Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

order. This is the May 12th, 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 Latasa here. Commissioner Bluth here. Commissioner Freeman here. Commissioner Palmer appears to be absent. Commissioner Paulie 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 Kratley. Catly. Yes. Um our planning manager Levi Hill. Our principal planner Fernando River. 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/aggendas. Remote commenters will be muted until it's their turn to speak, and a timer will be shown on the screen. If you're connected on Zoom, the timer is accurate with no delay. In the chamber, we recommend keeping phones and devices muted to prevent audio interference with the meeting. Thank you for participating in your city government.

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 um 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? Roll over. I'm going to start roll over. Start it from the top. Um, okay. Roll call again. Chair Silva here. Vice Chair Latasa here. Commissioner Blues here. Commissioner Freeman, Commissioner Paulie 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 Katley, our senior associate planner Chris Schmidt, principal planner Fernando River, principal planner Christy Sabdo, and myself, recording secretary Eric Barrera. Uh 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/aggendas. 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.

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 Latasa. Yes. Commissioner Bluth. Yes. Commissioner Freeman. Yes. Commissioner Paulie.

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 Amanderas. 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 the law for a street vending and on the street vending law I I received a ticket and the ticket stated that I was 15 ft within a statue and um, and they used Miss Cole as a witness which is unfair because in the appeals hearing I did 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 picture and just her hearsay dialogue without even a true measurement of the space in which this ticket was received. Um, once again, my tables were set up and if you did a proper measurement from my table to the statue, it was over 15 ft. And it's unfair that just based off of a picture and not and from a a picture from a Google a Google um satellite and using that as along with a statement from Miss Cole who wrote the law had nothing to do with the ticket itself. As far as the

ticket, the ticket was mis misrepresented in the fact that the law of the statement of the law, the 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 get receive so many complaints about you?" And my statement back was because I follow the laws 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 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. Anybody online? Erica, there's one hand raised. I can go ahead and allow Richard to speak.

Good afternoon. Uh, good afternoon, planning commissioners. Richard Rousel, president of the Casanova Oakno 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 Fremont at peak hour. We have gridlock. And the reason we have gridlock from Caverie to Burger King is that we have three traffic systems, uh, Monterey, Calrans, 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 CALR to do that. Our problem is seaside. What happens is you're all witnesses to this in peak hour at Caverie. It is a parking lot all the way to airport road all the way to Ramona all the way to Kasanova all the way to Canyon del Rey. Fremont is a major evacuation route. Our problem is at peak hour cars are turning at Caverie coming down Fairgrounds Road and bypassing all the lights and all the stop cars going down Bruce Lane and cutting in at Grandma's Kitchen or they're going around Uklid down Kasanova through Cypress Center through Safeway. I I I'm at a loss after 40 years. We need to put this on an agenda. Bring seaside in 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 parked cars on Fremont. And if you look at it, sometimes it takes two or three lights to go from Casa 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 it involves an evacuation route. So all I ask is someone to put this on an agenda and bring the city seaside in and resolve the issue. I thank you for your time. Good afternoon. Thank you. Anybody else? Erica.

Um, there are no other hands raised. All right. 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. Approve sign permit application SI240270 for a new vehicle oriented freestanding sign. applicant uh Michelle Richmond with Perry Builders uh and owner TJS CPLC Enterprises Plan Community Zone District North Fremont Spacific Plan Mixed Use Neighborhood General Plan Land Use Designation Exempt from SQUA. And can we get a staff report please Christie? Hi.

Great.

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. Uh 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 planned community North Fremont specific plan. The general plan line use designation is mixeduse neighborhood. Uh there is existing signage on site. uh the existing pole sign here with the um gas um pricing shown that's going to be removed. Um and then they calculated all their existing signage for the total maximum um signage allowed. Uh so this just is showing that they did that. The proposed sign here would replace the um pole standing sign. So this would be a new freestanding sign. It's the only sign that they're proposing here. Um they have a full width base. It's just over 24 square ft. Uh the sign is on each side. So um total it would be 49 square ft. Um and then on the right you see the nighttime nighttime illumination. So this uh table is just summarizing the total proposed signage for the site 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 pre prolifer proliferation of signs. The sign serves to identify the gas station and convenience store business and would not include extraneous signs which would detract from and obscure the scenic qualities of the city of Monteray and its individual buildings and

neighborhoods. Um the proposal is 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 ft and uh they are proposing 131 um.95 square feet which includes the existing and the proposed signage. Uh the canopy structure does not um is not included in the overall sign calculation. Um, also there's in the sign guidelines there's just a uh the um the property is supposed to be a minimum have a minimum front set back building set back of 20 ft. Um, 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 um 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 eliminating 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 face change must exclude internal illumination. This is not a sign change. This is a new sign, but just wanted to point that out. Uh most of the light emitted will be contained um in the opaque sign only

allowing light to shine um onto the 7-Eleven um 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 uplighting so it maintains the dark skies. Uh 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-Eleven logo and the um gas types. Um again, there's the California state law that um mandates that gas station price signs be clearly visible and displaying the um information for customers. Therefore, uh staff is recommending approval of the sign permit application for the new vehicle oriented freestanding sign. I'm not sure if the applicant's going to be online. Um they did indicate it that they might be. Um so, but staff is available for any questions you might have.

Thank you, Christie. Any questions, Bob? Um just curious as it go from a full sign to a freestanding sign, were there any safety issues with blocking a view near the driveway? 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 if it was consistent it would be just approved by staff. Right. Okay. Thanks.

Any other questions? Are the two inconsist in inconsistencies the internal illumination and the size those internal illumination um and the size and then just the one minor inconsistency with the North Fremont specific plan. All right. Um is there anybody uh oh uh the applicant uh you mentioned uh 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, so 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. Once again, um, if you're joining by telephone, dial star 9 to raise your hand and star six to unmute. And there are still no hands raised. All right. 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 Paulie. Can we get a roll call, please, Erica? Sure. Chair Silva, yes.

Vice Chair Latasa, yes. Commissioner Bluth, yes. Commissioner Freeman, yes. Commissioner Paulie, 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 260040 use permit application UP 260076 variance application V2600077 and tree removal permit application art 260075 for athletic field improvements at an existing school owner applicant Joe Jodie Wisley for Santa Catalina school R1 12 residential single family zone district public institutional general plan designation uh squa adopted uh mitigated negative deck 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 uh 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 um for the athletic field improvements at Santa Catalina School. Uh just 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/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 real grass, real turf and it would be changed to a synthetic turf, a a new track um 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 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 um that ranges anywhere from I believe 3 to 10 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. Um I did want to show the the fencing and netting. So as part of the original environmental documents that were prepared for the master plan, uh 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. Um, so what we see here is a couple of different fencing improvements that uh that I'll show on later slides with photo simulations. Uh but basically we have a range of of 20 feet kind of behind the goals of where the the soccer goals would be on the west side and then a 30 foot tension netting behind the back stop 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 back stop is and netting is to protect the existing uh buildings improvements and other people in the vicinity. Um there are also 10-ft uh chain link fencing proposed at the perimeter of the field and uh replacement of existing fencing. This is that ornamental 8ft 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 this slide to the record showing uh where these various varying heights of fencing and netting are going to go. So, uh, in red here, kind of at the the corners, we have the the 10-ft fencing, the the 20 foot fencing and combined netting here, and then the 30 foot 30 foot netting, uh, at the back stop. Uh, and I also show the 8-ft fencing that's more of like a security fencing near the the project entrance, uh, the site entrance at the driveway. Uh, and I'll also call out there's there's fencing associated with a with a fence dugout or excuse me, bullpen um at the rear of the field here. U 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 1. 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 uh 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 in 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 of um balls or athletic equipment. And then uh lastly that the the six development related tree uh development related tree removals are required uh for this improvement and the applicant is required to provide a 2:1 replacement based on the environmental document that was prep prepared for the master plan. So with that staff recommends approval with the project. I'm available for questions. The uh project team is here as well if you have any questions for them. Thank you.

Thank you Chris. Any questions? I just going to make a quick statement on this project. Uh my daughter attends Santa Catalina and uh Barbara Otos, the head of school, did call me with a general question about the planning commission process. I answered that question, but I don't 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?

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 Otos, 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 playing 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 regulationsiz 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 offsite. This project does not increase water use. In fact, it reduces it. This project does not impede visual experience for the public or c or campus neighbors. The highest post 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 again. Couple of questions or maybe something could be answered. Um, you had mentioned it's six trees, but then um you slipped in there was an additional five. So I believe it's five live oak trees and the condition that it your arborist 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 of the trees that are being removed as in poor or fair condition I feel that's a little unfair to um minimize size. Um, once again, you're you're removing about 11 trees that are 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 the 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 noticed 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 in 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 reberry. And uh it's unfair for um the environment that is being

recreated. And I 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 308 um the tree line goes from the top of the mountain all the way and it ends right at the base of the freeway and which technically the um side of the site that's being removed is actually the bottom of the of the um waterway, the aquifer, um where those trees are actually um reconditioning the groundwater and when it's going to 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 going to go directly back into the aquifer or is it going to be um the staging because I also know that you're going to 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 9 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 Satic Catalina School. And um I can attest to the fact that Sat Catalina School is a jewel in Monteray's crown of many jewels. It's simp 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 Mterrey and the great diversity that we have and the opportunities that keep Mterrey 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. And 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 going to close the public uh hearing and bring this back to the commission. Any comments, Mr.

I'll start. Um, this is not just going to be a benefit for SATA Catalina School. It's going to be a benefit for all the schools in our neighborhood are going to 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 Calina. 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 Satalina. U yeah the um I've seen applications come from Santa Calita before. They did a science building I know 10 years ago or something

13 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 has has been um really well done and and this is another one and I'm in support of it. Sandy,

well I echo um Terry, we were sitting on the ARC 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. Testing.

I can attest firsthand how sorely needed this field is. So, um it's a 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 a a puzzle that's been in the works for a long time. So, it's a great project and a nice presentation by BFS and Witson, too. Well, I concur. This is a a great accomplishment for the school and it's going to 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. I'll second that. I think he beat you to it. We're third. We're third. All right. 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 Bluth? Yes. Commissioner Freeman? Yes. Commissioner Paulie? 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 so they're cute. You can all leave. You can all leave. You mean the recess bill? Yes, I was 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. Approve architectural review permit application ARP250101 and tree removal permit application ART25 0180 for a new four-story mixeduse 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 land use designation exempt from squa uh Fernanda would you like to give us the staff report please? Yes. Thank you, chair. My name is Fernando Roi, principal planner for the city of Monterey. Staff's recommendation for this project is that the planning commission adopt a 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 neighborhood. The proposed project is a four-story mixeduse building and associated tree removals. There would be a groundf flooror 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 four, 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. A previous iteration of this project was approved by the planning commission in 2019. This version consisted of a three-story mixeduse building with 6,000 square ft of commercial space on the ground floor and 40 40 residential apartment units on the upper two floors. However, due to the rising costs of construction, this version was ultimately abandoned. The new proposal includes a smaller building from 86,768 square ft to 71,726 square ft. A smaller commercial space from 6,000 square ft to 739 square ft. A

smaller parking lot from 73 spaces to 39 spence 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 as we transition from North Fremont Street to Bruce Lane. Sorry. Um, the parking lot would create an open space buffer between the majority of the proposed apartments and existing neighbors. This is the view from Bruce Lane. You can see that the ground floor includes the parking lot. On the at the bottom is the view from Airport Road. You can see that on the left side is um the building that would face North Fremont 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. You can see the parking lot to the right. 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. As I mentioned earlier, this project is subject to the planned community North Fremont zoning district. 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 increase the maximum allowable density from 30 to 60 dwelling units per acre and increased the height limit from 35 to 45 ft. 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 per for protections under the Housing Accountability Act as it is a mixeduse development in which at

least twothirds 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. So following are the four architectural review findings and later is the true removal finding. 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 sighting of the commercial anchor space at the corner is oriented for the pedestrian. Uh the maximum building height 45 ft is met and that the tallest building corner measured from lowest grade to top of

roof minus the 3t and a half parapet would be 43 feet 2 in which is below the maximum 45 ft height. The building massing is pushed away from Bruce Lane, giving space to the residential neighborhood to the south. The fourth floor is step 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 ft away and the rest of the residential units would be approximately 116 ft 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 sighting in a spruce wood wood like wood look like color. These are these present a subtle mix of sighting 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 introduce 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 the 12t wide sidewalk on North Fremont. It also introduces street trees where there are none. The project also is a balance between open space for visitors and residents by uh having that commercial space commercial seating area at the front but creating open space in the back in form in the form of a parking lot for the residents. The parking lot provides a pedestrian-friendly edge to Bruce Lane with a combination of metal picket fence, concrete masonry unit wall, and landscaping to provide more screening. The fourth finding is that the proposed exterior finish, colors, materials, landscaping, lighting, fencing, and all

other exterior features are appropriate for the site, the immediate area, and the city. The proposal in introduces changes in color, texture, and materials that help define the human scale at all levels of the building. 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 mixeduse development and the existing residential neighborhood. The proposed parking lot lighting as documented in the phototric 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 simal 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 coastlive oak, one mela loca, and two palms because they would prevent reasonable development of the permitted mixeduse 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 packet. The applicant and architect are here and I'm available for questions. Thank you, Fernanda. Questions? Oh, yes. Bob, go first.

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 um only look at objective standards. So, we can pick color. Color is is not an objective standard. Okay. No.

But what are we doing here? So as Fernanda laid out uh 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 in 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 in feasible 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, Justin. 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 sitewall that appears to go off the property. Is that an easement situation or It does go into the public right ofway and a condition of approval was added to require that easement be recorded and as well as maintenance agreements.

I have a few questions. Fernandanda, when I looked at the uh cover sheet, the project information indicated 739 square ft of commercial, but the plan itself showed the commercial space at 500 ft² 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. Um, second question, is there a uh 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 uh 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 the applicant is utilizing a density bonus concession for parking. So no, when 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 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 is 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 the applicant can clarify that. But I'm bringing this up because um I know that the North Fremont 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 any limitations on widing 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.

Um, 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, segueing 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. Right. Okay. Thank you, Pernanda. I do have a question. Um, Vanetta, 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 it to the planning commission to to let the project be 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 planning commissioners. Also, the city staff, we we spent maybe a whole year really creating the massing that you see today to to to fit in the the regulated uh setbacks as we go back into the uh site from Bruce Lane. um from from just the how we were going to uh design the whole uh Fremont Street with those with those trees and and what to do with with uh landscaping u decks. No, no, patios that are enclosed. But then uh we would have to have openings for uh uh egress windows on those the first floor. Um so that was uh but that it it it took a while but I we we we thought we come up we came up with a with a good solution. Um, we tried to do more in terms of um just just the the whole Bruce Lane street front of buildings, land landscaping, land landscaping, the the the sliding gate fence all the way to the uh that souththeast corner. So we tried to uh design this all the way around the

the the three the three the the the three street front edges. Um otherwise really I don't have any much more to say. We we had a do we we um staff presented it clear clearly and sistically and the process that we used to do to to um to get this to a a a place where it could be uh dis 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 going to 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 are someations about that. Yeah. Yeah. But yeah, but it it'll be only be for residents only. Paul, sorry. I can add um there's a condition about the roof deck that its hours of operation are

it 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 and I'm asking that because um it's at an elevation where it's going to be looking down potentially on neighboring yards and I think that would be a legitimate privacy concern. Yep. We we'll we'll come up with the solution on that one.

Thank you. I I have a question. So I understand the the style of uh of building often has parapits for drainage reasons and sort of the aesthetic um of it. But is is this parapit for is there like the roof equipment that is being hidden or what is the why is the parapit there? Yeah. Well nowadays it's there will be it'll be covered with uh PV panels.

Oh okay. Okay. So, and 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-in high parapit um then we would have to have other types of fall pro uh fall protection or for fire or or just maintenance. So the 42 inch uh parapit does a uh it also helps screens the um the the equipment of the uh and the panels of the of the uh of the array. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Paul. All right, we're going to um take a a quick uh poll and see how many people in chambers wishes to speak. If you can raise your hand. Okay, we're going to um go ahead and 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. Chair, members of the planning commission. Um I'm Luis Osorio. I've been a resident of the city of Monteray for some 36 years now. Um, nine of those years I served in the planning commission. Um, I shared the DAS with Commissioner Stoker. All those nine years. It's been a long time. Um, at the time that we were we serve on the planning commission. Back then, the city had just adopted the 2005 city's 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 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 Freemon specific plan. Um, all that to say that I've read the do 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 nauseium by the planning commission, the city council, and members of the public ever since the North Poon 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 on

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 Fund 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 the the people went back and forgot about it which is diagonal ac 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 going to go to the city council. If it does, we're going to have another round of futile discussion about all the

Thank you very much. Thank you. Next speaker. Good afternoon.

My name is Jennifer Nichols and we reside adjacent to the proposed property. 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. We're outside all the time. Um, we have hot tubs. My grandchildren play out there all the time. I watch them several days a week. Um, spend a lot of time out there and do treasure that. Um, we also have our bedrooms are in the back or we have a sun room in the back and a bathroom in the back. They all contain several windows. We we intentionally put a lot of windows in our home um when we redesigned it because we just enjoy that sunlight. Um all of these are definitely a safety concern for me with the density, particularly the height. Um I think we all want something other than a dilapidated lot back there that we've been battling for years. It's just too high. Um, last time we were here, we were at all these meetings and and Paul said, you know, we're go 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 going to look down. If I was in in a window, I would I'd 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 I cons

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 theseund 150 people might be in there living in that building? Um, not only is there not enough parking for them, what about their guest 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 we're just very concerned about that. I think it does have a negative impact on impact on the safety. Um, also with Bruce Lane, we have Dollar Tree. Um, there's trucks, huge semiis 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 going to be able to do that anymore. It's going to impede traffic. Thank you. Good afternoon, commissioners. Thank you for listening. My name is Mary Alice Certo Fetis and uh the property on 22402252 Fremont has been in my family since the early 1960s. So, we are a hop, skip, and 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 know more than 15 years ago. And we were been always excited about it. It it meant 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 Eddie's and it was a vibrant place in the mid 1960s and 70s but it it that's what now that's what Vermont needs again but it needs 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 so thank you very much. We're 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 Sharazzi 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. Fairgrounds Road and then we got um which is already used as a cutthrough right there. Then we have Bruce Lane and Airport Road. I mean, they're literally equidistant 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 going to 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 um was mentioned earlier as a by Richello 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 mixeduse 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 could 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 in uh this situation, but there's so many. It's funny. Um, I never come to a planning commission, but now I 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. 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 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 going to be layers and layers of problem which I don't even can't even imagine. I can only suspect what the problems are going to be, but there's going to 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 going to have to pay the price? It's the people that live there. Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is 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 is 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 Eddie'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, and 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. Navigation, 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. No, I don't. Peter, uh, sir, you are to direct your comments to the commission. 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 it's a rest 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 airplanes 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's Where's 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 9:00 and you get a recording.

Thank you very much.

You're welcome, Mr. Brassfield. Good afternoon, planning commissioners. Mike Brassfield, vice president of Kona Neighborhood Association and 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 where the most particular damage done to their privacy. Bruce Lane, as as was commented on is a traffic thoroughfare. It's not an alley. If you go there about 3:30 in the afternoon, it 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 said on this North Fremont specific plan building uh 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 to go along with the discussion that we want to maintain a heritage to the Mexican or Spanish culture in the architecture.

We wanted to make maintain that flavor that's part of the culture of city of Monterey. So I would ask if if that could be a little bit more influenced in the the condition of this project. Um, I just want to go along with this with the plan you already have before you. So, in all that, thank you for your time. Thank you, Mike.

Hello again, Planning Commission. Mike's kind of um once again speaking for um these items that they need to be um brought to the I I 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 ran through and um with limited um adjustments just like like you being behind the 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're 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 the these special trees, the live oaks. The name live oak, that's special. That's that's unique. I mean, like the gentleman before 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, recognized worldwide. I think there's a tree right here in 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. Exit. Axit. exit. It's unacceptable for um no limitations on these um tree removals. Just like when they did the parking lot by the harbor, a large area of trees, there probably $30 million worth of trees that got removed off of one opinion that created when they recognized 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 Relo. 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 sightelines 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 pushes it on to Dundee and Little Miss. Uh there are one to three bedrooms, multiple cars plus guests. Uh uh where are they going to park? That's not even mentioned. We're an isolated community. Uh, and I got to say the transparency is awful in the city. We find out things on Friday at 5:00 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 sighteline problem? Is there a privacy problem? Because there's no story poles. We could use a crane with a

camera to see if actually those windows look 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 aerial photograph, you will see those hot tubs. Uh sometimes sight lines aren't mentioned and they should be and that's an adverse impact. So, uh, to summarize the, uh, adverse impacts, Bruce Lane is a bypass. It's a service road. There's no parking. It's a traffic safety issue. There's a problem with visual impacts to 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 to show that we're trying to do the best we can. Thank you for your time.

Any other hands wave?

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 Montterrey. 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 the 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, bringing more activity and energy to the district. As far as parking, I'm hoping that some of the 17 motel 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, pre 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. Bye-bye. 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 Luis Corio and Mary Alice Fetis. 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 thought it was too high. Um, not one new project has been approved and built on North Fremont since the spec specific plan was approved. And this is a great project and it's the first building. I think that it will spawn other developments. It has to be

David. Um, I'll just say 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 and 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. Uh this has been going on forever. Uh this site's been waiting to be developed. Probably 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. Uh 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. Uh 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 going to see some buildings that we don't like. We're going to see some parking scenarios that we don't like, but in the end, we're going to 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 a 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 going to have to get creative about these parking situations and I think there's going to 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 intentiousness 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 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 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 they have sort of surrendered to the idea that everybody's going to ride their bikes. And so we uh don't the parking isn't as important 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 going to impact their um, their neighborhoods. One possibility is that there are parking um um programs in Monterey where you can um 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 sit in 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 going to 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 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. I'll second that. All right. So, uh, Erica, we have a, uh, motion by the chair to approve the project, uh, as condition with the additional condition of a CMP and a second by Commissioner Freeman. Can we get a roll call? Sure. Chair Silva? Yes. Vice Chair Latasa? Yes. Commissioner Bluth? Yes. Commissioner Freeman? Yes. Commissioner Polly? Yes. And Commissioner Stoker? Yes.

That motion carries with the vote of six. The decision is appealable um in 10 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? Dave, you're you're Well, I'm just wondering what's going on downtown with my I knew it business. Levi, anything new? 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. I'll have plenty. You're not allowed to vote on these projects. And 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 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 miss uh Levi, do you have anyformational reports?

Uh just what's included in the pack for one I just passed right over. I 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 planting plan that the landscape plan that's offered by that being so wofully inadequate. And so I wrote a note to Kim and to Levi and asked to agendaize an item. I would like to propose.

Sorry. Hi 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've 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 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. Could 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 appro approved planting plan. Is that a similar process?

So, it's a similar process. I mean, at the end, it's something worth having that conversation about if that's something that the commission wants to u you know entertain when we're discussing the larger work program. But yes, maybe it'd be probably incorporated into the specific plans 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 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 um 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 not is it 60 days or 90 days for

I believe it's 90 okay n so so yes it's possible we could bundle it with the other stuff but I just I just need to set expectations so okay well by by bundling it with the new definitions it 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 going to 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 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 form formally agendaize this? So it's already going to be discussed whenever we bring it forward with the 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 um along with other items that the planning division is 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. Absolutely. Good idea, Sandy. Thank you. Thank you. Um I'm gone next time. I won't be here next time. But you're here in June, correct? Yeah. Okay. Yeah. comments,

informationational reports. Sure. Uh just a quick followup to the May 5th city council meeting. If you recall, this commission did consider the uh draft fiscal year annual action plan for 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 followup to that. And then we do have a number of items listed for our tenative 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. Remaining four of you. I'm here. I'll be here. Great.

Be here. But I'm also hoping to agenda 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. Well, Eric might be here, too. Correct. Yeah. So, there is that chance. He said there wouldn't be the last. Okay.

Great. And then, so yes, as I noted uh noted, there's 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 u for minor items that are meet all city objectives and standards. And then the last followup 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 signed permit at 54 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 appeal that. All right. Just wanted to be sure I got the right one. In general, I'll let you let you elaborate.

With regards to signs, why wasn't the sign application tonight put on a consent? It just seems like when we've got sort of a full house and yeah, so that contentious projects, it's like in my mind, every sign should go on consent agenda. We could pull it off if we 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 signed on consent agenda? And I think that that's all we're saying, Levi. Like even though you view it as inappropriate, like we don't view it as 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 and on 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 nor 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 you say to the public. Yeah. So, we we talked 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 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 lowhanging 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. They were promoted. They were promoted. They were promoted to planning commission.

But you you 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 going to 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 but this is just commissioner comments though, I will say, so we shouldn't get too into the weeds of non-aggendaized items. Okay. Well, then commissioner chatty having a joial conversation.

All right, everybody. I think that about does it. Thank you very much for your time. Meeting adjourned. Good question. You said