity of this use.

Um, and yeah.

Um, so on on the topic of the setback variances, the the purpose of this graphic is really to show uh essentially where this oval is is uh really the only developable area outside of setback areas.

Um, and so the existing waste enclosure, which is really just uh a chain link fence that houses um their dumpster uh would uh be removed and it would construct an actual enclosure that is compliant with the city's waste enclosure guidelines.

Um and this has been determined by the waste hauler uh Monterey city disposal as the appropriate location based on the topography of the lot and the circulation of the parking lot in its existing and proposed condition.

Uh so staff is supportive of the waste enclosure for that reason.

Uh and as you can see, the proposed deck it is located within the setback area.

So uh, and I'll also mention there are 50 foot setbacks to all sides of the property lines here.

Um so that deck is located within that setback area as well.

Uh so a bit of background.

So the this item was agendized in June of this year, and the staff received uh for a planning commission hearing, the staff received notice from the Monterey Regional Airport, which I've noted in this uh staff report and and PowerPoint as MRY as their uh their letter sign.

I'm not sure if that's the term, um, that the project requires ALUC Airport Land Use Commission review uh due to its location within the airport influence area, safety zone seven, uh, approximately 1400 feet away from the main runway.

The airport's position is that they oppose the proposal due to vulnerable occupants uh children within 6,000 feet of the runway due to risk from aircraft operations.

The June 25th uh planning commission item was continued at the recommendation from staff uh and an ALUC application was submitted.

On July 28th, the AUC determined that the project was inconsistent with the 2019 airport land use compatibility plan.

Um that's typically not the end when the airport land use commission uh finds a project inconsistent.

There is an override process, which is prescribed by state law.

Uh only the council, the city council can override under the state law.

Uh it requires a 45-day notice to the airport land use commission and the Caltrans Department of Aeronautics, and there would have to be some substantial uh evidence findings uh part of as part of that notice.

Uh and then the override must be adopted by two-thirds uh of the council.

The planning commission's role here is the planning commission can approve the use permit.

Uh they cannot override the ALUC.

If the Planning commission commission chooses to approve the use permit today, the staff would recommend a condition uh that the council override the ALUC.

Just some further background and in terms of a couple of different projects that uh went through this process in the past.

Under the previous 1987 airport land use plan.

The Calvary Monterey Church Project override was done by the council in 1993.

The Ryan Ranch daycare, it didn't follow an override process.

The city council authorized the staff to send a letter to the ALUC asserting that an override was not required, and the project was approved.

The Trinity Christian High School project was uh approved by and overridden uh by the council in 2010.

Um, and then more recently, under the newer ALUCP, uh the ADU ordinance uh it was overridden by the council to comply with state housing mandates.

So, in order to approve the use permit aspect of this project, there are three findings.

Uh, the planning commission is very familiar with these findings, but for the public, I'll explain them in more detail.

That the first finding is that the proposed use is in accord with the objectives of this chapter, referring to the zoning ordinance and the purposes of the zone, which is the IR district, the industrial and research district.

Uh staff was able to make this finding.

The use does require use permit in the industrial district.

Uh, it is consistent with the intent of the district, it supports employees, businesses, and the community, as well as uh future housing projects.

Second finding is that the proposed use and the proposed conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will be consistent with the general plan, will not be detrimental to the public health safety or welfare of persons residing or working in or adjacent to the neighborhood of such use and will not be detrimental to properties or improvements in the vicinity or to the general welfare of the city.

Staff was not able to make this finding based on the uh location of the use within that airport safety zone, uh, and approximately 1400 square feet from the runway.

Um, it was found to be inconsistent with the airport land use compatibility plan, which does discourage uses with vulnerable populations within uh 6,000 feet from the runway.

So staff was not able to make this finding.

The third finding is that the proposed use will comply with any specific condition required for that use.

Staff made this finding.

Of course, these are conditions of approval.

So if the project was approved by the planning commission, the staff would recommend a number of different conditions relating to the approved project site plan, uh enrollment maximums, uh, stormwater requirements, tree protection, cultural resource protocols, hours offer hours of operations, and you know, generally consistency with their proposal in terms of pickup and drop off schedules.

So moving on to the variance relating to the waste enclosure and deck.

Uh, the first variance finding is that because of special circumstances or conditions applicable to the site.

Uh, these include things like shape, uh, size, topography, location or surroundings, strict application of the requirements of this ordinance to private such proper such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification.

Staff was able to make the able to make this finding for the waste enclosure, but not the deck.

There are a number of special circumstances circumstances that apply to the site.

Uh, for example, the site is zoned IR 130, that 130 number refers to a maximum, excuse me, a minimum lot size of 130,000 square feet.

This site is 32,700 square feet, so it is smaller than standard in this district, which is this is the smallest size, that 130,000 number.

Uh, it's irregularly shaped, uh, has uh existing building locations that would limit construction of a waste enclosure with within uh the developable areas.

There's topography, they're uh of course the 50-foot setback makes it difficult with such a small site.

So the city was able to make that finding for the waste enclosure as an operational necessity.

Uh the deck was not supported because it seemed to be more of a an amenity.

It it didn't seem like it was integral to the use.

Uh so staff was not able to make that finding.

The second finding is that granting the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity of the development site or to the public health safety or general welfare.

Um this finding was made for both the enclosure and deck.

The the waste enclosure, the existing waste enclosure is inadequate.

Um the current standards for waste enclosures include a roofed fully contained structure, often having uh a sewer connection.

Again, this was what's there now is just a simple uh chain link fence that's that's containing uh their waste uh bins and et cetera.

Um so the proposal would meet the guidelines for waste enclosures, it just would not meet the setbacks.

Um the deck itself, it is adjacent to a city retention basin lot.

Um, so there's a probably low likelihood that there would be other uses there in the future.

Um there would, and as well as low likelihood of noise or privacy impacts because there would be no other use.

And then the third and final finding for the variance is that granting the application is consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinance and would not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district.

Again, this project, this finding can be made for the waste enclosure, but not for the deck.

Um the variants would support adequate voice management at the site, um, but the deck variants would create a special privilege.

So with that, staff recommends that the planning commission deny the use permit and approve the variance for the waste enclosure and deny the variance for the deck.

Thank you.

Thanks, Chris.

Um, so we'll start with uh questions from the planning commission.

Uh Mike, do you have any questions?

Okay, uh.

We've looked at uh Garden Road as being uh location for dealing with our housing issue.

How does this compare to the issues with this plant?

Are we looking at similar um restrictions for from the airport board with housing that might be developed on Garden Road?

Well uh there are scripting with the guard to the interest.

I don't know the specific history for the uh ordinance to allow housing on the south side of Garden Road.

I I believe that the AUC was involved.

Yeah.

Yeah.

So I think the to answer your question, Commissioner Blues, the um specific provisions of the ALUCP that this project is is running into issues with deals with the distinction of vulnerable occupants, which in the ALUCP is defined as people, it's uh elderly children or people with disabilities.

So uh I think that's where the uh the commission, airport land use commission found the inconsistency and as opposed to housing projects that aren't 100% housing what they consider vulnerable occupants.

But we are required to take at a project level, we're required to take projects before the ALUC for determination.

So they're a part of all of our rezoning efforts.

Any general plan designation changes have to go before the ALUC as well, but also specific projects until our entire general plan and zoning ordinance is found to be consistent with the ALUCP.

Uh the airport land use commission uh is uh entitled to a review of all the projects that uh in the vicinity of the airport.

Um just as a follow up so if we're looking at the um reasons why the airport board might um deny this, is it um I'm it has to do with aircraft.

So is it effluent noise, um, risk of aircraft operations, all the above.

Do you know the sure?

Yeah, it was we were present for that meeting, and and it's already happened.

So it's not the airport board.

I'll just make the distinction, it's the uh airport land use commission.

Um, and they're they're tasked with overseeing uh the appropriateness of land uses and surrounding areas of the airport.

Uh so that meeting did happen as Chris mentioned in his presentation, and uh we were there, and it was a general uh safety uh concern.

Uh they the numerous different commissioners had different concerns, but it had to do with uh not just uh risk of potential collision, but also noise exposure and and other items as well.

But generally it was it was uh concerns about safety and and hazards that are associated with proximity to airport.

Okay, uh thank you.

Uh Sandy, do you have any questions?

I do kind of a head scratcher in a way because Garden Road, the South Side had already been approved for development of housing, and something like a Montessori school would just be another element in building a community on the south side.

We haven't done a garden road specific plan yet, but you know that could be coming.

That seemed okay.

Uh Montessori schools, everybody loves those, so that didn't seem to be a real problem.

The liability, I wonder if this isn't the bottom line issue.

Would the liability transfer to the city?

If the city were to city council were to override the airport land use commission and an accident occurred, uh, would the airport land use commission sign off and assign the liability to the city?

I hesitate to give uh an exact answer to that question or a matter of fact answer that question without you know consulting the city attorney's office on that for legal.

Uh there have been statements uh I've seen past um correspondence and previous overrides that came from the Caltrans division of aeronautics that implied such such things, uh, but that's not typically where we get our legal counsel from here.

So we I would I would hesitate to answer that without consulting the city attorney's office first.

If I were a city council person, and the uh planning commission approved this and said, go ahead and override the airport land use commission.

I think we're talking about a liability issue here and public safety.

I don't I don't see any other reason for the uh airport land use commission to turn it down other than the safety issue that's been mentioned several times.

Okay, um, those are all the questions.

Uh okay.

Oh, I have a few questions, Chris.

Uh can you go back to the site plan that was in the um the uh staff report?

So the I I take it that this parking, see where it says road easement along the bottom left part of the um image.

Yes, that's like excess parking for this parcel, even though it's not it's uh it's an adjacent parcel, but that marking is used for this parcel.

Um it's it's a separate lot with a separate building and business.

So I don't know that the parking is actually used for by this lot.

Oh, okay, because it appears from the um it isn't really you know that influential on the what we're talking about.

I'm just trying to understand the site plan.

So uh you're not sure whether that's parking as part of it.

Yeah, let me go back.

Here's a better look.

So access this the slot is basically not accessible from garden road.

Um and so.

Oh, I see.

So that's really there through the cul-de-sac, okay, and actually exits here.

I get it.

Okay.

All right.

Um, another question.

Um, so go back to the site plan.

So this is a um a small parcel for this um IR zoning, but the the 50 foot side setback seems so uh strange.

It I guess that's just I looked it up, that's what it is.

But um any comments?

Uh it seems so weird to have um such large side setbacks.

Usually front and rear are, you know, bigger and side setbacks are less, but this all setbacks are 50 feet in IR.

Correct.

Yeah.

Or IR 130.

Correct.

Yeah.

No, no specific comment.

It it did uh seem uh first, I like this appropriate to grant variants for the necessary necessary function of the uh then um when you look at the uh you could just keep it on this image, but the survey that was provided shows a bunch of trees, uh at least three or four of them that would be removed as part of the deck um improvement if that were to be improved.

What any, you know, I guess we're not worried about that.

That's sort of incidental at this point uh to the bigger issue of the use permit.

Right, yeah.

That would be we would look at that when we do um an architectural review permit and okay, get to that point.

Yeah, great.

And um, so the um in the um staff report, you go over these um four different examples of overrides in the history uh of the last 40 years, and just to understand the um, so like the uh you might not have these numbers at hand, but I thought it'd be interesting just to explore it.

So the the number the first one is the um Calvary Monterey.

How far is that from the um, do you know how far that is from the runway?

I don't know the specific distance.

Um, if you can kind of see where my cursor is, Calvary is right here.

Okay.

It's adjacent.

It's very close.

Okay, to the airport.

Yeah.

Yeah, okay.

Um and then two Justin Court, which is uh the Ryan Ranch daycare.

Same question.

Any idea how close that is to the runway?

I don't know the specific distance.

It's kind of in this vicinity here.

Uh-huh.

So I'm looking right now, the Calvary is roughly 900 feet from the active runway, and then closer to probably 500 feet to the taxiway.

Okay.

What about the uh are you you're talking about the cavalry?

What about the um Ryan Ranch daycare?

Considerably further, I can get to a measurement in just a moment.

Oh, it's over there, yeah.

Yeah.

Well, there's also the um it's not just the the side uh distance, it's also the um the two sort of approach distances, too.

Um so it's about 4400 feet of the crow flies.

Okay, Trinity Christian High School, that was on um Franklin, wasn't it?

Where is um Trinity Christian High School?

Um it is no longer in operation, but it was um, yeah, so frankly.

This site, yeah, next to McDonald's.

Okay.

So that was that the old car dealership, yeah.

I mean that new car dealership.

Yeah, I mean that's but that that was in the uh the approach area, I guess.

Just to understand these these precedents we're looking at.

Um the um see okay, so and then the um the applicants included uh or there was a letter in the file for Walker and Reed and uh Hansen Reed wrote this letter that was sort of a um a rationale for for a making a finding in this case, and um he makes the comment that there are all these other institutions, uh the sports center, Jack's Ballpark, Saucelito Ballpark, El Estero Park, and I mean he goes on to miss um a bunch of different um schools and um football fields, etc.

Montage health uh Ohama Center.

So um of all those uh, you know, I I think what he's doing here is he's kind of conflating the 10,000 foot setback on the approaches versus the side.

Because this is definitely kind of close to the side runway.

Um so you know, did the city do any and did you know what's your comment on Reed's statement there?

Yeah.

So we we received the statement and as you mentioned it notes a lot of other institutions and a lot of other locations, some that are 100% occupants by what you would consider vulnerable occupants in the ALUC P, some that aren't.

So I I hesitate to really make any assumptions on what what point was being made there.

But for the staff for planning staff of the city we're looking at specifically the findings of approval.

So it's not really looking at precedent that's been set or is being um you know implied okay we're looking at the findings of approval and uh we're looking at this uh as at a project level that went to the ALEC for consideration and was denied and we didn't have anything that was supported into the record as evidence that would allow us to consider that new information post that meeting okay okay where we felt like we were subject matter experts to override their decisions.

So that makes sense as a city's position.

Okay any more questions from the planning commission.

Okay so uh we're about to open the um the public hearing uh for the audience and the people online the applicant yeah the applicant will go first but I would like to just set a few grand rules first so the uh how much time does the applicant get so that's to the discretion of the chair as far as how much time the applicant gets are I'm glad you mentioned it because they're our following the procedures of the uh city council uh would note that typically under the new uh they were adopted last year for public comment for public appearance items the total time that's uh I typically allotted for a public uh hearing item is 30 minutes uh with three minutes per speaker however if the uh if there's more speakers than would be able to fit into that 30 minute allotted time the the chair has the discretion to uh change the allotted time per speaker okay if they choose to do so I think what I'd like of course Henry uh Runkey can speak as long as he wants uh but I would like to limit the other speakers to three minutes if that's okay.

Well three minutes is the typical limitation.

Okay I won't limit uh Mr.

Runkey to that.

Okay.

So okay so we have the applicant here.

If you could please say your name for the record.

Yeah my name's Henry Runkey I'm with Wald Runkey and DOST architects and thank you Chris for the the great presentation the uh obviously it wasn't what I wanted you to say as far as denied but we'll we'll get to that the um um you had some questions about some of the other projects and and I think um you know some of the things that aren't listed for example right next to this is the uh shoreline church and they have a daycare and that's been approved by the city and the reason why that is there and there's a daycare right there is because when this new plan came into play in 2019 it changed things so the Ryan Ranch daycare center is actually in the flight path and so they used to consider things right on the flight path in the periphery this area that we're in right now they call it a zone seven which is called an influence area and that's new and so that's why this is getting swept up in there and that's why I'm gonna make the presentation tonight and explain um how this project is a good project and should be approved because it makes a heck of a lot of sense.

So anyhow uh again my name's Henry Ranky I'm with Wald Ranke and DOS architects and our office is literally about two doors down from this project from the Montessori uh daycare and uh it's very close to our office.

So we were very familiar with the site and the environment on Garden Road.

We've been working with the Tersey family who runs Monterey or Montessori uh daycare uh they have uh we've worked very closely together we've worked very closely with staff and uh we were actually gonna arrive here sometime in June and have a great public hearing, and we were anticipating staff support of the project uh uh and unfortunately, just a few days before the public hearing, we received notice that the uh airport had a concern, and they wanted us to bring the project before the airport land use committee.

And after that happened at the end of June, kind of everything went into a bit of a spin.

But we're here tonight, and I think we've got a good project.

And despite some of the concerns, uh I want to convince you that this is something that should be approved.

I have a small PowerPoint with only eight slides, so it's not too long, but I just wanted to kind of give you a little sense of the what we call the zone seven.

And so uh what we're looking at here, I don't know if we can get that note off.

There it goes.

All that area in blue, you can see right in the center of that diagram.

That's the airport, uh, right in the little uh bullseye in the middle, and then you can see that whole blue area, that's their airport influence area.

And so you can see that that covers most all of Monterey, most all of Pacific Grove, a lot of uh Sand City, most of that part of uh seaside, and it's into Monterey County.

Uh, so it's uh it blankets a large area, and this is considered an influence zone, and that's the uh zone that we're in.

We're not in the flight path, so to speak.

Uh, if we go to the next diagram, please.

So when you look at the influence zone, the influence zone has a footnote in the zone seven.

And what it says is that from 6,000 feet from one side of the runway and 6,000 feet on the other side, and six and 10,000 feet from one end of the runway and 10,000 feet from the other end of the runway, that area right in there, we don't want to see or we discourage vulnerable uh populations, and they describe that as children, the elderly, and the disabled.

So that big box that you see right there actually goes all the way to the wharf uh to the uh that would be going to the west, it goes all the way past York School to the east, to the north, it takes out part of seaside, and to the south, it goes up into the hillside, it includes areas uh uh into Monterey County, and a lot of the areas that we're looking to put housing.

The next slide, please.

So, as uh mentioned, uh in that zone, um, we've got Santa Catalina School.

You know, if we were to use a criteria that the staff is discussing tonight, Santa Catalina School would violate the general plan under the health safety and welfare, and that school would never have been approved.

Likewise, Denis and Menace Park, I'm not gonna name them all, but you can see from the slide that there are a lot of different types of uses that we need in our community, and because of these uses, if we were to follow the strict definition and requirements of this airport land use compatibility plan, that means places like um, you know, shoreline church would not be able to expand their uses, or they would be considered also non-conforming.

And uh things like small things like rising star gymnastics, it could be argued that something like that is not allowed because you have children on the site, they're vulnerable population.

So, kind of where do we draw the line on this?

So that's uh you know something that we have to consider.

So the next slide, please.

So what was interesting is we were told, well, you got a problem, you need to go to the airport land use advisory commission.

And the interesting thing before the commission hearing, the expert, what I would call the expert, which is Edgar Sanchez, who's the part of the airport land use commission staff actually recommended approval of the project.

He says staff recommends that the Monterey County Airport Land Use Committee find that the proposed conversion of the existing 11,177 square foot commercial office building into a daycare facility and accompanying proposed improvements are consistent with the 2019 airport land use compatibility plan for the regional airport.

So the staff, the technical staff looked at the project and they said it conforms.

And I think staff for the city is indicated, hey, we're not the experts on airport law, litigation, all those types of things.

But this is the person who wrote the staff report.

This is part of their staff.

He's the one who is comparing what we're doing along with the compatibility plan, and they made the determination that this was acceptable.

He goes on to further state there are no other sites that are suitable within the Montessori School Target area, which includes the housing developments along Garden Road.

Zone seven is very large zone, encompasses most of Monterey, PG, parts of Seaside, locating a school outside of this zone would be attachment for outside of the target area.

Prohibiting these types of uses across the entirety of this broad area would significantly restrict uses throughout the city's jurisdiction.

So we have the county actually supporting our project.

Next slide, please.

And prior to the hearing, staff was supporting the project too.

They actually sent a memorable memorandum to the airport land use committee staff.

And I've highlighted the bottom.

Chris Schmidt uh uh is indicated on the bottom, it says, although AIA zone seven policy strongly discouraged the siting of land uses involving vulnerable populations, such as child care centers, it's important to note that zone seven encompasses a substantial portion of the city of Monterey.

Prohibiting these uses across the entirety of this broad area would significantly restrict uses throughout the jurisdiction.

Furthermore, the Monterey Regional Airport ALUCP identifies that aircraft incident risk in zone seven is low.

In summary, the City of Monterey planning staff recommended the project be found consistent with the airport land use advisory or compatibility plan.

And that's kind of interesting because if there was a conflict with the general plan with the city of Monterey, why didn't staff indicate that there's a health, safety, or welfare problem at that point?

Uh, next slide, please.

So I went to the airport land use compatibility meeting, and I've gone to several of them before, and I've gone to the one for Calvary Chapel way back when have been denied many times.

And uh, when we started the meeting, the comments that came started, such as um noise is an issue, we get noise complaints, we don't need more noise complaints, traffic's an issue, tired of people complaining.

We've got parking on garden road, the city hasn't solved that problem.

That's a mess.

And then we also talked quite a bit about the safety issues.

So there was more than just safety that was being thought about, and I think that there's very little incentive for the airport land use advisory committee to be supporting projects that could have a negative impact on what they may want to do at the airport.

So it didn't surprise me that we got a denial.

I think what surprised me was after we were denied by the airport land use committee, uh, the staff took that information and then they changed the staff report to or developed a staff report that didn't support the the use permit.

So we can go to this slide right here.

This I've taken a little bit out of the housing element because I'm on Garden Road, so we've got housing coming, and I've got a whole big project right next door that's just about ready to open up.

Uh, and it looks like there's gonna be a lot of people there, a lot of homes.

I think it's wonderful.

Um, this is an excerpt from the housing element.

I've got a blow-up, maybe we could go to the next slide, please.

And it says on the basis of the inventory, it assumes the development of 687 new multifamily housing units along Garden Road, which would be at densities deemed affordable for households making less than 80% of the area of median income.

So we're proposing 687 new homes or new residents uh in that location.

If we go to the next slide, please.

And if you break that down, I checked with Kim Cole today.

She sent me some information regarding how many people we have in each household.

That's a 1,443 people that are going to be in on garden road.

So we're gonna have 1443 people that are gonna need to drive a mile or more to get to daycare.

And so I also looked at this number because we do have a population of 1443 people that are just not going to be healthy adults.

There are gonna be children, there's gonna be elderly, there's gonna be disabled.

And I went ahead and did some research on that.

And what I find is that we have about 14% of our population is elderly, 24% is children, 13 and a half percent are disabled.

Now there's an overlap between the elderly and disabled and children and disabled.

But bottom line is we have about over 600 vulnerable occupants that are gonna be going on to the south side of the garden road.

So I have a hard time understanding how we can be segregating it one subset of vulnerable occupants from another.

I mean, we're gonna have vulnerable occupants there.

We've provided housing.

The question is, are we going to be able to support the housing that we're putting in?

1443 people is a new neighborhood.

We've created a new neighborhood on Garden Road.

And if you look at that map that I showed you, and if we were to have to exclude all of the area that the airport would like us to exclude for daycares, and other types of support services for these residents on Garden Road, I think that's a real real issue.

I think that we have an obligation as a community to support the idea that okay, if we're going to create a neighborhood, we need to be able to create the infrastructure to support that neighborhood.

And instead of having the people that live there have to get in a vehicle, travel two and a half miles in both directions to drop kids off to daycare versus walking down the street, that doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

It's a great project.

It really is.

We've got a great operator.

We should be very thankful that they want to come into our community.

You've seen the staff report.

You've seen all of the emails and letters that have been sent in that support the project.

There's absolutely nobody against it, except maybe those few members on the ALEC.

But this the but everybody that I've talked to has been very supported.

Brad Slama, uh, who is doing the development on the housing, was gonna be, I was hoping he was gonna be here tonight, but he told me of his support to be able to be able to bring in daycare because he feels that the residents that he's gonna be placing on Garden Road need these types of services.

The um just briefly on the deck issue, there's another variance that we're not uh getting uh recommendation for approval.

There's a variance.

Uh the deck is for outdoor play space, and unfortunately, that site is strangely configured.

There's a lot of slope, and on that side of the property that uh we're proposing the deck, it actually goes out to basically open space.

There's uh a detention base and a large detention basin that's hidden in trees.

Um, it has no impact on anyone.

There's really no other place to put the deck in the play area for the kids.

Um, if we try to step it with the hill, the reason why we're putting the deck is because there's steep slope.

I think that could be used as a a finding for a variance.

I think the fact that when you saw staff's little tiny bubble that shows what's not uh in the setbacks, it's it's minuscule, and there's really no other place to you know we'd have to put it somewhere.

We need an outdoor play area.

So anyhow, um, I would hope that the um planning commission will consider our project favorably.

Uh support the use permit.

I understand that we do have to go to the city council one way or the other.

I would love to go to the city council with a uh an approval on the use permit.

Worst case scenario, if you want to bifurcate the issue, say hey, we approve the use permit, but we're gonna stay silent on the issue of land use compatibility or safety.

That's something that has to be overridden.

So it's something that the city council has to tackle.

That would be okay.

I would like the uh planning commission to also approve both of the variances and not just one.

Um it just makes a lot of sense.

So with that, uh, I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Okay, uh Bob, you have a question.

Is there a current location that the Montessori School is working at now, or are they just looking at starting from scratch here?

This would be a from scratch location.

They currently have a location in Scotts Valley, and uh the owners of the school um are here and they uh uh Bill Tursey will uh come up and just speak briefly and tell you a little bit more about the school so you understand what they're doing.

Okay, uh thank you, Mr.

Runky.

Great, thank you.

Well, I'm sorry, Mike.

Yeah, Mike.

What are the drop off times and pickup time?

Drop off times will be uh daycare, work here, which usually anywhere you read working for the maybe.

I'm sorry.

We can you push the podium?

Sorry.

And in uh, my name's Bill Persham with Montessori Community School.

Um, so drop-off time can is typically for before care.

Um they can drop off anytime after 7 a.m.

And school starts at 820.

Typically, we'll get anywhere maybe up to eight, six, eight kids before 820, and then after care um is after starts after 3 15 p.m.

So basically most of the children will be in um at different times before between 8 20 in the morning and um roughly about um a quarter, quarter to nine, nine a.m.

Great.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Church.

I've got another one.

Um I was just wondering since um the applicant is making a presentation.

Um, Levi, could we consider this as part of that same?

We can I would encourage since he's part of the applicant team and property owner, he'll need to speak in its entirety because he won't be allowed to speak during public combat now.

Yeah, but go ahead and and uh well let's see, it seems like there are some specific are there any more questions for Mr.

Runky?

I don't okay.

So let's uh oh go ahead, Mike.

Um you show the deck and you also show a play area.

Yeah, and so there's a uh a play area toward the front for certain age kids, and so they have a different little play area, and then the deck is for some of the more young kids on the side.

So it's because we have multiple classrooms, we need the separate play area.

How long typically is a play time?

Remember about a play time?

Yeah, I'm gonna have my daughter Malin.

Is it okay if I have my daughter Mountain speak to the evening?

Yeah, yeah, sure.

Still, um, we're covering the same ground.

Why don't we um so thank you, Mr.

Runkey?

And uh as Levi said, this is part of the applicant team, so go ahead and and uh uh make your uh statement, please.

Madeline, I'm the director of the Scotts Valley Location.

Um, my family is the Tursey family, and we've been working really hard to push this project through.

Um, did you guys have a question on the playground?

I'm happy to answer that.

How long is the exposure time outside for the various age kids?

Um we have about an hour during the day for each classroom.

Um, our infants can go out any time that they want to.

Um, toddler is go out for an hour, primary go out for an hour, which is the free school.

Um, and then there's also after care from three o'clock to about 4 30, they're outside.

Um, and that's a handful of children since most of the children are um around 8 30 to 3.

Thank you.

Okay, uh, thank you.

Um, so you have a question?

Well, I'm assuming that we're continuing the discussion based on the applicant's um presentation and the owner.

I mean, I think I have a um number of questions following through with Sandy's and concern with regard to liability.

Um, I mean, would you be willing to accept indemnifying the city and taking on all liability regarding any issues associated with aircraft operations in your school?

Absolutely.

Absolutely.

I believe I'd have to check our records, but I believe we have something similar set up with uh the city of Scotts Valley.

So is the facility there also near an airport?

No.

Okay.

It is not.

I think that would be the primary issue.

Reminded that there's a navigation easement that has a blanket liability coverage uh that uh related to the airport uses that is on this property currently.

Thank you.

Now, the the the real estate broker who owned the property prior, uh, just gave me that information.

Okay, thank you.

Uh, any other questions?

Well, uh, you still haven't done your presentation, so please go ahead and uh make your presentation.

Um again, my name is Bill Tursey.

I am here with my was here with my wife and my lovely um granddaughter, but my granddaughter has had different um ideas.

Uh my daughter, Madeline and Aurora, and um my son, who is not here.

Hopefully, he'll have a presentation on um Zoom.

Um, together we all own Montessori Community School.

My wife is a taller teacher.

Madeline, as I said, was the director, and Aurora is assistant head of school and Gerard is um our office manager in Naomi, who was here is um a student at our school.

Uh 23 years ago, with the help from my parents and cousin.

My wife and I started Montessori community school in hopes of enriching our lives and enriching the community with the teachings of Dr.

Maria Montessori.

Montessori community school consists of three generations of Montessori students, teachers, parents, and administrators, working together to create a caring community devoted to the principles of Dr.

Maria Montessori.

We are here tonight to obtain the support of the planning commission to reach our goal of enriching the community of Monterey with the teachings of Dr.

Maria Montessori.

Montessori is a child-centered educational approach developed by Dr.

Maria Montessori, which emphasizes self-directed learning and independence in a specially prepared environment with hands on materials with Montessori AMI train guides in our infant primary and toddler classrooms.

We offer a full Montessori experience.

Our classroom materials and environment respect the children's individual process of learning and also reflect the pride that children have in their work.

MCS strives for a true Montessori experience, which is structured by the principles of AMI.

AMI, which stands for Associated Montessori International, was started in 1929 by Dr.

Maria Montessori to maintain and develop her teachings with the purpose of making it available to as many children as possible worldwide.

We're the only Montessori accredited by AMI in the Santa Cruz and Monterey area, and one of just a handful of schools in the Bay Area.

Back in November of 24, our family purchased 24 Garden Road in hopes of opening a Montessori School.

2400 Garden Road will be an exceptional location for Montessori Community School, bordered by Highway One, Highway 68, multiple in this industries, and squarely in the middle of Monterey's planned development for residential units on Garden Road.

At the location of 2400 Garden Road, many families will be able to easily access Montessori community school by a short walk, bike ride, or an easy drive.

Montessori Montessori Community School will continue our tradition of reaching out to the families that might need a little support by actively working with organizations that help families find quality preschools.

We are bringing a strong source of support to the local economy, local colleges by employing all of our teachers who have had early childhood education field, offering very good paying jobs with benefits.

Montessori community school's logo reads Montessori community school a foundation for life through the love and dedication towards the families that will be attending Montessori community school.

We will strengthen that foundation that every family needs while raising their children.

It is so important for the community of Monterey to have strong, well-purposed education in this thriving community.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr.

Chirch.

Okay, so now I would like to invite other speakers to your chair.

Yes.

I would just strongly encourage you to reconsider the amount of time.

I believe we have about 17 attendees online.

Yeah.

So before we begin public comment, three minutes for every speaker could be a pretty lengthy.

So uh think two minutes.

Uh two minutes, or you can take a poll in the room and see who's actually here to speak, and we can do the same online.

So that's typically what they do at council.

Uh the mayor will ask who has who wants to speak on the item and get a show of hands in the room.

Okay, but I have a show of hands for those in the audience who want to speak.

Okay.

Well, I think the um I think you we want to take a look online at Blue Bell 17 in attendance.

Well, if they're 17, I assume they want to speak there.

Or they might not.

Um, there's currently three hands raised online.

Okay.

Four.

Yeah.

Well, you know, the I think the applicant has done a great job of making the presentation.

And I would like to suggest that we limit the speakers to two minutes then in the council chambers and online.

So we'll uh, you know, please come on forward one by one and we'll uh start inside the chambers and then we'll handle the um online people later.

So you'll take care of the uh time.

I will take care of that.

Thanks, Erica.

Okay, so come on forward.

Yeah, please come forward.

Uh don't be shy.

Yeah.

Um I've already introduced myself.

My name is Madeline.

Um I'm here to speak as a former Montessori child, current Montessori parent of two, and long-standing Montessori director.

A parent school for their child is the same to be benevolent, honorable, confident, successful, and a good and moral citizen of the world.

This goal is inherent in each of those parents.

I believe deeply in the Montessori education because this is not only my goal as a parent, but it encompasses the vision and the focus of Maria Montessori.

Montessori education is not focused on rote memorization or play-based learning.

Montessori education focuses on each child's whole and individualized development and guiding them through these formative years so they can have a foundation in life based on the above goal.

A child will build his or her personality before the age of six.

It is critical that we provide the best environment to support this development so we can support our children, which are the future of our world.

This is what we want to bring to the Monterey area.

I could go on and on about the benefits of Montessori education, but in my short allotted time, I want to focus on how illogical it is to prevent our Montessori school from opening in the community.

The whole premise of this recommended recommended denial is based on irrational fear.

The fear that something so improbable and extremely rare would happen to our school.

There is a risk in absolutely everything we do.

Using the same logic, children and elderly would be banned from flying in an airplane for risk of it crashing.

The same logic would also ban children from driving for the risk of crashing, which is an exponentially higher risk.

The same fear-based logic would not allow a daycare from opening along any street for the risk of a car going through, which would also be a higher probability.

Instead, in these scenarios, our community allows the parents to decide what is safe for their family and make their own choices.

That is what I'm asking for you to allow.

Let each parent decide what is safe, just like deciding to drive.

Thank you very much.

Okay, so come on forward.

Next.

Hi.

Good evening.

My name is Alex Schwartz.

I'm ninth generation Monterey native with family roots here dating back to the Spanish settlement.

My father has served his community for decades as an attorney, offering pro bono support to the elderly.

Giving back to Monterey has always been part of who we are.

Growing up here wasn't easy.

Struggled in struggling with ADD and dyslexia.

And it wasn't until high school that anyone recognized these learning differences.

That experience taught me how critical it is for children to have schools that truly understand and support them.

That's what Montessori program does.

It meets children where they are, builds confidence, and lays a foundation for lifelong success.

At a time when schools are closing, we have a rare opportunity to open something new, something that will serve Monterey families for generations.

And it's importantly that this project fits surroundings.

The airport already includes businesses, doctor's office, San Octavian School.

Montessori school is perfectly aligned the way this area already serves our community.

The school is more than a project, it's an investment in our children and the future of Monterey.

Denying it would mean turning away from an opportunity our community truly needs.

I respectfully urge you to support this Montessori school and allow it to move forward.

When we invest in our children, we invest in the future of Monterey.

And there is no greater responsibility than that.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, next.

Hi, my name's Aurora.

Um, I'm the assistant head of school at Montessori Community School in Scotts Valley.

Monterey County is in dire need of child care, and it is unfair to try to stop a high-quality preschool from joining this community over a hypothetical fear.

The arguments against our school would make more sense if it was a public school because some families have to put their children there without a choice.

But this is a private school where families are able to make that choice for themselves.

Parents should be able to make the choice on whether or not they send their children to a school nearby an airport, rather than the planning commission taking away the choice from parents or the city council.

This could leave them in a terrible spot where they have to either stay home from work, not socialize their children in a school setting, put them in a low quality daycare, or even put them in an unlicensed daycare where they are not supervised properly and could face neglect, abuse, serious injury, or sadly death.

We have already seen this once with the infant that sadly passed away in Salinas while at an unlicensed daycare.

There were more preschools open with financial assistance options.

Would that death have been preventable?

The Monterey Airport said that they are denying our proposal, so it won't be on their conscience if something happened from the airport.

But if this is the case, how will everyone feel if there is a death in an unlicensed daycare in the area?

That too will be on their conscience.

I urge you to allow parents to make the choice on whether or not the school is too close to the airport by themselves instead of taking away the parents' choice.

Not allowing this school to be a part of the community will leave some families with their only option being an unsafe for low quality school.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay.

Hi, my name is Melissa Coppt.

I'm a teacher at the Montessori Community School in Scotts Valley and would like to express why it's important to have a licensed AMI Montessori school in the Monterey community.

We are asking your approval to move forward with the opening of a Montessori school in Monterey.

Families in the community currently have limited access to high quality licensed Montessori educational options.

Often parents turn to mediocre, sometimes unlicensed daycares, daycare facilities that do not meet safety and state licensing and educational standards, as tragically seen in Salinas, where an unlicensed facility resulted in the tragic death of an infant.

Doesn't our community deserve better?

We know that the planning commission is raising concerns regarding the school's proximity to the airport.

While safety is a priority for everyone, the likelihood of such an incident is extremely rare.

There are airports in all types of communities with schools close by without incident.

Additionally, many schools are located on busy roadways, and few, if any, have incidents.

We strongly believe that given the interest from parents in the community to this new school, they have made the decision that this is a safe environment for their children and are not all concerned about the airport.

That this decision should ultimately rest with the parents who are best positioned to weigh the risks and making informed choices about their children's education.

Our school will provide an authentic Montessori education with teachers certified through the Association Montessori International, AMI certified educators undergoing rich rigorous training, ensuring a safe, structured and child-centered learning environment.

We are also committed to the accessibility by offering financial assistance to families who qualify so that more children may benefit from this high standard of education.

The Tersey family has a long history of successfully operating Montessori schools.

They have owned and operated their school in Scotts Valley for over 20 years, and under the leadership of Director Madeline, who has served in this role for over a decade.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you very much.

We appreciate it.

Next.

Is there anybody else in the chamber who would like to speak?

Good evening, members of the planning committee.

My name is Sheikah Goshik, and I am one of the lead teachers of the one of the primary environment in Scotts Valley.

I am speaking today on behalf of Montessori Community School.

I would first like to thank you for the opportunity to present our request and for the careful consideration you are giving to this matter.

We understand that one of the committees' concerns is the proposed building's proximity to the airport.

Safety is our highest priority.

And we want to reassure you that this property has a long history of safe community use.

For many years, it operated as a church and later as office space.

Welcoming families and large groups without incident.

This track record demonstrates that the building is not only safe, but also well suited for public gathering, including educational purposes.

The building itself is highly appropriate for school use.

It offers spacious, well ventilated classrooms, secure entry points, and dedicated areas for learning and outdoor activities.

With small adjustment, it can provide an enriching, calm, and secure environment where children can thrive.

What weighs most heavily on our community right now is the urgent need for more classroom space.

Monastery Community School has a long waiting list for families who wish to enroll their children.

If this property is not approved, many of these children will be left without access to the quality education their families are seeking.

This will not only impact our school, but also place additional pressure on the limited educational resources available in our broader community.

We are fully committed to meeting all compliance requirements and working with the city to address any additional safety or operation concerns.

We want to be responsible partners and ensure this school remains an asset to the community.

In closing, I respectfully ask you to see this building as more than just a property.

Thank you very much.

Anyone else in the chambers would like to speak?

Hi, I'm Kim Rockio, and I currently work at the Montessori Community School.

I'm not a great public speaker, but I do have to say I've worked there for eight years.

I think eight, nine, somewhere around there.

And it's the best job I've ever had.

The Turches cultivate uh you know, just an atmosphere of support, um, fairness, uh, just a loving loving environment for the children for the sense of community is amazing.

We have lots of potlucks and the whole, all the families and the children get together and they get to see their teachers outside of the class.

And I mean, I just think it's a wonderful, wonderful, wonderful school, and they're a great family.

So that's my thank you for speaking.

Anyone else?

Uh okay, I see you on there.

Good evening, commissioners.

My name is Ernie Lostrum.

Uh, I have been a real estate broker and attorney here in Monterey for over 40 years.

I've owned a lot of properties on Garden Road over the years, and so I have this history.

Um, I own the building before the Turchies purchased it, and I had multiple offers.

I picked them because I like the idea of what they did.

And to me, uh, when you get older, it's not you don't just want to sell something, you want to sell it to the people that you feel good about selling it to.

And in my 40-year career, I always found that the two things were the hardest thing to find in the city of Monterey, in the city of Carmel, in this in the county of Monterey, are locations for two things churches and schools.

It's hard.

And I can't tell you how much the community benefits from churches and schools.

Um, I was part of a group that we put together the deal with um Calvary Chapel.

Calvary Chapel was summarily dismissed by ALUC, and the city council overrode the decision, saying it's the right, it's the right decision to do.

But I can also tell you that not only is it important to have schools in the neighborhood where you have where you have other services that are needed.

I was late to the meeting tonight because I had a veterinary emergency, and Blue Pearl just took one of the old buildings on Garden Road, bring some new life into it, and now it's another asset for the community.

If you have for veterinarian uses, that's part of when you live in a community.

Schools, super important.

Um, I think I can tell you is the AOUC.

When they meet, it's not as transparent as these meetings, they're not televised.

And when they make a decision to do something, they can make a decision.

They don't send notices out, they put in the paper.

So when that decision was made to expand their safety zones, it wasn't with a lot of fanfare.

There wasn't with a lot of public input.

They did it because they have the right to do it.

And if I was on the airport board, I would do it too.

Because if you can limit your liability, you always want to try to limit your liability.

But I think it's up to you to make a decision of how your city's resources are used.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you very much.

Anyone else want to speak?

Hello, everyone.

My name is Dylan.

I'm Aurora's boyfriend.

And I fully support Montessori Community School opening on 2400 Garden Road.

I've watched my girlfriend's nephew grow up with the Montessori philosophy and I've been amazed by his independence and capability that I'd never expected from toddler.

It's my knowledge that Monterey County doesn't have a single AMI accredited Montessori school.

And I believe the parents of Monterey should be allowed the chance to have a preschool that teaches their children self discipline and problem solving.

A nearby airport doesn't seem like a valid concern for school especially since their apartments being built right next door presumably with children and with children be living there.

The parents will make the choice to live there just how the parents will choose to send their kids to Montessori community school and I hope we can all come to agreement and do its best for the future generation of Monterey County.

Thank you.

Thank you very much for speaking.

Okay anybody else in the chamber another one coming forward.

Hello my name is Samantha I am currently a toddler teacher at MCS.

Sorry I'm really bad at public speaking I speak all day to toddlers and they smile at me all day um I have nothing but kind words to say about the Turches I've worked at so many schools and been around so many different owners and teachers and the love and compassion the Tershis put into their school is unmatched and they take the safety of the children at the utmost like importance trust me we have plenty of meetings about safety um but every child deserves the right to go to a Montessori and every parent has the right to choose and weigh the pros and cons.

Okay thank you.

Thank you very much.

Sorry.

Okay.

Anyone else in the chambers uh like to speak okay seeing none let's go to the online uh speakers uh Erica okay it looks like there are currently four hands raised and I'll go ahead and uh allow them to speak in order of hands raised and they they also get two minutes each so sure thank you so first we have Jean Rash.

Oh thank you this seems inevitable that it's going to council and I think Ms.

Friedman really honed in on the problem that it might be that the question of liability and uh the chair rightly asked a question of um the proponent of the building whether he would indemnify and um I would I would just suggest that we layer in the um attorney our city attorney to get her thoughts um when it goes to council about ways of indemnifying and um to Aurora's excellent pro-choice comments perhaps the parents would be interested in in joining in the waivers of liability um depending on what our city attorney says the only other thought I had is that the runway is I think moving north a few feet probably not enough to matter but that's the only contribution I could make that um perhaps it will soon be a wider side setback.

Thank you that's all thank you.

Next we have Gracie Taramo Hi thank you.

I would just like to speak as a parent who works in Pacific Growth and I have three children two that are currently on the wait list for the Montessori school and I just want to speak on behalf of working parents in this area it is very difficult to find high quality child care and this will be such a huge blessing for our community and something that we're all looking forward to.

I have several friends who are awaiting the school opening, as well as myself, and we're just very excited for this addition to the community for working parents.

So I just want to relay our support for this project.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Oh, sorry.

Excuse me.

Next we have Hansen Reed.

Hi.

Hi, I'm Hansen Reed.

Um, good to see all of you, even though my screen is blank right now.

Um, I am a citizen of the City of Honor right.

I walk um down and run down Garden Road almost every day, so I'm very familiar with the area.

Want to respond, and I will try and keep within the two minutes.

Well, I'm gonna keep within the two minutes.

Um, respond to a couple of things.

One is that the LUAC record is irrelevant for this hearing.

Uh, you are basically a de novo hearing, you're hearing what's there, and that is all what the LUACT is irrelevant to this.

Two city attorney reviews all um agenda items before they go on the record.

There's nothing the city attorney has not responded to this uh agenda item at all.

Three uh Caltrans, the talking to Caltrans by the airport or the airport was prejudicial, and having it in the staff report was also prejudicial because that this is not they don't have the fight with the apple right now.

And finally, you can make a finding so that there's no other sites available.

It's page 85 of your staff report or the record.

It says there are no other sites that are suitable within the Montessori school community target area, which includes the housing development along Garden Road, prohibiting this type of use across the entirety of this broad area could significantly reduce uses throughout the city's jurisdiction.

That provides you with the finding you need in order to approve this.

Thank you very much for your time, and I look forward to having you vote on.

Thank you, Mr.

Any more.

Uh, sure.

Next we have Zoe Duran.

Hello.

Hi there.

Um, my name is Zoe Doran, and I have been fortunate enough to be part of Montessori Community School for the past six years, and I've seen numerous families go through our infant or neato program.

Finding quality and dependable care for infants can be challenging.

Our program offers a safe licensed community where families can bring their young babies, enabling them to continue their careers, improve themselves, and maintain a healthy work life balance.

This program genuinely serves families.

Opening another Montessori location in Monterey will help support even more families in the community.

Families research to work and apply to multiple preschools to find the best fit for their children.

The effort they put in ensures they can confidently choose the right school.

While we recognize the board's dedication to public safe safety, we strongly believe that families are capable of making informed decisions about their children's education and well-being.

Parents carefully research where they send their schools, considering all relevant factors, including school's location.

This is their choice, and they are fully capable of assessing the risks and benefits.

Denying this permit would unfairly limit educational options for families and ignore the fair ability to make decisions based on their individual research and circumstances.

The opening of our school would not only meet a vital educational need, but also attract new families and residents to the area, boosting the local economy and strengthening the community's reputation for educational excellence.

Montessori education encourages independence, community, and a sense of belonging.

A new campus would ex a new campus would expand the prepared environment for children, create a broader network for families, and foster deeper deeper social connections.

This school will truly serve the people of Monterey.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any more speakers online?

Uh another hand did go up.

Gerard.

Hello everyone.

My name is Gerard, and I'm the youngest of the Tercy family, and I currently work in office administration at the Scots Valley location.

Monassoy has benefited me in a multitude of ways.

Having been there from Needload through primary, as well as growing up within a monastery family, I'd say I've had the most thorough Montessori experience one can have.

Montessori gave me a kickstart to help me become the man I am today.

Is the foundational stone for my morals, my values, as well as my education, as is hopefully evident in the speech.

Going into elementary school, Monasoy gave me a leg up in terms of my education.

I already knew how to write incursive new addition, subtraction, and even basic multiplication at the age of just six.

The point I'm trying to make is that Montessori schools are invaluable to youth as well as the community it resides in.

The value of a Monasoe school for the community is simply unmatched and far outweighs the hypothetical cons.

According to KSBW News, within the past 35 years, Monterey County has occurred 12 crashes, with only three of which recording any fatalities.

That is five deaths across a whopping 35 years to rob families, entire communities, and even children with their own needs and hunger to learn would simply be unjust.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any more speakers?

Give me one moment.

There are no additional hands raised.

Okay, so I'd like to close the public hearing and bring it back to the commission for deliberation.

Uh you want to start, Mike?

Oh, Bob.

Okay, Bob.

Um there's a lot of issues with this um that I've been thinking about.

I mean, I have a ninth grader in high school, so it's not been long since I were in the um uh region of trying to solve some of the problems that you're discussing.

Um, but I do have some concerns um with regard to what we're discussing with the airport location.

I mean, there are I'm involved in the aviation um community, and there's a lot of variability when you look at the location of uh uh activity and where it is with the airport.

And I wasn't at the um the meeting that um was held at the airport, um, but some of the issues are like effluent.

So you're in a high pollution area, and that's a function of how close you are to the airport.

And um I don't think it's probably worth going over all the possibilities, but I'll just lay that one out there.

Um, and I think what Sandy had brought up with um issues with regard to viability are a high one.

And I think if we are gonna um look at this issue, we need to make sure that that's um part of whatever recommendation we make to the city council.

And maybe Dabby can uh weigh in, but um I think there's a lot of things that are not in our field of um expertise, and I can think of at least effluent as being probably one of the highest ones.

And that's why can you explain the effluent?

It's uh jet exhaust.

Pollution.

So you've got a high pollution environment in that location.

Um you um have people who are affected by it as a function of disability or age.

Um, and so I don't know if that's one of the issues that came up, but it's possible.

And so I think anything that we end up doing here has to indemnify the city.

And I also like um Runky's idea of just separating everything out.

I mean, this should probably go to city council.

I think it's not a fully a planning commission um decision to make.

Um, but what we can do is provide some insight into what we've reviewed and looked at and make that part of uh our recommendation.

And so between the when we do come up for uh a vote, I mean, the two things I would want to uh cover would be the indemnification of the city, and which would mean that the applicant would have to fully take on those um liabilities, and that the um maybe we look at uh dividing up what we're gonna vote on and just vote on issues that are separate from what the um airport um land commission uh had.

Well, we can do I mean they're basically three, you know, three separate um sort of uh items, the the two variances and the the most important is the use permit.

Yeah, maybe just the variances and void the use permit, and avoid the use permit so so not make a recommendation about it i think it's the city council decision i don't think it's that we would want to play into it so the commission does have to make a decision on it one way or another okay so whether it ends up account you're correct it will end up at council inevitably based on well if the application was denied the applicant could appeal that decision to the city council the application is approved tonight the application would have to go forward for an override of the ALUC decision which would have to happen at council so it is a request will have to provide a you know some sort of finding correct so and specifically to finding number two which deals specifically with uh the proposed use uh would be um would not be detrimental to the public health safety or welfare of persons residing or working in or adjacent to the neighborhood of such use and will not be detrimental to properties or improvements in the vicinity or to the general welfare of the city so that's the specific finding that would have to be made so um that's all to say that the planning commission does have to act well will eventually have to act on the use permit whether that happens tonight it'll have to make a decision or uh before it can go to council.

Okay.

Yeah I mean and oh and I mean on the other side of it is housing.

I mean I really do look at garden road as being an ideal location for housing.

And a lot of it would be in the same area that the school would go into.

So it's a it's a decision I think that um is going to affect other um actions that you know we're gonna be looking at doing in the future um but again I'd I'm very um it's very difficult to um second guess the safety issues that were discussed when I know a little bit about it but I don't know enough to fully comprehend some of the things that they were looking at as part of their decision and the locations that we've looked at for um that were the examples that were given are are not comparable to this current location so okay Mike they don't have the question no the uh public hearing is closed no the the public hearing is closed I'm sorry I probably have one experience that's kind of unique I used to live in military housing and I had an incident occur when I it was the first frightening event that I ever recalled it was a fighter aircraft it was having power problems it ran its one of its landing gear over about six feet over the roof of our quarters I could tell you both my brother and I jumped about six feet into the air from our beds this was about eleven o'clock it was so frightening because it was a coincidence and you heard that a when that tire went over the top of that building and created a groove about four inches deep and six feet long.

I am very concerned about living next to airports when I looked at this project first of all I wanted to compliment the presenters and all the written comments because we do pay attention to them and I this was an outstanding effort by this school.

I ask a young woman in my neighborhood I consider an expert she's got two kids one about eight months and one about four.

What she thought about putting a school for very young children and infants along Garden Road.

She lives in my neighborhood, which is on the other side of the airport.

She had two concerns.

One of them for her very young children was the pollution.

And she says that she can smell it on a certain days, particularly recently.

I don't know why just recently but but she said the other was noise.

She said that her doctor said that particularly up until two years old, their ears are very susceptible to damage.

And she's very concerned.

She says sometimes she takes her kid indoors when aircraft were taking off.

I know that I can't talk with people outside when those aircraft were taking off.

So I just have to assume that her information is a learned thing from her doctor.

I remember when this project was discussed in the past, and the materials that our staff presented, I thought was pretty well done.

But I know we need this type of school in our city, let alone that's one new neighborhood.

Unfortunately, I don't think I can support putting these infants in this area.

Thank you.

Thanks, Mike.

Sandy.

Well, I think I echo what Bob and Mike have said.

It's so interesting because when Garden Road was suggested as a new neighborhood, 1,444 new residents, 687 new units.

I think it was generally held that this was a great idea, but it's all been on onesies and twosies.

One person, one property was turned from a newspaper office into an apartment building.

Now this office is being turned into suggested to be turned into a preschool.

Um I'm thinking that as a larger issue, it wouldn't be a bad idea to have to come up with a demographic study of Garden Road, what is being proposed, come up with a specific plan for that area.

You pointed out, Mike, right from the very beginning, we need, you know, convenience stores, we need transportation.

There's all different kinds of things that have to be built into a new community, including a preschool.

So for my money, I will vote to vote for the deck and vote for the trash enclosure.

Um, but I won't vote for the use permit because of the indemnification issue, and also because of the real safety and environmental issues.

I think if Mr.

Reed says there are no other sites available, it may be because the churches have already bought this site and they already own this site.

So uh the vulnerable population is well explained by Chris Morello, the interim executive director of the Monterey Regional Airport.

The map on page three is one that I think should be used in future presentations because it clearly points out the minuscule distance between the site and the runway, which the other maps did not.

So I would suggest that this map be used in the future if you want to make a case uh to the city council.

And I think the city council has to write the right to know what the uh responsibilities and obligations are if they decide to override the airport land use commission.

So I am yes on the variances and no on the use permit.

Okay, thanks, Andy.

So I'm I'm also I mean, what you just said is pretty much uh my opinion, too.

I'm just one of four voting members here.

Um there are there are a couple of um issues about this that are um uh sort of um glaring to me is is the um a lot of the speakers talked about the um the need for uh child care in this uh this area of Garden Road, and I can sort of see that, but on the other hand, it's like there are no markets there, there.

There are lots of other services that the owners of housing in this area are gonna have to drive to.

It's uh it's just one more service that would probably be a uh you know a drive away.

So um unfortunately, I I do uh, you know, I the part about approving the variances, it's kind of like well, great.

I mean it's like buying a car without the wheels or something.

You're you're getting approval or you're not getting the main use permit while you're approving variances, but the city staff has rightly uh presented them to us as as three individual approval items.

Um, so uh, you know, I was thinking that the liability issue is so interesting, uh, but it's not really part of the evidence that's been given to us.

You know, we don't have any, it would have been good if if somebody had maybe worked with the city attorney and trying to create some sort of a hold harmless agreement in terms of that.

Maybe when they go to the city council, which they're gonna have to, they they uh somebody could make that part of their presentation.

But with what we have before us tonight, um I do think it's um it's a great use.

Uh Montessori has so much respect um internationally, but I'm wondering whether this particular site is really the best site for that use.

One last thing I'd like to say is this uh that you probably can't see this, but this map that has a big rectangle of the influence zone.

The thing that's a little misleading about this map is that the 6,000 foot side is fine, and the 10,000 foot approach is understandable, but what about this corner?

That's 6,000 feet, but it's all it's not like the approach is way down here.

So it would be more of a uh you know, some sort of a uh a different shape than a pure rectangle to your yeah, so this this is a little bit misleading to include all these areas in the and the corners of this rectangle as being somehow equivalent with this site is it's not it's it's really not a fair comparison because this site is um you know less than 1400 feet away from the edge of the runway.

So um, I have one more.

Okay, Mike, go ahead.

It's become a a recent issue that the Monterey Peninsula Airport has changing some of the rules according to the FAA.

There's a controversy regarding an ordinance that was passed in 1975 that no one has ever enforced regarding turns from the flight path before they get to the old end of it.

In my neighborhood on the other side of the airport, not unusual to see a small aircraft turning it flying over my house.

That's not in the flight path.

But now, since this ordinance that it was once passed is no longer in effect, they've announced that people will be turning out of the flight path over adjoining neighborhoods.

And that's a under serious concern.

It's some parts of the city are fighting it, but it's just a concern that I think it needs to be at least considered.

Thank you.

Thanks, Mike.

So uh any other comments?

Okay, so what I would like to do is to break this down into its three components, and if it's okay, we can start with the uh use permit issue, and I I'd like to entertain a motion on the use permit.

Do you want to have um them individually for each use permit?

Well, there's two different actions.

So it's two different, two different resolutions.

One's for the use permit and one's for the variance.

If there's a consensus that both portions, the deck and the uh the waste enclosure are supported for the variance, you can take that in a single action.

But the use permit and the variance have to be different.

Yeah, so at least two separate uh motions are needed.

So I'd like to start with the use permit um issue.

Okay.

Um I move to uh deny the use permit application UP250013 for a daycare general use.

Period, not the variance.

Per the staff report.

Per the staff report.

I'll second.

Okay.

Uh we have a motion and a second.

Any other discussion?

Okay, I'd like to uh request a roll call.

Vice Chair Latassa.

Yes.

Commissioner Bluth.

Yes.

Commissioner Brassfield?

Yes.

And Commissioner Freeman.

Yes.

That motion is approved.

The decision is appealable within 10 days to the city council.

We have applications online or in our planning office.

Okay.

For the second item, I would recommend if there's somebody that wants to make the motion to include the deck and the waste enclosure that they could just make that motion and see if there's support for it.

Okay, good idea.

I'm just before the motion is made.

I wanted to say I'm I don't, you know, I think the findings for the trash enclosure for me the same as the deck.

I'm I'm happy with both variances in this case.

I again it's it is like um uh you know, we've just approved the car, and here we are uh saying that without the wheels, but anyways, this is the process.

So um uh any motion on uh both variances that are that would combine them as one approval or denial.

Sound like you just made it.

No, I can't.

I'm you know you're supposed to make the motion.

Um so moved.

Okay, so can you state the motion, please?

I stated just as you just explained it because I couldn't explain it any better.

Wow, well, okay.

So that's a motion to approve the variances for both a trash enclosure and the deck.

That's right, and through the chair motion made by Commissioner Brass.

And do we have to give you findings or you know, you can you if you want to utilize the same findings for both the waste and closure in the deck as staff recommends as well as the commission has adjusted the staff?

So the findings are the um the same for the deck as the trash enclosure.

Yeah, the commission's comfortable with that.

You can make that into the motion, great.

So that's that would be variance application VA 250075.

There we go.

So we have a motion from Commissioner Brassfield.

Yes, do I have a second?

I'll go ahead.

Second that, okay.

So we have a motion by uh Commissioner Brassfield, and um second by Mr.

Bluth.

Um so any more discussion.

Okay, uh Erica, can we have a roll call?

Sure, Vice Chair Latasa.

Yes, Commissioner Blut?

Yes, Commissioner Brassfield, yes, and Commissioner Freeman, yes.

That motion is approved.

It is also appealable within 10 business days with applications online or in our planning office.

Okay, thanks everybody for coming in.

Um, get the city at Monterey Commission that when sorry, there's public comment.

We're continuing with the meetings, sir.

A lot of money.

I'd like to make the suggestion that might help.

I'm not we're still in the process of a public meeting, sir.

So I don't allow me to make the suggestion.

Well, there's procedure, there's procedure to the meeting.

But have I made the suggestion?

Well, there is an appeal process, and you know, I've not no decision.

I want to make a suggestion.

I'm sorry.

Well, you can feel free to communicate it to the city later.

But this this is just the way we run these meetings.

Sorry.

I I don't don't mean to be cold.

It's you know, public and I pay a lot of money later on taxes, and I'm just wanting to 20 seconds made a suggestion, and you guys need to do that.

We would like to uh in the in the the issue of fairness that we you know approach all applicants the same, and we don't allow the comments after the uh public hearings closed.

So but please please stop.

So um thank you very much for coming in.

Uh we do we still are in a public hearing, so um we would like to move on to the next item.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you for coming in here uh you sound blown.

I can't, I mean you have a ninth grade.

Okay, you look like you're about nine.

Okay, so we have some ad hominem uh stuff going on here.

So the next um is the planning office update yes thank you so that's noted in the agenda report from our october uh is tentatively scheduled for our october 14th planning commission uh is a uh recommendation to the city council on an ordinance establishing regulations and development standards for firearms and ammunition retail sales so that'll be coming on october 14th and it uh I believe we also have a proposed uh zooming amendment dealing with our cannabis overlays that's also been applied for that'll also be considered at that meeting as well so that that one is not noted in the report uh and then a follow up to our September 19th city council meeting uh we did have the uh approved annual evaluation report or our CAPER for the city's community development block grant funding program that went before the city council for our FY2425 uh caper uh and that's all we have thank you okay I kind of skipped over commissioner comments are are there any um commissioner comments um I think there is a tour of Monterey one water the weekend after this which might be worth oh looking at I don't have the details but I'm sure we could track that down.

Right okay one other comment that just occurred to me uh so turned into this uh group uh the California APA conference will be in Monterey next week start Sunday from Wednesday so a lot of our staff is participating in that conference either in the form of speakers or uh volunteers or leading sessions whether it's be uh sit down panels or mobile workshops but uh just excited to report to the commission that uh we're happy to be hosting the conference and that uh you're the stars you're the home home team yeah a little bit yeah kind of a big deal for us so we're we're excited about it but yeah it's it's off Sunday and uh it's half day Wednesday so and are these um like can people just show up or do you have to basically be enrolled to um you're supposed to register for the conference but if you're just looking to observe you can just show up okay you won't get any uh continuing education credits but I don't know if this is and there's probably a uh you know a list of of uh you know of discussions and uh whatever yeah yeah there's a schedule available online so I recommend if you want to you can Google Cal APA and go to the conference tab there's the full schedule for the full conference if and see what the sessions are and if anything catches your eye uh yeah certainly attend we can get you in I probably thanks a lot so that's it meeting adjourned.