Yeah, just remind me before here too.

But I'd go into it.

I was wondering about the okay, the uh planning commission will come to order.

Um let's see, Erica, could you please uh introduce staff and provide instructions for people to call in and do a roll call?

Sure, I'll start with the roll call.

I'd like to uh announce that commissioner or vice chair latasis that he would be absent today.

So with us in the chambers, we have Chair Silva here, Commissioner Bluth here, Commissioner Freeman, here, Commissioner Palmer here, Commissioner Polly, and Commissioner Stoker here, and our staff members present are our planning manager Levi Hill, our principal planner Fernando Roveri, Principal Planner Christy Sabdo, Senior Associate Planner Matthew Buggert, 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 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.

Um, we will start with the consent agenda and we have a refusal from uh one of the commissioners for item number three.

Uh yeah, item number three, I own property too close.

Okay, then would you mind stepping out until we do I have to step out for this usually really?

You just so if it's on consent, you actually just would not participate in the vote, and there won't be a discussion.

Unless unless somebody brings tables and brings it up.

Correct, unless it's uh brought taken off the consent agenda.

Is there anybody uh in the chambers that would like to uh take one of the consent items and uh bring it before a public hearing?

Seeing nobody online, Erica.

I see no hands raised.

Very good.

We'll take this back to the planning commission.

Uh any discussion on the items on the consent.

Okay, we'll do a roll call then for the number two and number three.

Okay, Chair Silva.

Yes.

Commissioner Bluth.

Yes.

Commissioner Freeman?

Yes, Commissioner Palmer.

Yes.

Commissioner Pauli.

Yes.

And Commissioner Stoker.

Yes, on two, recuse on three.

Okay.

The consent agenda has been approved.

Thank you, Erica.

We'll then turn to the approval of minutes.

Uh any comments from commissioners for the uh January 13th minutes.

No.

We have a roll call, please, Erica.

Sure, Chair Silva.

Yes.

Commissioner Bluth.

Yes.

Commissioner Freeman?

Yes.

Commissioner Palmer?

Yes.

Commissioner Pauli.

I believe I was absent.

You believe?

Yeah.

I believe all of her.

And Commissioner Stoker.

Yes.

Okay, those minutes have been approved.

And I'll just note for items two and three that those uh actions are appealable to the city council uh within the next 10 days with forms available in the planning office and online.

Thank you, Libra.

We'll now turn to uh general public comments.

If there is anybody in the chambers that wishes to speak to the planning commission about an item that is not on today's agenda, you may do so.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair members of the planning commission.

Um, it's fun to come here.

Um just wanted to make a comment.

I saw the agenda.

Um, the one project on uh North Freemont Street, uh, the hotel that was disapproved on consent.

And it made me think um the city council last year uh got rid of the architectural review board.

And I think that was in an effort to uh make things easier for the public to go through the process.

And the project at the North Fremont Street today will made me think, you know, whether or not what's the value of having such a project come to the planning commission, even if it's on consent agenda when we're basically changing windows.

So my comment is a suggestion that it's almost like a natural uh a continuation of the removal of the architectural review board in that maybe it's time for give further consideration to um looking at what requires design review and who can approve design review, what requires action by the planning commission, what could be approved administratively by staff.

I'm sure that a lot of the projects that come here and used to go to the architectural review board took a lot of staff time, and I think it may be worth for you as planning commissioners and staff to start looking to maybe changing, you know, weeding out a lot of projects that can be approved by staff administratively, allowing them to concentrate in more involved items that require a lot of more work, and you know, allowing the commission also to work more effectively.

I'm sure the public also will benefit because these projects will not have to come here and can be approved at the counter.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Seeing nobody else in chambers, is anybody online, Erica?

There are no hands raised.

Thank you, Erica.

We'll turn our attention now to our first public appearance item number five.

Consider 129 Duncrest Avenue, architectural review permit application for a new two-story single-family dwelling and removal of one tree.

Applicant Hunter Porter Eldridge, AIA, owner Bradford and Mary Joe Cooper, trustees, residential single family zone district, low density residential general plan designation.

Fernanda, would you uh provide us with a uh staff presentation, please?

Yes, thank you.

My name is Fernando Roveri, Principal Planner for the City of Monterey.

Staff's recommendation is that the planning commission approve the architectural review permit and tree removal permit.

A little background on the property.

It's located in the Dalmani Beach neighborhood.

It's on Duncrest Avenue on the north side.

It has low density residential general plan, land use designation.

And two store um, so living area, kitchen, dining, living, bedrooms, and bathrooms, and also a deck at the second story, also a deck at the rooftop level.

And all of it would be under 25 feet, which is the height maximum.

And this is a view of the right side and the left side.

So on the right side, um, Dunecrest Avenue is toward the left.

So you can see that the proposed home would have a stepped form, meaning that there is more massing in the first floor than on the second floor.

That provides a greater setback from Dunecrest Avenue on the second story.

So the messing is positioned toward the rear of the site.

And again on the left side, you can again see that setback.

And you and this is the access to for the second rooftop deck is on the left side of the home.

You can see the steps that go up to the rooftop deck.

And this is again looking at the back elevation.

And I also put the section drawing of showing the back.

So this proposal has a basement, which does not count toward the height measurement, and it also does not count toward the floor area measurement because it has a height of less than seven, a ceiling height of less than seven feet, which means it does not count toward floor area.

Also, it does not have access from the exterior.

So again, that means that it doesn't count toward floor area.

And the applicant is proposing to put the laundry room here and some storage space.

So the building would have mostly a cream colour smooth cement plaster siding.

And the roofing would be PVC membrane because they are proposed to be flat roofs, and so it's gonna have flat this um sort of plastic um PVC roofing membrane in a tan color, and also some parts of the siding.

Um they will have this accent, um, Alaskan yellow cedar vertical siding to give the siding the elevation some modulation and change in materials for visual interest.

The retaining walls uh will have will be made of concrete, a board form concrete, the um railing will be glass railing with a stainless steel top rail, the windows and doors would be bronzed bronze anodized aluminum, and the soffitted eaves will be that same Alaskan yellow cedar wood, the fascia gutter will also be bronze anodiced aluminum to match the windows and doors, and I'm showing the landscape plan, and the tree that is proposed for removal is on this side of the house on the bottom left corner of the screen, and the applicant has proposed a replacement tree, which he consulted with our city forester, and he agreed that a Santa Cruz Island iron wood would be a good replacement tree species, and that is proposed to be at the top left corner of the site, which is the rear yard, and they're also proposing some ornamental trees that are compatible with this um with Monterey, such as our Butus Marina, and then a Meyer Lemon tree at the front yard.

They're also proposing um some other plantings like small bushes and flowers that are compatible with the sand dune environment.

So in order to approve this architectural review permit application and tree removal application, the planning commission must make the following findings.

The first one is that the proposed sighting form mass and architectural style are appropriate for the site immediate neighborhood and city, and this lot, as I mentioned, is a 3,600 square foot lot, which means there is limited buildable area.

And if you're trying to build a home, which this one is 14 about 1400 square feet, which is a reasonable size for a home, it's hard to do on this small lot size.

So the architect was very clever in designing the home and meeting all setback requirements.

And again, the home has a stepped form and mass, which sets the building back the second story back from Dunecrest Avenue, giving it a more open feel.

The architectural style is contemporary, like similar to other homes in the neighborhood.

The building next door, which is 125 Dunecrest, has a similar style, which is a style that focuses on function.

Again, because of the limited buildable area.

The second finding is that the proposed project will not unreasonably impair views, privacy, or living environment currently enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity.

So we received public comments regarding, and they were uploaded to the website.

So because this area, the lot size is 3,600 square feet, that is a small lot size, smaller than the average lot size for Monterey.

And those small lots do not allow for complete privacy.

There are numerous homes in the immediate vicinity that have one and two stories, and they're intermixed.

So you have a two-story home looking at the rear yard of a one-story home, and that's very common in this neighborhood.

And there isn't much that can be done regarding that because of this is a dense urban environment, and everyone wants to have a view of the ocean.

But staff visited the site and walked around the neighborhood and found that no coastal or hillside views would be blocked by the proposal.

The third finding is that the project substantially is consistent with city plans and design guidelines.

The roof is broken up into smaller areas, providing interest and its flat form reduces visual bulk.

The building offsets allow breakup in design and add visual interest, and the variation in materials provides contrast.

And then a combination of cream collar smooth finished cement plaster, which other homes are have the same stucco siding.

Alaskan yellow cedar vertical siding, the PVC membrane roofing for the flat roofs, and the bronze anodized aluminum doors and windows for the coastal and salty air climate.

And the proposal also includes lighting that consists of downward-facing wall-mounted powder coated aluminum lights with a warm white collar to be cognizant of neighbors.

The proposed landscaping, as I mentioned, includes species that are adaptable to the sand dune sand dune environment, including the four trees being proposed.

This is the finding that the planning commission is required to make for the tree removal application.

So the finding is that in situations where a healthy tree prevents reasonable development of permitted uses, the tree may be removed, may be approved for removal.

Existing development on similar sites in the same zone and having similar topographic and vegetation characteristics shall be considered when determining reasonable development of permitted uses.

And so again, this is a 3600 square foot lot, and there is limited buildable area.

And the like most people, they want to maximize their living area.

And this is true for most homes in this neighborhood.

So most homes on this block are built to set back lines due to the same limiting lot size, including the neighbor at 125 Duncrist.

The arborist said that the roots of that Cypress tree have been reduced already because of the adjacent construction, and it's its stability is questionable due to its progressing lean.

The proposal presents reasonable development of permitted uses.

Therefore, the tree is warranted for removal.

And again, it's reasonable development because it's allowed by the zoning ordinance to have a two-story home in this neighborhood, and the proposal meets all development standards.

And again, the applicant is proposing that replacement tree for that removal.

With that, staff recommends that the planning commission adopt the resolution approving the project here for questions, and the applicant is also here.

The architect is here, and he can talk about the design and the um the process, the design process.

Thank you.

Thank you, Fernanda.

Any questions for Fernanda?

Do we have a policy on roof decks?

Um on this on any area?

Yes, not specifically for roof decks.

Okay.

Is the roof deck included in high?

Yes.

So the top of the railing on the roof deck is below 25 feet.

Justin, any questions?

Eric.

I have a number of questions.

Okay.

First off, just kind of a general overview.

I'm assuming that this project, as well as any housing project that come before the planning commission, uh, would be subject to the HAAS residential developments.

So my question about this is you're asking the Planning Commission to make a number of findings that are purely subjective in character, such as um the form and mass and the style is appropriate, and this is um consistent and this has visual interest, and that has there's a whole lot of these subjective terminologies within the findings that we're being asked to use to either approve or deny the project.

My concern is that if if hypothetically the planning commission, not that they may or may not, but if they deny the project, it seems based on these subjective terminologies, then I feel like the city could be held liable for an HAA violation.

And it seems like the other two housing projects that we have on the agenda tonight would be the same thing, and maybe it's time for the city to re-evaluate whether we want to have the subjective criteria embedded in the findings for any housing project.

And that's a higher level discussion for staff, but I think it's worth bringing up.

Um other questions about this.

I noticed that on the uh drainage plan.

Let's see, I had a copy of it somewhere here.

Um the storm water that's being collected around the basement is being discharged by a drainage pump.

And as everybody in Monterey knows, when we have fierce winter storms, oftentimes the power goes out, and when the power goes out in this case, the pump's not going to work unless there's a backup generator, and I was wondering if that was ever looked at.

Backup generator was not part of this approval.

Um, and our engineering division did review this proposal because they looked at the stormwater control plan, and they've approved the drainage, the grading, and all of those elements, and they didn't take into consideration what would happen in this in a power outage that wasn't brought up.

Um was there a geotechnical report submitted?

Geotechnical, yeah.

Let me see.

I bet you it says sand.

Um that's not the question I have.

I don't exactly remember if a geotechnical report was submitted.

It wasn't part of the requirements for architectural review.

Yeah, but the applicant did submit um a lot of information, and he can talk more about that.

Right.

The break the reason for bringing this up is there's some concern because of the excavation of the basement uh regarding the stability of the sand dune soil and how it's going to impact neighboring structures.

I think this is a valid concern that should probably be included as part of the project uh documents, but uh, um couple other questions.

Um, my understanding from the new energy codes is that um housing projects are going to have to include solar panels, and yet this application doesn't show locations or impacts or heights or quantities of solar, and and I I know that state law basically says that discretionary bodies don't really have any say in in this, but it seems to me that that's going to be a very visual prominent aspect to the to the overall look of this house, especially from the street.

Um was that ever discussed with the applicant?

Solar panels were not discussed.

Okay, um, and lastly, my question is regarding CEQA, and um, on the CEQA determination uh under section three, I believe, excuse me, the city had determined that there wasn't any unusual environmental circumstances on the project, and this project has a number of factors.

When you combine them all collectively, we've got deep excavation, we've got maximum floor area ratio, maximum building height, tree removal, sand dune soils, substandard lot.

Um it seems to me that collectively, the combination of all of this, would that not trigger an unusual environmental circumstance?

So when unusual environmental circumstances were contemplated, um archaeological um sensitivity was contemplated.

So that's one thing that the applicant did obtain an archaeological report.

And there are um, there are so the archaeologist um concluded that construction be allowed to proceed without further archaeological investigation.

He did do a site visit and review reviewed the soil that was visible and did not find evidence of deposits or of significant deposits.

Um in terms of another unusual circumstance would be the presence of habitat, and there were there was no evidence of habitat being present on site.

Um, another unusual circumstance would be a hazardous waste site, and this is not a listed hazardous waste site.

Um again it's a single-family home, so CEQA carves out exemptions for single-family homes, and this is this project is exempt because of that.

It's um class three allows construction of single family homes to be exempt as long as all of the exceptions are met.

Right.

Um, but what I'm I'm saying here is that because of all of these different physical characteristics of the project, you have a combination of a basement excavation, a large tree removal, uh, maximum building height, floor area ratio, substandard lot, sand dune soils.

Um, these are not typical factors when combined, um, in my opinion, apply to most um class three projects.

I mean, the you're you're looking at one project that has all of this stuff in one package, and that's not typical.

That's the point I was trying to make.

Is wouldn't that necessitate a um further analysis to determine whether it's um considered unusual environmental circumstance?

I'll just add on here.

Um, so a lot of what you're describing are things of like maximizing the build out within the allowed building envelope.

Staff does not consider that a unique or atypical.

That's actually what we see most of the time.

Uh, and I'll also note that some of that that you're describing does not speak specifically to the unique circumstance of the site, which is what we're looking at unique circumstances that would potentially yield a significant impact on the environment.

Um, I hear what you're saying, but staff would disagree that that would not meet or necessitate additional environmental review beyond the exemption that's been determined, and that would be in line with the exemption and sequid determination that's been made for every other house in this development.

Yeah.

Okay, well, that's um I respect the city's decision on that.

I I would look at it a little differently myself, but um anyway, that any other questions?

Bob.

Yeah, I'm just curious to follow up.

That's correct.

Um, they'll require the geotechnical report, um, details on the foundation, um, how it will be built.

Also, um, in the resolution, there is a condition of approval that um is required by the Delmani Beach land use coastal plan, which is um it says the applicant shall stipulate the permanent location where grading materials other than sand will be deposited off-site.

Grading materials that consist solely of untainted sands shall be deposited on the beach in a non-vegetated area owned by the city of Monterey.

So these locations uh must be reviewed by the public works department, and also, they're required to submit a stockpiling plan for excavated sand during construction to the building official.

Okay.

Um thank you, Bob.

Fernanda.

Would the applicant like to uh provide a brief presentation?

Good afternoon.

Is this on?

Can you hear me?

Good afternoon, members of the planning commission and planning staff.

My name is Hunter Eldridge, and I'm the architect for the proposed project.

I've been working with owners Brad and Mary Joe Cooper with their goals of redeveloping the property into a contemporary two-story residence.

In the early stages of the design project process, we took inspiration from the adjacent home recently built at 125 Dunecrest.

We appreciated the design and how the home made the most out of a tight lot and the many constraints presented by these narrow interior parcels.

Our goal was to design a home with a similar use of space levels and capturing the views of the ocean, marina, and city along with Mount Toro off in the distance.

Providing my clients with a quality living experience.

Obviously, we wanted to design our home in a way that was compatible with the surrounding neighbors at the same time and at the same time unique.

We have worked closely with our assigned planner Fernanda Rivera Roveri to address a wide range of issues, and our plans are quite detailed for this stage in the process.

They include not only my architectural plans, but both landscape and civil plans as well.

We've addressed landscape, civil design, and it's been a considerable amount of effort to uh gain a completeness determination and to get here today.

Um see the the use of mixed materials and a step second story offset from the main level was an intentional effort to allow for the upper level to fit into the neighborhood without being overbearing to anyone in the surrounding community.

Uh I recognize that a neighbor has expressed concern about the removal of the Monterey Cypress.

We engaged qualified consulting arborist Frank Ono to assess the tree during the early stages of the design process.

He has identified that the tree is um unstable at this point.

Um that sounds like it has something to do with the adjacent construction next door at 125 Dunecrest.

Um, it would be very difficult to design a second story on this parcel without removing this tree.

Its canopy is quite large and um expansive over the um constrained building envelope I was I'm working in.

The city arborists also has visited the property and reviewed our proposed plan and agreed to removal.

My understanding is that the tree removal has been approved in association with the proposed development.

Um I feel like we've done our best with this project and that the removal is justified and necessary to allow my client to develop to the development rights, which are consistent with the city's design guidelines and zoning ordinances.

Uh Arborist Frank Ono is present today to discuss to discuss any concerns about the tree in further detail if necessary.

I recognize that the westerly neighbor had some concerns directly to the west of us and towards the ocean, some concerns about loss of privacy.

Um our goal is not to violate the privacy, but simply to enjoy the ocean views beyond their property.

Um that is simple as that.

We are intending to rebuild the fence line, the shared fence line with that neighbor in an effort to improve privacy as well.

Um, I wanted to thank Fernanda Rovere, who has been consistently helpful, responsive, and a pleasure to work with throughout the process.

Um there's a couple of responses I wanted to make to um Chair Silva's um concerns.

Um as far as the sump pump in the basement, uh, we will we have plenty of room in that basement to install batteries for backup, and we can take a look at typical time spans of power outages.

And um, if you look at that basement plan, there's a lot of square footage in there, and we can put back up bat batteries in there.

Um so we'll look at that.

Um in May of 2025, we had a full-blown geotech report provided by soil surveys.

Um I don't know that I shared that with you, Fernanda, but it is available and it was shared with my civil engineer before they conducted their work.

Um certainly they will be providing a plan review letter of the project before we have a building permit issued.

So they'll be looking at it.

Um, solar exempt is exempt from design review.

Um, the upper extents of the highest roof would be an easy place to put solar panels without them being particularly visible to anybody in the community.

Um so I I don't think that that's much of a problem.

Uh, with that, I will conclude my presentation, but I'll remain available for any further questions that come up.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Any questions?

Bob.

Yeah, just one quick question for you.

Um, some pretty narrow um road.

It's a pretty exciting Bob.

Your mic.

Oh, yeah.

Dunecross is a pretty narrow road and it's a it's a tight community.

I'm just curious if you work with the city to come up with a construction plan where the residents aren't going to be overly impacted.

I'm primarily concerned about the basement construction and heavy equipment is gonna be going in there.

Um, you just tell us a little bit about what you're expecting.

Well, there's certainly going to be a lot of construction related traffic, and I it it would be hard to deny that that will have some impact on the surrounding community during the the course of construction.

Um that's typically the case when building a new house in a tight tight area like this.

Um we are we will do our best and work with the contractor to manage um the impacts of traffic and construction impacts to the the neighborhood along Dunecrest.

Um at this point, I I have not been asked to provide a construction management plan beyond I mean the civil plans do address that, but um that's really gonna fall on the contractor to manage traffic and and the the ins and outs of all the equipment that they're gonna need on this project.

So um I would rely on the contractor to handle that.

And it's in the civil plan.

A construction management plan, yes.

Yeah, yeah.

Questions.

Thank you very much.

Um, are there any people in the uh chambers that would like to speak about this project?

I'd love to hear from the Arborists too.

Yeah, Bruce.

Can we get a brief presentation from Frank Ono, please?

Good afternoon, commissioners and uh planning staff.

My name is Frank Ono, I'm a certified arborist, and I'm here to answer questions.

So if you have any questions, maybe I can answer them about the tree, just tree related.

Not general question.

May go ahead.

Um, first off, just briefly the condition of the tree.

Uh the tree is healthy, however, it has a lot of mass, a large uh canopy.

There was construction that was performed on the lot to the south.

And I couldn't help but notice that the fence uh had a slight bow in it, and the soil was was uh, there's a mound on the back side of the lean.

The tree has uh has a lean.

So you would have to say that the tree is structurally compromised because because of the lean leans into the um into the building uh pretty much uh if it if it continues to list, I can't guarantee the tree's stable, its stability is questionable.

And um because it's healthy, it might be able to put out new routes, you know, to support itself, but I don't know where they would go since the lot next door is at a lower uh elevation.

So that in you know it's sandy soil, and always in sandy soil, you're gonna have this propensity for things to lean and if they're tall to sort of want to uh fall over if they're not protected.

So the answer to the question is is the tree healthy at this point it is.

If you start cutting roots, I can't say that it's um going to be beneficial for the tree, and it's a tight spot.

Um, that's the other thing.

So it's what we would call that um uh, you know, it doesn't have enough available space.

So as far as what its age and its condition is, it's been pruned, it's probably a medium height, medium age, um, but it's not gonna last forever.

And you have to remember this is uh trees are a renewable resource, and your structures uh usually are not, so you you have to look at it that way, and um it's not you want to do uh conservation and not preservation of trees, you want to have them on a rotational uh scale.

So I I don't know how what else to have to say about that.

And one follow up, is that tree native to the dunes?

No.

Um, Monterey Cypress aren't native to the dunes.

Monterey cypress are native to the granitic headlands of the Monterey Peninsula.

You have uh the Crocker Grove in Belle Beach, which is an environmentally sensitive area where you have native monterey cypresses, and then you have Point Logos, and you have the tip of Carmel where you have native cypresses.

Everything else has been uh are considered planted trees or non-native trees, and these trees um there they were at one time they thought that monterey cypresses could be planted anywhere, and they're subject to to um uh cypress, excuse me, cypress canker, which is corneum canker.

This canker limits their growth in um, like say in Carnel Valley or warm areas.

It has to have a cool coastal climate.

And getting back to your to your question, no, it is not a native to the uh the dew land.

What native plants out there that would be would be um a coastal scrub, you know, smaller plants, um just out of curiosity, it's listed as a 23-inch cypress, um, about how old do you think that that tree is?

No real way to tell other than drilling into it or cutting it down, but I would probably say um, you know, it's it's less probably about 50 years old, maybe.

I don't know how old the building is, but it would probably be about the same age as the building.

Any other questions?

Thank you.

Thank you, Frank.

Thank you.

Anyone in chamber wishes to uh speak before before or against uh this project?

Seeing nobody online, Erica.

Um there's a hand raised online.

Very good.

Laurie Mazuka, I can go ahead and allow you to speak.

Hi, thank you.

Um, this is my first uh planning commission meeting, and um I appreciate a lot of what I've heard here tonight.

Um, some of this is mainly for my own education, and I just want to say uh good evening to everybody, and but I want to be just be clear from the outset.

I like my neighbors, and this is not personal, it's mostly for me about the process, the policy and precedent, and mostly I'm just trying to understand because there's some conflicting things.

Um, and yeah, some of it's about the tree, the mature endemic.

I mean, I think it's endemic.

I think you're kind of splitting hairs if you say pebble beach in this part of the peninsula, but not that part.

I mean, you know, generally speaking, it's kind of endemic to Monterey.

So they are around the neighborhood.

Um, I'll get back to that in a minute, but uh I appreciate the comments and concerns from the chair, and also appreciate the comments from the arborists, both were very helpful.

Um, and I still have some questions.

Um, and my concerns also are that this neighborhood's built on sand, and especially when it comes to major excavations for basement, um, and the construction of the 125 home that happened a few years ago, uh, four doors down from mine, it resulted in cracks in the corners of my walls and misaligned one of my doors.

So the door jam is off, and I haven't been able to get it corrected.

And that was all directly due to the grading the ground movement from that build.

Um, so I know that that's just something we're I'm gonna have to face with this one.

And I I was a little concerned with what does it mean with the basement?

And generally speaking, I I just wondered how many basements are even in this neighborhood, or no, they're not really common in call in California in general.

And recently I recall one that the Coastal Commission did not approve in the coastal zone for an applicant.

I believe that might have been in Carmel, not Monterey, but I'm curious if the reason for that denial was looked into with regard to this design.

And for me, that would just make me feel a little more comfortable that maybe that was for another reason.

But um, and I know this will be up against the Coastal Commission anyway at some point.

So maybe it won't be covered then.

But um this is sort of the problem I have.

So the city approved a project at 125 that we've all established here that damage the roots of this cypress that we're talking about.

And now we're using that damage, even though the tree's healthy now, along with this optional full basement to justify removing the tree at 129.

So is the city sort of poised to repeat the same mistake?

So if you look at you can even go back to the schematic you had, there's another Monterey Cypress immediately next door of 129, the house we're talking about, at 133 Dunecrest, kind of located nearly in the same proximity to that property line as this tree was to 125 before its construction.

Erica, anybody else?

Sorry, there are no other hands raised.

We'll close the public hearing and bring it back to uh condition.

Comments, under discussion, I just have to, I'm gonna, if I may, challenge a few things that you brought up.

Because somebody is designing within our parameters and getting right on the edge of it, even though they're designing four or five things that get up there, don't take it to a C.

We have rules.

We're there within the rules.

That's why we have the rules.

I understand where you're going with this, but what?

But wait, let me finish.

We're talking, then it'll be your turn again.

Uh so I I think personally that was inappropriate to bring up when it was brought up before the hearing.

I think it could should have been brought up now if you wanted to raise the concerns.

Uh but it is again, we have rules so people will design within them.

And as you bring up the objective standards, subjective standards, state law.

We're going down a different road very uh quickly here.

Uh, but I think these uh again, what I have seen here is that they used the our own City of Monterey standards well, designed within them.

We are allowed to take down trees if needed to develop a lot.

Uh this is not a native tree, it is a planted tree.

Uh by the way, I'm surrounded by cypress trees at my house that are all a former hedge.

Uh so again, I don't think we ding somebody because they designed within our standards.

I think we look at that and say, okay, you designed within our standards.

The comments about uh the sand dune.

I've built a number of houses in that area in the sand dunes and in Carmel in the sand dunes, and you can support it if the contractor is uh got any clue at all, they can support the site without any movement at all.

Um, and that is part of the building permit process, not the planning process.

So I want to keep those separated too.

You brought that up, Bob, that there are requirements for building, there are requirements for uh planning.

I wanted to keep the planning part separate.

Um, and as we get into this, I will be saying I think they have fit within our guidelines.

Um, and I think that is something that it I have a hard time saying, well, but you know, it's right on the edge, it's within it.

Maybe I misconstrued what I was trying to say, but I'm not trying to ding anybody for bringing this up.

The point I was trying to make was we have a combination of a lot of different factors affecting this project.

We've got sand dunes, maximum floria, height.

We've got a full basement excavation from sandy soil.

These are my opinion, are not typical for most housing projects.

That was the point I was trying to make.

I think they are typical in that development.

Everyone's very expensive lots.

Everyone's trying to maximize their building envelope, they got three square footage underneath the house.

We're seeing more and more basements in Carmel.

I imagine we're seeing more and more basic.

I I hear what you're saying that it should be accumulative impact, but I don't, I don't necessarily think that this project is atypical of what we're seeing in that overall neighborhood.

I would imagine that it's actually typical of what we're seeing over there.

I don't know if there's a lot of basements over there, though.

I've built them over there on the Del Mani area, yeah.

Um we never used to design base.

And I have I have no problem against an applicant wanting to build up to setbacks and maximize floor.

I have no problem with that at all.

The point I was making is that when you combine all these things together, does that raise the project to a level of an unusual environmental circumstance?

And and clearly I don't believe so.

And the reason for bringing up the soils in the geotech was because there I believe there were concerns in some of the public comment letters regarding the soil stability and impact of neighboring structures.

That was the point of bringing that up.

And they can be dealt with, and it should be at the building department, it's very important.

And apparently there is a geotech report.

Comments.

Um, I did visit the site, and I think one of the things that surprised me is that the netting fully is embedded in that tree.

You can't do anything in terms of plans, or mutually exclusive with the tree as currently is, and it didn't show up very well in the pictures that we had during our presentation.

But I was surprised that that roof line is completely inside the canopy of that tree.

So I think it's a fair um request to be able to remove it, particularly if they're gonna have a basement there too.

I have two comments.

Uh, since we're talking about trees, I'll start with that.

If this were my home, uh the uh tree replacement would be much more suited to this dunes area than the tree that's there now.

Uh there's two varieties of the ironwood, Catalina Island and Santa Cruz Ironwood, and both of them are as close to native as you can get, and I think they would be well suited to the lot given that it's a sand dune lot.

Um this is an area that started out with very small beach homes, and every replacement or addition has been a two-story addition.

The view sharing is is always a major issue.

Um, and I thought the letter that Mrs.

Jamies Fields wrote was very well taken because there's not much you can do about losing the view when you put a two-story house across the street from a one story house.

Nice views of the sky, but um slivers of the ocean, and um, so I think that it's they're well within their rights, but also compatible with what is being built additionally in the neighborhood.

Right next door, there are two two-story houses that are exactly the same height, step down uh because of the terrain, but still the same uh building height, and everything that's going in in Del Monte Beach is going to be something similar to this with a two-story and possibly a basement.

So this and the I think that the design is very nice as well, um, with the canopy on the top that's set back from the road, so I would be in full support.

Eric.

Yeah, I'll just be echoing your concern uh your comments.

I went to the site as well, and I think it's an equitable um proposal.

Uh you're they're surrounded by two-story neighbors.

Um, and you know, I agree with Commissioner Stoker.

They um staff is the subject matter experts on code application and housing accountability act compliance and um the findings were met.

So um I'm also uh liking the modern design.

I thought it was a great abuse of space for such a minimal buildable area.

So I'm gonna be in support as well.

Anything else, Justin?

Um, I think the you know, I don't want the neighbors to think that we're sort of willy-nilly about pulling down trees everywhere, but I think in this situation, that was why I was asking Frank the age of the tree that it clearly was a planted tree and not endemic to the area.

Um, I noticed the dimensions are called out pretty close to that 25 foot height limit.

Um, when you start getting the required slope on those roofs, when you start adding solar panels, you could easily exceed that limit.

So just keep an eye on that as you go through structural because you don't want to get dung during framing.

Uh other than that, I think the design is fine and sounds like we're all pretty supportive of it.

Very good.

I'm gonna uh make a motion that we recommend approval um uh per the uh city uh conditions, but adding two additional conditions.

One would be to amend the CMP to address staging logistics and encroachment and traffic control here in the construction because this is a basement project, and Bob is absolutely correct.

Doing crest is a narrow street.

There's parking on both sides, and it's basically just a one-lane road with the parking on both sides, so there's not much maneuverability for neighbors to get in and out, and I think this is something that should be addressed as part of the conditions.

Secondly, uh the applicant indicated that they would be willing to put in a backup power source of some sort for the uh for the uh drainage pump, and I'd like to make that a uh requirement as a condition.

So that's the motion.

That's a question.

Yeah.

Um, just curious if there's precedent as a new commissioner to requiring things like um batteries or the generators, factor generating.

Uh the commission has the uh discretion to apply conditions of approval to discretionary projects.

Um, within the purview of the commission.

What was the can you clarify what you're trying to suggest here?

Um I just thought was unusual.

Um, so oh, new commissioners whether we could require backup power.

Oh, oh, oh, yeah.

No, I mean, it's it's a it's a valid condition that you know it was brought, it was before the public record, so we're just trying to validate that.

Bob.

I'm just wanted to second your motion.

So very good.

Uh roll call, please, Erica.

Chair Silva.

Yes.

Commissioner Blue.

Yes.

Commissioner Freeman.

Yes.

Commissioner Palmer.

Yes.

Commissioner Polly.

Yes.

And Commissioner Stoker.

Yes.

Okay, that's been approved.

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

We have applications online or in our planning office.

And congratulations to the applicant.

Uh it's been a long haul.

We got six more to go.

They got caught in the resolution of the ARC.

I've been waiting for another hearing.

Um, okay, item number uh six on the public appearance agenda.

We have 424 Dal Rosa Avenue architectural review permit application for the reconstruction of a two-story multifamily structure with modifications.

Applicant Steve Mickle, owner, Cardinale, Stephen P.

and Francesca, and trustees, residential, single family zone district, low density residential general plan land use designation and Matthew, do the honors, please.

I will share my screen.

Good afternoon.

Good evening.

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

Today we're here to talk about 424 Del Rosa Avenue, an architectural review permit for a two-story multifamily structure rebuild with modifications.

The recommendation from city staff is that the planning commission adopt the resolution to approve the architectural review permit with conditions of approval for that reconstruction.

This comes from city code section 38-216.

All legal non-conforming and nonconforming structures that have been destroyed by fire or other calamity may be reconstructed to their pre-damaged size and location, provided that they're not extended beyond the original footprint and restoration is started within 18 months.

In this case, there was a fire at the property.

They are proposing to rebuild it, and there are a few slight modifications that they are requesting.

And that is where we get to bullet point two.

The plans are reviewed for conformity, and if there's any significant deviations noted, plans are referred to what was the architectural review committee, in this case planning commission for review.

The property is located in the eastern side of the city, and there is a uh two-unit structure in front and then three units in the rear.

Here is a diagonal aerial of it.

Even on Google Maps, you can see some of the fire residual at the upper corner of this back unit.

And a slightly different angle.

These will become important later.

This back unit here.

The existing property features, it's R1, which typically allows single family, and this property contains five units on it.

So that is one mark of nonconformity.

It's not a design review neighborhood, but it is a second-story alteration.

Another reason it would go through architectural review.

There's a zero-foot rear setback against the alley.

The typical setback is 20 feet.

There are non-compliant ceiling heights of seven feet.

They would like to raise that ceiling height, and it exceeds both lot coverage and floor area.

I think also the side setback is about three feet six inches, and it's supposed to be four feet.

So there's a number of different non-conformities here.

What they are proposing are higher ceilings for code compliance to expand the entry staircase to that second story unit also for code compliance.

They would like to extend the roof to cover the flat deck.

And another portion of this project is they're converting the garage on the first floor to an ADU.

That's not up to the discretion of PC, but you'll see it in the plans.

Again, here's the property, direct aerial.

It's this lower left unit that was damaged.

And to reorient ourselves, there used to be a garage, laundry room, and underfloor area.

This is the portion that would be converted to the ADU.

This is how the property stands today.

And it's a matching-ish symmetrical site.

What they would like to do is, like I mentioned before, raise the structure.

For the most part, it matches windows.

It has a new entry door for the EDU down below.

And due to the spacing of the stairs, they needed it to go from a straight entrance to a crooked one because they needed to pop it out and still leave room for entrance to the unit.

The roof extension that they are proposing would add massing to the southern side of the property, and they want to cover the deck here to prevent the flat roof from getting rain on it.

Similar to the previous project you just reviewed, there are four findings required for approval.

The first one is that the siding form mass and architectural style must be found to be appropriate.

And staff found that this would meet the finding as conditioned.

When it comes to lot size and building height, uh these conform, even with the raised height of the structure, it would go from 20 feet to 23 feet one inches, and there's a 25 foot height limit.

There are a number of existing non-conformities, one being the use, the number of units, the floor area ratio, lock coverage, and setbacks for both the front first and second story sides and the rear.

The expanded deck on the front that they would do with the staircase, we found to not be compliant with lock coverage.

And so there's a condition that's recommended for this project to pull it back.

The extended roof uh was compliant with the existing nonconformities, however, this significantly deviated from the architectural style.

The intent of a rebuild is to rebuild the structure as it was.

And so staff found code uh adjustments that were necessary for code compliance to be reasonable, the extension of the roof being somewhat outside.

And also the expanded stairs were compliant with the side setback.

It allows for a little bit of encroachment into the side.

So the roof line condition is to pull back the extended roof to match the upper structure here.

So this portion here outlined in red would be removed and requiring what was existing.

And the deck condition, this extra portion here of the deck, extends outside of what was the uh the frontage of the building.

The second finding required for approval is that views privacy in the living environment must uh should not be impaired.

No public comments were received after story pool netting.

The project must be found consistent with city plans and design guidelines.

This met the finding.

Staff found this consistent with the general plan following the replacement procedure.

The exterior finish colors and all other exterior features are uh should be found appropriate.

And similarly, the siding material color would match the rest of the structure.

One uh final clarity on the two proposed conditions.

The first one would be that the deck is pulled back, the second one would be that the roof line is pulled back, and the third one is that the applicant shall submit revised plans to the planning division showing those two adjustments prior to uh building permit issuance.

The project would otherwise comply with the required conditions of approval.

With that, staff's recommendation is to adopt the resolution approving the architectural review permit.

That concludes staff's presentation.

The applicant is also here.

Questions?

Just a quick question.

Was there any consideration?

I drove by it today, and the front building looks fine, and the building that caught fire looks terrible, has to be fixed, but the one next to it doesn't look much better.

The other two-story building in between you've got the two garages, and then you've got the two two-story.

It was there any consideration given to fixing that one up?

Uh Steph's understanding is that there's the front building and then there's the rear building.

Um, so this is just a portion of the real rear building that's being rebuilt.

Correct.

So our code considers demolish uh, I believe it's demolition is the wording, uh, where if it's over 50% of the structure, then it for the most part needs to be brought back to be within setbacks and uh height limits and whatnot.

And in this case, since that is one large building in the back, this is less than 50% of it that burned, it's considered one structure that would be rebuilt.

The portions that would be rebuilt that staff was okay with was code-compliant for height.

Um yeah and the stairs.

Matthew, what was the triggering factor that um required a architectural review for this project?

So it's any alterations from what was there before.

So even if they were just proposing the uh the same style of building, but they needed to raise the roof to be compliant with current code, that would still require architectural review.

But the the roof height does that not meet current um zoning standards?

It absolutely does.

Our code says architectural review committee these days planning commission, it says it requires planning commission review.

The roof height is consistent with the code, however, there's a number of other standards that are non-conforming.

Any proposed expansion of a non-conforming structure requires.

Yeah, I noted that, but let's say um that you're able to work with the applicant and suggested, well, it you know it's best just to make this thing conform to zoning and not have all these extensions and things that are popping out.

That in and of itself would still require architectural review because it's uh an alteration that is in a different style than the original.

So in this case, since the entire structure is located within the rear setback, the building wouldn't be a completely different project.

Uh they're trying to rebuild what was there before, and so that's the project that we have before us today.

W where I'm heading with all with this is I'm trying to find a way where um staff can work with applicants more directly on these types of projects.

Where, I mean, this may not be the best example, but say a project where there is um potentially a need for architectural review, but otherwise it would meet all zoning.

Um I'm trying to just decrease the amount of applications that come before us, uh, and considering that these are consistent with zoning for the main part, you know, um, it it should just be ministerially approved in my opinion.

I'm just trying to see if there's a way that we can work towards that goal.

So, so we have administrative architectural review permits that are approved at the staff level.

This particular applicant is not meeting all the standards.

Staff did work with this applicant, notified them that not meeting the standards would necessitate a public hearing and for this to be referred.

So that's how we're here today.

Right.

But ordinarily, let's say if this project did fall within all the zoning setbacks and building heights.

You can rebuild a non-conforming structure that's destroyed by fire through a building permit if you're rebuilding exactly what was there previously.

This applicant is not proposing that.

All right.

And is the applicant aware of the two recommendated recommended recommended changes that you have and have they agreed to that or are they disagreeing with it?

They are aware.

Originally, this project was going to go in November.

Uh so they've been waiting a little bit.

Um I believe that question would be better directed to the applicant themselves.

Um, from where I'm sitting, I I do have an answer, but I'd rather they they have been communicated.

There are two conditions of approval with the project.

Yes.

All right, thank you.

When you said you that you had to pull it back.

I didn't see a dimension as to how far it had to be pulled back.

Is it, it's just sort of that red box on there?

Is it pulling it back to align with that run of the stairway?

So three foot four-inch deck or I don't have uh we don't have a specific measurement that it needs to be pulled back, but that could be easily found on the plans.

Uh the distance that the deck comes out from the primary structure would would be that distance.

And it could be conditioned to be in line with what was there with the existing footprint of the previous structure.

I can pull up the uh aerial view again.

It may help.

Are we allowed to approve it without that condition?

The committee uh the commission is able to make decisions at their discretion.

So uh here's a decent one where this is the roof line of the neighboring structure, so it would it would be pulled back to the same dimensions as what's on the remainder of the structure.

Questions.

Thank you, Matthew.

Would the applicant like to uh do a brief presentation?

Good afternoon.

My name's Steve Mickle.

I'm the design build contractor for this project.

Um, I might as well just address the uh concerns of staff.

This started with the stairs.

The existing stairs are 30 inches wide, and they don't meet rise and run.

So I designed it with a switchback stair to meet code, and that pushed it out from the existing um front line of the the apartment upstairs, um and then I brought the deck flush with that, so that brought them both out in front of the um existing line that staff is talking about.

Um, we're willing to uh remove the deck extension, but the stairs are needed for code compliant.

The covered uh deck area is something the owner wants, and that could be uh redesigned with more of an open area, columns or posts or something, maybe some windows.

Um other than that, uh I think the um question for staff, does the cover deck add to the lock coverage?

The deck itself contributes to lock coverage.

Uh if the additional roof on top doesn't necessarily make a difference when it comes to lock coverage itself.

So if if the roofs stayed as drawn on the plans, that wouldn't affect lock coverage as long as the deck was pulled back to what the boundary was of the original structure.

Okay, so we're willing to pull that deck back to the original boundary, and um the owner would like to keep the covered deck, so that's up to the commission.

Are you sure about that?

Pardon?

Just removing the deck would there's a portion of the deck that we would pull back.

I understand, but I think a roof overhanging that far would still count as lot coverage.

So technically, if the deck is already covering it at the second story, that is the portion of lock coverage.

So if you have a roof over that, it's not necessarily adding to lock coverage at that point.

I know if the deck is there, it's not adding to the lock coverage, it's the deck that's adding the lock coverage.

But if you remove the deck and leave the roof out, you're saying that roof wouldn't count as lock coverage.

I see what you're saying.

There is just a portion of the deck, there's about a foot and a half strip that got pushed out.

We want that brought in to the original line, and there is still remaining deck on on the inside there.

To be clear, it's my understanding.

The the roof is not extending past the deck, correct.

To answer your question, there's no point in which the roof would be there where the deck is not also.

If I could play, I think the applicant was asking, can I leave the roof all the way out and pull the deck back?

Exactly the answer is no it would still count towards lot coverage but he's they're already over so the answer is no.

Well the commission has the authority to approve it beyond that but staff in their recommendation is saying no the existing deck is six feet wide and um that is uh in front of the upper units they're getting rebuilt the upper units getting rebuilt in the exact same footprint exact same score footage so if we pull the deck back to six feet to the original size the owner would like to keep that covered just be a shorter roof pardon just can't just be shorter roof I'm sorry it would just be a shorter roof well the odd thing about that is the stairs would go out past Matthew maybe you could pull up um a drawing that shows um I think one of my drawings that you had uh redlined yeah that one there so the highlighted um area where Matthew has conditioned to remove if we remove that the stairs are still gonna be out past the original line to meet code compliant so I would think that the roof would almost have to stay at the same level as the stairs otherwise it's gonna look odd part of those stairs not covered but I've got that design with solid walls on each side of that deck just for privacy um but they could be opened up openings in those walls or windows or some s some sort of other design with columns or posts so that we we could design that come to a compromise and the owner could still have his covered deck the existing building has nonconforming um ceiling heights so I've drawn both of those the lower floor and the upper floor both with eight foot ceiling heights 12 inches of floor framing so that's how we wound up with uh three feet one inch higher in height for roof different for roof difference it sounds like there are three different distances of roof that's being considered one where the roof comes all the way out to the edge of this deck here the second one where the roof only goes to where the uh the edge of where the deck should be and then the third one being staff's proposal which is pulling the roof back to where it was which is actually in set a little bit and leaves a open flat deck here.

One two three and additional lock coverage uh maybe harder to do with a reconstruction because it's supposed to be within the same footprint the accessibility stairs being required for code was the reason that staff was okay with it but when we start talking about lock coverage that was another story.

Could you restate your three conditions that we're considering one that the second story deck be reduced in size to follow the existing wall line of the rest of the structure which is there that the proposed roof shall not be extended over the proposed second story deck and shall match the roof line on the other half of the structure and that's where it gets pulled back here leaving a uncovered deck here.

And then three submit the revised plans to the planning division prior to uh building permit issues.

Kind of summarize number three here.

Any other questions?

Uh anyone in chambers would like to uh speak uh to the commission about this project.

Seeing nobody, anyone online area.

There are no hands raised.

We'll take this back to the commission and close the uh public hearing.

Any comments, deliberations?

I'd like to make a motion that we approve this project with the staff conditions.

Second.

Discussion.

I would just make one quick comment.

I actually would remove staff conditions.

I think it's if the whole point of coverage is to try to get landscape out of the building coverage area, and the deck isn't, it's over a parking lot.

It's not a privacy issue for any of the neighbors.

It would be a nice amenity for the upstairs apartment.

I don't it's just like the letter of the law, and he's got a conforming staircase that sticks out from the front of the building.

Why wouldn't we let them just extend the deck out to match that and cover it with a roof?

It's not, it's not making the building really look any more massive than it already is.

It's not a privacy imposition on any of the neighbors.

It's just over an asphalt parking lot.

I would just let him have the deeper deck.

I'm in agreement with Justin.

I think that it's somewhat punitive to require these conditions when we're not dealing with any landscape benefit as a result of pulling it back, which is what you would normally expect when you have less building coverage.

So uh well, I'll withdraw my motion.

Somebody else make another motion.

No, you can make the motion.

We have a second.

We can vote, but I can withdraw it too.

You can withdraw it.

I did.

I would make a motion to approve the project with the removal of the conditions requiring the reduction of the deck and the roof.

Just to be clear, that's both conditions one and two, and then three as well.

Because there'd be no revised plans.

Yeah, I think that's what you want.

Both modifications if you want to remove all the conditions.

Got discussion.

Roll call, please.

Chair Silvet.

Yes.

Commissioner Bluth.

Yes.

Commissioner Freeman.

Yes.

Commissioner Palmer?

Yes.

Commissioner Polly?

Yes.

Commissioner Stoker.

Yes.

That motion carries with a vote of six.

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

We have applications in the planning office or online.

Well, congratulations.

It uh was worthwhile coming to the planning commission then.

Thank you.

Chair, I'll be leaving the chambers for this one.

Remember to come find me though.

I don't want to be out there at midnight.

Dave, who?

Okay, next up on the agenda, we have a sign permit application.

It's 31 Upper Ragsdale Drive.

Uh sign permit application.

S one-25-0260 for one vehicle oriented freestanding sign.

Applicant Matt Noor, Owner Monterey Office Group, LLC, et al.

Industrial, Administration, and Research District, Employment, General Plan, Land Use Designation, Exempt from CEQA.

Matthew.

I will share my screen.

Today we are here to talk about 31 Upper Ragsdale Drive for a sign permit application for a freestanding sign.

The recommendation from city staff is that the planning commission adopt the resolution to approve the sign permit application with conditions of approval.

The site is located in the southeastern portion of the city.

Also a designer view neighborhood.

At the north uh western portion of the site next to the driveway, is a vehicle-oriented freestanding sign that raises to a height of eight feet and has a square footage proposed of 78.22 square feet.

It would be externally illuminated, primarily with a small illuminated strip along here, entirely shielded.

And it's associated with the adjacent tenant building.

Are that the proposal achieves the purposes and objectives of the sign ordinance?

This is usually for supporting uh local businesses and locating uh certain things throughout the city.

The second one is that the uh proposal must be should be consistent with the citywide sign guidelines, or the planning commission determines that the proposal better achieves the purpose and objectives than strict application of the guidelines.

For this, staff found that this requires the planning commission determination.

And there's an asterisk here because I'll be talking more about it on the next slide.

And the third finding is that the proposal must be found consistent with the general plan, of which staff found it to be consistent.

For finding number two, the maximum square footage of a freestanding sign, uh and sign in the industrial district is 50 square feet.

The proposal being 78.22 square feet exceeds this.

So staff's proposed condition is to reduce the size of the sign down to 50 square feet.

I will note this is the only portion of this proposal that does not comply with the sign guidelines.

The applicant was made aware of this and still decided to pursue uh architectural review planning commission review.

So it is to your discretion whether to allow the greater size or not.

The special condition from staff in order to bring it into conformance of the citywide side guidelines is to reduce the total area to 50 square feet, and that the applicant submit revised plans to the planning division showing this reduced size.

Staff's recommendation is to adopt the resolution to approve the sign permit application uh for the installation of the freestanding sign with the reduced size.

And the applicant is also here, I believe online, uh, who may also be sharing a few slides.

And uh, uh questions.

So if this sign had been submitted to you as 50 square feet, we wouldn't be having this hearing.

So uh that is correct.

And they were made aware of this and would still like to pursue the larger sign for certain reasons.

Matthew, do you have a side-by-side comparison of what 78 and 50 square feet would look like?

Uh, renderings on site, or just an image so that we can get a feel for the difference in scale of what these numbers are.

That is a fair question.

Uh I could pull up a Google map view, but um don't have that as part of the presentation.

We do not.

I'm sorry, we do not.

Questions?

Uh, would the applicant like to uh provide the commission with a brief presentation?

Yes, I would.

We can hear you, Matt.

Great, thank you.

Just give me one second.

Can you see my screen?

Great.

Good evening, um, Chairman Sola and fellow uh planning commissioners.

Um, I apologize for not being there uh this evening.

I tried both Monday and this morning to catch a flight, but uh due to the inclement weather uh here in uh Texas.

Uh I didn't get too far as you can see.

Um, nevertheless, I appreciate the opportunity to allow me to you know participate uh via Zoom.

Uh I share this image with you to start the presentation to put in context what a tenant, their employees, visitors, customers, and you and I experience today trying to navigate to the 31 Upper Ragsdale building.

If you squint hard enough, or like me, you put on even thicker lens glasses.

Uh, you might be able just to you know barely peek and get a peek of the existing monument sign.

Way finding identification is terrible at this site.

The 31 Upper Ragsdale office building was originally constructed and occupied by a single tenant, Sequoia Insurance, who required very little public presence, hence the mini-me size of this existing monument sign.

After Sequoia Insurance departed, the former building owner demise the building into multiple tenant suites and attempt to backfill that space.

However, they were never really uh found any success or traction for multiple reasons, including the lack of tenant business visibility.

We have now stepped in and acquired this property, which has an occupancy rate currently of about 32%.

So very bad.

Uh, and with our intent to reposition and stabilize this property to track class A tenants, very similar to the strategy we implemented at the Ryan Ranch office park, where we now have an occupancy of about 95%.

To achieve this, we'll be investing significant amount of capital to upgrade the building and improve the wayfinding and tenant identification.

Uh, to achieve this, as I mentioned, is to replace the existing monument sign, which is proposed in front of you tonight.

And Matthew provided a good graphic of where this existing monument sign is going to be placed.

And here's an image of that mini meat sign here today.

What uh I understand the city's uh issue with our application being 50 square feet maximum.

But I think what needs to be brought to the attention is that 50 square feet is actually total build structure, our project or our monument sign proposed, the actual signage being proposed, the actual panels is only 32 square feet.

It's the structure itself that exceeds that 50 square feet.

In fact, when you take the overall signage, both of the panels and of even the address numbers, again, we're at 32, so that's significantly less than the 50 actual square feet of signage.

Uh so we really think it's a little just it's just unfair to really kind of put that kind of stringent requirement when you need to provide tenant visibility.

And I will also share in closing with this last slide that the city has afforded multiple, I count at least eight other properties in Rhine Ranch that far exceed this minimum 50 square feet.

I'll share just for example, this is the commerce center, which is our direct competitor.

They have probably over 162 uh square feet of signage because they have the retaining wall with the center's name on both sides, and then they actually have a vertical monument sign with individual tenant panels.

Montage Montage has multiple panels of their project and then again a directory signs on the other side.

Slainus Valley, the similar.

Even across from us, uh the back and spine folks, they're over 50 square feet.

Uh, and I can just go on and on with the number of other examples.

And I understand that those are existing preconditioned or whatever, but we we're asking just for a similar consideration to allow tenants and the visibility to just so that people can way find and really help uh the economic success of these businesses and be supportive of them in Ryan Ranch.

I appreciate your consideration.

I'm glad to answer any additional questions or discussions.

Thank you.

Thank you, Matt.

Any questions?

Yeah, one quick question.

Are any of your tenants retail?

No, but they are customer and public oriented facing.

For example, we'll have doctors, we have an insurance assurance company, we have a financial uh advisement investor company.

Um, so most of these people have a number of uh customers that come in and have daily interactions and their wayfinding is critical.

Well, the signs that you're using as a comparison, just have the major name of the business.

They don't have subtenants listed.

The one in like Ohana Center.

Yeah, but Ohana is a single tenant and a single business.

If you look at the Monterey uh Commerce Center, this example here, they have not only their center sign on both sides, but they have multiple monument signs that have individual tenant panels that identify individual businesses in each building.

They actually have multiple signs like this throughout on different sides of their uh property.

Uh, and we're not the only one.

This happens on uh Harris Court as well, and I I can name a couple of other ones.

Hey Matt, I've got a question for you.

Um, uh this is a primarily vehicle-oriented development.

You know, people don't tend to walk on sidewalks up there a whole lot.

You know, I occasionally I'll see somebody jogging at lunchtime or something, but it's not a it's not a pedestrian oriented development.

And given the fact that it's really vehicle oriented, have you looked at how the individual placards on this monument sign are going to be visible for a moving automobile?

Yes, we have uh Mr.

Silver.

And you're comfortable with the uh with the scale and the size of the of the lettering and so forth, yes.

That's a many questions.

Thank you, Matt.

Yes, thank you.

Uh anybody in chambers wishes to uh about this project, you may come up to the podium.

Seeing nobody, anyone online, Erica.

There are no attendees online.

We'll bring this back to the commission to close the public hearing.

Comment.

I certainly sympathize with um for navigating Lion Ranch.

I mean you put a strobe light up on some of the buildings and still have a hard time finding.

Um, but I'm also concerned that we don't want to set a precedent either.

So, curious if Levi could make a comment on the owner of the building and pass on with regard to other things.

Sure, so undoubtedly there's signs across the city that exceed the maximum allow square footage for of the 50 feet for a single uh freestanding vehicle-oriented sign.

Uh, when staff was looking at this particular proposal, we looked at the adjacent properties uh being the spine and joint, we looked at the Cal uh State Monterey Bay, uh immediately cross the street, and they have uh signs that are um you know within the 50 square feet, and staff verify that on site and in the field.

Um but yes, of course, there are signs uh that that um exceed the allowable, that is the way the sign um ordinance is written to give formally the archival review committee that discretion, and now the planning commission, um, so staff uh with most signage, we typically err on the side of caution and try to get it to bring it into conformance with the sign standards just to eliminate that over signage and proliferation of signage, but obviously the the code is written in such a way that uh gives the planning commission now that flexibility and extenuating circumstances for uh that maybe they have multiple tenants or maybe the unique site circumstances necessitate additional signage.

Um in this particular design, uh, if you if you look at it, I mean obviously there's a lot of wasted square footage and the way that this sign is designed.

I think if you look at that upper portion uh where a lot of that square footage is coming from, it's really just the address there, and then the rest of that structure is completely without any type of use.

Um, so perhaps that could be reduced in such a way that we bring it into conformance, possibly.

Um, but I think in general um staff's perspective and and when they look at most signage is that uh, you know, um most folks these days know where they're going before they ever leave their house.

So we're not sure how effective signage is at all.

I think um Peter made a good point, the drive around area.

Part of the argument that the owner could make is that it's also an industrial location for the signature is really not the impact of everyone, but I also agree it's I don't think people navigate that way anymore.

It is hard to learn it.

It's worth noting, it's a large site and a large building, and sign guidelines are written in such a way that it's kind of uh across the uniform across the city, but obviously that's worth not how we we see this with sites, and especially with commercial sites, they there's a wide range of different site contexts that necessitate different signage that could be found appropriate at different scale.

So I'll put that out there as well, and that's why that flexibility is written into the code.

But also, I'll put it out there that they are allowed up to 137.5 square feet of signage.

That is how much they're allowed, but only 50 square feet for any individual sign.

So I'm not advertising sign proliferation, but they could maybe use the 137.5 uh feet square feet allowed in a different way.

They could have three signs that are 50 square feet, and then you wouldn't need to, you know, pull out your magnifying glass to see what the tenant names are.

So you're limited to how many pre-standing monument signs you can have based on the frontier the property has.

But you're correct, the total signage amount is larger, so that uh gives them the ability to have wall signage um you know attached to the building and different methods of signage, but um, yeah, because the applicant himself was using identity signage on the conference center is an example of of that, so um making my wife's mission to stop sign applications from coming to public hearings, but um, is why you joined the planning commission and then we bring them here now.

So I'm on the planning commission.

I didn't have to deal with signs anymore.

Yeah, yeah.

Um, in this case, no, I my point of view is that I'm gonna make an immediate motion because I know we've got two other projects.

Um it's an office park, and office parks have these big signs in front of the buildings.

I think the sign purpose of the sign regulations is for more of a downtown environment to make sure that we don't get these sort of signage situations that take over streets, take over buildings that are part of an urban fabric.

And I think that's a good intention.

I think the intention is completely lost when we're dealing with a sort of rural office park.

Um, so I would make a motion to uh approve the application without staff recommendations.

I'd like to make a comment.

Um you look at the picture that's in front of us on the screen.

I and I remember all the years on the ARC, we would have these sign applications come in, and there would be an elevation of a building, right?

And there would be a sign up near the top.

And we are always told, well, you only count the square foot, but the letters like the sign, you don't count the facade of the building, it's only the letters.

And you know, Matt pointed out on this monument sign, that's exactly what he did.

Um, you know, and it's the same mindset, so um, and I do agree with Justin completely that this is a different context than an urban environment, and it is vehicle oriented.

Um, the signs need to they need to be bigger, it's not just a matter of aesthetics, try to minimize things and reduce the clutter.

It's it's a necessity to have large signs, and you actually see them as you're driving by.

So those are my comments.

If someone wants to entertain a second, I believe we have a second.

Oh, we have a second.

Then let's do a roll call.

Chair Silva.

Yes.

Commissioner Blues, yes.

Commissioner Freeman.

Yes, Commissioner Palmer, no.

And Commissioner Polly.

Yes.

Okay, that motion carries with a vote of four.

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

We have applications online or in our planning office.

Thank you, Matt.

Congratulations.

Thank you.

All right.

Should we get Dave, yeah.

That's oh, yeah, Dave.

There he is.

We weren't gonna forget.

Um we could do a five-minute break.

Recording in progress.

675 Van Buren Street Architectural Review Permit Application.

For new two-story single-family dwelling, applicant Paul Davis, the Paul Davis Partnership Owner, Property Solutions West, LLC trustees, PC-D-ES zoning district, medium density residential general planned land use designation exempt from CIQA.

And Fernanda.

Thank you, Chair.

Staff's recommendation is that the planning commission approve the architectural review permit.

Oh wait.

Sorry, I had multiple versions of this PowerPoint and I just want to make sure that this is the right one.

Yes.

Okay.

Okay.

So the subject property is 675 Van Buren Street.

It's the vacant lot with the grass the dry grass in the middle of the screen.

And it's located in the old town neighborhood but it is governed by the downtown specific plan objective standards and guidelines.

It has medium density residential general plan land use designation and again it's zoned planned community downtown.

And the lot is only 2,546 square feet.

So it's even smaller than the Dunecrest lot.

So what's special about the downtown specific plan for this area is that there are no development standards for floor area ratio lot coverage setbacks or parking but there is a height maximum and it is two stories maximum but there is no maximum number of feet or inches so again two stories but no numerical maximum so the applicant is proposing a two story single family dwelling and um it was designed to fit this very narrow lot.

So it would have two stories plus uninhabitable attic space each story would have a ceiling height of nine feet and the attic space would have a peak ceiling heights of 9.6 feet the proposed total building height from grade to top of roof is 30 point two feet.

The architectural style is a new interpretation of the Tudor revival architectural style the sighting is proposed to be a cream color smooth finish cement plaster the roofing would be gray asphalt shingles the doors and windows would have black frames and mountains the gutters and downs downspouts would have would be metal painted black there would be ornamental wood supports painted black and the exterior light fixtures would be limited to lighting building entrances and would be fully cut off here you see a view of the proposed front elevation it would have a very small um overhang roof overhang over the entrance door creating a small porch area and a one car garage and on the bottom would be um the living dining kitchen area and at the top there would be bedrooms and bathrooms um on the right side is the south elevation or the right side elevation that would face um uh the the lot um next door which has a two-story single-family dwelling as well.

This is the rear view uh the rear view would look at the police parking lot.

And the left side would face the van the senior housing pro the van buren senior housing project uh which is a two-story building as well.

So, in order to approve this architectural review permit, the planning commission must make the four architectural review findings.

That the proposed siding form mass and architectural style are appropriate for the site immediate area and the city.

So there is limited buildable area and it is a narrow lot.

However, the architect was able to achieve a modulated design with modulated facades, and broke up the roof massing into gables.

So again, at the front view, there's there are three, the gables are broken into three, the big top gable, and then a one that's lower, and then one that's at the bottom floor.

And it's an interpretation of uh architectural style, um, a more modern interpretation, but all um residential all the same.

And it would again have a porch, recessed roof forms, and window projections, which create interest for the pedestrian and adjacent um occupants.

The second finding is that the proposed project will not unreasonably impair views, privacy or living environment currently enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity, and there were no views, privacy or living environment impacts identified.

The applicant had story poles and netting installed to outline the project, and staff did not receive any comments regarding views, privacy, or living environment.

Um, in fact, the proposal would improve the living environment by creating more presence and eyes on the street because um this site has been vacant for a very long time.

The third finding is that the project substantially cons is substantially consistent with city plan plans and design guidelines.

So it is consistent with the general plan in that the proposal is context appropriate residential development.

It's a single-family home, and there are other single-family homes across the street, but there are also apartment buildings on this street.

And so it's a mix of residential development on Van Buren Street, and this would fit quite well.

The proposal is two stories with typical nine-foot ceilings, again, a small front porch and a one-car garage, which is typical of residential construction.

It meets all downtown specific plan requirements, and the proposal adds to the variety of height and massing already present on Van Buren Street.

The fourth finding is that the proposed finish colors, materials, landscaping, lighting, fencing, and all other exterior features are appropriate for the site, immediate area and city.

The windows are all placed at the same plate height, creating a pattern, and the doors and windows with the black frames and mountains create contrast against the off-white smooth finished stucco siding.

The black gutters and downspouths and the ornamental would support add detail and also break up the facades into smaller areas.

The roofing would be gray asphalt shingle, and there would be bricks surrounding the front door, which is a nice detail that draws the eye to the front door.

So staff's recommendation is to approve the project.

And I must add that this project met all downtown specific plan requirements and was eligible for administrative review.

However, it was referred from a neighbor to the planning commission.

I'm available for questions, and the applicant and owner and architect are here thank you prananda any questions what does that mean was referred is that a complaint um i can share a little bit of the conversation that i had with uh neighbor uh just before you get into that for so the the way the code structure is this so it's an administrative approval so before the code requires us to send out a notice before uh that approval becomes effective so it's a 10-day notice it's effectively an appeal of our administrative our intent to administratively approve the project and so the code allows them to make that essentially an appeal to where it comes before this body so um the neighbor said that she was just concerned that um about parking on the street and i again this there are no parking requirements in the downtown area and so the applicant could have just not provided any offsite parking on site parking um but they provided a one car garage and there's enough room in the driveway for a tandem driveway parking space so by providing that they are improving um parking on Van Buren Street and the other issue um the the property next door at 681 van buren is a dilapidated two story house and she would just wanted that to be demolished at the same time as this house would be built but again that's a separate address and a separate project and it's it's not related to this project's on my board Fernandez just out of curiosity when somebody leave I mentioned kind of appeals this decision administrative decision to um have the application go before the planning commission are there additional fees related to the to the applicant when they have to come before the PC no we don't collect additional fees because um the application was eligible for administrative review so we took it in at that fee okay well it's a conversation for another time we should raise that bar because it feels like a frivolous appeal we should charge fees yeah so that would require a code change so it's not it's not a technical appeal it's just effectively appeal an appeal of the administrative decision but heard so we can take a look at possibly amending the code to make that an official appeal that would be necessitated a other jurisdiction I would I would completely agree with that because um it's it's costing time and money for everybody along the end yeah really frustrating and the results may not be any different yeah you could mirror what they do with appealing a planning commission to city council there's a fee associated with that yeah yeah just to foreshadow the next one is a very similar situation thoughts okay um let's see uh does the applicant wishes to what want to make a uh presentation before the commission gives the applicant here all right uh is the um appellant uh here would they like to uh speak before us no uh erica anybody on any any member of the public as well or any mayor of the public anyone online there are no attendees online okay let's close the public hearing and bring this back who'd like to move for approval go for it move for approval with findings and conditions second roll call wait i want to say something nice yeah i don't think a lot of people realize what a charming area.

The end of Van Buren is with individually designed and constructed homes and a sub called a sack that is uh loaded with charm as well.

It's hard to see when there's apartment buildings on either side.

This is a wonderful addition.

Thank you, really.

And a nice job on the design on a different we want to make this as quick and as painless as possible.

Skip that motion.

Stop gashing, it just needs a base.

All right, yeah.

Erica, did we have a second?

Roll call, please.

Chair Selvet.

Yes.

Commissioner Blue.

Yes.

Commissioner Freeman.

Yes.

Commissioner Palmer.

Yes.

Commissioner Polly.

Yes.

Commissioner Stoker.

Yes.

Okay, that motion carries.

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

We have applications online or in the planning office.

Congratulations.

You have a nice project.

Yeah.

Very beautiful.

All right.

Let's see here.

Item number nine.

Uh 5528 Foam Street.

ARC AR permit permit application ARP 25-0055.

Exterior alterations to an existing building and associated site improvements.

Applicant Peter Cassavan, Casavan Architects.

It's like the Sistine Chapel.

PCLH, CB1, Community Lighthouse Cannabis Business Overlay Zone District, Mixed, Neighborhood General Plan, Land Use Designation.

Exempt from SEQA.

Fernanda.

Thank you, Chair.

Staff's recommendation is that the planning commission approved the architectural review permit.

The subject property is 50528 foam.

They are two separate lots of record.

500 is a surface parking lot and includes landscaping.

528 is a commercial building at the front and an accessory structure at the rear.

The project site is located in the Lighthouse Pacific Plan, Foam Street character area.

And existing surrounding uses are single family and multifamily residential and commercial, retail, and offices.

So a little bit of background.

In October of last year, the zoning administrator approved an animal services use to occupy 328 square feet of the 2,600 square foot commercial building.

And that would be located toward the rear of the building.

And that area is totally, there are no windows.

But the rest of the building is for Monterey Bay Aquarium offices.

So the rest of the building, meaning the front of the building facing foam street.

And the parking lot is used, currently used as a boat storage yard in support of research operations for the aquarium.

So the proposed project is basically a building upgrade.

So it would include parapets, a 42-inch parapet added to the top of the building.

And there are also exterior walls being proposed to be replaced in the same location because of the um the bad stucco, light fixtures for safety, interior partition walls, and mechanical, electrical, and plumbing upgrades.

This is the view that would be uh viewed from foam street.

The current facade has a door, um, but because this is a Monterey Bay Aquarium building for employees only, um, they don't uh want access um public access.

So there's also an existing gate surrounding the entire perimeter of the site, and this is the side of the building that would face to the interior of the parking lot, so a door for access between the building and the parking lot, and again the parapet, the increased parapet height.

This is the view.

Sorry, I messed up.

This is the door that goes into the aviary staging room.

So this is the back of the building, so it's just a single door and no windows, and this is the view that looks toward the interior parking lot.

So there would be a roll-up door.

Um, there's also accessibility improvements being proposed, so a ramp that goes into the office area, windows, and um also some parking accessibility improvements, but would that wouldn't be visible at all off site because of the perimeter fence, and again, um if you can see um there would be lights, um lighting entrances to the building and building corners.

So, in order for PC to approve this, it they need to make the architectural review findings.

Uh the project, it would only the massing would only change in that it would have that added 42-inch parapet, um, to block view of their proposed mechanical rooftop mechanical equipment.

Other than that, um the siding form mass would not change.

Um, the existing windows would be replaced with new windows appropriate for the private office use of the aquarium, and uh the parapet is only 42 inches and just to shield the mechanical units.

The views privacy and living environment would not change substantially because the only change from the exterior that um might have an impact is that 42-inch parapet.

However, staff visited the site and found that that added parapet would not block ocean views to surrounding occupants, and the windows would be replaced in similar locations, not which would not introduce uh privacy issues.

The project is consistent with uh city plan plans and design guidelines in that it is consistent with the mixed use land use designation.

Um this foam street character area allows commercial, residential, and mixed-use mixed uses, so the project would support a commercial use that is compatible with this mixed-use neighborhood.

And it meets uh all of the lighthouse specific plan standards, but I've highlighted three of them here.

So it meets the um objectives in that it improves the integrity of the existing building on site.

Um, the building is um needs a lot of repairs, and it looks abandoned.

Um, and so this would be an uplift for the area.

It meets the second objective here in that it reflects the building's evolving function as a private office, aviary, and both staging areas restricted to aquarium employees.

And the third objective, it would support the continuous operation of successful institutions such as the aquarium.

And as you saw earlier, um, the exterior finish, colors, materials, uh, would all be improvements to the building and site and would be an upgrade.

The lighting would not create glare or spillover off site, um, primarily because of the perimeter fence and the lights would be fully cut off.

They're also safety lights required by building code.

Um so with that, staff recommends that the planning commission approve the project.

Um this project was also eligible for administrative review.

However, um the property owner across the street, um, referred the project to the planning commission.

Thank you, Fernanda.

Questions.

When you say across the street, you mean across foam or across the little site street?

Foam.

Okay.

Would the applicant like to uh provide the commission with a brief presentation?

Hi, good evening.

Um, my name is Sarissa Skinner.

I'm a senior project manager with the Monterey Bay Aquarium.

Um, I think that Fernanda did a great job of presenting the reasons that we made the changes that we did, which is that we took away the entrance on foam street because it's no longer going to be a retail uh use as it previously was, and we reduced the size of the windows in order to provide more appropriate windows for the office function that it will be uh in the future.

And I want to acknowledge the um issue that the neighbor brought up, which is that it is going to create a larger kind of blank space, um, not as part of this application, but the intention that we have after construction is completed is to um pursue a mural on the facade as part of the public art objective that is consistent with the uh objective objectives in the lighthouse specific plan.

So that is our future intention, but it is not a part of this uh application.

I acknowledge that that is maybe not a consideration, but I did want to um just uh nod to the neighbors' concerns over the proposed like larger blank facade.

Thank you questions.

Uh anyone in chambers uh wishes to speak about this project.

You may come up to the podium seeing nobody on uh anybody online, Erica.

There are no attendees online.

We'll close the public hearing and bring us back to the commission comments motion.

Someone has the application number going to make a motion.

Move to approve the architectural review permit application ARP-25-005.

Um for exterior alterations to 505 28 foam street.

Second, third.

Um, so we have we have a motion to approve and the second.

Who was the second?

I'm sorry.

Thank you.

Chair Silva.

Yes.

Commissioner Bliss.

Yes.

Commissioner Freeman.

Yes.

Commissioner Palmer?

Yes.

Commissioner Pauli.

Yes.

And Commissioner Stoker.

Yes.

Okay, that motion carries with a vote of six.

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

We have applications online or in the planning office.

Congratulations.

Sorry, you had to say for two hours.

Okay, we now will go to Commissioner comments.

Yeah.

No, no comments.

I've got a comment.

Yeah.

I mean, following up on something that Sandy mentioned, um, where we're talking about view sharing.

Obviously, and the Dune Press thing, it wasn't an issue for this particular project, but I really do worry that some point we're gonna start seeing more of these.

And I'm worried about arms race of views, where we start to have to deal with the neighbors who are not going to like having the second story floor edition.

And it would be great if staff could come up with some quantifiable approach where we could be able to look at this.

Because I remember when we were on the ERC, there was all subjective.

You know, what is the appropriate amount of view sharing?

And as David mentioned, we're moving more into specific.

So there must be some technology, some approach out there where either the developer, the contractor or the city can provide, you know, a few sharing numbers where we could end up having something where it's either it meets that number or is less or it exceeds it and it's not approved.

And so there's a way of dealing with this whole view sharing way in a more equitable way that takes into account at least the the neighbors more than I think the approach that I remember in ARC did.

So yeah, the Del Monte uh Beach Homeowners Association, it's one of their one of their mantras is to have the view shed protected for everybody.

I could see it in in New Monterey and parts of um old town.

I mean, I think it's a citywide issue, and I think having that type of um technological approach would really benefit the entire community.

But if it's possible in areas where there are not um association restrictions, like the Del Monte area, um it seems to me that as long as a residential application complies with objective standards and zoning, that's all that matters.

Yeah, and I don't want to get in a long conversation around tonight, but the important thing is views are not legally protected, and there's no unless we have an objective standard that sets forth less right, which is what Mr.

Blue's is saying a quantifiable metric that you could apply to every developer.

But currently we do not have any objective standard in our zoning registrations that protects the view.

So anyone that comes and claims that they have a right to a view, they're wrong.

Right.

That's what I find change.

Yeah, I don't care.

Let's let's look at having something that does provide the neighbor some ability to influence so city council could make the decision on what the percentage is.

It's a slippery slope.

Yep.

You go to the Carmel Planning Commission hearings.

Yeah, it's it's a mess.

But still, it's gonna be, I think, much more of an issue that we're gonna be facing, particularly now that we're picking up ARC.

And I'd much rather see um an approach where there's some metric to it that's um accomplishable that that helps us deal with this.

I disagree.

I think there shouldn't be a metric.

I think I don't think there should be any kind of a guideline because otherwise, how do you how do you apply it?

You know, this is something that is so subjective and it's context-specific to the various sites and topography, it's unique to every site.

You can't just have a uniform standard that would be applicable and and be a quantifiable metric.

I just don't see how you can do that.

And this project could be an example of something that might have been disapproved, and I don't think that would have been as equitable since they're slow to add another story, whereas others were able to sooner.

Yeah, it's it's gonna be an issue we're gonna face.

I I want to reiterate the comment I made during the first um Dunecrest application regarding comparing the findings that we're required to make as a planning commission when the findings are subjective in nature, whereas the HAA mandates objective standards, and the the perilous outcome that I fear is at some point in the future the planning commission is going to um suggest that a subjective finding that was in the staff report and um as part of the analysis um was sufficient grounds to deny a project, and to me that would be a violation of HHA HAA, and I really want to encourage staff to take a look at this and see if there's a way to modify the language that we have in our findings.

I mean, it's a huge ordeal, it's a huge resource of time, but I think it's important to make sure that um staff reports and the findings that are in the staff reports that come before us are consistent with state law.

Yeah, so in reference to the housing accountability act, there's nothing in that that precludes a city from having a design review process.

You're correct.

The it what it says is that a city cannot deny a project on the basis of a standard that's not an objective standard.

Exactly.

That's the that's staff reviews these projects and makes recommendations based on those and then brings them to this commission.

I hear what you're saying.

Um my suggestion would be if staff is brings project forward.

I agree that the findings and perhaps the code could be amended to address state legislation.

If we spend our time doing that, that's all that we'll do in our in the planning division, is updating our code to mimic state law.

We can just repeal the entire thing and just defer to state law if we wanted to do that.

But I think my suggestion in the meantime would be staff is bringing recommendations based around compliance with state law.

So if you have questions about the recommendation and how that meshes with the state law and compliance with such, ask those questions and we can make that clear.

Um advising commissioners or whoever's going to adjudicate that a denial on this application based on um findings that are not objective would potentially violate state law.

Maybe it's as simple as that.

Maybe harmful to your health.

I thought, like in Carmel, they're talking about as an applicant, you can either choose the objective standards or you can choose subjective standard.

Like in like if you've got a project that meets the subjective standards and you don't want to deal with us, you take that path.

Yeah.

So in our where we've had rezonings associated with our housing element in our arena allocation, we have administrative approval processes uh for those that are that you can choose that are um you know contingent on meeting all objective design standards.

As the code's written right now for other projects that are outside of those areas, there's still the the standard design review and architectural review process that's that's basically says you'll be either you fall into either the administrative approval path, which does allow for a neighbor to refer it to the commission, or you go through an actual more formal architectural review path through this commission.

You send us a map of all the areas in Monterey that have objective design standards, or like the zoning just so we so yeah, it's two different things.

We have objective design standards in some areas, and then and then there's areas where you can do the administrative approval, and yeah, I can send that to you.

Okay.

Um how do we go about um changing whatever ordinance or policy there is um so that we don't get these frivolous appeals like we did tonight?

It would necessitate a code amendment that would uh uh come before this commission and then ultimately to the city council, it would obviously be a change in the public process, so it'd probably be some level of public involvement in that because that would be a uh certainly a reduction in the public participation of these types of things, but it's it's a the possibility in a in a process, or just it well, you know, it's the thing is when you don't have any fees associated with bringing it to us, then it would just encourage more of it.

So the it's yes, and it's complicated because what as actually happens is that the ARC, formerly the ARC and now the planning commission actually maintains and adopts the list of things that staff can't approve administratively, and the code doesn't actually prescribe what is an administrative project or a non-administrative project.

This commission now does that.

The caveat to that, and you in this commission granting that authority to staff is that it maintains the ability for a member of the public to refer that.

Um, so again, it may be uh make the most sense.

And I hear what the the intentions are of the commission, it may make the most sense to maybe uh in, you know, explore changing the language in the code to make it a formal formal appeal of the staff decision to the planning commission that could have a fee attached to it.

And that's really what it is.

It is, it is effectively an appeal, so it's just not being called that, and therefore there's no fee associated with it.

Um, is that that would happen at council level?

Uh yes.

Yeah, is that something that staff could look into?

We certainly can.

I foresee a lot of this happening for us.

Yeah, and we've and and we've seen that that's been an effective approach for appeals of the ARC formally and the appeals of the planning commission.

Um, those fees do have the effect of uh ensuring that these are not frivolous appeals.

So that is an effective approach.

But as a devil's advocate, I just also have to take it into account who can afford these fees and keeping local democracy alive and allowing people to um appeal uh certain projects.

So this particular one, yes, agreed.

Frivolous, but uh I'd like to see a balance there.

It doesn't have to be a large fee.

This you see skin in the game.

I heard a million dollars earlier.

So I think that's appropriate.

Um hold on, we're not right there.

Um any other comments?

Uh informational report, please.

Yeah, settle in.

I got a uh 30 minute recap of the Brown Act training that you skipped.

No, I'm kidding.

I'm kidding.

No, very quickly.

Uh just to update from the last council meeting.

Uh they did adopt the draft findings to uh declare an intent to overrule the project at 2400 Garden Road.

That's the daycare center.

Um so that they did uh the council did approve that and initiated that process, which will require a forty-five day noticing period before going back before council for approval.

And then of course we did have the Brown Act uh training presentation that was uh uh held at that meeting as well.

If you did weren't able to catch that, it is available on our YouTube video.

Uh and then also noted on here is just some items on our uh tentatively scheduled for our February 10th planning commission meeting, and that is all we have.

Thank you, Levi.

Thank you.

All right, meeting in turn.

Thank you, everybody.