Order.

This is the May 12, 2026 Planning Commission.

Erica, would you please do a roll call and uh announce staff and provide information as to how online people can participate?

Sure.

Chair Silva?

Here.

Vice Chair Latassa?

Here.

Commissioner Blut?

Here.

Commissioner Freeman.

Here.

Commissioner Palmer appears to be absent.

Commissioner Polly?

Here.

And Commissioner Stoker.

Here.

Okay.

And our staff members present today.

We have our community development director, Kim Cole.

We have our assistant city attorney, Karen Cratley.

Cratley, yes.

Our planning manager Levi Hill, our principal planner, Fernando Roveri, our principal planner Christy Sabdo, our senior associate planner Chris Schmidt, and myself recording secretary Erica Barrera.

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

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

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

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

Thank you for participating in your city government.

Thank you, Erica.

Okay, we will begin with the consent agenda, and we only have one item, which is approval of the minutes.

Is there anybody in chambers that would like to speak about the minutes?

You may come up to the podium seeing nobody, anybody online, Erica?

Erica.

Sorry about that.

Uh we had a technical uh difficulty with the Zoom.

Can we start it from the top?

Sure.

Is there anybody online that would like to speak about the minutes?

I'm gonna start rolling.

Start it from the top.

Okay, roll call again.

Chair Silva?

Here.

Vice Chair Latassa.

Here.

Commissioner Blues.

Here.

Commissioner Freeman.

Commissioner Polly.

Here.

Commissioner Stoker.

Here.

Um absent today is Commissioner Palmer.

Uh staff members present, our community development director, Kim Cole, Planning Manager Levi Hill.

Our uh assistant city attorney Karen Cratley, our senior associate planner, Chris Schmidt, Principal Planner Fernando Rovere, Principal Planner Christy Sabdo, and myself recording secretary Erica Herrera.

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

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

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

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

Thank you for participating in your city government.

Thanks, Erica.

And uh we will start by uh uh the consent agenda and if there's anybody in chambers that would like to speak to the commission regarding the consent agenda, which consists of the uh minutes from our last hearing, you may come up to the podium.

Seeing nobody, uh Erica on anybody online that uh wishes to speak about the consent agenda.

There are no hands raised.

Thank you.

We'll take this back to the commission.

Move for approval.

We have a motion to approve by Commissioner Stoker, second by Commissioner Bluth.

Can we get a roll call, please?

Sure.

Chair Silva.

Yes.

Vice Chair Latassa, yes, Commissioner Bluth.

Yes, Commissioner Freeman, yes.

Commissioner Pauley, yes, and Commissioner Stoker.

Yes.

Okay, the consent agenda has been approved.

Thanks, Erica.

Um, we'll turn our attention to general public comments.

If there's anybody in chambers that wishes to speak to the commission regarding an item that is not on today's agenda, you may come up to the podium.

Yes, sir.

And if you could state your name.

Hi, my name is Daniel Mandez.

Just making a public comment about um well, Miss Kim Cole.

Um, I went to an appeals meeting a couple of months ago, and um, Miss Cole wrote the law for uh street vending.

And on the street vending law, I received a ticket, and the ticket stated that I was 15 feet within a statue.

And um, and they used Ms.

Cole as a witness, which is unfair because in the appeals hearing I didn't wasn't allowed to have a witness because they said the witness had to be present at the time of the ticket.

So it's kind of unfair that I wasn't able to present a character witness, but yet um the city provided a witness, and in that witness statement, based off of her opinion of a pitcher and just her hearsay dialogue without even a true measurement of the space uh in which this ticket was received.

Um once again, uh my tables were set up, and if you did a proper measurement from my table to the statue, it was over 15 feet, and it's unfair that just based off of a picture and not and from a picture from a Google's a Google um satellite and using that as along with a statement from Ms.

Cole who wrote the law had nothing to do with the ticket itself.

As far as the ticket, the ticket was misrepresented in the fact that the law of the statement of the law, that the title or the the number system, they left out one of the threes in the formation of the ticket um code.

And being that it was an improper code, it really didn't even have anything to do with the person giving them the ticket.

Um that was not even the reason why he said the ticket was presented, and when he gave me the ticket, another comment on the ticket would, before he gave me the ticket, he said, Daniel, how come I can receive so many complaints about you?

And my statement back was because I follow the law and I follow the rules.

And it's very upsetting that if I follow every directive of every line item in the contract agreement, or I'm sorry, the city says it's not a contract, in the written agreement with the city.

Um my agreement isn't doesn't um um it still has another month and a half on it before it expires.

And on my agreement, there's nothing written there that has anything to do with the new rules that they submitted, and um it just feels like it's unjust, and I believe that um the city needs to go and look back at the um street vending permit rules because there's a lot of mistakes in the um program.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Anyone online, Erica?

There's one hand raised, I can go ahead and allow Richard to speak.

Good afternoon.

Uh good afternoon, uh, planning commissioners.

Richard Russello, president of the Casanova Okno Neighborhood Association, and I'm appealing to you to help us with a very serious issue, which we can't seem to solve over 40 years.

On North Freemat at Peak Hour, we have gridlock.

And the reason we have gridlock from Casserverde to Burger King is that we have three traffic systems, uh, Monterey, Caltrans, and Seaside.

And we've been trying for 40 years to sync those systems together.

The public works director in Monterey has got permission from Caltrans to do that.

Our problem is Seaside.

What happens is you're all witnesses to this in peak hour at Casaverdi, it is a parking lot all the way to Airport Road, all the way to Ramona, all the way to the Casanova, all the way to Canyonville.

Crema is a major evacuation route.

Our problem is at peak hour, cars are turning at Casaverde, coming down Fairgrounds Road, and bypassing all the lights and all the stopped cars, going down Bruce Lane, and cutting in at grandma's kitchen.

Are they're going around Euclid down Casanova through Cypress Center through Safeway.

I'm at a loss after 40 years.

We need to put this on the agenda.

Bring seaside in and resolve this issue.

Sink all the lights together.

Green for everybody, red for everybody, and move the gridlock.

It's hurting the businesses on North Fremont.

It's hurting the residents in my neighborhood as cars are speeding to bypass all these park cars on FRIMA.

And if you look at it, sometimes it takes two or three lights to go from Caser Verde to airport, two or three lights to go from airport to Ramona, and the same to Casanova.

It's a waste of fuel.

It's a overabundance of carbon monoxide.

It is bad for our environment.

It eats up people's time trying to go home from work.

And it involves an evacuation.

So all I ask is someone to put this on an agenda and bring the city seaside in and resolve the issue.

Hi, thank you for your time.

Good afternoon.

Thank you.

Anybody else, Erica?

Um, there are no other hands raised.

Alright, we're going to close the general public comments and uh turn our attention to item number three, public hearing for 2301 North Fremont Street.

Approved sign permit application.

SI-240270 for a new vehicle oriented free signing sign.

Applicant uh Michelle Richmond with Perry Builders.

Uh, and uh owner TJS CPLC Enterprises Plan Community Zone District, North Fremont Specific Plan, Mixed Use Neighborhood General Plan, Land Use Designation Exam from CEQA.

And can we get a staff report, please?

Christy.

Hi.

Hi, my name is Christy Sabdo, Principal Planner with the City of Monterey.

I'll be presenting sign permit application for a new vehicle-oriented sign at 2301 North Fremont Street.

The recommendation will be to adopt a resolution approving the sign permit for a new vehicle oriented freestanding sign.

The subject property is located on North Fremont.

The zoning is Plan Community North Fremont specific plan.

The general plan line use designation is mixed use neighborhood.

There is existing signage on site.

And then they calculated all their existing signage for the total maximum signage allowed.

So this just is showing that they did that.

The proposed sign here would replace the pole standing sign.

So this would be a new freestanding sign.

It's the only sign that they're proposing here.

They have a full width base.

It's just over 24 square feet.

The sign is on each side.

So total it would be 49 square feet.

And then on the right, you see the night time nighttime illumination.

So this uh table is just summarizing the total proposed signage for the sites, uh, 131 square feet, including the existing signage and the proposed vehicle-oriented sign.

So I'm just going to go through the findings, making this quick.

Uh the proposal achieves the purposes and objectives of the signed ordinance.

Uh, the proposal does not constitute a proliferation of signs.

The sign serves to identify the gas station and convenience store business and would not include extraneous signs, which would just detract from and obscure the scenic qualities of the city of Monterey and its individual buildings and neighborhoods.

Um, the proposal is uh does have some inconsistencies with the sign guidelines, and I'll just go over them briefly here.

Um, so the allowable signage for the site is 110 square feet, and uh they are proposing 131 um.95 square feet, which includes the existing and the proposed signage.

Also, there's in the sign guidelines was just a uh the um the property is supposed to be a minimum, have a minimum front setback, building setback of 20 feet, and the canopy that's located uh is located closer than 20 feet, so it doesn't meet that.

Um doesn't meet that um guideline.

So this property is existing, non-conforming.

Uh there's also a California state law that mandates gas station signs be clearly visible, displaying the price per gallon liter brand grade and fuel type.

Uh the proposed freestanding sign does include internally illuminated signage, which is shown uh what it would look like look like at night.

Um it's just illuminating the 7-Eleven sign and the um the types of gas.

Um it is overall um consistent with the North Fremont specific plan.

Um the guideline G67 does say any future alterations beyond this one-time sign phase change must exclude internal illumination.

This is not uh sign change, this is a new sign, but just wanted to point that out.

Most of the light emitted will be contained in the opaque sign, only allowing light to shine onto the 7-Eleven logo and types of gas sold.

The proposal overall better achieves the purpose and objectives of the sign ordinance than strict application of the sign guidelines.

Um, and number three finding is that the proposed signs are consistent with the Monterey General Plan and that they support a commercial use and are consistent with the urban design element policy F9, um, that does not emit high levels of ambient light, and the sign does not include up lighting, so it maintains the dark skies.

The sign is not fully consistent with the North Fremont specific plan.

However, most of the light will be contained in the opaque sign, allowing light just to emit through the 7-11 logo and the gas types.

Again, there's the California state law that um mandates that gas station price signs be clearly visible and displaying the information for customers.

Therefore, staff is recommending approval of the sign permit application for the new vehicle-oriented freestanding sign.

I'm not sure if the applicant's gonna be online.

Um, they did indicate it that they might be.

Um, but staff is available for any questions you might have.

Thank you, Christy.

Any questions?

Bob?

Um, just curious.

That's a good from a full sign to a free standing sign.

Were there any state issues with blocking and view near the drawing bar?

No, we had public works um look at that, and they said there are no issues.

I guess I just regarding the approval process, the um the reason it's before the planning commission is because of the inconsistencies.

Correct.

Because if it was consistent, it would be just approved by staff.

Okay, thanks.

Any other questions?

Are the two inconsistencies the internal illumination and the size?

Internal illumination and the size, and then just the one minor inconsistency with the North Fremont specific plan.

Okay, all right.

Um is there anybody uh oh uh the applicant uh you mentioned um is probably not in chambers.

Is there a way to access the applicant online?

There are a few attendees online.

I don't see the name Michelle.

Um, I don't believe the applicant is online.

Okay, very well.

Then we'll open this up to uh members in the chamber that wishes to uh speak about this.

You may come up to the podium.

And seeing nobody, anybody uh online.

There are no hands raised, but once again, um, if you're joining by telephone, dial star nine to raise your hand and star six to unmute, and there are still no hands raised.

Alright, well uh we'll close that and bring it back to the commission uh deliberations, comments.

I'll I'll make a motion uh to approve the item as uh shown in the staff report.

I'll second.

So we have a motion to approve by Commissioner Latasa, a second by Commissioner Pauly.

Can we get a roll call, please, Erica?

Sure.

Chair Silva.

Yes.

Vice Chair Latassa.

Yes.

Commissioner Blues?

Yes.

Commissioner Freeman, you have Commissioner Polly?

Yes.

Commissioner Stoker.

Yes.

Okay, the item has been approved.

The decision is appealable within 10 days.

We have applications online or in our planning office.

Thank you, Erica.

We'll now turn our attention to 1500 Mark Thomas Drive, approve architectural review permit application, ARP 2600 use permit application, UP260076, variance application v 26007 and tree removal permit application.

ART 260075 for athletic field improvements, athlete existing school, owner applicant Jody Wisely for Santa Catalina School.

R120 residential single family zone district, public institutional general plan designation.

Uh CEQA adopted uh mitigated negative DAC.

Chris.

Thank you, Chair Silva.

My name is Chris Schmidt.

I'm a senior associate planner for the city of Monterey, and I've been working with the applicant on this project.

So we are looking at improvements related to an existing athletic field at the site.

So to begin the report, uh staff's recommendation is that the planning commission adopt a resolution approving the permit, uh, excuse me, all four permits associated with this project for the athletic field of improvements at Santa Catalina School.

Just sort of going into a bit of background information.

Here we see on the right hand side the Santa Catalina site.

Um it comprises of a couple different parcels, and that field is right here near the site entrance.

Um it has an R120 zoning district uh designation as well as a general plan land use designation of public slash institutional.

Uh so generally the project description involves improvements to an existing athletic field.

These include uh fully rebuilding the field, which is currently uh uh real grass, real turf, and it would be changed to synthetic turf, a new track at the north side of the field, new drainage improvements, retaining walls, fencing and netting, as well as ADA improvements.

The project does involve six development related tree removals.

Uh, the city has required a tree permit associated with development, and there is no new lighting proposed at the field.

Uh just a bit of further background.

So, in 2010, the city approved the Santa Catalina School Master Plan.

Uh, it involved uh phased redevelopment of the campus through 2030.

Uh some of the phasing of that has been implemented.

This would be kind of the final piece, or or at this time, it is known to be one of the final pieces that the school would be completing as part of that master plan.

Uh in 2013, there was an amendment to the use permit and master plan to expand some of the improvements, new new classrooms, and other improvements.

Uh, and then the current request is an amendment to the master plan and use permit.

Uh the original 2010 master plan did include uh uh redoing this field.

Uh it also included a subsurface garage beneath the field.

That component has been removed.

Um, and so we're doing that amendment here today.

Uh so if you can see this is the topo map showing the existing condition, and I've added this red polygon here to show uh the expansion of the field.

So you uh one of the permit requirements uh is a use permit for development within slopes greater than 25%.

And as you can see on the west side here, uh it does get quite steep.

So the applicant is proposing a retaining wall that ranges anywhere from I believe three to ten feet in height, and this is the area that would require removal of trees.

And here's the proposed site plan uh showing the new turf field as well as all the other improvements.

So as part of the original environmental documents that were prepared for the master plan, the environmental document did contemplate view impacts.

So the city did want to ensure that any of these improvements would not be visible or at least are further screened.

So what we see here is a couple of different fencing improvements that I'll show on later slides with the photo simulations.

But basically, we have a range of 20 feet kind of behind the goals of where the soccer goals would be on the west side, and then uh 30 foot tension netting behind the backstop, which is uh kind of the southeast side of the field where uh if you can imagine the home plate for the softball team would be playing these this backstop is and netting is to protect the existing uh buildings improvements and other people in the vicinity.

Um there are also 10-foot uh chain link fencing proposed at the perimeter of the field, and uh replacement of existing fencing.

This is that ornamental eight-foot tall fencing here.

Uh, and so there was some confusion about where this fencing was going to go, so I just wanted to add this slide to the record showing uh where these various varying heights of fencing and netting are gonna go.

So uh in red here, kind of at the the corners, we have the the 10-foot fencing, the the 20-foot fencing and combined netting here, and then the 30 for 30 foot netting uh at the backstop, uh, and I also show the eight-foot fencing that's more of like a security fencing near the project entrance, uh the site entrance at the driveway, uh and also call out there's there's fencing associated with uh with a fence dugout or excuse me, bullpen um at the rear of the field here.

Uh and so the applicant did submit photo simulations to identify, you know, where that fencing potentially could be visible from uh the two scenic highways nearby highway 68 and highway one.

Uh and and it's kind of difficult to see in these slides, and these are shown in in uh as an attachment to the resolution, but you can see there's a red dotted line kind of where my cursor is, and uh essentially the fencing is not going to be visible.

Same same in this location here, um, likewise the the fencing is not visible from the Mark Thomas Drive vantage point as well.

Uh so there are uh a total of 11 findings made for all the various permits.

So I just wanted to give a quick summary.

Staff was able to make all of the findings needed to approve this project.

Uh, the the school is an existing use uh and it improves an existing field.

It is consistent with the general plan and public uh and institutional designation and the Santa Catalina master plan.

This field, these field improvements were previously contemplated, and the staff just required these permits to ensure that the specific improvements comply with the zoning ordinance in the master plan.

Uh there's no new athletic field lighting proposed.

Uh, the variance is limited to various wall and fencing improvements for uh grade support safety and and containment of um balls or athletic equipment, and then uh lastly that the six development related tree uh development related tree removals are required uh for this improvement, and the applicant is required to provide a two to one replacement based on the environmental document that was prepared for the master plan.

So, with that, staff recommends approval with the project.

I'm available for questions.

The project team is here as well if you have any questions for them.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chris.

Any questions?

I was gonna make a quick statement on this project.

Uh my daughter attends Santa Catalina, and uh Barbara Ostos, the head of school did call me with a general question about the planning commission process.

I answered that question, but I don't, and we verified with the city attorney there's no need for me to recuse myself.

Thank you for the disclosure.

Um we will open this up for uh public comments and um can I get a raise of hands as well?

Can we uh give the applicant an opportunity to speak?

Thank you.

Um is the applicant here?

You may come up and give us a brief presentation.

Good afternoon, commissioners.

I'm Barbara Ostos, head of school at Santa Catalina.

I'd like to thank you and the team for your time and consideration today as we work towards our dream to update our athletic facilities for our students.

When Santa Catalina School was founded in 1950, one of the first things that Sister Mary Karen did was to find the best tennis pro in town, Mr.

John Gardner, to ask him to help her design and build tennis courts for her new school in order to ensure that her students had the best experience possible.

She asked him not for plain tennis courts, but quote, championship courts, Mr.

Gardner, championship courts.

She knew then what we continue to believe deeply today.

Athletics teaches some of the most important lifelong skills our young people need to learn for the rest of their lives.

Over the last 75 years, Santa Catalina has dreamt of championship facilities across all of our sports.

We've improved in many ways across the decades, and now's the time to improve our field.

The approval of this project will represent the first time in 75 years that Catalina has a regulation size field, as well as a significant improvement to the health and safety of our students.

It will also allow us to bring softball back to campus after several years of playing off-site.

This project does not increase water use.

In fact, it reduces it.

This project does not impede visual experience for the public or can't or campus neighbors.

The highest and posts and nettings are no taller than any other buildings on campus.

This project does not include field lights that would impact surrounding community either.

This project does though send an important message to our students that their health and wellness are a priority for us.

And the time is now to improve their experience and to have a beautiful, safe, always usable field like those on most school campuses today.

Thank you in advance for your support of this essential project.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Okay, now we will open this up for public comments if anybody wishes to come up to the podium.

Yes, sir.

Hello, Daniel Madaris again.

Couple of questions.

Or maybe something could be answered.

Um you had mentioned it's six trees, but then you slipped in there's an additional five.

So I believe it's five live oak trees.

And the condition that it your arbor has said that the conditions of the trees are in the range of fair to poor, and knowing that some of the trees in our location, this beautiful area are some of the best well-known trees in the world.

And to list all the trees that are being removed as in poor or for condition, I feel that's a little unfair to um minimize.

Um once again, you're you're removing about 11 trees that are uh mature.

Not to mention you don't even mention the dead trees don't even count or the ones that are barely hanging on.

And um also those it's even the smaller trees aren't mentioned.

But another thing with this involved with this whole project is um in grading and removing um dirt to process the fields.

I notice in the document there's a page there where it mentions that if you find any um persons that have been there um through the centuries or decades or pre-existing in the ground, that you allow for a single day for that approach of um acknowledging um like if I have a family member that's buried there, you give one day allowance, and after that um there's no say, there's it goes back to the owner and basically and what's happened in the past.

Not this location, but when something is found, they just um don't talk about it, they don't mention it.

They just re-bury and uh it's unfair for um the environment that is being recreated and I I appreciate their the fact that they're trying to improve, but another thing with the water limitations, you are reducing water because the tree line on on figure page um three oh eight.

Um the tree line goes from the top of the mountain all the way and it ends right at the base of the freeway, which technically the um side of the site that's being removed is actually the bottom of the of the um w waterway that the aquifer um where those trees are actually um reconditioning the groundwater.

And when it's gonna be poured in or looked at or re redirected or the storage water being um chased into um the storm water and and to the um reconditioning of the um with the waste management.

My question would be is that water being um retained gonna go directly back into the aquifer?

Or is it gonna be um the staging?

Because I also know that you're gonna do some re um redirecting of um the waterway.

But those are just a couple of questions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Erica, is anybody online?

Um there are no hands raised.

Once again, dial star nine to raise your hand and star six to unmute.

Thank you.

We have a person here in chambers that wishes to come up to the podium.

Good evening, members of the planning commission.

I'm David Armanosco, native of Monterey, a local businessman and a past trustee of Santa Catalina School.

And um I can attest to the fact that Sata Catalina School is a jewel in Monterey's crown of many jewels.

It's some a place that people know throughout the world as a terrific place to come and be educated and learn about life and grow into adults.

It is also something that reflects Monterey and the great diversity that we have and the opportunities that keep Monterey as a focus of a very special place, not only in California, but throughout uh this country and in other countries that send students to be here.

So I am just encouraging you to approve this application.

I think it's very thorough and it's been vetted thoroughly as well.

And uh I think that all of you with a yes vote will be proud that you can continue to make sure that this school continues to prosper and bring wonderful students and families to this area.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Uh any hands wave, uh Erica.

There are no hands raised.

All right, we're gonna close the public uh hearing and bring this back to the commission.

Any comments?

I'll start.

Um, this is not just gonna be a benefit for Sata Catalina School, it's gonna be a benefit for all the schools in our neighborhood are gonna be playing away games there.

So um I'm happy to see this improvement and being able to get back to playing um soccer at Santa Cantalina.

Um I can't wait for my daughter who's at Stevenson to play an away game there for um um lacrosse.

So I think it's a wonderful idea.

And I have to admit that it was a pleasure reading all the letters that came in um on this topic that were um available.

It's great to see the community participation from the students and obviously the um staff at Santa Carolina.

Um yeah, the um I've seen applications come from Santa Cantalita before they did a science building, I don't know, 10 years ago or something.

Thirteen years ago.

That was just extraordinary and the the quality of of their applications is always really just like so thorough and professional and well thought out and designed and it just compliments to the whole team.

They really are um they really do such high-quality work there.

It's um everything, everything they I've ever seen them bring forward is has been um really well done, and and this is another one, and I'm in support of it.

Sandy.

Well, I echo um Carrie.

We were sitting on the ARC.

It was like 2013 when that application came in for the math and science building, and it has been a real winner.

Um, completely uh state-of-the-art.

So, of course, I'm happy to support this application.

Dave, no further comments.

I agree.

Justin.

I can attest firsthand how sorely needed this field is.

So um it's uh exciting step for the school, and I know they've worked hard to raise the funds for it, and I think it's the last piece of uh a puzzle that's been in the works for a long time.

So it's a great project and nice presentation by BFS and what's in too.

Well, I concur.

This is a great accomplishment for the school, and it's gonna be a tremendous asset for not only the school, but as Bob said, people that might visit and use the use the field, and uh so I'm in full support.

Can uh we get a uh a motion?

Yes, move to approve 1500 Mark Thomas Drive architectural review permit, use permit, variance application, and tree removal permit.

That's second.

I think he beat you to it.

Or third.

There or third.

Alright, so we have a motion to approve by Commissioner Freeman and a second by Commissioner Stoker.

Uh any other comments?

Not seeing any.

Can we get a roll call, please, Erica?

Sure.

Chair Silva.

Yes.

Vice Chair Latasa?

Yes.

Commissioner Blues?

Yes.

Commissioner Freeman?

Yes.

Commissioner Polly?

Yes.

And Commissioner Stoker.

Yes.

Okay, that motion carries, and the decision is appealable within 10 days.

We have applications online or in our planning office.

Thank you.

And congratulations.

Very nice project.

We I feel like we should ring a bell.

You can all leave.

You mean the recess belt?

Yes.

Looking for the recess bell.

Okay.

Um, we're going to now turn our attention to item number five.

2200 and 2210 North Fremont Street, approved architectural review permit application.

ARP 250101, and tree removal permit application ART 250180 for a new four-story mixed-use building and associated tree removals.

Applicant Paul W.

Davis, Paul Davis Partnership owner, WFP 2LP planned community North Fremont Zone District, mixed use neighborhood general plan use designation exempt from CEQA.

Fernanda, would you like to give us a staff report, please?

Yes, thank you, Chair.

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

Staff's recommendation for this project is that the planning commission adopt the resolution approving the architectural review permit and the tree removal permit as presented in the agenda packet.

The subject site is located at 2200 and 2210 North Fremont Street at the corner of North Fremont and Airport Road.

It is made up of two parcels.

Together they account for 0.922 acres.

The zoning district is planned community North Fremont, and the general plan land use designation is mixed with neighborhood.

The proposed project is a four-story mixed-use building and associated tree removals.

There would be a ground floor commercial space acting as the anchor to the building at the corner of North Fremont Street and Airport Road, accompanied by an outdoor seating area for building patrons.

A total of 49 residential apartment units would be distributed among the building's four floors.

The ground floor would have seven residential apartment units, five facing North Fremont Street, and two facing Airport Road.

Each of these would have an outdoor patio surrounded by landscaping, as you can see on your screen.

Zooming out, you can see the surface parking lot accessible from Bruce Lane.

It would have 39 parking spaces.

The rest of the ground floor would have a fitness room, manager's office, and utility areas, trash and recycling, electrical, mechanical, elevator and maintenance rooms.

The second and third floors would each have 15 residential units.

Although the proposed project is forced, sorry.

I switched.

The fourth floor would have 12 units in addition to the community room and roof deck.

Second, third, and fourth floor units would not have balconies or any private open space allocated to them.

This version consisted of a three-story mixed-use building with 6,000 square feet of commercial space on the ground floor and 40 residential apartment units on the upper two floors.

However, due to the rising cost of construction, this version was ultimately abandoned.

The new proposal includes a smaller building from 86,768 square feet to 71,726 square feet, a smaller commercial space from 6,000 square feet to 739 square feet, a smaller parking lot from 73 spaces to 39 spaces, and a higher number of residential apartments from 40 to 49 units.

The projects are of similar building size and number of units.

Although the proposed project is four stories, as you can see from North Fremont Street, if you look at it from the Dollar Tree next door, we lose one story as we to as we transition from North Fremont Street to Bruce Lane.

Sorry.

This is the view from Bruce Lane.

You can see that the ground floor includes the parking lot.

And toward the back it would face Bruce Lane, and it steps down as you go back.

Before you are the building sections of the proposed development.

The top section shows the ground floor commercial space having a taller plate height than the top floors.

The bottom section shows a view from Airport Road.

So there's a tuck under parking space here, and then there's a lane or a row of parking spaces in the middle, and then another row facing Bruce Lane.

And then here is Bruce Lane to the right.

Although the North Fremont Specific Plan establishes the local development standards for the site, state law prevails and limits the city's discretion in areas governed by the Housing Accountability Act and State Density Bonus Law.

The North Fremont Specific Plan was adopted in 2014 and has since been amended, most recently in 2024.

The 2024 amendment increased the maximum allowable density from 30 to 60 dwelling units per acre and increased the height limit from 35 to 45 feet.

These updated development standards informed and guided the current project design.

Under the specific plan, the project would normally be required to provide 51 parking spaces.

However, the applicant submitted a concession request under the state density bonus law to reduce the parking requirement to 39 spaces.

After a thorough review, staff determined that with the requested concession, the project complies with all applicable specific plan objectives, development standards, and design guidelines.

Because the project is compliant, it qualified for an administrative staff level architectural review.

However, following a request from a member of the public, city staff referred the project to the planning commission for consideration, which brings the item before you today.

Staff also determined that the proposed project qualifies for protections under the Housing Accountability Act, as it is a mixed-use development in which at least two-thirds of the square footage is dedicated to residential uses.

And the project is fully consistent with all applicable objective zoning and general plan standards.

Under the act, a qualifying project may only be denied if it would result in a specific adverse impact on public health or safety.

Following its review, staff concluded that the project would not create such an impact.

The project also qualifies under the state density bonus law because 20% of the proposed housing units would be reserved for low and moderate income households.

As part of that application, the project proponent requested a concession to reduce the required parking from 51 to 39 spaces.

Pursuant to state density bonus law, staff determined that the requested parking concession must be granted.

With this regulatory framework in mind, the planning commission is tasked with making the architectural review and tree removal permit findings.

The first architectural review finding is that the proposed sighting, form, mass, and architectural style are appropriate for the project site, the immediate area in the city.

Staff found that the project is fully appropriate for the site and immediate area.

The siding of the commercial anchor space at the corner is oriented for the pedestrian.

The maximum building height 45 feet is met, and that the tallest building corner measured from lowest grade to top of roof minus the three foot and a half parapet would be 43 feet two inches, which is below the maximum 45 foot height.

The building massing is pushed away from Bruce Lane, giving space to the residential neighborhood to the south.

The fourth floor is stepped is stepped even farther back.

The fourth floor is indicated by this middle arrow.

So you can see the this one bedroom unit would be approximately 100 feet away from the residential fence on the south side of Bruce Lane.

The rooftop deck would be approximately 80 feet away, and the rest of the residential units would be approximately 116 feet away.

The architectural style presents a balanced composition of horizontal and vertical elements, such as the different shades of cream color and beige stucco panels, and the horizontal siding in a spruce would look like color.

These are these present a subtle mix of siding materials and colors.

And the bottom commercial space in a darker gray tone anchors the building.

The regularly spaced windows with dark bronze frames create a clean rhythm across elevations, and the projecting base introduced depth and shadows.

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.

The outdoor activity areas, such as the roof deck and the commercial outdoor seating area, are located away from Bruce Lane to avoid noise and privacy impacts.

The building is situated north of the neighborhood, therefore there will be no shading throughout the day.

There would be no private residential decks or balconies facing Bruce Lane.

There would be a roof deck at the fourth floor for the shared use of residents and their guests, but conditions have been incorporated to ensure privacy and living environment impact would not occur.

Conditions include hours of operation and noise levels.

The third finding is that the proposed project is substantially consistent with the Monterey General Plan, as well as all applicable and adopted area or neighborhood plans, design guidelines, or similar documents.

The project fully implements the North Fremont specific plan vision.

The vision is that there will be a 12-foot wide sidewalk on North Fremont Street and a new sidewalk along Bruce Lane.

The project is set back to allow for the creation of that 12-foot-wide sidewalk on North Fremont.

It also introduces street trees where there are none.

The integration of landscaping, including street trees and planter strips, further complements the facade, reinforcing a pattern and rhythm along the street face.

The trees proposed along Bruce Lane are appropriate to screen and beautify the transition between the mixed-use development and the existing residential neighborhood.

The proposed parking lot lighting as documented in the photometric study is appropriate for the project site and immediate area in that it would not spill beyond its subject.

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

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

The applicant requested the removal of one coast live oak, one melaloca, and two palms, because they would prevent reasonable development of the permitted mixed-use building.

These trees are in the proposed building footprint.

Other sites were considered when reviewing this request.

For example, 2222 North Fremont and 2260 North Fremont, which are on the same block, have similar development patterns with large buildings and surface parking lots.

The project proposes planting of replacement trees as part of the landscaping plan.

Therefore, the removal of these four trees should be permitted concurrently with the development.

With that, staff recommends that the planning commission adopt a resolution approving the architectural review and tree removal permits as presented in the agenda package.

The applicant and architect are here, and I'm available for questions.

Thank you, Fernanda.

Questions?

Oh yes.

Bob?

Go for it.

Okay, let's go over here.

What do we really get to vote on here?

So you are tasked with making the architectural review and tree removal findings.

Keeping in mind that the Housing Accountability Act requires you to only look at objective standards.

So we can pick color.

Color is not an objective standard.

Okay.

No, but we're doing here.

So as Fernando laid out, the project is required by code to come before the planning commission based on the administrative approval process and the referral process is laid out in the code and the specific plan.

So that's what we're doing here.

But we can also add conditions.

You can add conditions up to the point that would not require the project to reduce density or render the project financially infeasible to provide the density in which it's proposed.

Or increase parking.

They're utilizing a density bonus concession for their parking standards, so no, you would not be able to condition the project on additional parking.

So not even color.

Nope.

Okay.

Yeah, um, could they have gone how far could they have gone down on parking?

Could they have gone all the way to zero?

Uh they could have if they presented that providing the parking would have um presented actual and identifiable cost reductions for their development.

Sandy, do you have any questions?

No, I don't.

One more question, go ahead.

Um there's a portion of the project, the seating area and a site wall that appears to go off the property.

Is that an easement situation or it does go into the public right-of-way and uh condition of approval was added to require that easements be recorded and as well as maintenance agreements?

I have a few questions, Fernanda.

When I looked at the uh cover sheet, the project information indicated 739 square feet of commercial, but the plan itself showed the commercial space at 500 square feet, and I was hoping that there could be a clarification on that.

Yes, I confirmed with the applicant that the 500 square feet is the main area that will be occupied by patrons, but there is a corridor and a bathroom that were not counted, but if you count all of that, it's 739.

Okay.

Second question is there a parking management plan as part of the application?

No, there is none, and it was not required.

Even though we have such a dramatic reduction in parking, and it's not clear how that's going to eventually work its way out in terms of impacts, it the the parking management plan was not even considered.

That's interesting.

There's no objective standard in the zoning code or in the specific plan that would require that to be submitted with this application.

Is that something that the planning commission could uh uh condition the project on?

The applicant is utilizing a density bonus concession for parking, so no.

Well, I'm talking about a parking management plan.

As the way this is viewed under state law, the parking standard is met.

Hard and fast.

All right.

Well, that kind of limits our ability to do anything.

It's been fabulous.

See you later.

See you later um okay uh one last question is uh if you can go to the site plan, Fernanda and um I was looking at the uh the southwest corner over near um airport and uh and the alley street there um there's a electric room and just to the south of the electric room is um an X and I would assume that's a transformer and maybe the app the applicant can clarify that but I'm bringing this up because um I know that the North Remont specific plan addresses screening of utility equipment like this but I don't see any landscape screening or any effective means to screen what appears to be a transformer and I was hoping maybe you can add some light to that.

Yes uh they can answer that provide clarification but this entire area is landscaped so the plants will there's plants in front of that box.

We'll have the applicant clarify that thank you Fernanda those are the questions I have and uh any others yes um Fernanda was there are any limitations on lighting for the roof deck.

The applicant uh did not include lighting at the rooftop deck but there is a condition that limits lighting to building entrances and building code requirements.

Not to dwell too much on the parking but when we saw this before wasn't there some agreement that they were trying to work out with the pharmacy across the street for additional parking not as part of this application.

Um seguing uh about the rooftop deck there was a there was a windscreen noted around the the rooftop deck if I remembered is that um is that opaque or is that clear do you happen to have any information on that.

No the windscreen material was not uh included however there are no objective design standards in the North Fremont specific plan regarding wind screens okay thank you Fernanda I do have a question um the um the approval process uh could have been an administrative approval but as a benefit to the or as a courtesy to the community you brought up to the planning commission to let the project be uh reviewed so yes uh the specific plan provides a mechanism for projects that meet all standards and guidelines and objectives to be approved administratively uh it also provides a section uh that uh stipulates that any um portion of the plan or that's not spoken on refers back to chapter 38 which is the zoning code which provides that referral process that we've kind of gone through before here with uh projects that are administratively approved and then can be referred to the planning commission or formerly the ARC and now the planning commission has that authority very good um okay we will now allow the applicant um to provide the planning commission with a brief presentation thank you um chair and and and rest of the uh uh planning commissioners also the city staff have we we spent maybe a whole year really creating the massing that you see today to to to to fit in the the regulated uh setbacks as we go back into the uh uh is site from Bruce Lane.

Um from just the how we were going to uh design the whole uh Fremont Street with those with those trees and what to do with uh landscaping uh decks, uh no no patios that are enclosed, but then uh we would have to have openings for uh uh egress windows on this the first floor.

Um so that was uh but that it it it took a while but I we we thought we come up we came up with a good with a good uh solution.

Um we tried to do more in terms of um just the the whole Bruce Lane Street front of buildings lane landscaping, landscaping, uh the the the sliding gate fence all the way to the uh uh that southeast corner.

So we tried to uh uh design this all the way around the the three the three the the the three street front front edges um otherwise uh really I don't have any much more to say how we we had a dot we we um uh staff uh presented it clear clearly and succinctly and the process that we used to do to um to get this to uh a place where it could be uh just uh approved.

Thank you, Paul.

Any questions for the applicant?

Bob?

On the roof deck, will there be any procedure for accessing it?

Is it gonna be available all the time?

Will there be limitations on availability like during the evening after a certain time?

Yeah, I think there's some there's some conditions about that.

Yeah, yeah, but but yeah, but it'll it'll be only be for residents only.

Paul is the I can add um there's a condition about the roof deck that it's hours of operation are basically it can't be accessed between the hours of 10 p.m.

and 7 a.m., which is consistent with our noise ordinance requirements.

Is the windscreen opaque or is it going to be clear?

And I'm asking that because um it's at an elevation where it's gonna be looking down potentially on neighboring yards, and I think that would be a legitimate privacy concern.

Yeah, we will we'll come up with the solution on that one.

Thank you.

I have a question.

So I understand the the style of uh building often has parapets for drainage reasons and sort of a the aesthetic um of it.

But is this parapet for is there like roof equipment that is being hidden or what is the why is the parapet there?

Yeah, well in nowadays it's there will be it'll be covered with uh PV panels.

Oh okay.

So and the and we have access up to that uh that roof to do to to handle that.

If we don't have then we if we don't have a 42 inch high parapet, um then we would have to have other types of fall protect uh fall protection of or for fire or or just uh maintenance.

So the 42-inch uh parapet does a uh it also helps screens the um the the equipment of the uh and the panels of the of the uh uh array.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

All right, we're gonna um take a quick uh poll and see how many people in chambers wishes to speak if you can raise your hand.

Okay, we're gonna um go ahead and allow speakers to come up to the podium and uh it might be helpful to just line up on the side there by the windows.

And you may you may begin.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mr.

Chairman members of the planning commission.

Um I'm Luis Osorio.

I've been a resident of the city of Manore for some 36 years now.

Um nine of those years I serve in the Planning Commission.

Um I shared the dias with Commissioner Stoker all those nine years.

It's been a long time.

Um at the time that we were we served on the planning commission back then, the city had just adopted the 2005 cities general plan, which is the law of the land, as we all know.

Um the staple of that general plan was to uh direct housing development along the three corridors, Lighthouse Avenue, downtown, and North Fremont.

Um, so then the city the planning commission engaged in writing those plans.

I served on the subcommittee that provided the planning commission with the draft of the North Fremont Specific Plan.

Um that to say that I've read the comments that were submitted that triggered this hearing today, um, not to be disrespectful with anybody, but all of those issues, massing, shadowing, traffic, neighborhood compatibility, have been discussed at Nothing by the Planning Commission, the City Council, and members of the public ever since the North Premier Specific Plan was approved 12 years ago.

Now all those issues have been adjudicated by the city council.

There's no way around, there's no there's no turning back, and people choose to keep talking about it.

Um top of that, as we all know, the state of California has passed law after law in the last 10 15 years to provide facilitate production of affordable housing.

That is the overarching benefit of projects like this.

There's been housing units built under the new general plan, which is now 21 years old, along Lighthouse, some downtown.

Not one unit has been built in North Fremont area.

There's been two projects that have come around where the neighbors have rolled out the unwelcoming mat to the point that one of the projects that the people went back and forgot about it, which is diagonal across on the that old gas station from this site.

The other one was the hotel where the public forced an environmental review which achieved very little.

I don't think you have any options here tonight but to approve this project.

And I don't know if it's gonna go to the city council.

If it does, we're gonna have another round of futile discussion about all this.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

Um you talked about a couple of things that could make you think twice about going and approving this plan.

And I do feel as though there are um adverse safety and privacy impacts on on building this.

Um these four houses specifically that, well, one of them that we live in, we are adjacent.

We treasure our outdoor space immensely.

And my family, friends, grandchildren were outside all the time.

We have hot tubs.

My grandchildren play out there all the time.

I watch them several days a week.

Spend a lot of time out there and do treasure that.

We intentionally put a lot of windows in our home when we redesigned it because we just enjoy that sunlight.

All of these are definitely a safety concern for me with the density, particularly the height.

It's just too high.

Last time we were here, we were at all these meetings, and and Paul said, you know, we're going, we wanted two, and they settled for three.

We're asking it to come down just one floor.

Um we know human nature, and people are gonna look down.

If I was in a window, I would look down.

And I feel as though that is a safety concern, especially with everything that's going on in the world today.

Um predatory behavior, um, you know, everything that's going on, and it can I'm really concerned about my grandchildren.

Um that's one thing.

And the other thing I'm going to address is the parking.

I've been told recently by a staff member that um everything was in compliance with the state except for the parking and the number of spaces, and you've not met that.

You've not complied with that.

Um what about guests that come to see all these hundred and 150 people might be in there living in that building?

Um not only is there not enough parking for them, what about their guests and and parties?

Um also last time we discussed um having the opaque windows, stationary um shutters that couldn't be moved.

Um people, human nature is to look down, and um, we're just very concerned about that.

I think it does have a negative impact on the safety.

Um with Bruce Lane, we have Dollar Tree.

Um, there's trucks, huge semis parked there every night, and they wait in line to make these deliveries.

And a lot of them use part of the thank you very much.

Okay, proposed to park in, but they're not gonna be able to do that anymore.

It's gonna impede traffic.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, commissioners.

Thank you for listening.

My name is Mary Alice Cerrito Fettis, and uh the property on 2240, 2252 Fremont has been in my family since the early 1960s.

So where you are, a hop skip at a jump down the street from this development, which I'm very excited about.

I have served on the North Fremont Business District Board of Directors for many years.

I think I'm running into maybe 20 years.

I also served as the president of the North Fremont Business District.

We saw this project come before us.

Paul, I don't remember the first time, but it seems like maybe 20 years ago, something like that.

I know more than I won't know more than 15 years ago.

And we were always excited about it.

It met our needs as far as creating uh dynamics and energy that is sorely missing on Fremont Street.

Um, you know, Eddy's for those of you remember, that was Eddy's, and it was a vibrant place in the mid-1960s and 70s, but it it that's uh not that's what Fremont needs again, but it needs a some sort of uh excitement to go into the city area there.

Um there hasn't, as someone just said, there hasn't been very much development at all on Fremont.

We need it.

We need we need some action there.

Um the board of directors for Fremont is uh ecstatic about this plan and the um the design is appealing, um, and uh it's so thank you very much.

We're excited to have it, and uh hope uh that it meets all of your requirements.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi there, I'm Edward Cherazi, and um I also live adjacent to this property.

And let's talk a little bit about the excitement, the excitement of two intersections that are misaligned bare grounds road, and then we got um, which is already uh used as a cut through right there.

Then we have Bruce Lane and Airport Road.

I mean they're literally equidistance from each other.

Now the uh volume of these cars are going in and out of Bruce Lane, which by the way is a fire lane, it's not even a street, so I don't even understand the logistics of first of all.

I think it should be one way if this is the case, but I know that's not gonna happen.

But we have this increased traffic from an entire building going through a fire lane and into these two intersections that are not monitored, they're only used currently, as uh um was mentioned earlier as uh by Rich Rochello as a shortcut, and so um what's essentially happening here is this is just getting pushed through.

I mean, the joke of 500 square feet to then qualify as a mixed-use building.

I mean, what is 500 square feet?

I mean, is that like a table and a couple chairs?

I mean, and that qualifies as a business.

I mean, it just makes no sense.

I mean, but I can see where the politics of all this and it has to go through.

Where does 49 come from?

Where did that number come from?

49.

It just seems to me that that will generate more income, and then we have now a fourth floor to deal with.

Um, I don't know what other um places have four floors in Monterey.

Um, and uh this situation, but there's so many it's funny.

Um I never come to a planning commission, but now I understand I'm the key word is planning, and so what we're planning here is that we we're planning for disaster because of the lack of consideration for now we have 39 spots.

Uh, are people supposed to park their cars on Dundee, which is a street I live in, walk around the whole entire block with their groceries, and then travel upstairs.

I mean, it's just the logistics of it.

I mean, it's all fine and good, the excitement of it all.

Yeah, the ins excitement of it.

So it's just a frustrating thing.

And um, I just had to come and say my piece because I mean it's being railroaded by all these uh, you know, California state laws, but I think uh we're heading for a situation where it's not created just yet, but we are creating the situation that is just gonna be layers and layers of problem, which I don't even can't even imagine.

I can only suspect what the problems are gonna be, but there's gonna be even more and um without any considerations being made for the volume.

That's what I'll hear about the fourth floor and the volume.

Where did that come from and who's profiting from that, and who is gonna have to pay the price?

It's the people that live there.

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

My name's James Nichols.

I live at 213 Dundee.

Um the city population density right now is double the national average.

3,496 people per square mile, the average of 1,600 people per square mile.

Um the water rights for this building came from a story that I made up.

There was a bar fight at Eddy's one night, altercation, whatever you want to call it.

And so the fire department was called and along with the police, and it was estimated that 249 people were in the building.

So therefore, water management gives the water credits for 249 seats.

Let me think about this for a second.

Standing people is now allocated 249 seats.

Again, that doesn't math out, much less.

Uh you know, it's frustrating to hear.

Well, that doesn't pencil out.

There's a lot of things that don't pencil out.

I think it's fair to say a three-story building would pencil out.

Avoigation.

A condition for approval.

That means the right to fly at any elevation.

I'm not talking to you guys anymore.

No, you have to.

Oh no, I don't.

Peter.

Uh, sir.

You already director comments to the commission.

This public comment.

Well, then take a look at the screen.

The right to fly at any elevation has to be a condition of approval.

And the right to cause noise, vibration, and fumes and dust from the airplanes.

That has to be a condition for this approval.

You got one charging station for some 18 or 20 parking spots.

Like Ed says, it's got it's a rest of a plan for disaster.

The building height is too tall.

You got Dollar Tree agreement.

There's a big semi-truck that takes a portion of this property on a previous agreement that's going to get smashed out, and then Dollar Tree is going to have to find a new home.

That's a viable place.

It's a tax revenue that just generates a lot of money.

This right to fly at any elevation, a right to cause noise and vibration, fumes and dust.

Does that mean that the airplane just get to fly over his building, but not mine?

The planes take off on a regular basis.

They cut the shortcut.

They go anywhere they want.

Where is where is this how do you say compliance officer?

I went out into the street last night.

The truck is idling.

I call the compliance officer at nine o'clock, and you get a recording.

Thank you very much.

You're welcome.

Mr.

Brassfield.

Good afternoon, Planning Commissioners.

Mike Brassfield, Vice President of Kono Neighborhood Association, whom I am representing.

You heard our normal regular public comments.

So I'll just touch on a couple of things.

Number one, up until today, I was under the impression that the City of Monterey and the Planning Commission had some input into how many parking spaces there were.

Well, when you're going from 51 down to the number that they're proposing, where are those cars going to go?

We already have a parking problem on Dundee at any event.

The particular people you heard are the ones that live in that area with the most particular damage done to their privacy.

It's not an alley.

If you go there about 3 30 in the afternoon, it's just lined up sometimes like Fremont.

So there's two problems in that area that I hope that you guys can consider.

When many years ago, as the chair commented, Kim, Mr.

Davis, and myself set on this North Fremont Pacific Plan building project.

One of the things that we considered was what the buildings would look like.

And I think it was Mr.

Davis did an awful lot of sketching to us to go along with the discussion that we want to maintain a heritage to the Mexican or Spanish culture in the architecture.

So I would ask if that could be a little bit more influence than the condition of this project.

So in all that, thank you for your time.

Thank you, Mike.

Hello again, planning commission.

Once again, speaking for these items, they need to be um brought to the.

I'd like to see more people participate because um like we should have call-ins from the community and um I encourage more people to participate because a lot of things are getting um r ran through and um with limited um adjustments, just like you being behind them in your chairs there, you can't really even um operate freely because your recommendations from staff limit you so much.

You you you ask a question about parking and and you you hit a roadblock and that's kind of unfair that you being the planning commission um should have more authority and you should be able to um provide um better structured um development, even getting back to the trees on this property.

Um you once again removing live oak trees and live oak trees um they take hundreds of years to develop and mature and you keep removing trees on all these properties.

I really think the commission should look at limiting the amount of feet these special trees, live oaks that the name live oak that's special, that's that's unique.

I mean, like the gentleman for me talked about the community being um from a Spanish descent.

Some of these live oak trees, like even some of them have Spanish names that um if you if you care enough about your environment, you should know how important these trees are to the community.

Recognize worldwide.

I think there's a tree right here on the side, right there.

That's one of our beautiful trees.

And they take hundreds of years to develop.

And when the city comes with these proposals and the planning department says remove it, access access.

It's unacceptable for um no limitations on these um tree removals.

Uh just like when they did the parking lot by the harbor.

A large area of trees.

There's probably thirty million dollars worth of trees that got removed off of one opinion that created when they recognize that two years later we made a mistake.

Please stop making mistakes on all these tree, especially with trees that are named live, coastal oak, Monterey Pines.

These are special trees that some of them only happen in this environment here, and we remove them and remove them, you're destroying our community.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Not seeing anybody else in chambers.

Are there any hands waved, Erica?

There are two hands raised.

We can start with Richard.

You can go ahead and unmute.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon again, Richard Rosello.

Uh I just want to bring up some adverse impacts that were not included in the staff report or by the applicant.

And uh I'm not trying to blockade anything.

I'm trying to get a mitigation for an adverse impact.

And the facts that weren't brought up.

One of them was that Bruce Lane is no parking.

North Fremont has limited parking.

Uh Bruce Lane is used as a bypass on peak hour traffic.

It's heavy, it's fast traffic, trying to get around ahead of gridlock.

That wasn't considered.

Uh the sight lines on getting out of that garage, the original plan had a driveway in the front and in the back.

But now we're just on Bruce Lane.

The commercial business needs parking to survive.

A fact not brought up is the city parking is looking at making Fairgrounds Road paid parking.

Uh that eliminates that and puts it on to Dundee and Littleness.

Um there are one to three bedrooms, multiple cars plus guests.

Uh where are they gonna park?

That's not even mentioned.

We're an isolated community, uh, and I gotta say the transparency is awful in the city.

We find out things on Friday at five o'clock for a Tuesday meeting.

I want to address the visual impacts.

You heard the statement that people have hot tubs in their backyard.

Is there a sight line problem?

Is there a privacy problem?

Because there's no story polls, we could use the crane with a camera to see if actually those windows looked into people's other windows or backyards.

Uh you could use a drone.

Uh there are many ways.

None of this is considered, but if you look in this air rail photograph, you will see those hot tubs.

Sometimes sight lines aren't mentioned and they should be and that's an adverse impact.

So summarize the uh adverse impacts Bruce Lane is a bypass.

It's a service road and there's no parking it's a traffic safety issue.

There's a problem with visual impacts to uh adjacent neighbors we don't know because we've never seen uh any of those uh reports so the city report doesn't address these impacts and it should so all we're asking is a mitigation show that we're trying to do the best we can thank you for your time any other hands waved there's one more hand raised I can go ahead and allow telephone caller ending in 500 to speak.

Good afternoon planning commissioners and city staff I'm Wendy Brickman president of the board of directors of the North Fremont Business District of Monterey and speaking for myself and on their behalf we strongly support the proposed project at 2200 2210 North Fremont I appreciate what Richard and the others have said and I have some ideas but Monterey urgently needs more housing and this project will help provide it.

We especially appreciate that 20% of the units will be set aside for low and moderate income households the project follows the height and density rules that were already approved for this site and we believe it has been thoughtfully designed by Paul Davis and others to fit into the area while helping meet important community needs.

We also believe this development after decades of no development in North Fremont district and development in many other districts it will help improve and revitalize North Fremont by encouraging investment in nearby vacant and underused unsightly properties.

New residents will help support local businesses restaurants and services bring bringing more activity and energy to the district as far as parking I'm hoping that some of the 17 motels could maybe rent one of their parking places you know to make up the missing ones.

So we'll have to see if that happens and also CVS I don't know what the outcome is when Paul Davis is appropriate you know uh pre uh approach them but overall we believe this project will strengthen North Fremont and benefit residents businesses and property owners alike thank you so much for your approval by thank you very much any other hands waved there are no hands raised we're going to close the uh public hearing and bring this back to the commission for comments Sandy I want to uh thank Louise and Mary Alice Rito Fettis they have made points that I would make um there have been at least four projects I think I remember there have been at least four that came to the planning or the architectural review and you know never went anywhere because the community didn't think the design fit or it didn't fit the lot size uh the one at the bowling alley the one across the street from the proposed project the hotel that was next to the apartment building the two ladies didn't that was too high um not one new project has been approved and billed on North Fremont since the specific specific plan was approved and this is a great project and it's the first building I think that it will spawn other developments has to be David.

Um just a clearly I indicated earlier I'm a little frustrated that we don't actually get to decide anything um this is the collision of the state in the city, the state thinking they've got greater wisdom than the cities do.

I understand what they're trying to do.

Probably uh I I sat on one or two North Fremont specific plans over my previous years on Planning commission uh four stories is allowed um and as you said, there were even projects uh denied that you didn't see that I saw earlier.

This has been going on forever.

This site's been waiting to be developed.

Probably the biggest uh problem I see with it that I would ask for changes, but I can't is the amount of parking.

Um I think that that is going to be an issue, but I've been told I must uh allow that.

I must allow the color, I must allow everything.

It's a very strange world we're living in.

But I'm I'm giving you a 95 on the project, which is pretty good.

Thank you.

Um, yeah, I think um hearing David and Sandra talk about the numerous projects that have come through on North Fremont that have been turned down, and I think that's the case in point why the state has taken away our ability to adjudicate these projects because if it were entirely up to us, if it were entirely up to the planning department, none of them would get built, and so the state has come in and said we have to do these things, and we're gonna see some buildings that we don't like, we're gonna see some parking scenarios that we don't like, but in the end we're gonna see some housing built that we desperately need.

Um the parking issue, I as an architect detest parking regulations.

Um the amount of money that we spend on housing cars, um, is absurd.

And I look at a aerial view of the surrounding neighborhood, and I see uh 90% empty CVS plot, and behind that I see probably an acre of asphalt at the fairgrounds that's empty, and I think we're gonna have to get creative about these parking situations, and I think there's gonna have to be agreements with off-site situations, and I would encourage people on North Fremont.

We have all these parking lots on North Fremont, and it's ripe for out of the box thinking in terms of agreements with neighboring properties that can that have empty parking lots that are sitting there empty all night.

So I think that's something applicants should consider in the future, but um we can't force that on you.

But I think it would really ameliorate some of the contentiousness of these projects if people were proactive about seeking out those agreements.

Um I think in the end it's a good project, it's much needed housing, and so I support it.

Terry.

Um, yeah, I agree with what's been said so far.

It's um it's frustrating on our part to have a project of this size come before us without uh where we're basically our hands are tied behind our back.

And um, but here we are, and uh as was said before, this is a shade of things to come.

If you go up to Santa Cruz and San Jose and Oakland, um, all the uh cities uh our size and bigger, you see these kind of projects um being built all over the place, and the state has very um very optimistic notions about parking, and they're they have sort of surrendered to the idea that everybody's gonna ride their bikes, and so we uh don't the parking isn't as important uh in all these new state laws, and so we that is the state law does um really uh uh you know mandate that we approve these projects, and um so I think there are you know, if you go into dense urban areas, which this is not, but still the idea is a lot of people do accept the idea that they have to spend a certain amount of time hunting for parking spaces when they come home from work, and that's kind of that's kind of what the state is saddling all these communities with is this kind of parking reality.

And um, so I I do support the project though, it's sorely needed, and here we are.

Yeah, I'd like to follow up on what Justin was saying.

I think the parking in that area of town has always been a problem, particularly when you have events at the fairgrounds.

I think that kind of overwhelms um some of the neighborhood ideas behind you know what they're getting into with an issue like this.

And you know, there's not much we can do about it.

I'd love to see parking at the fairgrounds expanded.

Um, and we've talked about that for a long time and nothing's happened.

Um, and then the CVS has parking that's you know unutilized all the time.

I've driven through that parking lot with nobody there.

Um so um I think we're tied in quite a few ways, but in a larger sense, there's parking issues that I think we should look at that are beyond this particular project, um, and hopefully that can mitigate some of the um concern that the community has with transient parking that you know is gonna impact their um their neighborhoods.

One possibility is that there are parking um um programs in Monterey where you can um petition the city to limit parking on particular streets.

We have it in our neighborhoods on the hill, and you might want to look at that for neighborhoods there where the streets have two-hour parking limits and you have a residential sticker for people that are on your your street.

So that would be a recommendation to pursue with the city to at least mitigate maybe so that the parking um that would impact you directly if it's not already been done, but otherwise I think it's you know important to get the housing done.

It looks like a good first opportunity to see something turn into a real result, and I'm supportive of it.

Thank you, Bob.

I'm gonna echo the comments that others have made without repeating, but I do want to actually talk about something that hasn't been discussed, um, and that is um I didn't see anything in the packet or in the application materials that there was a construction management plan.

You know, we talked briefly about a parking management plan, but I didn't see a construction man, and so I'm concerned about the logistics, the safety aspects, the staging, delivery of materials, um, the dust and noise impacts, um, the notification for neighbors as to when major activities.

These are all kind of typical things that would happen at in a CMP for a project of this magnitude, and it's very common to apply a condition to require something like this.

And I would like to make a motion to approve the project with a construction management plan uh to be submitted to building and planning staff for approval as an added condition, yes.

That seems appropriate.

Well, second that Erica, we have a uh motion by the chair to approve the project uh as conditioned with the additional condition of a CMP, and a second by Commissioner Freeman.

Can we get a roll call?

Sure, Chair Selva.

Yes, Vice Chair Latasa, yes, Commissioner Blue, yes, Commissioner Freeman, yes, Commissioner Polly?

Yes, and Commissioner Stoker.

Yes.

That motion carries with a vote of six.

The decision is appealable um in ten days to the city council.

We have applications online or in our planning office.

Thank you, Erica.

Congratulations.

All right, we'll turn our attention now to Commissioner Comments.

anybody have anything fun to say?

You want to be the fun person?

Okay, you're you're well, I'm just wondering what's going on downtown with my big I knew it.

Levi, anything new?

I'm still not code enforcement.

You know, the thing is, Dave, is once that all gets settled and resolved, you're not going to have anything to talk about anymore.

Oh, I'll have plenty.

You're not allowed to vote on these projects.

No.

Uh the city council, I take it will have the same rules we had on us about this previous project, isn't that true, or do they get something different?

Same rules.

Thank you.

I will remind you again, I am gone at the next hearing and I will miss you all.

You'll be missed as well.

You won't.

Levi, do you have any informational reports?

Uh just what's included in the comments.

I just passed right over.

I didn't think you had anything.

Um, you know, the work program that's being delayed to the uh first meeting in June because people are going to be on vacation end of May.

And I um wanted to let my fellow commissioners know that I was so touched by your comment, Justin, about having to use the specific plan downtown as a the uh planning plan that the landscape plan that's offered by that being so woefully inadequate.

And so I wrote a note to Kim and to Levi and asked to agendize an item.

I would like to propose by everybody.

Yes.

Paul, take it outside.

Mike and Paul.

Goodbye.

Sorry.

Anyway, I would like to propose uh disengaging the landscape plans from the three specific plans and creating a citywide planning plan, just as the one that is exists in City of Carmel by the sea and city of Pacific Grove.

They have a citywide plant list that includes trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants, and is not tied to any one district or another.

I have not pulled seaside.

I, as that's the other city that borders Monterey, but it doesn't seem like it would be too hard to just pull that off the specific plans and then give you know some of these new building opportunities a chance to utilize new ideas in drought tolerant drought resistant planning.

Um I also think it could easily be uh a little feather in the city's cap if it were a digital planning plan instead of one of these tired paper handouts that you get from Pacific Grove or Carmel.

But you we could be a winner chicken dinner.

I appreciate you following up on that.

And so there you go.

I'm hoping that we could get that on the agenda as a proposed project.

We definitely will.

If that would that be simpler adopting a citywide planting plan as opposed to having to go back and revise a previously approved planting plan.

Is that a simpler process?

So it's a similar process.

I mean, at the end of it, it's something worth having that conversation about if that's something that the commission wants to uh you know entertain when we're discussing the larger work program.

But yes, I mean it'd be uh it'd be probably incorporated into the specific plans that through an amendment, but by reference to you know a citywide planting plan.

Does does the uh work program currently involve any amendments to the specific plans as part of its scope?

So right one of the housing element programs uh that we're working on is to amend the definitions of supportive transitional and residential care facilities.

So those are specific plan amendments we have to prepare that we're currently drafting.

So I just want to be it may be possible to bundle those together with the landscape change, but it's the still it's a pretty tedious process to amend our specific plans.

So we have to do Native American consultation, so it's not there's time periods for any amendment to a general plan or specific plan now under state law requires specific note.

Is it 60 days or 90 days?

I believe it's 90.

Okay, nine.

So yes, it's possible we could bundle it with the other stuff, but I just I just need to set expectations.

Okay.

Well, but by bundling it with the new definitions, it would probably streamline the staff resources.

We could do it once.

That's our are there any are there any statutory deadlines to um uh re-related to the definition?

Um there are so many statutory deadlines.

I'm just gonna leave it at that.

Is there is there any aspect of that?

There are people in the community that really want to see this happen.

Is there any aspect of that process that can be delegated outside of staff's time?

I mean, I think what you know we've had uh folks reach out to uh you know enlist themselves to help produce the list.

It's it's it doesn't change the time frame in which I mean that would obviously expedite the preparation of a new list or materials that could be considered by the community as well as the commission.

Doesn't necessarily streamline the procedural time frames attached to it, but um, but there is that.

Um, I want to follow up and how can we actually formal formally agendize this?

So it's already going to be discussed whenever we bring it forward with a greater work program at the first meeting in June.

So we would like for the commission to consider that item amongst other items that have been brought to our attention along with other items that the planning division's already working on and and create a you know a more realistic outlook at what can be achieved in the next calendar year, all right.

But it will be on that as part of that discussion, okay.

Good idea, Sandy.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um, gone next time.

I won't be here next time.

But you're here in June, correct?

Yeah, okay.

Yeah.

Comments.

Informational reports.

Sure.

Uh, just uh quick follow-up to the May 5th City Council meeting.

If you recall, this commission did consider the uh draft fiscal year annual action plan for the community development block grant program funds.

Uh the city council did consider that and adopted a resolution to uh approve that plan.

So that's a follow-up to that.

And then we do have uh a number of items listed for our tentative uh agenda for May 26.

I know we have some folks that are planning to be absent, so we did want to gauge a quorum uh of those here.

Um Commissioner Freeman, you just let us know you won't be here for that meeting.

Commissioner Stoker, you're out as well if I recall.

The remaining four of you.

I'm here.

I'll be here.

But I'm also hoping to agendize one of my projects for that meeting.

You can attend the meeting.

You uh we would um as long as we have a quorum to start the meeting, we can use a simple majority of those present to still act on the item if you had to recuse for that item.

Okay, or Eric might be here too.

Correct, yeah.

So there is that chance.

Okay.

Great.

And then so yes, as I noted uh noted, there's um quite a few items on there.

We have six items currently scheduled for that meeting.

Um, so we will try to take advantage of that consent agenda um for minor items that are meet all city objectives and standards.

And then the last follow-up is that I was just uh we um just to update for the commission if you recall at the last meeting, the consideration of the sign permit at Bible or Ragsdale was appealed, so that will be going forward to the city council.

So we'll update you on the results of that.

You mean the roof?

I do.

It's crazy.

They appealed that.

All right.

Just want to be sure I got the right one.

In general, what'd you know what happened?

With regards to signs, why wasn't the sign application tonight put on consent?

It just seems like when we've got sort of a full house and just projects, it's like in my mind, every sign should go on consent agenda.

There was identified inconsistencies, so that requires the planning commission to approve that.

So staff deemed it inappropriate for us to place that on consent when there's inconsistencies that require the commission's approval.

Is it inappropriate or is it not allowed?

Inappropriate.

So we're trying to reduce the proliferation of sign applications.

We are okay.

Yeah.

Well, that's what I'm saying.

Like, does anyone would anyone have objected?

No, to that sign being on consent agenda.

I think that that's all we're saying.

We buy like, even though you view it as inappropriate like we don't do it as inappropriate.

Yeah it's it's really a just a matter of efficiency for all of us to to sit through it and realize there's nothing controversial about this.

Well can I back when I was young on our planning commission.

We used to at that part of the hearing actually move things on to consent and it doesn't happen anymore and there's no the time why we can't do that.

Why can't we do that?

It's already it's already on the agenda as but we did get clarification you say to the public so we we talk we spoke to our city attorney um sort of at our regular update so all use permits variances obviously specific plans and general plan amendments will be public hearings um the public appearance items as far as architectural review we probably have more uh flexibility um and I guess Levi and I can talk and maybe push that envelope a little bit more on what goes on the consent calendar um and I guess the public and you could always pull it if you're not comfortable.

It can always be pulled and and I I totally agree that if there's any kind of a application for a sign or maybe even a tree removal those are the low hanging fruit items that you know the ARC used to deal with that you know and I remembered we had this discussion when the ARC was abandoned and there was discussion about having more of that on the consent.

They weren't abandoned they were absorbed promoted they were promoted to the planning commission but you know it I think you remember that discussion that you know we were going to see more of these items on consent I do.

I only remember we were gonna see more of these items without the consent yeah if our deputy city attorney has any or assistant city attorney has any clarification please go ahead.

No I I agree with what you said Kim yeah yeah um I this is just commissioner comments though I will say so we shouldn't get too into the weeds of non-agendized items.

Well then commissioner chatting having a joke conversation all right everybody I think that about does it thank you very much for your time meeting adjourned good question you said