Recording in progress.

Commission.

And uh before we we begin, um we have some new faces here on the commission, Dave Stoker, Justin Polly, and uh Eric Palmer, and welcome aboard and congratulations on your appointment.

I'm not sure if that's a good thing or not, but we shall see.

Uh Erica, could you please do a uh roll call and um announce staff present and instruct viewers how they can participate, please.

Sure thing.

Chair Silva here.

Vice Chair Latassa Commissioner Blut?

Here.

Commissioner Freeman.

Commissioner Palmer?

Here.

Commissioner Polly?

Here.

And Commissioner Stoker.

Here.

Great.

We have all members present.

I can go ahead and announce staff members present with us today.

We have our planning manager, Levi Hill, our principal planner Fernando Roveri, our principal planner Christy Sabdo, and myself recording Secretary Erica Barrera.

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 the time 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.

Thank you, Erica.

Uh, we will now uh uh turn our attention to the consent agenda.

If there's anybody in the audience or at home that has comments regarding the consent, you may speak now.

Any hands raised raised, Erica.

There are two attendees online, but I do not see any hands raised.

I don't see anybody in uh in the chambers.

We'll take it back to the commission.

Any comments.

I uh move for approval of the item.

We have uh an app a motion to approve and a second.

Erica, can we do a roll call, please?

Sure, Chair Silva.

Abs uh abstain.

Okay.

Vice Chair Latasa?

Yes.

Commissioner Blut?

Yes.

Commissioner Freeman?

Yes.

Commissioner Palmer?

Commissioner Polly.

Abstain.

And Commissioner Stoker.

Abstain.

We'll have to bring that back.

Um or review.

So again, as a reminder, you can uh for commissioners, you can vote on the minutes if you've uh viewed the meeting, so we may have to have this come back at the next meeting.

But I uh make a motion to uh we can uh just continue it to the next uh point of commission meeting.

I make a motion to continue this item to the next day.

We have a motion uh and a second to continue the uh consent agenda.

Uh can we get a roll call, please?

Sure, Chair Silva.

Uh yes.

Vice Traça.

Yes.

Commissioner Blueth.

Yes.

Commissioner Freeman, yep.

Commissioner Palmer, yes.

Commissioner Polly?

Yes.

And Commissioner Stoker.

Yes.

Great.

Just in case the mic didn't pick that up.

That motion was from Commissioner Letassa.

Thank you.

We will now open up general public comments.

If any members of the public wishes to speak regarding an item that is not on today's agenda, you may do so by coming up to the podium and stating your name.

Not seeing anybody in the chambers, anybody at home.

There are no hands raised.

Thank you.

We will now um start our public hearing.

Item number three, two five five five garden road use permit UP-25-0128 to establish a commercial recreation and entertainment use, private event space, and then an existing commercial building.

Applicant James, Boselka, Ability Ventures Inc., owner MHT Holdings, LLC, Industrial Administration and Research.

Uh, etc.

And let's go ahead and do a staff report.

Fernanda.

Thank you, Chair.

My name is Fernanda Roveri, principal planner for the city of Monterey.

And before you is an application for a use permit for a commercial recreation and entertainment use at 2555 Garden Road.

Staff's recommendation is that the planning commission adopt the attached resolution approving the use permit to establish the use in the existing commercial building at 2555 Garden Road.

The site is um on the north side of Garden Road, and to the north of it is the airport.

This site has employment general general plan land use designation, and it has industrial zoning.

However, the existing building on site, which is 28,000 square feet, is a commercial building.

It doesn't have any industrial uses in it.

Staff took the project to the airport land use commission for a recommendation.

And their recommendation was that the project is consistent with the Monterey County Airport land use compatibility plan.

And that is attachment two in your packet.

In the industrial zone, business and professional offices, including medical offices, are principally permitted, which means that you don't need a use permit to have those uses there.

However, uh commercial recreation and entertainment use does require a use permit.

So the applicant applied for one.

This is the floor plan of the existing 28,000 square foot commercial building.

And most of it would remain office uses.

So 19,880 square feet would remain office uses and medical offices.

And that is highlighted in yellow.

And this is a close-up view of the proposed floor plan.

And so 90% of the events would be for employees, such as training sessions and exercises, employee appreciation, lunches, etc.

And 10% would be available for rent to third parties.

The proposed hours of operation are Monday to Friday, 5 p.m.

to 10 p.m.

And Saturday, 12 p.m.

to 12 a.m.

And so as you can see, the proposed hours of operation are outside of normal eight to five business hours.

So that this is um so that the uses don't conflict with each other.

The proposed private event space would have approximately four to five employees, and the event coordinator would um hire security staff for groups of 30 or more people.

And you can see on the floor plan that on the top is the event center area, which would have tables and chairs and the food preparation area and two restrooms.

And on the bottom area is also a part of the private event space, but the applicant has indicated that he would like to store some World War II vehicles there for viewing as a part of the private event.

So the vehicles would not be available for for anyone for anyone from the public to view.

They would be closed, not for viewing for the public.

And the calculation for the parking requirement for an office building of 20,000 square feet is 102 parking spaces required.

And so the current use meets the part the required parking requirement.

Because they have 106 spaces on site.

And I will now go into the analysis.

So in order for the planning commission to approve the use permit, three findings must be made.

The first one is that the proposed use is in accord with the objectives of this chapter and the purposes of the zone.

And as I mentioned, the industrial zone allows commercial recreation and entertainment uses with a use permit, which the applicant has applied for.

So the use wouldn't be detrimental to the public welfare of the city because the private events would occur on outside of normal eight to five business hours, and all employees and attendees would park on site, preventing any parking spillover on Garden Road.

For security, again, a security staff shall be provided for 30 plus attendees.

So there would be no security concerns.

And the trash.

And again, um we've added all of these conditions to the resolution, but in the event that there's a violation of the conditions, there's um a way for the planning commission to revoke the use permit and it would come back to you all for that consideration.

So with all those things with all those conditions added, the use would not be detrimental.

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

So the use would be required to comply with all the conditions on the resolution, as well as those recommended by the airport land use commission.

And with that, staff recommends that the planning commission adopt the resolution to establish the use at 255 Garden Road.

I'm available for questions, and the applicant and um two of the um applicants are here.

Thank you, Fernanda.

Um any commissioners had questions.

I'm going to start on this side and go around.

So Dave, do you have any questions for Fernanda?

Justin?

No.

Eric?

Terry, no.

Just a quick question.

Is this like an automobile museum?

It wouldn't, it's a public uh not a public display.

So it wouldn't be uh available for the public to view.

It would be a private room that would store the owner's vehicles, but would only be available for the private event people to view.

Thank you.

Fernanda, I have um a few questions.

You may not be able to answer all of them, in which case um you can just reply that the applicant is here and will be able to assist with answering.

Um so let's see, starting with um what is the maximum number of events anticipated per week or per month?

There was no number.

Um but it could just be open-ended.

Right.

The applicant did not specify a number.

Um, and then um regarding the noise issue, is there any amplified sound anticipated during these events?

The applicant did not specify that.

Okay.

Um I noticed on the plans that there were two single use restrooms.

Is has that been looked at by the applicant in terms of the adequacy for the plumbing fixtures for the number of occupants.

This is not a planning commission per se use item, but it it does have something to do with the um validity of moving forward with this if it doesn't comply with the with the codes in terms of plumbing fixtures.

Oh, you mean the water credits?

Not the water credits, just well, it's kind of a two-part thing.

The the first would be the number of plumbing fixtures, which is established in the plumbing code.

And when I kind of looked at the plan and compared it with the plumbing code, it didn't seem like it complied with the code.

And then, of course, if we do need extra fixtures, then there's the issue of water credits.

And I was wondering if that you know, do you know if you know anything about whether that has been looked at or not?

So the applicant uh mentioned that the floor plan that showed the tables and chairs, that was an example of what the room could be used for.

And also the food preparation area and the restrooms are also at this point um preliminary because they haven't received building permits.

And so once they go through the building permit process, they would finalize the floor plan.

Um, and obviously it would have to be consistent with whatever you approve today.

Right.

And was it am I not mistaken that the occupancy was assumed to be about a hundred people in there?

Was that stated in the staff report?

The oh, you mean so the trash um the trash condition is they're required to contact Monterey City disposal um to arrange pickup of trash after an event if the event includes a hundred plus people.

Okay, that's that's where the 100 came from.

And then the airport land use commission placed a maximum of 300 people on site at at any time.

But the but the actual maximum occupancy would be established by when this goes through the building department and they do their calculations based on the size of the space, the type of occupancy, and how many people can be safely accommodated.

So there hasn't really been a maximum established right now, in other words.

So the building uh official will determine the maximum uh capacity occupancy number maximum number of people allowed in that private event space.

Um that's only for that space though.

But the ALUC put a overall a condition on the entire site capping occupancy of the entire site at 300 people.

But if that's the case then would that then not comply with the number of parking spaces on site?

The 106 parking spaces?

Right.

I mean what is what does that translate to in terms of maximum number of occupants?

We don't we don't base our occupancy limitation on the number of parking spaces.

So we did place a condition that that no parking spillover can occur.

So all the park all the uses would have to park on site and then it would be up to the applicant to determine how to comply with that.

So if there's an event that exceeds the number of spaces on site what what happens in that scenario?

The applicant would have to come up with a way to make sure everyone parks on site either with valet parking or come up with a employee uh a shuttle service but it was a condition recommended by staff that that they don't park on garden road because there is limited available parking on garden road thank you Fernanda those are the questions I have if the applicant would like to come up I I didn't plan on talking today but because she did a great report actually I thought I thought everything she came up with pretty good.

So uh I'm just gonna try to answer your questions whatever those might be I'm Jim Vasalka by the way so and this is Charles Taupe he's the owner of that building.

Jim before you start maybe you can just get the commission a little better understanding as to what type of events this is being being planned for.

I I was a little confused by it just seemed kind of the general terms but I'm not really getting a feel for this.

Sure.

Uh uh Charles owns a business that uh employs how many employees um 4,000 4,000 employees and so uh at uh every once in a while he's doing a um you know presentation or uh um you know awards or something so it's it's basically for his employees to come together and uh it's gonna have a uh place to cook you know a little kitchen in there with the commercial hood and all that so they can actually serve some food in this space so that's the the vision of the events and um as far as the occupancy goes that that whole area where the the um vehicles are being stored those are all um world war two vehicles um and uh pretty impressive and they're all uh basically being stored in there for when he wants to use them you know I think he takes them to parades and things like that so he takes them out so people can see them but it's not a place it's not going to be a museum type place where you where you would go and look at those things it's it's basically just going to be vehicles in that room so no occupancy being stored there currently or is this a proposed storage?

I'm sorry are the vehicles currently being stored in that space they are yeah they are and uh that space is uh you know part of this building permit application is going to be making that into a uh place uh an actual place to store vehicles you know so we have a fire separation between those and the and the occupants and as far as uh restrooms are concerned there's a whole nother bank of restrooms right in the center of the building so they're they're uh all connected via a um corridor or a rated corridor and uh those restrooms would be available to everybody too so there's plenty of uh fixtures for all all of the occupancy of this space and the occupancy is gonna be uh well it has to be less than 300 but um i imagine it's gonna be half of that so what so maybe you can help answer the questions that I asked Fernanda at the end which is it it in the event that there's going to be an um a party or an award ceremony or something and there's 250 people there for instance as an example but the on-site parking is 106 stalls how does that get dealt with I I expect that uh the the occupants in that event room are probably going to be in the 100 range okay and uh and since they're being done at different times of the day from the workers and uh and the events uh those parking spaces become available and if they have to they'll they'll um you know they'll valet park some of the vehicles so they can uh get more vehicles in the there's a whole back area of parking behind the building they could they could valet park some vehicles in there too if they have to all right and one of the conditions is for this for there to be monitoring for I believe a year and so if there's any issues regarding impacts to

And if they have to, they'll they'll um, you know, they'll valet park some of the vehicles so they can uh get more vehicles in the there's a whole back area of parking behind the building.

They could they can valet park some vehicles in there too if they have to.

All right, and one of the conditions is for this for there to be monitoring for uh, I believe a year.

And so if there's any issues regarding impacts to the garden road neighborhood regarding noise or parking, then that would be identified in the uh in the yeah, we don't have any problem with that.

Yeah, okay.

One question.

Um page five number four project is subject to the categoric water allocation program.

Uh the applicant proceeds at its own risk that water may not be available at the time he requests building permits.

Do you do you know if there's enough water allocation at this moment in time before you apply?

I I don't think we've come to that to that uh spot yet.

So we'll well, I guess we'll deal with it when we get there.

Okay.

All right.

Yeah.

Fair enough.

Terry.

My understanding is that the the water credits and the water allocation for for like banquet use or dining is based on the number of seats.

And so they're going to look at how many seats that you're intending on placing for these events and base the credits on that.

Yeah, I think that's uh that's pretty variable.

And um, he's probably done these things before, so he has a good idea about how many people would attend something like that.

So I guess we'll deal with it when we get to that spot.

Any questions for the applicant?

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Thank you for consideration today.

And I hope you all have a good Thanksgiving, right?

Thank you.

Uh, we'll now open this up to the uh public.

Is there anybody in chambers that wishes to uh speak about this?

I don't see anybody, anybody at home, Erica?

Uh there are no hands raised.

We'll take this back to commission.

Um deliberations.

We'll start with Dave.

Justin?

None.

Eric, Harry.

Um it seems like an appropriate use.

Um, yeah, the water stuff probably will um come out uh okay.

It seems like there would be an offset with a car storage area, but um that's not really our concern anyway.

But the um seems like an appropriate use for this uh this district.

Andy.

I agree with that.

Bob.

I'm just curious, how do you do the monitoring?

Um is it just gonna be based on if there's any complaints?

Yeah, without a special condition of approval that would require this item to come back before the commission for like a periodic review, similar to if you recall uh previous events based on Lighthouse Avenue, there was condition that was placed on that.

Uh without that, we would just be uh dependent on uh monitoring via code enforcement.

Well, I support this project and uh I you know I asked a bunch of questions and and I was satisfied with the responses.

Um would anybody uh like to uh um state a motion?

Yeah.

So I move that planning commission approve UP 250128 to establish a commercial recreation and entertainment use in an existing commercial building at two five eighty five Garden Road, based on a many findings and conditions from the city, the ALUC, and others as noted in this report.

I'll second.

Okay, we have we have a motion by uh Commissioner Freeman and a second by Justin or Dave or both can we get a roll call, please, Erica?

Sure.

Chair Silva.

Yes, Vice Chair Latasa, yep.

Commissioner Bluth.

Yes, Commissioner Freeman, yes, commissioner Palmer, yes, Commissioner Polly.

Yes, Commissioner Stoker.

Affirmative.

That has been approved.

The decision is appealable within 10 days.

We have applications online.

It's appealable to the city council with applications online or in the planning office.

Congratulations.

Thank you for bringing this to us.

Thank you for that, we will now uh move to item number four, recommending approval of amendments to chapter 38 of the Monterey City Code to establish minimum density requirements, 20 dwelling units per acre in the multifamily residential overlay district.

Um Levi, would you provide us with a staff report, please?

Yes, happy to.

Good evening, Commission.

Thank you, Chair Silva, Levi Hill Planning Manager for the City of Monterey.

And as the chair mentioned, and that this item is for a zoning amendment to establish minimum density requirements in our multifamily residential zoning overlay district.

So staff recommendation is that the planning commission hold a public hearing and adopt a resolution that would recommend to the city council an amendment to the zoning code establishing the said minimum density requirements.

So a quick background on how this came about.

In July 16th is some of the uh in 2024, as some people on this commission recall, the uh city council adopted the Monterey 2031 general plan update, which included our six-cycle housing element.

Within that housing element was a series of programs referred to as the housing action plan.

And what that did was set forth a series of programs that the city would commit to.

Uh, many involved zoning amendments, all in the uh interest of facilitating additional housing development in the city.

Specifically on December 17th of 2024 was our first wave of implementation of the housing action plan.

And the city council adopted an amendment to the multifamily residential overlay implementing program 1B.

And primarily what that uh amendment at that time did uh in December of last year was to expand the multifamily overlay into additional areas of the city.

Previously, it was just there on the south side of Garden Road.

And this amendment expanded it to other areas of the city and then also increased that permitted density from what was 30 dwelling units per acre to 60 dwelling units per acre.

And so just quickly to um and go over that uh as mentioned, this was the existing multifamily overlay on the south side of Garden Road, and then through the amendment uh remained as uh the MF1 subdistrict of the multifamily overlay.

And as you see, and includes only the properties on the south side of Garden Road.

And then one of the added areas uh that exists now in our multifamily overlay district is the Pacific Munras Cast or the MF2 overlay area.

And this was applied to our commercial uh commercially zoned properties in the Pacific Munra's CAS area, excluding VAF properties and also uh single family and medium density residential properties.

And then, of course, the 1200 Agua Hito site, which is the county courthouse site that was also applied, uh had the multifamily overlay applied to it to also facilitate future housing development on that site at the time that the uh county uh vacates that property.

So, how the minimum density conversation came about um July 8th, uh, after we adopted our uh zoning amendment to expand and amend the multifamily zoning overlay, uh, we received correspondence from the California Housing and Community Development Department or HCD, and they provided the city with a technical assistance letter and kind of pointed out that uh with under their review, uh the zoning amendment did not achieve the require statutory requirements of government code section 65583.2H2.

And that is the specific section that requires that any sites that are rezoned to accommodate uh your arena in the housing element uh requires that a minimum density of 20 dwelling units per acre be applied to those sites.

And then they noted in that correspondence that amendments to our zoning code would be required in order to remain in substantial compliance.

So city planning staff uh held a number of meetings with HCD staff, uh, as you it's noted on this slide and both in April, August, and October of 2025.

And the primary purposes of those meetings was for the staff to express our concerns, highlighting that under the regulatory water constraints that the city is under, uh, that um requiring minimum densities of that level has the potential in some places to further inhibit uh residential production rather than to encourage it.

Uh so we expressed that to HCD numerous times, and ultimately their uh the response to us is that the housing element law fails to provide a statutory relief in these instances, and that under their review, a minimum density requirement uh is something that the city must uh comply with uh under the government code section 65583.2H2.

So, with that, staff has crafted an amendment to and uh in the hopes of remaining a substantial compliance under the eyes of HCD, uh, but hopefully crafted in such a way that would also be remained some level of flexibility for development to continue in these areas.

So, primarily what the proposed amendment does is apply that minimum density standard of 20 dwelling units per acre to all of the multifamily overlay areas.

And this table here shows kind of how that breaks out uh in a per unit uh to law area standpoint, uh obviously ranging from that one acre at 20 units all the way down to uh 3300 square foot law, it would still require two units.

Some notable exceptions uh contained within the zoning amendment um is that the uh the minimum density standard would only apply to projects that are proposing new habitable floor area, uh which kind of relates to that second exception that's noted here.

And the purpose of that was to allow these conversion projects that we see throughout the city to continue to move forward.

Um, I think as most people are aware, uh, under the water credit uh allocation system in the city of Monterey, if you have an existing site with an existing building, you're you're held to the amount of water uh usage that uh is in place on that site.

So that um dramatically limits what folks are able to do when converting projects and the amount of units they're able to provide.

The water is typically the factor that drives that number.

So we were hoping to uh maintain an environment where conversion projects could still move forward since we see a lot of housing production in that in that area.

Uh also noted here uh is an exception for phase projects or just more of a clarification that the phase projects would utilize the total unit count at full build out when calculating density.

So that would allow for a project that maybe has uh multiple phases, maybe even a future phase to uh add on to a project whenever there is more water available to the site uh to kind of phase their project out and be looked at as a whole rather than in the individual phases.

And then another uh provision that was added was for uh that recorded scenic easements would be excluded from the density calculations.

Um, as you saw earlier, a big portion of our multifamily overlay is on the south side of Garden Road, which is sandwiched in between Garden Road and the uh uh state designated scenic highway 68.

And along that state uh scenic designated highway is a 100 foot required setback that's in our general plan.

So it requires 100 feet of that uh all those lots to be uh maintained free of development, which also really skews the density calculation on some of these large sites in that area.

So we wanted to provide some relief in that because I think um everyone agreed that the scenic easement is something that we want to maintain along that corridor, but also want to help facilitate uh housing production in that area as well.

So, with that staff recommendation is that the planning commission hold a public hearing and adopt a resolution recommending that the city council amend the zoning code to establish minimum density requirements in the multifamily residential overlay district.

And I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, Levi.

Uh questions, Dave.

Uh I'm gonna ask a question specifically about the recorded scenic easements.

The letter from uh Matt Noor said that that does not show up on any of their um documents, including an alpha survey.

And if it isn't showing up on an alpha survey, it's not really a recorded easement.

So talk to me.

Sure.

That's a great question.

And I did see that comment from Matt.

And uh, yeah, so he's correct.

Uh, as written, it would require that this the easement be recorded.

So as it exists today, it is a setback requirement in the general plan.

I think staff's uh intentions there was that that that 100 foot setback area as described today in the general plan would be recorded in a scenic easement to memorialize that undevelopable area of the lot in order to take that out of that density calculation.

Who would be recording that, the city or the owner of the property?

The owner of the property at the time of the development proposal.

So that would deal with the issues that were noted in the letter.

Uh he brought up other uh um comments in the letter that had to do with utility easements and lease space and some other things, but I think that would address the uh specific comment regarding whether or not the scenic easement is recorded or not.

Um I think staff's concern with not requiring it to be in a recorded easement, leaves the door open for future development at a later phase that does encroach into that um setback that could be potentially approved via variance or some other mechanism, possibly even a state density bonus uh request.

And staff's intention is to if uh if that area is gonna be excluded from a density calculation that it should be memorialized in a scenic easement and some kind of assurance that it wouldn't be encroached in on a further date.

And just to follow up, were there any other of the comments that were brought up?

Most utility easements are recorded easements, although not always.

We're talking about PGE.

So were there any other concerns brought up in that uh letter?

He did specifically uh mention that he would have liked to he would like to see uh utility easements also not be uh included in that density calculation.

However, staff not recommending that at time at this time.

That's a little atypical from what we see in your normal density calculations outside of this type of instance.

Typically, easements are counted towards the general lot area when making the same with setbacks.

I think he made also made a comment about not including setbacks in that in that lot area calculation.

And again, that's kind of atypical in density calculations in the in our field.

Thank you.

Sure.

Um I got a question.

One of the points, it was actually a pretty good letter that he sent in, a thoughtful letter, I thought.

Um the point about topography is actually, I think, a good point as well.

And I'm wondering how does the city currently regulate topography?

For instance, in the county, I think it's 30%.

You just it's a no, it's a no-build zone.

Yeah.

So how does the city of Monterey regulate development slope?

So that that's actually already addressed in our uh there's a definition or zoning code that actually uh specifies what they call undevelopable land, and it takes into account areas of slopes of more than 25% to not and says it should not be counted towards uh density calculations.

It also includes like special species habitat as well.

So there's already provisions in our zoning code that exclude those areas from that calculation.

So we didn't see the need to include it in this as well.

And then of course, um uh there is also a policy in the general plan that actually requires that the planning commission approve development in areas of slope of more than 25%.

And some on this commission may remember seeing some of those applications.

Okay.

And I guess the one other comment I would make is that the CDO is he makes a good point about the CDO.

Um, does this need to be pressed before that CDO is resolved?

Because we're within months now of the state making a decision on that that could potentially affect your decision.

I mean, if you can't get a water meter and you're telling him to get density beyond which he can furnish water, what do they do?

Yeah, that's kind of the rock in the heart place of the cities in between right now with HCD.

Um, as I mentioned, we we met with them numerous times to explain where where we're at in this process and where what our constraints are as a city to develop housing.

Um unfortunately, they look at it in a very uh black and white way with the statutory statute being written the way that it is, um, and it was essentially comply with the statute or um, you know, find yourself in a potential enforcement scenario.

I think to your point, um we our intentions were to craft the language.

Uh it's probably not 100% foolproof that it won't impact any property, but was uh we were hoping to craft the language in such a way that it would allow for most development in these areas to still continue utilizing the water credits that they have available to their site.

So is that the phase development carve out that you're basically saying you're phasing this and phase development and then also along the garden road, when you remove that scenic uh when you remove that 100 foot, you know, scenic easement that runs on the south side of every one of those properties that has a pretty dramatic impact on that density calculation because it's a fairly large size of land.

Uh so we're thinking the most of the properties, and again, maybe not 100% of them, but most of them will hit that 20 units per acre mark at that point.

Thanks.

Sure.

Eric, do you have any questions?

Yeah, yeah, I have the same questions.

Um, however, um, do other cities typically do um add like flexibility clauses versites with objective constraints on uh water supply.

I don't know that other cities have the same constraints on water supply that we do uh that are also trying to add 20 uh a minimum density standard.

So I'm not I'm not sure.

Okay.

Um so the you had to meet with the state, the HDC three times to sort of figure this out.

And what was the density standard before that first meeting with HTC?

Just curious.

So there was no minimum density requirement uh as it exists today.

There is not one.

Um so there's a maximum density, and that's probably what most people are used to running up against is uh is that maximum density of 60 dwelling units per acre.

Um, as we discussed it with HCD staff, uh, we we explained to them that you know most projects in the community don't even come close to hitting the maximum density that they're allowed.

And that's you know, the zoning is not typically what's driving the density that we see on projects, rather, it's the water available to the site.

Um so we we did our best in explaining that.

Um, and uh as I as I mentioned earlier, they're they're looking at it in a very objective way in this how it complies with the statutory requirements.

Right.

Um, and then the um Matt Norris's letter on the bottom of the first page, but um he has a recommended uh rewording of part of the ordinance.

Does staff have a position on, you know, he shows the um you know the recorded word being struck and then corridors, zoning development step setbacks being added.

Um does staff have a an opinion on those suggested changes?

Yeah, as noted earlier.

I mean, it's I think we staff's intentions was to see uh if we were gonna exclude an area from the lot to from the density calculation that we wanted to see that memorialized in in some some permanent fashion, like a scenic easement.

So I think staff's uh recommendation is that we require that to be placed in an easement.

Uh there could be some clarifying language added to that that says that that easement at what point that easement needs to be recorded and if it needs to be recorded prior to them submitting, or if it can be recorded just in conjunction with a development application.

Uh, but I think staff is recommending that it still be required to be placed in an easement.

And also, as noted earlier, it's it's kind of atypical to remove setbacks from that kind of calculation.

So staff's not recommending that at this time.

Um and it's it there's somewhere in this proposed ordinance change that uh that suggests that um there's these easements be created.

Well, it would be a requirement in the ordinance that for that to be excluded from the density calculation that it would have to be in a scenic easement.

Um so yeah.

Thank you.

Sure.

So as I understand it, 20 is the floor and 60 is the ceiling.

That's correct.

That's quite a leap.

How is it?

How is 60 chosen and not 50, 40, 30?

Sure.

So when we originally came through, so in December of last year to apply that additional maximum density of 60 dwelling units per acre, that was as drafted in the housing element program.

And that was kind of backed out of uh to get to that point from our what our projections were for that for the multifamily overlay based on what we're projecting for our arena allocation.

So, in order to achieve the amount of units that we were hoping to um account for out of our arena allocation in that overlay area, it was going to require a higher density than what was previously allowed there of the 30 dwelling units per acre.

So at that time, that's why staff recommended that that ceiling, so to speak, of a 60 dwelling units per acre to fill facilitate higher density development.

Um again, knowing that water was prime the primary driver, but we didn't want to there to be an instance where for some reason the zoning did prohibit a higher density product there.

Uh the 20 comes straight from the statute.

Right.

Yeah.

Okay.

Bob, I think everything got covered.

Um, I've got kind of a lingering question that's been on my mind, and it kind of relates to what Matt brought up, which is um in the event that there are constraints on the site, um, whether it's topography or other environmental constraints that would affect the net usable area for determining density.

And given the fact that um we have a maximum base density of 60, which is, I mean, come on, that's really a tall order to achieve.

Would there be any um consideration on the part of the city to um allow for waivers or modifications, concessions?

In other words, the as the state density bonus law stuff to facilitate development as a result of um these constraints impacting a site.

You know, in other words, if a developer is not able to achieve uh 20, you know, and Matt gave an example in his letter, as a result of some environmental constraint, um, would we then be able to suggest, well, if that's the case, we can give you a waiver on building height to achieve 20.

Is that been something that is that something that the city has looked at and can it be done and as part of this?

So I think that's actually already accounted for in the state density bonus law.

So basically what the state density bonus law allows a developer to do is to achieve whatever that achievable density is or allowed density on a site.

And they're allowed under the state law to already um invoke state density bonus law to use concessions or waivers to development standards like height and setback.

So the fact that they're you know, they they could apply, and and in the city of Monterey, we have an inclusionary housing ordinance that requires a certain level base level of affordability that essentially guarantees almost every development that that is utilizing the that inclusionary ordinance, a certain number of concessions and waivers.

So almost every project that meets our inclusionary housing ordinance is almost getting at least two concessions or waivers for their project.

Um, and that could be even more if they have a higher affordability level as well.

So I think to answer your question, it's it's there's already mechanisms in place that will allow a developer to reach a higher density or to basically ignore certain development standards to reach that higher density.

Um I think what Matt's asking for is to not include certain areas of the lot to help help developments achieve that that minimum density.

And that's where things get a little bit um complicated in removing setbacks in certain instances.

And as you know, we have to remain somewhat objective in our standards now and applying to these residential developments.

But but uh Leva, my understanding is that in order to trigger this density bonus, you have to have a base density that is maximum, not minimum.

So in this case, you would have to start with 60 and then apply the density bonus.

It's based on the maximum base density.

It's based on the affordability that's being given to the site and the percentage of affordability.

And so maximum base density has no factor in this?

It does in establishing what the maximum density is, but so density bonus is twofold.

So there's two things that happen with density bonus.

There's the actual bonus density bonus, which is additional units that go above and beyond what the maximum permitted density for a site is.

And then there's the concessions and waivers.

And one, they're kind of two separate.

Uh, once you meet the requirements to uh utilize state density bonus law, which is just meeting that base level percentage of affordability for a project, uh that's percentage of units.

Um, you're able to utilize the concessions and waivers that come with that, regardless if you're even asking for additional density.

Okay, thanks for clarifying.

I wasn't aware of that.

Sure.

So it's a two-pronged, yes, as long as you meet that per base level percentage of you know 20% affordable, you you can even if you're not asking for that additional density, you can get relief from those development standards.

Good to know.

Okay.

Uh we'll open this up to um uh public uh uh if is there anyone in the uh chambers that want to speak to this.

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.

My name is Brad Slama.

Gentlemen, welcome to the commission.

Glad you're here.

Thanks for your service.

Uh, for the record, I am vehemently opposed to minimum densities.

Um they put you into a small little box of what can be built.

And the remaining lots that we mostly have are very difficult to build on.

And so while it may be 20 units minimum, sometimes it pushes it even higher because of topography and developable land.

And as you can see from Mr.

Noor's letter, uh, he's looking for all the carve outs you can get.

Uh setbacks, scenic easements, everything.

You're already getting pushback from developers uh because we know it's very difficult to attain in a lot of scenarios.

Uh 20 units an acre, what that'll mean is three-story buildings everywhere, multifamily condos only.

Uh no twin, no townhomes, um, nothing that's you know, multitude of options when it comes to development.

Um, I understand the position that the city's in uh and ultimately it will respect whatever decision uh comes out of that.

Um, I know dealing with HCD and possibly opening up our elements, not a good idea, but I will tell you multiple jurisdictions in the Bay Area have had builder remedy applications come in to downsize the zoning, where the minimum density requirements meant that projects couldn't be built financially.

And so when the jurisdiction was outside of their housing element being fulfilled, and they were exposed to builders remedy, they provide applications that were under the minimum density requirement.

So that's the slippery slope we get on when we talk about this.

A lot of projects will not happen because of minimum density requirements.

Um, but do what you must.

I have a request.

Uh in the building code, what happens is when we submit a project in 2025, and that project carries over to 2026.

We stay under 2025's building code requirements.

And even though our project gets through uh plan check and plan review in 2026, we don't have to redo our plans every time the building code changes.

Uh, I have a project on Garden Road that's been in process for three years uh and millions of dollars uh that will very difficult will be very difficult to kind of skirt this new code.

My request is that you direct staff to grandfather us in the same way that we do with building applications so that we can keep this project going at a real realistic density of about 15 to 16 units an acre and not basically throw away three years of plans and a whole bunch of work.

Um I feel like that would be borderline criminal.

So I would make that request.

Thank you.

Erica, anybody online?

Sure, I see two hands raised.

I can go ahead and allow Matt Norr to unmute.

It looks like Matt's unmuted.

Can you hear us, Matt?

Yes, can you hear me?

Yes, we can hear you.

Great, thank you.

Uh good evening, uh, Chair Silva and uh fellow planning commissioners.

Uh, my name is Matt Norr.

Um, I wanted to thank you uh for um your time this afternoon and uh taking the your time before the meeting to review the letter I submitted.

Uh for better or worse, we all find ourselves trying to navigate the various state housing laws and programs.

Feels like a new one like comes out every month or so, and we're just like we're just trying to keep up and just like what's what's new, what's allowed, and how is this all shaking out.

Uh, I gotta give uh my hats off to staff for doing an amazing job trying to balance and navigate this constant changing set of rules.

Uh certainly appreciate the the spirit of the text uh that staff is is written.

Uh again, though, we do um really look at and uh encourage uh the commission to consider the proposed amended language uh on the calculating the density uh as I included in that letter, uh, an example of our existing 2200 garden road site plan just to demonstrate all of the nuances uh that are going on there, whether it be the scenic uh setback, uh there's actually a city sewer main that runs through the site, um uh other utility easements, topography, uh protected uh oak and pine trees, and so forth.

Uh but in addition to that, the the bigger issue really is the water availability and um topic.

And our 2020 uh 2200 garden road site is an undeveloped site and it's subject to the CDO.

And so until that CDO is lifted, which I know there's all this talk about oh, it's imminent, but we've been hearing that for years, and we're very skeptical about that.

But do so what we're trying to do is it uh implement an on-site wells, and those on-site wells also have certain setbacks and requirements for keeping building footprint, sewer mains, and laterals out of those ways.

So it in and on top of that, the well has a certain production level uh based on its uh pumping capability and water quality.

And so maybe when we do these tests wells, we find that we can actually achieve maybe 12, 15 units per acre supported by these on-site wells because we can't get water from a connection.

I think the city would much, and even the state would much rather see at least a 12, 15 unit per acre project than nothing at all because we can't achieve that density minimum.

Um, we certainly can and we we do plan on utilizing some of those concessions and waivers, but we want to develop our projects being a good neighbor.

I the last thing I want to do is throw a four-story building five feet from the city setback right away.

I just it just ruins, I think the streetscape and and the and the neighborhood character.

And so we're we're very respectful and trying to balance those concessions and waivers and apply them respectfully.

So thank you for your time and consideration and look forward to continuing.

Thank you, Matt.

Erica, anybody else?

Yes, I can go ahead and allow Patrick Orosco to unmute.

Good evening, commissioners.

Can you hear me okay?

We can hear you.

Great.

Um, I want to also compliment uh staff for uh a thoughtful presentation.

I we very much appreciate the dialogue and the the creative approach to solving these really complex problems.

Um that said, I do want to emphasize the importance of the specific examples that uh Matt presented in his letter.

Um nearly all of them affect our site.

Um our site uh has a cell tower on it.

Um so there are existing improvements that have existing setbacks for public safety that we need to navigate.

Um they are in conflict, as are the um setbacks from highway uh 68 um with this density requirement.

The density requirement ultimately is is an arbitrary standard.

Um, you know, as Brad highlighted, the the we as developers are incentivized to maximize the value of our property.

Um and more importantly, we're we're uh incentivized to build product that is uh meeting the market.

So unit count is one market factor.

The type of project um is another.

We we recently entitled the 356 unit podium project in San City.

That project may never get built because it is uh of a construction type that is too expensive, even though it maximizes density.

So bedroom count would be a superior standard to unit count because Brad has already built uh considerable number of studios.

We would like to build two bedrooms.

We're asking uh for your consideration to avoid boxing us into uh an arbitrary corner.

And I will highlight that the city of Monterey is not alone.

Um, we're having the same conversation with the county, and the county is pushing back.

The county is proposing a significantly lesser uh maximum density bonus.

They're talking you know, six to eight.

And even there, we're pushing back on the six to eight units per acre because of the very same reasons that um, you know, we we're already dealing with an extremely uh challenging entitlement environment.

We really do not need uh additional impediments.

We don't need uh circumstances where uh we're having to record um scenic easements on our own property and then restricted from doing things that are not in conflict with the city's zoning code, such as putting infrastructure in them or other uh specific uh um issues that we may need to navigate.

Uh ultimately uh, you know, the the goal here is to facilitate housing.

All housing in this area is good housing.

Uh, you have done a commendable job and actually pioneered some of the policy that we're advocating for in other parts of of the county here.

And I really just want to make sure that you as a leader.

Your time limit.

Thank you.

Erica, is there anybody else?

Uh there are no other attendees online.

We'll take this back to the planning commission.

Dave, do you have any deliberations?

Have you got staff questions?

Go ahead.

So you've heard people in the public say fight the state.

Okay.

Levi.

Fight the state.

Is it possible?

So I think there's uh, you know, I think the larger answer to that question is there we can continue conversations with the state.

I think I think that's one of the things I'd like to add.

You know, there's uh a lot of carve outs there being proposed, even beyond what staff has drafted currently to you know create flexible language.

I think uh it's important to note that that this gets reviewed by HCD once more.

So they'll still determine whether or not this amendment is uh complying with that statute and their in their perspective.

So I think that's the risk that we run by uh really swiss cheesing this uh amendment to a point where we run the risk of being right back in this situation uh reviewing a different minimum density provision.

So I think that's what uh why whenever staff is obviously very much in favor and in any ways that we can facilitate housing production in these areas.

We're also trying to legitimately go forward to HCD and say that we've implemented the requirements of the statute.

So I think with that being said, you know, we have been meeting with HCD.

They have been um, you know, having that conversation, that dialogue.

It doesn't appear that at the staff level, we that's been getting us very far and hasn't seemed to change their answer.

I think there's a larger question as to how much we want to challenge the state, and that's kind of beyond the authority of city staff and would be for ultimately for our city council to decide at how much we wanted to push back on that.

Okay, and then a follow-up.

There were uh the other discussions about the other easements on the site that they used as an example.

There are PGEasements, there are sewer easements, there are potentially well easements.

Can't those be recorded?

So therefore they fit what the staff is saying that recorded easements uh would be taken away from the site.

Um that could be uh that could be an amendment that the commission uh if they if they desire to could be added to the proposed text.

Um again, I just think the risk involved with that is taking that back to HCD and adding yet another uh reduction and as they're gonna view it in that density calculation.

I can't say at this point in time if they'd be uh opposed to it, but it is just uh, you know, one more provision to what I think they view as a pretty simple uh requirement of 20 dwelling units per acre.

Uh I think the more complicated we make it, the more attention it's going to get.

But that's definitely something that if the commission felt was uh something they wanted to see staff um incorporate into the ordinance, they can do that.

Okay, and then I'm sorry, one more.

Somebody else invited me here.

I don't know what uh the whole issue of water, which I've got to say, I've been talking about on this body for 30 plus years.

Uh, it's still here.

Um they have a very realistic point of that you can drill a well, and right now we don't have uh water that the public can provide, and the well can only provide X amount of water for the site.

What do we do then?

I think under the proposed text, I would recommend that that development look at phasing the project to meet the requirements of the amendment as of the proposed ordinance as written and um propose a project that does provide for a higher density and the complete build out.

Could we we but if they build it?

And even if they got water, could we force them then to build the rest of it?

Let's get real I don't I don't know that um I guess it would depend on how the entitlement structured but to answer your question in a realistic fashion, I don't think you can force anyone to build a multifamily housing development.

Thank you.

Sure.

I guess um in that oh, can I absolutely um in that bane questioning?

Um I I this is probably more for discussion.

I I don't quite understand the resistance towards creating a carve out for water like they request in the letter.

It's just I don't think the phasing for the point David just made like is necessarily the best way to do that.

Um is there something else going on that I'm missing?

Like, why wouldn't you create a carve out for you know, we realize like if fixer units are unavailable on this site, we will cap the density at whatever available units may be built with the allowable water needed to the site.

You know, why can't that be placed in this sure?

Um the resistance not from the city staff point.

It's that idea was the first thing we expressed and floated to HCD and did not get any traction.

HCD was shooting it down.

Yeah.

And I guess my other question is um we've heard a couple of mentions of extenuating circumstances on sites and and whatnot.

Um, in looking at these maps, we're not talking about a huge number of sites here.

I mean, we're we're talking like a handful on Garden Road and then a handful in this area, and then I'm not quite sure what's going on with the courthouse site.

But um do would a variance would they be able to apply for a variance to exonerate them from this minimum density?

So it's rather complicated because um there's typically not variances to density.

Um that's typically not something you see a variance uh uh be given for or allowed to be given for under the code, and ours doesn't um prescribe that.

That's it's usually again, it's you're usually looking at the opposite, usually looking at someone who's running into an issue with the maximum density and state density bonus has been that is the variance for density, as most are concerned with.

Uh, did you just don't run into the issue with minimum density and that being an issue in in most instances?

Uh so to answer your question, it's not something that you see a variance um given for.

Is there something in the city code that prohibits someone requesting a variance for a minimum density?

The code establishes what variances can be granted for.

Yeah, and density is uh a uh zoning standard, it's usually carved out as not being something that can be granted variance for.

But this amendment would in and of itself be a amendment to the code.

So couldn't we revise the code while we do this to allow for a minimum density variance?

Again, that's something that we'd have to let HCD review.

And I think they would see that as undermining the minimum density standard that they're requiring.

Okay.

Thanks.

Sure.

Uh yeah, I'm hearing a lot of concerns about um anything that creates housing element compliance issues.

So to um I had a question about the public comment in terms of uh applying new standards to approved projects and um so do you do approved projects have any kind of vested rights?

Um would the proposed uh minimum density apply to projects that already have discretionary discretionary approvals.

So if a project's already receive its entitlements, it's entitled.

So this would not impact those projects.

Uh one of the commenters earlier mentioned projects that are still going through the entitlement process.

Um so that uh those projects would be impacted by this if they're not entitled before the effectuation date of the ordinance.

Um there's uh as mentioned, uh that commenter requested that there be uh a provision added to the ordinance that would more or less grandfather those projects in or at least establish that those projects are subject to the regulations set in place at the time of application rather than um the new new ordinance.

Um there's also state level protections for those projects, like uh if you're familiar with Senate Bill 330, you can submit a pre uh preliminary application under that state law that is also intended to lock in regulations and standards for for property uh for uh proposed projects that they meet the requirements for that.

Um so I think uh staff would be um I'm not sure I would without consulting with the city attorney's office on um what our ability is to actually incorporate provisions into the ordinance that would grandfather those pending projects that are under review that have been applied for.

Um, but if the commission wanted to add a provision or direct staff on in a motion to incorporate and work with the city attorney's office to incorporate that kind of language in there, we would be happy to do that and would support that um just to kind of reinforce maybe the protections found in SB330 at a local level.

Thank you.

Um so the um this recorded season easement term, uh just the semantics of it.

Is that um how important is the recorded term?

Um so the recordation is what formalizes or memorializes that area as um I guess unbuildable if that easement's dedicated to the benefit of the city in the way of a scenic easement.

Um so the recordation is what makes it formal, and you know, 25, 50 years from now, that easement is still what's going to be in place there.

Uh, as it exists today, it's simply a setback, which is still has some enforceability to it, obviously, from a development standard um perspective.

But as as many on this commission who's you know, reviewed and approved variances to setbacks, there is relief and mechanisms for relief to setbacks built into the code.

So I think um from our staff is sitting, uh, we were just like I said earlier, looking for a taking a position that if that's going to be excluded from the calculations that it should be locked in as unbuildable area.

Um, but ultimately if the commission wants to change that language to something more along the lines of scenic setback, you know, even specifying along highway 68, um, that's something the commission could do.

It's just leaves that door open in the future for someone to say exclude that area from their density calculation, and then at a later date, proposed development in that area.

Yeah.

So the because we're, you know, this particular developer has you know, of course it's interested in their property on garden road.

And it seems like that that is that hundred foot setback is not an easement right now, it's just a setback.

That's correct.

That's correct.

And we could specifically address that for these small number of parcels just as a carve out.

That seems very practical at this point.

Sure.

I guess from staff's perspectives, we we see easements get recorded often, and we're not completely understanding what the challenge lies in recording a that area in an easement.

Well, it would just be easy for us to specifically um, I mean, keep the language of the uh of the scenic easement, but then add and including this hundred foot setback on garden road, you know, it sort of solves a little bit of a problem for these particular um developers, and I don't see any big penalty or problem with it, really.

Yeah, I don't think staff sees a problem in general with the language as written, to be honest.

just be easy for us to specifically um i mean keep the language of the uh of the scenic easement but then add and including this hundred foot setback on garden road you know it sort of solves a little bit of a problem for these particular um developers and i don't see any big penalty or problem with it really yeah i don't think staff sees a problem in general with the language as written to be honest it's it's requires that they record a already unbuildable area into a scenic easement right but if we specifically uh carved out the hundred foot set tag then they wouldn't have to worry about the recorded business it would just be a uh a part that they could um exclude from their calculation yeah I would expect if you give them the option nobody would record the easement then they would just opt to acknowledge the setback but Terry there's there's also the you know in the letter in the diagram there's also the the well the the you know the the setback that they wanted to also do a carve out this bell tower you know all all these items kind of culminating in the calculation he did uh unless I miss reading it uh only excludes the um that 100 foot setback that's enough to get them over the 20 unit yeah uh uh threshold it seems like so that's I mean I I hate to just create the to I hate to tailor this but important when it was one owner I I know but that's what we got but you know when you look at that plan and you look at the the well you look at the cell tower you look at all these other things that are impacting the development potential of that site you're ending up with just a little small portion of the site as a whole right yeah and I think that was the point that they were making in the letter is that by the time you start including all this other stuff even though we can't take advantage of the setbacks you know the setback for the cell tower the well that has to be included nonetheless it does have a direct impact on what you can actually physically build.

Right.

I I think that's always the challenge with any developer who buys a piece of property is is reviewing the the existing configuration of the lot and you know what are all the easements crossing over it and how are they going to but they bought it before the the minimum density standards were done yeah it seems like there's a way of sort of addressing that here.

And the city they they meet that minimum threshold just by carving out scenic easement.

Right that's I think it's just sort of all like a procedural difference of opinion between staff and the applicant like staff feels that this is something we record scenic easements on projects all the time and it's sure you've done it as well it's something that's done and I think the applicant is saying that no we'd like this put in place so that we don't have to record it.

Right.

Yeah.

And the city attorney has been involved in these um semantics yeah so they've they they review our ordinances but they review them in more detail on and when they go through uh preparation for city council and yeah my question follows on all of this in a real time situation um as justin said there aren't that many sites available for development in today's world on what basis are people being turned down for development of multifamily projects are is anybody being turned down today for multifamily uh development uh project based on the density no not so this is like we're talking principle not uh not actual correct uh well i mean i think if this were if this amendment is applied yeah we do run the potential of projects as you've heard tonight that would be unable to meet that minimum threshold and you know user terms would be more or less turned down for entitlement if they were unable to meet that threshold okay um the reason for my question is so if somebody were being turned down on an actual project today then we would be talking about legal trouble little suits lawsuits and such I mean the developer wants to build his project okay I I think we're missing something in the three meetings that you had with HCT.

I mean how much pushback are we gonna get if you begin to change the language that you've already got I mean the objective is to be able to survive with the review that you're gonna have with them.

And so in a sense you know we should be working with you to make sure that you get through that process and I'm not sure how we implement our ability to succeed with HCT and then also meet these other requirements that we're talking about too.

I think we want all of it but we don't want to end up pushing too hard on staff to go back another fourth phone call with HTC or that and then find out that we're back here again.

Sure.

And that's and that's something staff's happy to do.

We're we're like I said, we if if the commission's stance on this tonight is that they'd like to see certain provisions um, you know, added to the proposed ordinance and that staff, you know, gets that reviewed by HCD to see if that's you know palatable for them and then bring it back before this commission and report back, we can do that as well.

But your general knowledge from the previous discussions you'd advise us if there's going to be something that you've got serious pushback on.

Yeah, the primary uh conversations with ACD that we had during those three meetings was to uh it was really the same conversation with three different levels of of supervisory presence in the meeting, uh, but it was to go over the water issue and to explain that you know, if your goal is to increase housing production, that this is not by default going to have that effect in the city of Monterey under the current water constraints the city's under and would in fact have possibly the opposite effect and eliminating potential development proposals.

And so we laid that out in great detail with you know lower level staff, middle level staff, and ultimately their top level enforcement wing was on the call.

And their advice to us was to take um to explore options for legislative action to address this issue, which is a fancy way of saying talk to your state senator and your state reps and get the law changed.

So that's how far we got with with that conversation.

Now that didn't get into the details of some of these carve-outs and these very specific nuances that we're talking about tonight.

So that's not to say that they can't find some level of flexibility.

You know, we're already asking them to find a certain level of flexibility with what you're looking at in the proposed ordinance.

So if uh if the commission's uh you know, stance is that they want to see staff really find that line with HCD and what they're willing to accept before bringing this forward to you, we can do that as well.

What is the ultimate consequence of not complying?

Yeah, so long term, ultimately, if we we fail to comply with the statutory requirements of housing element law, we run the risk of falling out of substantial compliance.

And then there's uh a multitude of enforcement actions that HCD has the ability to take at that point, including um, you know, they can seize permit authority from the city, and then there's also monetary fines that um, if you read much in the news or are quite steep and are on the daily.

So um that they have a lot of um enforcement ability in that way.

Now, that's not something that happens overnight.

If we fail to act on this tonight, we're not gonna receive a call from HCD tomorrow revoking our compliance or anything like that.

It's something they are watching, we are communicating in communication with them.

They do know that we are bringing this forward to the commission tonight to show that we're addressing their concerns.

Um, so as long as I think as long as we have that conversation open with them and we're continuing that dialogue, I don't think we run the risk of falling into an enforcement issue at this point in time.

And how long can we um kick this can down the road?

And string this thing along, you know.

I mean, it literally, I mean, I'm serious.

I mean, if if it if this is a situation where HCD is aware that we're still having a dialogue regarding this, um, and there isn't consensus with the community.

Um, we talking in general terms, uh six-month deadline, a two-year deadline.

What what is what is the time frame on this?

So, yeah, the original, you know, our implementation for the rezonings were required to be done.

Um technically by the end of 2024, and we reach did that.

We accomplished that with this initial zoning amendment to expand the multifamily uh residential overlay and increase the density.

Um, their perspective is that that that was incomplete um because we didn't include a provision for minimum density.

So there's not a hard and fast.

I mean, they're looking at it from this interesting angle of one, we've we still haven't complied with what we're supposed to comply with at the end of 2024, but they also are looking at it in the lens of this is we're a city that is making a uh you know, uh good faith effort and a significant um effort to be in compliance.

And we're doing that through our meetings and communication with them and and where other cities are much further behind than us and are uh run much more risk of falling into an enforcement, but it is something they contacted us about.

It is something that they you know, when we haven't communicated with them, you know, uh readily enough, they do reach out and inquire.

So it's hard to say what the actual deadline would be, but we are running into the holidays, so I think there's a little bit of critical.

I mean, it's it's it's entirely feasible that um this could go back and forth between planning commission and staff and your communications with HCD numerous times.

You we you know we may see the same thing come before us two or three more times before we're satisfied, and that could be six months.

Yeah, we may even have to meet with HCD numerous times in in between there to make sure that the language is sufficient.

I I'd like to uh make a motion that we continue this with the provision that staff work with HCD and express to HCD certain modifications that we've discussed here, which um and I've just have some bullet points here.

Uh this whole notion of phasing projects is interesting to me in that even though the city cannot compel a developer to say, okay, do phase two.

You you can submit a phasing plan at the initial application and build out a portion of it that might be feasible for the developer at that time, and then once other situations arise in the future, they could do the the future phase.

But if those situations never materialize, they shouldn't be penalized for not meeting the minimum density at the outset.

So I think this whole notion of phasing is compelling and interesting, and I'd like to see further dialogue with the city and the state on that.

Um the notion of the easements and recording of utility easements and so forth, I think is something that we've heard tonight, and I want to get the state's opinion on whether or not that is going to damper their enthusiasm for um creating the minimum density and the way it's can be calculated.

I'd like to have the city advise applicants of projects that are unentitled about the SB 330 benefits, uh, and that can happen without any HCD coordination.

Um anyway, those are thoughts that I have on this, and I'd like to make a motion to have the city proceed accordingly if any anybody has any comments or a second.

Um, I'd like to add if uh the city attorney could look into um projects, previous projects that relied on uh previous standards and you know has because I imagine HD HCD wouldn't want to threaten the project viability that of projects that are in the pipeline.

So um I wonder if that might be a question as well.

If the committee would agrees to that.

Could you restate that?

I I didn't quite follow.

Yeah, so um uh the uh Mr.

Slamat um suggested that um, and I feel like it's a reasonable request if um if there's projects that have already are already in the application stage or have any discretionary approval um previous to um what the minimum density requirements if they would have to be subject to these new um requirements, right?

But um in in those particular cases, um was there, I mean I don't want to open up the public hearing, but there was an opportunity to do a pre-act we have 30.

Yeah, it's closed.

But did we close it?

I didn't okay I brought it back.

Okay, sorry.

But in those particular cases, there was an opportunity to do a pre-app with SP330 protections, and I don't know whether that happened or not, but there is mechanisms already in place to protect that to grandfather projects in okay.

All stuck in that.

Uh we have a motion and a second, Erica.

Do you want to do a role?

I want to restate the motion.

Yeah, well, you understand the motion.

Oh, I'm sorry.

That's uh my I know continuous.

So the other stuff the motion is to continue the uh uh application um and uh direct city staff to uh continue working with HCD uh and to uh consider the following items.

One, which is uh uh phasing of projects, uh two uh the recordation of easements, and um and third, advising um unentitled uh project applicants of SB 330 protections.

That was the motion.

But no mention of a grandfather kind of a um uh address.

Well, that's what that's what I just responded to with when Eric brought it up.

So there is a mechanism currently in place to grandfather applications so that they're protected from future uh um requirements, and that's the SB 330 pre-app is all about.

Okay, I didn't know that.

Okay.

And that has Senate Bill 330 is existing.

There have been so many of them.

We haven't uh I don't I get that one confused.

I guess I'll have to look it up.

Um so there is already a mechanism in place to grandfather these types of projects uh to protect them from future uh uh administrative requirements that may impact the viability of the project.

When I had asked about that though, Levi had mentioned that that's something that that staff would be happy to look into.

And we can, we can consult with the city attorney's office as well, ensure that SB330 captures that um concern, and then also if we can, you know, we can discuss with them what our options are to add an additional local provision within the ordinance that further ensures that as well.

So we'll do that as well in our consultation with HCD under the current motion.

Very good.

Um I just to make it a little bit more succinct.

I think we want the motion to say you mentioned phasing.

I would say phasing and how it relates to the issue of water entitlements, because I think that's an important issue that we need staff to address um if they're gonna bring this back to us.

So that would be one.

The other one would be this SB 330, and does it really do what staff thinks it's gonna do for developers?

Um those would be the two, I think that are the most crucial.

Yeah, I I I purposely left out the issue regarding water when I spoke about phasing.

And the reason for that is there could be other constraints beside water that may compel somebody to want to phase a project, such as um economic downturn or any number of issues that are kind of beyond uh what we can actually predict.

And we already know that the state has given a dim response when the city tried to um uh indicate that we have this CDO and the water issue, and they were not interested in that.

So it didn't seem like that was gaining much traction.

And I think just the general idea that their projects could be phased for any number of reasons and leave it open-ended, I think is preferable.

We've got one other question for staff before you vote.

Um I have seen in the past when there is an upcoming change to a city rule where the city starts enforcing the rule before it's actually adopted.

And I won't give you exact examples, but I know they exist.

Um I want to make sure that this continuance doesn't make it so the staff is going, well, this is probably coming up, so we're not gonna take your application, or we're gonna enforce the thing that we are not voting on tonight.

So staff.

Yeah, staff has no intentions of implementing any ordinance before it's effective.

You promise.

All right.

All right, so we have a motion and a second, Erica.

Sure, Chair Silva.

Yes.

Vice Chair Latasa.

Yes, Commissioner Blut, yes, Commissioner Freeman, yes, Commissioner Palmer, yes, Commissioner Polly.

Yes.

And Commissioner Stoker.

Yes.

Great.

It's been approved to continue.

Thank you, Erica.

Moving on to item number five, uh, recommending approval of amendments to the Monterey City Code to dissolve the ARC and transfer powers and duties to the planning commission.

Uh Leva, are you gonna present a report on this?

I am.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair Silva.

As the chair mentioned, this is a zoning amendment to dissolve the architectural review committee and transfer the powers and duties to the planning commission.

I will do a brief presentation.

And the staff recommendation is that the planning commission hold the public hearing and adopt resolution, recommend to the city council the amendment to dissolve the architectural review committee and transfer those powers and duties to the PC.

So a little bit of background, and I think most folks here are probably familiar before the benefit of the public, in case you're not.

The um on June 17th, the city council considered uh an item uh dealing with the consolidation of its boards, commissions, and committees, and they took a look at all the various committees and and uh commissions and boards uh throughout the city and look for opportunities to consolidate where they could.

And uh the purpose of this was to uh in an attempt to streamline the processes uh for applicants and to also reduce the impact to administrative resources for the city staff.

Um so where they came out on that was that they uh in reviewing all the various committees and boards, they found that there was enough common uh common threads in between the planning commission and the architectural review committee that they saw an opportunity for that consolidation.

And so at the July 23rd City Council meeting, they uh directed staff to prepare the necessary ordinance amendments to uh dissolve the ARC formally and to transfer those powers and duties to the planning commission.

So chapter two administration of the Monterey City Code is actually establishes the powers and duties of the ARC and this group, since this item uh is proposing to transfer all those special duties and powers to this commission.

Uh felt that this commission should be aware of what those are.

Uh so as listed here in chapter two, the architectural review committee is empowered to review projects to ensure the promotion and orderly development, ensure high quality design that is harmonious with project surroundings, and implement the general plan as well as neighborhood plans to preserve and promote the visual character of the city.

And then, of course, they do that through reviewing and oversee minimum submittal requirements for administering architectural review in the city.

So the proposed ordinance before you this evening um would amend many chapters uh to the Monterey City Code, including chapters two, 31, 33, 37, and 38.

And if you're not familiar, that's our uh administration section in chapter two.

Chapter 31 is our uh sign ordinance, 33 is our subdivision ordinance, 37 is our tree preservation ordinance, and 38 is our zoning code.

Um, but however, only amendments to chapter 38, the zoning code fall under the purview of the planning commission.

So that's really in your action tonight.

Uh the ordinance includes amendments to various chapters throughout the city code, but your recommendation would apply specifically to those changes in chapter 38.

And primarily what those changes are is a replacement of references to the ARC with PC.

Um that happens in very uh many, many uh areas of the zoning code as shown in the ordinance before you and included in your packet.

And then the way that happens is also that they uh the amendment would grant the planning commission the authority to review and oversee architectural review rather than the architectural review committee.

And again, here are cited in that process is to promote orderly development and ensure high quality design.

So with that, the planning commission, or I'm sorry, the planning staff is recommended that the planning commission hold a public hearing, adopt a resolution amending uh recommending to the city council the amendment to the zoning code to dissolve the ARC and transfer powers and duties to the planning commission.

I'm happy to answer any questions.

There was a letter saying we can't do this.

Can we?

I think what the letter from Julie Garmin?

Yes.

Yeah.

Sure.

So yes, uh, we reviewed the comment.

Um, and that comment was made previously uh uh when the city council was considering this consolidation.

Um, and it's under our understanding and consultation with the city attorney's office that the uh and the proposed ordinance addresses that um there is language in there specifically notes that the ARC has powers and responsibilities um granted to it through the charter, and that that uh language has been included in the ordinance to pass those um duties onto the planning commission.

Um, I do believe it's the intention to follow up with a ballot measure to clean that language up in the charter to align that.

Um, but as far as staff's uh is and the understanding of staff is that this has been um drafted and vetted by the city attorney's office and is um legally feasible.

Okay, thank you.

Sure.

Any other questions?

How much will this actually um you know?

Is there going to be a yearly saving of uh $4,314?

I I've counted exactly how many minutes this is gonna save me.

Um it's kind of the rats uh leaving the sinking ship here, though the I was thanks to ones ARC.

It's a good starting point.

It's it was a very good starting point.

I have to say that I was interested in Julie Gorman's letter because over the last three years, we have had visitor accommodation facilities come to the planning commission for what I call ordinary improvements.

I don't mean they're minor, but ordinary improvements, balconies, roofs, windows, fences, stairs.

Why are they coming to the planning commission?

And the answer has been that because of their charter of the city, the planning commission has to hear these issues of ordinary repairs.

So I don't see how Julie's complaint changes really anything that's already being done.

Planning commission's already doing this.

So maybe you could click clarify.

Sure.

Yeah, so you're correct.

Uh as stipulated in the city's charter and then duplicated in the BAF section of the zoning code where it talks about what the review procedures are for VAF properties.

Um, as currently written, it requires that um non-structural ordinary repairs, as you mentioned, no change flag for like change, just repairs that are non-structural require the review of the architectural review committee.

So those who are joining us from the ARC is used to seeing kind of the same types of projects but of a lesser scale that don't have a structural component to it.

And then it specifies that ordinary repairs that do involve a structural change require the planning commission.

And so while a little heavy handed, yes, um, you're correct.

One way or the other, you're they're going to an architectural review committee meeting to have that repair reviewed, or you're going to a planning commission meeting to have that repair reviewed.

So you're correct.

Under the proposed ordinance, it just simply means that no matter what, the planning commission would be the ones to review that.

And administratively it removes an appeal step.

And I think that's something else that's maybe not you know covered in the agenda report.

But currently, if you go to the ARC and a member of the public or an applicant is unhappy with their decision at the ARC, they can pay a fee, appeal that decision to the planning commission.

And then once again, if they're unhappy with that decision, they can pay an additional fee and appeal that decision to the city council.

This essentially removes a step in that process and also a fee.

Is there any movement to on the city's part to um initiate a ballot measure to try to address this?

I'm sure uh so I think if I understand it every year uh or uh every other year they they prepare a certain amount of ballot measures that the council basically makes uh motion to put on the ballot.

Um, I expect it usually is there's some that are uh what I would call house housekeeping measures that are there to uh you know clean up uh inconsistencies.

I would imagine that this would definitely be one if approved would be added to that cleanup.

I can't wait.

Are there any members uh of the public that would like to speak to this?

Erica, anybody online?

Uh there are no hands raised.

Uh comments.

Seems like I'm doing legal review and um I'm excited that we still get to use some ARC projects because those are interesting too.

So the fear is that the uh our agenda would become fluttered with sign and tree permit applications, yeah.

But that's you know, that's staff's job to try to figure out those out before they get to us.

So uh seems like it is a bit of trimming of sales and trying to limit staff time.

So I'm in support of it.

I agree.

I think it needs to be um, I think it needs to be coupled with an intent to put more items on the consent agenda.

Um, and less items that like we I'm just just coming from the IRC and I found it incredibly annoying, just the sort of mundane.

I don't think a hotel should have to have a public hearing to replace its windows.

Um, and I think there's things that just are going to public hearing that I think, you know, if we've got a sign application that staff has vetted and they are recommending approval, in my opinion, something like that should go right to the consent agenda, and not necessarily because we're we're gonna get bogged down with very small things, and I think it's sort of incumbent on this body to agree.

How how would we direct staff if we were to make a motion to that effect?

What language would we then convey to you to address this?

Yeah, I think staff staff here is the commission, and we're happy to start.

I think we agree.

I think that's something that's already been discussed internally about utilizing the consent agenda more.

I think the commission and they are see us seeing us utilize the consent agenda rather sparingly, and that's to not um circumvent a public process.

But I think you know, now that we're looking at you know, measures to to ensure efficiency and you know, the proper use of everyone's time.

I think staff's already looked at areas where we could place those types of projects on the consent agenda.

Really, what it's gonna be, it'll be to this commission whether or not you know to set that, find that balance.

So staff, I mean, in theory, we could place every item on the consent agenda.

It's for the commission to pull items whether or not they want to.

So I think it'll be for the commission to kind of find that comfort level um and staff kind of intend on finding that comfort level with we'll start proposing things on the consent agenda, assuming no members of the public want to pull those items.

You know, the commission has the authority to leave those on the consent agenda and vote on them at that time.

I think also coupled with that as staffs looked at opportunities.

Um again for our ARC, and I think most folks on this commission have sort of uh on ARC at some point in time knows that there's administrative architectural review as well.

Um the ARC has the authority to um currently in the code.

The ARC is who has the authority to establish that list of items that can be administratively reviewed and approved.

That authority will be transferred to the planning commission once this ordinance is effective.

Um, and staff is looking at opportunities to bring that list back to this commission, look for opportunities where there's comfort and having things approved administratively without public hearing um and coming before this this these meetings.

Um again, that will be for this commission to ultimately decide how comfortable they are with that list as proposed, and if they want to make modifications to that.

I thought there was also a state law that it's either here or coming down directing us for more design standards that we had to work within that theoretically there would be less ARC anyway.

That's correct.

So many state laws are uh restrict cities to applying what they call only objective design standards, and those are um you know non-subjective design requirements for projects that don't necessarily um necessitate discretionary or subjective review from a commission like this.

Uh so you're correct.

Uh, in a lot of ways, architectural review and design review statewide is moving to a much more objective-based black and white.

You either meet this requirement or you don't, type of review.

So I think that also um, you know, behooves itself to modifying that administrative list as well.

And these are certain qualifying projects, not all housing projects.

Uh, correct, like uh meeting certain criteria under the state laws.

All right, any other comments?

Can I get a motion?

Uh move to approve an ordinance dissolving the architectural review committee and transferring its powers and duties to the planning commission as stated in the agenda report.

I'll second that.

So we have a uh motion by Commissioner Freeman to uh uh approve the uh abandonment of the ARC and transfer its powers to the PC and a second by Commissioner Latasa, Erica.

Sure, Chair Silva, yes, Vice Chair Latassa, yes, Commissioner Bluth, yes, Commissioner Freeman, yes, commissioner Palmer, yes, Commissioner Pauli.

Yes, and Commissioner Stoker.

Yes, okay.

That's been approved.

Commissioner comments.

Well, I want to just start off by saying congratulations on the three new members.

As I stated earlier, I'm not sure if this is a blessing or a curse.

You shall find out.

And um, but before we all start chatting away, maybe we can get some brief introductions for those who are not familiar with these with our new esteemed members, starting with David.

You want to hear why I'm here?

Well, that's gives you why you're esteemed.

A brief introduction.

Uh brief introduction.

I've lived in uh Monterey a long time.

I have served in the past on city boards and commissions for 30 plus years.

Love the city of Monterey, live in a very old house here.

Love being back here.

My office is in the city of Monterey.

So I'm pleased to be back here.

Very good.

Justin.

Uh Justin Polly.

I've been running uh architectural practice here in Monterey for about 15 years now.

Uh like David, my home is in Monterey, my office is just around the corner.

My office is just around the corner.

So whoops.

I'm not going to start again, but um I love the city and uh I'm excited to be on the PC.

Very good.

Eric.

Um, Eric Palmer.

I worked at the city for 15 years up until about four years ago.

I was in the communications office, so worked with uh a lot of the planning staff on communicating planning projects.

So got me really interested in the subject.

Um I work at Region Monterey, which is a waste management district doing the same thing.

I was on the ARC for two years, and I'm on the county's housing advisory uh committee.

So just trying to give back since I'm a resident and then live a few blocks up the hill.

Well, welcome everybody and uh hope you enjoy your time on the plan and commission.

Um do we have any um staff uh updates?

Yes, uh thank you.

As noted in the report, just a couple follow-up items from uh our city council meetings recently, um, followed up to our November 4th City Council meeting, and as this commission reviewed, uh the council did adopt the planning commission recommendation and approve the first reading of an ordinary ordinance that would establish regulations and development standards for firearms and ammunition cells in the city.

Um, and at that same meeting, uh the city council considered the um appeal to the planning commission's decision to deny the use permit application for a daycare general use at 2400 Garden Road, and the result of that uh hearing was that the council did vote to overturn the planning commission's denial of that item and um initiate and direct staff to initiate the uh ALUC P override process.

So um, that's the result.

Uh I believe it was unanimous on that.

Mars was unanimous too.

That's what I said.

Yeah, they they win.

They get they always do, they always get the other.

Thank you, Levi.

Oh, and just one other item.

I'm sorry, from the November 19th.

Um, as some are aware, the uh city council received the subcommittee recommendations for the appointments to the boards, committees, and commissions, and that's how we ended up with our three new commissioners.

Thank you, Libra.

I had one in the front of I'm sorry, go ahead.

Um I'm sorry, you done?

I'm done.

I just wanted to say that the um the as far as fighting the state goes, the uh city of Carmel is sort of uh being our um test case on ADUs and told towers, and we'll see where they get to.

The the city staff has been extremely cautious on these um issues and done a really methodical process of um getting our regulations in line with state law.

I've supported where we are, but we'll see.

The city uh Parmail is taking a different tact, and and they'll they're gonna be an interesting guinea things for us.

Um leave I uh in just as a segue, um when we have future cell tower applications, uh, because of the new membership of the planning commission, it might be advisable to when you start your staff report to do just a brief kind of a summary of the regulations that have already happened uh that impacts the way that we make a decision uh because new members are not gonna understand the history of this stuff.

Absolutely.

I agree.

And and under commission comments, are we there?

We're still kind of free-flowing.

Go ahead.

Um, I will not be here at the next meeting.

I did not know that I would be a planning commissioner, and but I anybody who will be in Calhoun, Georgia during the next meeting, I'm happy to buy dinner at the cracker barrel.

So feel free.

Any other comments?

Um I'd still like to um see about staff working in um an option for us to begin the process of a specific plan for garden road.

I think given them it's been the last three meetings, exactly.

We should really try to get that on the schedule and whatever you would need us to help would be appreciated.

You know, and also the definition of easements, scenic highway, cell tower, interruptions, all of that could create a zone that would not be, you know, that would be like uh a zone not included in their calculations, and that specific plan could really go a long way, not to make our objections little tiny things, but a broad swath of uh definitions that would allow the project developers to rely on these uh exceptions.

Yeah, I understand.

And then everybody have a great thanks to go.

Yeah, yay.

Meeting adjourned.

Thank you, everybody.