Monterey Planning Commission Meeting - January 27, 2026

The Monterey Planning Commission held a regular meeting on January 27, 2026, at City Hall. The commission considered several architectural review permits, a sign permit, and other routine items. All votes were unanimous except for one dissenting vote on the sign permit. The meeting also included public comments and commissioner discussion on design review standards and appeal processes.

Consent Calendar

• Items 2 and 3 were approved on consent. Item 3 (a hotel project on North Fremont Street) had a recusal from one commissioner due to a property conflict. No discussion or public testimony was taken.
• The minutes for the January 13, 2026 meeting were approved, with Commissioner Pauli noted as absent.

Public Comments & Testimony

• General Public Comment: A member of the public commented on the hotel project that was disapproved on consent, suggesting that the commission should consider reducing design review requirements to allow more projects to be approved administratively, similar to the recent elimination of the Architectural Review Board. No other public comments were received for non-agenda items.
• 129 Duncrest Avenue (Item 5): Public commenter Laurie Mazuka (first planning commission meeting) expressed concerns about the removal of a mature Monterey cypress, the precedent of allowing tree removal due to damage from adjacent construction, and the risks of basement excavation in sand dune soils. She questioned the cumulative environmental impacts and asked for clarity on the Coastal Commission's denial of a similar basement project in Carmel.
• 424 Del Rosa Avenue (Item 6): No public comments.
• 31 Upper Ragsdale Drive (Item 7): No public comments.
• 675 Van Buren Street (Item 8): No public comments. This project was referred to the commission by a neighbor; no one spoke in opposition.
• 5528 Foam Street (Item 9): No public comments. The project was referred by a neighbor; no one spoke in opposition.

Discussion Items

• 129 Duncrest Avenue – New Two-Story Single-Family Dwelling and Tree Removal: Staff (Principal Planner Fernando Roveri) presented the project, noting the small 3,600 sq ft lot, stepped massing, and tree removal finding. Commissioner Bluth raised concerns about subjective findings under the Housing Accountability Act (HAA), the combination of unusual circumstances (basement, tree removal, sand dune soils) potentially triggering CEQA review, and the lack of a backup power source for the sump pump. The applicant’s architect, Hunter Porter Eldridge, responded that a geotechnical report exists, backup batteries could be installed, and solar panels would be placed on the roof. Arborist Frank Ono testified that the 23-inch Monterey cypress is healthy but structurally compromised due to a lean and root damage from adjacent construction. The commission deliberated, with Chair Silva moving to approve with additional conditions: a construction management plan addressing staging and traffic control, and a requirement for backup power for the drainage pump. The motion passed 6-0.
• 424 Del Rosa Avenue – Reconstruction of Multifamily Structure After Fire: Senior Associate Planner Matthew Buggert presented the project to rebuild a fire-damaged unit with modifications (higher ceilings, expanded staircase, covered deck). Staff recommended two conditions: pull back the second-story deck and roof extension to match the original footprint. The applicant, Steve Mickle, explained that the stairs needed to be larger for code compliance and requested approval without the conditions. Commissioner Bluth argued the deck and roof did not harm any neighbors and were not punitive. Motion to approve without staff conditions (allowing the larger deck and roof) passed 6-0.
• 31 Upper Ragsdale Drive – Freestanding Sign Permit: The applicant requested a 78.22 sq ft sign, exceeding the 50 sq ft maximum. Staff recommended reducing to 50 sq ft. Applicant Matt Noor (via Zoom) argued that the actual signage panels are only 32 sq ft and that the extra structure is necessary for visibility in the office park, citing larger signs at nearby properties. Commissioner Bluth noted the vehicle-oriented context and supported the larger sign. Motion to approve without the reduction passed 5-1 (Commissioner Palmer dissenting).
• 675 Van Buren Street – New Two-Story Single-Family Dwelling: This project was referred by a neighbor and met all downtown specific plan standards. Staff noted the lot is only 2,546 sq ft and the design is a modern Tudor revival style. No public testimony was given. The commission praised the design and approved unanimously.
• 5528 Foam Street – Exterior Alterations to Monterey Bay Aquarium Offices & Animal Services: The project includes a 42-inch parapet, window replacements, accessibility improvements, and lighting. Staff noted the project was referred by a neighbor. The applicant (Sarissa Skinner) stated that a future mural would address concerns about blank facades. Approved unanimously.

Key Outcomes

• 129 Duncrest Avenue: Approved (6-0) with conditions for a construction management plan and backup power for the sump pump. Appealable to city council within 10 days.
• 424 Del Rosa Avenue: Approved (6-0) without the staff-recommended reductions to the deck and roof. Appealable within 10 days.
• 31 Upper Ragsdale Drive: Approved (5-1) allowing the 78.22 sq ft sign. Commissioner Palmer voted no. Appealable within 10 days.
• 675 Van Buren Street: Approved (6-0). Appealable within 10 days.
• 5528 Foam Street: Approved (6-0). Appealable within 10 days.
• The commission directed staff to explore amending the code to establish a formal appeal process (with fees) for neighbor referrals of administrative approvals, to deter frivolous referrals.
• Staff provided an informational report on the City Council's adoption of findings to overrule the project at 2400 Garden Road (daycare center) and the Brown Act training held at the last council meeting.