Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

May 20th, 2026 Planning Commission meeting. I will now call the meeting to order and lead you in the Pledge of Allegiance. Zoom webinar participation is available for members of the public. The Zoom webinar ID and link are available on the posted agenda on the city website. Will we please have a roll call?

Commissioner Rocamora?

Here.

Commissioner Ruck? Commissioner Mora?

Here.

Commissioner Gutierrez? Commissioner Flores? Here. Commissioner Pernell? Chair Person, I'm going to call the date. Present.

Now, may we have, well, let's see. Let's welcome the new District 2 Commissioner, Juan Flores. He's appointed by Council Member Barrera. Welcome. And may we now have staff introductions.

Lisa Salcedo, Administrative Aid. Lisa Brinton, Community Development Director.

Courtney Grossman, Planning Manager.

Jonathan Moore, Senior Planner.

Sanfam Ghilardo, Senior Planner.

All right, welcome, everyone. And then we also have Commissioner Pernell joining us. All right, on to public comments. Generally are limited to two minutes per speaker. The chair may further limit the time for public comments depending on the agenda schedule. Are there any comments from the public regarding items not on today's agenda? OK, seeing none, are there any on Zoom?

We have one comment on Zoom. Okay. Go ahead, Mr. Guerrero.

Hi, good afternoon. Jose Guerra, Montevideo Community. I'm really, my comment is pretty easy. I've been observing many meetings I've attended and I've noticed a lack of presence of people from the actual city and actually residents that do not attend. And the reason why, Madam Chair, because they're too early. We need to do them at six o'clock so we can have people there that can actually do public comment. A lot of people work. I've discussed this with many people in different areas, different districts, and it's pretty sad because people want to engage in government and they can't due to the fact that we always make the meetings early. city councils early. I think only some of the police and the traffic commission are later at six o'clock, which is not fair for the residents of Salinas. And I've been following also government within the county as well as the city, and I'm very disgusted on how individuals which are paid public servants are being disrespectful to each other. to the citizens, to the taxpayers, due to the fact that they don't like the comments that are being addressed to them. Like I tell a lot of people, I'm going to tell people from the county, city, state, federal government, you don't want nobody telling you nothing, don't post it on social media. Don't put your life out there. Don't put your personal stuff out there if you don't want to be criticized. And second of all, if you don't have thick skin, find another job. This job is very challenging, and if you can't handle it, please resign. And once again, please do your job. Please do your job. Mayor, city manager, city council members, Mr. Alejo from the county, and Mr. Chris Lopez, please do your job. You don't want nobody telling you anything. Do the minimum and do your job. That's all I got to say. Thank you and God bless you all. Have a great day.

Thank you. Is there anybody else on Zoom with public comment? No more comments. Okay, so we'll go ahead and close public comment. Moving on to consent ID number 26-217, approval of minutes from May 6, 2026 meeting. Are there any questions or comments from the commissioners? Commissioner Racamora?

No questions or comments.

Commissioner Mora?

No questions or comments.

Commissioner Flores?

I was not here, so definitely no comments.

Okay. Commissioner Purnell? No questions or comments. And I have no questions or comments. Do we have a motion and a second?

I'll make a motion to accept the minutes.

I'll second. Okay. With a motion from Commissioner Mora and a second from Commissioner Purnell, we will have a roll call vote.

Commissioner Procomora?

Yes.

Commissioner Rupp? Sorry, Commissioner Mora?

Yes.

Commissioner Flores?

I'm going to abstain since I was not here.

Commissioner Pernell?

Yes.

Chairperson McEvie?

Yes.

Motion passes.

All right, thank you. And now we're moving on to administrative reports, ID number 26-21, study session on zoning code optional phase one amendments. Jonathan Moore, senior planner, will introduce and present this item.

Good evening, Commissioners. Welcome, Commissioner Flores. Last meeting, this body offered some sincere condolences on the passing of Commissioner Meeks. I'd just like to add that I was moved by his lifetime of service to his country, his community, and I'll be greatly missed. Tonight I'm here to discuss progress on phase one of our zoning code update and the two components of this phase that are not related to legal compliance. This is kind of a sister or follow-up site session to the one we had back in November that discussed more of the housing law compliance in detail. So I'll take a step back at first to review the different phases of this update, where we're going, and then we'll dive into those two optional components being driveway width expansions or increases and allowed area of accessory office in industrial districts and why those two are in this phase before ending with some next steps. So as a reminder or some additional context, if you're new or just tuning in, so we're in the midst of a multi-year, multi-phase update of our zoning code. To go back even a little further, we started a comprehensive update of our general plan in 2001. In 2023, we adopted the six cycle housing element. And we have a public review draft out now of the rest of the general plan with a second draft coming soon and a foreseeable end to that process sometime in the relatively near future. So we launched the zoning code update to overlap with that process since the zoning code is the primary implementation tool of the general plan. And we didn't want to have one adopted while the other had a long period to catch up. So we broke it into multiple phases because there are some items needed to address legal issues, particularly around housing raised by the housing element. And there are some quick things that didn't really need to wait for the general plan update to look at. So that's what we're looking at tonight. Phase two and three will kind of kick off together. IN THE SUMMER, AND THE LONGER THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE GOES, THE MORE THEY'LL KIND OF COMPRESS TOGETHER, BUT PHASE TWO IS ABOUT ENSURING COMPLIANCE OR CONSISTENCY BETWEEN THE GENERAL PLAN AND THE ZONING CODE ONCE THE GENERAL PLAN IS ADOPTED, AND THEN PHASE THREE IS THE NEW ZONING CODE. AS I SAID BEFORE, WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE EXACTLY IS UP TO THE PUBLIC, UP TO THE COMMISSIONERS, AND WE'LL SEE MORE ABOUT THAT AS WE GO. So Salinas, like a lot of California communities, has a lot of residential parking challenges. A combination of high housing costs, limited supply, and limited transportation options can really make it hard to find parking for residents on a daily basis. This can lead to illegal parking in front yards, illegal paving, sidewalk damage from vehicles going outside of the driveway slope to access parking. stormwater and flooding issues from reduced vegetation And of course anger and anxiety when you're trying to find a parking spot after work And these symptoms are these these issues really are symptoms of larger housing and transportation issues, but specifically to address illegal paving in front yards in 2019 the city amended the zoning code to allow for driveway with increases of up to 10 feet and ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE DRIVEWAY IS THE FRONT DOOR. THIS WAS THROUGH A MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PROCESS WHICH MEANS AN APPLICATION GOES THROUGH AN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS DURING WHICH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS AND OTHER DEPARTMENTS MAY REVIEW AND PUT SPECIFIC CONDITIONS ON EACH PROJECT AND NOTICES SENT OUT TO THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORS OF THE PROJECT. IF THERE WAS A CHALLENGE THROUGH THAT NOTICING PROCESS, THE APPLICATION WOULD GO TO PLANNING COMMISSION. I THINK THE 125 APPLICATIONS MAY BE A SLIGHT OVERCOUNT, BUT THERE HAVE BEEN AT LEAST 84 OF THESE PROJECTS APPLIED FOR SINCE 2019, AND NONE OF THEM HAVE RESULTED IN A CHALLENGE, SO I DON'T THINK ANY OF THEM HAVE MADE IT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. This minor CEP process adds more soft costs to the development. It adds a $670 application fee, which is rough, but it does not actually cover the staff time necessary review between the different departments. And the review itself takes about two months. So the proposed amendment for this would just remove the requirement for a conditional use permit. It would add some of the more common conditions of approval as actual standards in the zoning code, including tapering back to a driveway width so you don't drive over the sidewalk to access the parking, and some other standard conditions that Public Works really puts on these things as they go through the process. With 84 of these plus the process, we kind of have a better idea of what those standards conditions are now than we did back in 2019. And since no one has challenged a single one since 2019, the kind of purpose of the minor CUP doesn't seem as necessary. This one we've heard a lot about from community members having to do this as an extra added time and expense. So this would keep the requirements there. It still only allows up to 10 feet increase. Also added requirements that, or added language that further specified that additional parking is not permitted on the front yard, which it isn't now, but hopefully would add a little more flexibility. It would treat these more like a fence, and that we have requirements for common fences in the zoning code, but as long as you follow the rules, they don't have to go through an additional application process. Potential downsides of this are it does eliminate the possibility of putting specific conditions on each project, that it might be unique to the property. It also places enforcement emphasis totally on code enforcement or post-construction. So those are things to consider. The second proposed topic is accessory office space in industrial districts. Specifically, this is into our two most intense industrial districts, industrial general commercial and industrial general. currently to promote industrial uses as the principal use and make sure that our limited land for these uses is put to the best use possible. We have limitations on business and professional office space. As a principal or primary use, they're allowed with a conditional use permit as an accessory or secondary use. Think of the office space within a plant or within a AutoShop, they're allowed up to 2,500 square feet or 30% of the total floor area of the buildings, whichever is less without a conditional use permit. So they can still go above that currently. It's just subject to the CUP. And this is a full conditional use permit. So it takes things that are usually like a site plan level review, an administrative review, elevates them to a discretionary process. That means it comes to you all. It adds additional time and costs. And what we found with projects coming in is that market conditions have changed over time. This has kind of been a little barrier to projects getting through efficiently. And people are saying this is more of an internal configuration question that doesn't really need to be elevated to a full conditional use permit. So to try to make this a little more of a flexible process, the proposed amendment would remove the 2,500 square foot cap and raise the overall limit to just a flat 40% of the total building square footage. And if you want to go over that, you can still do that with a CUP. So we feel like this still increases flexibility, still encourages industrial as a principal use, and they're kind of emblematic of where we're trying to go with the zoning code update and trying to update to be a little more with the current needs of the community, match current market conditions, be a little more flexible, but still get to some of those, still keep some of those core requirements to protect certain industries or characteristics. And the nice thing about it, especially with these optional amendments for phase one, is this is kind of a pilot program. So if the commission and the city council adopts these now, they get a chance to see some of them in action before the next phase or the end of this project. Next steps are we intend to bring the full phase one package to the commission for a hearing on June 3rd. This includes all the housing components previously discussed back in November. And if the Planning Commission moves that forward, we would proceed to City Council hearings on June 30th and August 4th. And we've launched broader zoning code update this summer. So for those who like it in a timeline format, that would be a Planning Commission hearing, then two City Council hearings, Ordinances can pass on a city council hearing if they're unanimous at first, but since we are down a city council member, if it goes in June, we know we will need at least two hearings. And then really, once this first phase is done, kicking off that broader look at the whole zoning code and what it can be in the future, including kicking off the broader engagement and different community meetings, workshops, and committees. So hopefully summer 2027, we have adopted the general plan, we can adopt the phase two amendments and get to a whole new zoning code by the end of 2027 or possibly early 2028. We are really shooting for it to not take five years between the general plan and zoning code as it did in the 2000s. Well, that is my presentation. I'll pass over to you all for questions. Thank you.

All right, thank you for your presentation. Are there any questions from the commissioners or to the members of staff regarding this presentation? Commissioner Rocamora?

Yes, one of my questions, I don't know if we answered it last time, about the housing plan designs. Who's the final decision on that and who makes those decisions? On the ones that they're going to be building.

What housing plans designs?

For the new west area. I don't know if you answered that one.

Oh, so Courtney, do you want to talk about the Western specific plan, the design guidance?

Sure. So the item we're looking at right now is a four preview of what's going to come to the planning commission on June 3rd about phase one zoning code amendments. And this deals with what we're hearing about our driveway extensions and the the other component of the office and the industrial districts. I think what you're referring to is the actual construction, pre-construction drawings of what the houses look like in the future growth area. That is actually part of a review that would take place after the Tentative maps are approved, which will come to the Planning Commission, hopefully here in the next couple of months, and then a final map would have to flow through council for recordation, and then building permits for the actual homes would occur, along with the site improvements. The actual design of the homes would be an administrative review, which would happen through some sort of building permit review. Hopefully that answers your question. Of course, yes. The specific plans which were adopted, I think, years ago would be the guiding principle for those design requirements.

Okay, so basically it's going to come through Planning Commission still?

The tentative maps would come through Planning Commission for a recommendation to Council. And this would show the street alignments, the roadways, where the various lots are located in compliance with the specific plans.

Okay. And another question I have, thank you on that. And another question I have is, you're showing the setbacks from, can we look at the one picture there? Okay, so it shows our property line before the sidewalk. So which is it? I hear that the sidewalk is responsibility of the owner. And you guys are making a line right at the sidewalk. And what I hear is that our property starts at the Greenway.

Yes, this exhibit is a little bit schematic in its level of detail. The arrow pointing towards property line appears to be back of sidewalk, which often is not the case. Normally, the property line varies. In some cases, it can be a couple of feet behind the sidewalk. It's based on a public works street schedule, or what we call sidewalk schedule chart. Believe it or not, almost every road has a different design and right away, I guess, schematic detail. Over time, the city changes standards, but the property line is shown right now behind sidewalk on this exhibit just for a schematic purpose. but that would be the private side, and then there's the public side.

Yeah, just the reason why I'm asking this is because we have problems with our sidewalks, and now we're saying property line, and I know what you're saying, but when it comes down to repairing them now, the residents are in charge of the sidewalks. And that's why I'm just speaking on behalf of the residents, showing where the property line is. If that property line is at that line, at the sidewalk, that's a question people are asking. Why do we have to pay half of the sidewalk that needs to be repaired? If we're going to be showing a property line at the sidewalk, it's really...

So we do not have a representative from Public Works here. I think you bring up a valid point in correcting our schematic to more accurately reflect what is required by property owners. I think in this case, the whole purpose is to show how the driveway apron is to function as well as the tapering to that apron and where it would be allowed to have the 10 feet to increase. So I think that's the purpose here and not this, figure isn't used to determine where a property line is. But thank you for bringing that to our attention.

And we're just talking about setbacks here because you talked about the fence where the setback has to be 20 feet from the property line. Is that what you're saying? No.

In this case, the only, the amendment, the focus of this amendment is to remove the requirement for conditional use permit, a minor conditional use permit, to allow somebody to expand their driveway 10 feet to the right.

Okay.

And so it has nothing, it's not related to setbacks for fences or, you know, from a property line. It's just saying, this is where we're, instead of requiring you to go through a conditional use process, we're saying this is the standard. And as long as you follow the standard, you may get the permit to, to move forward, go through building.

All right. Thank you for the clarification on that. THAT'S ALL FOR ME.

THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE CITY STAFF? COMMISSIONER MORA?

MORE OF A COMMENT. AS I WAS SITTING THROUGH THE PRESENTATION, I THINK I'M ALWAYS TORN BETWEEN THE IDEALIST IN ME THAT'S LIKE WHY DO WE KEEP PLANNING FOR A FUTURE THAT'S SO CARD DEPENDENT? BUT I ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT WE'RE LIVING WITH SEVERE OVERCROWDING AND CERTAINLY IN DISTRICT ONE I SEE EVIDENCE OF THAT. where I live, walking my dog, how many cars there are on the street. So just kudos to staff for simplifying. I think this amendment is very reasonable. But there is that part of me that's like, oh, we should be building more houses. How do we get out of this? But I understand that it plays a role. Where I would like maybe additional clarity is on the second portion of it. Does the city have evidence that there's a shortage of office space or like who would benefit from this? I'm having a harder time envisioning the kind of business that would benefit from the Second Amendment. The first one I think is straightforward to me. It's like, you know, there's no complaints. Could you talk a little bit about the second one, like the kinds of businesses that might benefit from this proposed amendment?

Sure. Just to quickly address the first part, yeah, we echo that sentiment saying that the parking things are symptomatic of larger issues, but to just narrowly focus on that one thing, we're bringing that amendment forward. I think Lisa probably has more background on the specific kind of projects that are dealing with these limits of office space in industrial areas.

So keep in mind that this zoning code is almost 20 years old. And so we're seeing changing markets in terms of industrial warehouse space and twenty five thousand square feet when you have a very large project because it's whichever is less, right, is not a lot for current operations. And so we are finding that we're creating a barrier for these industrial warehouse distribution projects to move forward because we're layering on time and money through a conditional use permit. So we are calibrating, we're removing that low bar and just saying, okay, let's do a percentage that we think is more appropriate for current market conditions. So that's what we're. we're putting forward at this time. And as John indicated, you know, this is a phase one, there would be opportunity to further revisit as part of the full comprehensive update, but we've had several applications that have run into this roadblock.

Thank you for the clarification.

All right. Are there any questions to the staff commissioner Flores?

None.

Commissioner Pernell?

I had a quick follow-up question, too, kind of related to Commissioner Moore's question. So for that first portion of the parking, John, you mentioned there's like 84-ish CUPs for the industrial space for the accessory office. Do we know more or less how many? This is shaking our heads.

84 CUPs for the parking? For the parking, right. And you're asking how many CUPs for industrial?

Correct, like what would the equivalent be for the accessory office space?

I don't think we have that number.

Not off the top of our head. We have to look through the records.

Yes. And in some cases they have not moved forward because they do not, because it is a full CUP that is a fully discretionary process. So learning that they choose in many cases not to move forward. Thank you.

OK, so my question is, when it comes to the driveway thing, I'm assuming, I'm just asking just to clarify. So let's say they have an old one-car garage. And they're like, we just want to knock that over. And that way, we have four parking spots now. Is that going to require a CUP if it's not a dwelling part of the unit? Or is this, can this, you know what I mean?

I'm processing partially because I think one of the amendments related to housing law compliance is actually removing requirements for covered parking spaces, which we currently have. So I think right now, I don't know if you would be allowed to do that if you didn't provide another covered parking space, but that may be going away. As for demolition, I'm not sure what that entails.

Okay, so if somebody want, they're like, okay, I want to expand my driveway, but I also want to remove this limiting structure, part of my structure, then what, they go where? Like what would then they do? And the staff has to direct them how?

If they just want to demolish the garage and have the parking go beyond that?

Yeah, so like your diagram you have here is the example, you know, like I'm assuming these two lateral like sections are a garage?

Yeah.

Yeah, so let's say that's only allowing one car, but now they want to make space for two. If they said, you know, we don't really need this garage covering, we want to take that out too.

Yeah, I think once those requirements were public for covered parking are removed, they would be able to do that. And then once you get past that, you're kind of into the backyard requirements. And this one really is kind of focused on the front yard paving and limits.

Well, your lines go all the way back to the side of the garage.

Yeah, and that's the, I think you can see in the far right, that's optional parking. So if they did do that, and like sometimes you have a fence or something, they can keep that paving going back. But while it's listed as optional there, that's not covered in these regulations. Okay.

All right, then I had another question that came to mind. So let's say they do this without needing a CUP, but then they extend this and then they want to put an RV, but now it's visible.

Good question.

Yeah, I can handle that one. Your first question about why is the driveway extension showing behind the fence, I think the idea behind this picture is to indicate the zoning code requirement for screening what we call prohibited vehicles. In the zoning code years ago, back in the 80s, I think it was changed where there was a number of boats and RVs throughout the community and there was concern about that. The zoning code was amended to include a provision where RVs and what we call prohibited vehicles can be stored on a single family lot behind a six foot tall fence beyond the setback. So the 20 foot front yard setback and what that kind of line between the two areas of diagonal shading would represent the fence line. So you could park an RV or a boat or something behind that fence. Even though the RV is like 12 feet high, a six foot fence is considered screening by the zoning code.

okay but it was you meant i thought you mentioned that it wouldn't you wouldn't like to remove the fence so i'm just thinking there might be need to be clarity because if you're in a cop process you can explain all that to the person you know and then but then if it's like oh i'm okay to just knock out my fence and extend it but they've been storing a boat right next to it and there's put another car you see what i'm saying

I do, and I think that confusion comes from the requirements being in multiple parts of the code. I'm sure the RV thing might be in a different section. This kind of speaks to the need for the whole overall update. This whole thing is in a footnote to a table that was added in the 2019 thing, so it's going through this kind of layering as things have kind of progressed of this, certain things get buried and put in these deep holes in the zoning code and they're not necessarily connected with these other components. But I do see what you mean. One option to have to, if the graphic is more useful as a clarifying device that maybe someone should speak to, the graphic itself could also be removed from phase one. So that's just the text. And then if someone comes in and is like, I'm not sure what this means, what can I do? Someone can give them the graphic and explain what that means.

But, yeah, I think more often, though, you're going to have people go, oh, I can do this now, and they're not going to come in. So I think, like, you know, something more clear about, but be sure you're not now exposing your recreational vehicle. You've been storing behind the fence when you remove that fence or push it back. You know, that means you also need to replace the fence further back. You see what I'm saying? Because if they are knowing they have to get the help, they're going to get the help, and they're getting all the help instead of... You know, it's like I just went, you know, it's like I'm trying to make a point and we want to make sure we're not putting ourselves in a worse position and causing one department saying this is going to save money, you know, when they're trying to get a, from getting a use permit, but then it's putting a burden in a different department who's having to go out and cite all these things. You know, so it's kind of why I'm asking, like, are these in consideration because, I personally don't like having to go through all the hoops and everything, but sometimes you learn a few things as you go through that. So if we're going to do a better job at presenting, like here's a complete brochure on it. Or on the website, the pages are actually active when you click on those links. Things like that, and it's showing here's what you can do now. But here's clarification on it. Be sure you don't da-da-da, you know. And having opportunity that we can add to those brochures, you know, say now we ran into five different cases that had a similar situation, let's add that to that informational piece for the public. Because I think we are used to the technology of being able to find things, do things on our own. But then it's like we hit, okay, we've got to do something to our house. Uh-oh, now we've got to go through the city. Now we have to go through this process. But there are points why we make people go through that process. So yes, let's make things streamlined, but let's not lose the effectiveness of what we're trying to do here. Which kind of leads me to my other question I have. Was there an analysis of I think just the way I received when you said, okay, it's going to like reduce the, like we've heard, I don't know who you're hearing from, but we've heard like the process, this will make the process easier, less time on staff or whatever. But my thought was, was there an analysis to actually show that to say if we reduce the amount of time people are having to go through and do these things versus the permit fees, because now you're not going to have a COP, you know, fees. Are those covering the actual staff time? You know, like, is this really going to be helping anybody? And then, kind of a two-handed question I want to say, because you could answer it all at once, but the other thought I had was about when we say a lot of these things will just move to an administrative decision, well, are we prepared with the staff for all these? We keep moving everything to administrative decisions. but are we prepared on that end to handle that volume that's going to shift?

Well, currently it's an administrative process, and this would actually remove any kind of application process. So this is just, there are rules, you've got to follow them, but you don't have to get a building permit and get another permit. It's like you're building a basic picket fence. It's like there are rules, but it kind of scouts on are we That's why I said it would put the burden on code enforcement. If you suddenly had everyone rush out and incorrectly pave over their yard to the right of the front door, then that's a big code enforcement challenge. Currently, the whole process takes about two months. I don't have it broke down by hours, but with a processing fee or an application fee of $617, IT DOESN'T TAKE THAT LONG FOR A COUPLE PLANNERS, THE ENGINEERS, AS SOON AS YOU HAVE A FEW CITY STAFF LOOKING AT IT FOR MULTIPLE HOURS, THAT'S GONE PRETTY QUICKLY. AND THEN PREPARING THE NOTICES TO GO OUT AND PROCESSING THAT. SO IT'S, DEPENDING ON THE COMPLEXITY OF THE THING, IT MAY COVER THE FEES, BUT IT LIKELY DOESN'T. INSERTING A FULL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IS THOUSANDS OF to cover staff time. So I think either way, if it's 84 or 100 something applications, $600, we're talking about $6,000 or less. So it's not a super huge loss either. So it's more like it saves the resident A little bit of cost in there, a little bit of soft cost in preparing these application materials. It saves the city some time, and I know the corny shop is very busy right now. But those are good points to bring up. We do lose the ability to look at these on a case-by-case basis. We lose the ability to put conditions on them prior to construction. So those are things to weigh.

Yeah, so I think then I don't know. I know it's not your direct responsibility to that, but knowing that two things, you know, are we then causing a burden in a different department, you know, because of this, is that are we then prepared for that additional burden? And then also, you know, the costs. I mean, Commissioner Gutierrez mentioned several times that because he deals with different departments, you know, cities and counties that were very low. So, you know, we may need to look at that through this whole process of what are we charging and for what type of service. So if something is more complicated, Like, if we can eliminate some of these smaller ones, and we say, OK, now we have the time to really work on these more complicated cases, it's a CUP. But maybe that fee needs to go up a bit to cover staff time. And if those aren't paying for it, we don't have a different type of income to cover these things. So that's, I mean, I don't know. What department is that, then? Like, who would do the analysis?

So based on a rough analysis of staff time, we did put forward and council approved as part of the 26-27 fee schedule to increase the fee for CUP for this very reason, that it wasn't fully covering costs. In the perfect world, there's a more rigorous nexus study that where you're really looking at time and resources allocation to then determine what the fee should be to retain that cost recovery.

Okay, so I mean it's under your department or which department?

So finance would lead a full fee schedule nexus study in collaboration with other departments, and I believe that's in their budget for this next fiscal year. But we are given the opportunity as departments if we see a fee is missing or out of whack, we can recommend an increase, but we have to provide a nexus.

OK, and then for that, is it the financing that if there is a shifting of now costs incurred by staff time because of just a code enforcement? And it could be in the beginning. It just happens because we didn't communicate well, and then we get a handle on it. But I'm just wondering, is that? WHERE DOES IT GET TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION?

I WOULD SAY, AND COURTNEY CAN WEIGH IN ON THIS, IN TERMS OF IMPACT TO CODE ENFORCEMENT BECAUSE THERE'S A CUP, THE VIOLATION TENDS TO BE DOING THE WORK WITHOUT A CUP. IF WE REMOVE THE REQUIREMENT FOR A CUP AND THEY MOVE FORWARD WITH DOING THE WORK PROPERLY, THEN we actually reduce the burden on code enforcement because they're not having to address driveway expansions that were done without a CUP. They're just looking that it meets the standard.

And just to zoom out on the issue a little bit, This was kind of put in place to offer a legal pathway to a driveway with increase, to offer a legal alternative to paving over the front yard and parking in the front yard. And don't know how successful that is in the long-term thing, looking at that bigger issue. But trying to find that balance between creating a process that is easy enough that people will want to do the legal thing, the right thing, and just do that, versus saying that costs too much, I'm just going to try to do something else anyways, versus, as you said, having the necessary oversight to ensure we're not making any problems worse.

And I do appreciate that you have in there that this is some of these testers that we're going to do so that we can work out the kinks, you know, so and not putting like 50 things in front of us and saying we're going to try all these things, you know, but these are why I want to bring up these points now so that as we're journeying through it that we are paying attention to those things and can show some kind of measure, you know, in the future. All right, thank you. We'll now go to public comment on this item. Are there any comments from the public related to this item? All right, seeing none, are there any on Zoom? All right, Mr. Guerrero, you're up.

Good afternoon, Jose Guerra, Montevideo Community. Great questions, Ms. McKelvey and Mr. Racamora. I love the questions. I have an issue with this. The reason why, I'm going to tell you. We have a housing issue. We don't have a parking issue. The reason we have a parking issue, according to the city, It's because we want to build ADUs. To me, this is like an ADU supplement, additional office space, blah, blah, blah, BS, excuse my language. This is what it looks like to me. And then, you know, for you guys to take the burden off yourselves for the city, yeah, let's make a bigger driveway. What happened to beautifying Salinas? Now you're going to have a place that looks like a hood and it looks ugly. It looks ugly when you have a car park in front of where your grass is supposed to be in your beautiful trees. I don't agree with that. And then the fees. You guys have not worked out the fees. I hate when you present something you don't have a public works representative there to answer these questions when you answer. We don't have the right people in the building. No disrespect to Lisa. I know you're trying very hard and the other gentleman to answer all the questions we need done. I don't agree with this at all. And then, you know, the fees bothered me big time. What bothered me against the cement, that the cement is now part of the owner's property. When did that come about? When I bought my house, I wasn't disclosed that. And now all of a sudden, I've been here 20 years in Montevideo. Now you're telling me that the sidewalk is going to be part of my responsibility. When you planted a tree, the city planted a tree that overgrew the sidewalk because they didn't trim it. You don't trim trees, by the way. Let me tell you, you're doing them now because I got a hold of Mr. Victor Baez. He just did them, actually he did most of Montebello last week, the week before, and he's finishing up this week. But without that pressure from someone who cares, the community, the city does not do anything. It does not help its citizens beautify their homes. This thing with the parking garage and this and that, I'm sorry, man. I just think it's a waste of time and money. And you guys never account for police and fire. You know, once you build the houses, you got to account for police and fire. Thank you, guys. That's all my questions. God bless you. Have a great day.

Thank you. Are there any other raised hands on Zoom? Okay, so we will go ahead and close public comment on this item. Are there any additional questions or comments from the commissioners? Commissioner Racamora?

No other questions or comments.

Commissioner Mora?

No additional questions or comments.

Commissioner Flores?

No questions.

Commissioner Pernell? No questions or comments. And I don't, thank you for your presentation. I don't have any other questions either.

Thank you very much.

All right, so moving on to public hearings, ID number 26-195, plan unit development permit 2025-003, PUD 2025-003, and conditional use permit 2025-025, CUP 2025-025. Request to construct 88 affordable multifamily housing units with a 4,335 square foot daycare center located at 200 Cassantini Street in the residential high-density flood overlay RH2.1-F zoning district. Sanfam Gallardo, Senior Planner, will present this item.

Yes. Good afternoon, Planning Ministers. My name is Sanfam Gallardo, Project Planner for PUD 2025-003 and CUP 2025-025. The property is located at 200 Cassatini Street, zoning a residential high density with a flood overlay. And it is located on Cassatini with a 4.59 acre subject site. The project consists of development to amend a PUD 1992-006 to construct 88 multifamily residential dwelling units, including a daycare center, also conditional use permit to construct and operate a daycare center with related site improvements, and also a site plan review to construct the 88 multifamily dwelling units. And I just wanted to walk through the history of the amendment to the PUD. So the original PUD was approved by city council on October 20th, 1992. And it authorized for development of 120 units on the property located northeast corner of Rico and Cassatini intersection. And that was part of three phases of 10.3 acre lot. Both phase one and phase two have been constructed, and phase three here is the project that we're speaking of today. Upon approval and the effective date of the PUD and CUP, the SPR will administratively be approved after the, if we should have an approval from city council based on your recommendation today. I'm sorry, it's not working, there you go. The project is designated as 100% affordable housing units, and in addition to the residential uses, the project includes a variety of on-site amenities to serve the residents, including, but not limited to, a community room, fitness area, business computer room, basketball court, and a tot lot for children up to nine years of age. Has a fully affordable housing development. The project offers units for household earnings at or below 60% of the average median income, and with the overall average affordability level of approximately 49% of the average median income. The applicant is requesting waivers to include a reduction in parking spaces, although There is 12 spaces if we follow the requirements of the parking spaces. The project is part of the AB, I'm sorry, Assembly Bill 2097, where public agencies or cities are prohibited from imposing minimum parking requirements on most development projects located in half a mile radius of a public transit. And for this particular project, we have bus stops all along North Main Street that are within a half a mile. Furthermore, the applicant's requesting for reduction in open space requirements, the waiving of four bedroom dwelling unit mix requirements that actually create additional 15 units of one to three bedroom dwelling units. And also the applicant is requesting for tandem parking has part of the waiver as well. The multifamily architectural style is of Mediterranean Spanish influence with traditional components, including materials such as stucco, stone veneer, roof tile, and metal railing. Proposed colors include earth tone palettes such as tan, brown, taupe, and dark bronze, which are consistent with Section 3730.80, which demonstrates compatibility in the architectural details and exterior colors reinforce and enhance the architectural form and style of the structure. The analysis was done on the project, and the project facilitates general plan policies promoting higher density residential development, affordable housing, and efficient land use patterns in addition to general purpose of residential high-density district, and also added 21 units towards City's REAN account. Today's recommendation, staff recommends that the Planning Commissioners approve a resolution affording findings recommending that the City Council find the project exempt pursuant to section 15165, 15303, and 15332 of the CEQA guidelines and also approve a planned unit development permit to construct 88 multifamily residential units with a leasing amenity building and related site improvements subject to administrative consideration to the site plan review and also the daycare center and then also the subject to a conditional use permit for the operation and the construction of the daycare center. Staff concludes the presentation and is available for any questions. Thank you.

All right, sorry about that. Okay, so do we have any questions from the commissioners? Commissioner Rocamora.

So you said it was, they're trying to not have the four bedroom. How many bedrooms are they?

The project as a whole will consist of one through three bedroom units.

Okay.

Thank you.

Sure. Any questions, Commissioner Mora?

Yeah, I'll comment. I'm just really excited about the daycare inclusion part of it. I was at the California League of Cities City Leaders Conference, and there was a whole breakout session about how cities don't plan around daycare centers enough, right, and that we need to think of them as we do any kind of business that needs to be attracted and brought into the city. So that makes me really happy to see that included as part of the plans. Thank you. Thank you.

Any questions or comments? Commissioner Flores?

I agree with Commissioner Mora. The child care center is awesome. My only concern is the parking, the overflow parking in the street. Has anybody done a study on, you know, I mean, there's 88 units. How many parking spaces total?

Yes, it's 152 parking spaces.

And if you assume, well, I don't think every home's going to have two cars, but the majority, I mean, if they do, it's going to send some parking out of the Cassantini, and that's already...

Yeah, so based on the analysis that was done, we did talk about the AB 2097, which we can't enforce parking because of the state's mandated that we can't enforce parking. It has a local jurisdiction. But the applicant is still addressing the parking of providing 152 parking spaces, which is technically just a deficit of 12 parking spaces based on if they were to if we were to be able to require those requirements, but has stated we can't do that, and they're still adding 152 spaces. That's the reason why, based on the design, there'll be tandem parkings as well for those bigger units for the bigger households.

Thank you.

Any questions, Commissioner Pernell? I do. I have a few questions. Do we know the exact ratio of numbers of the bedroom units? So if there's 88, do we know how many are ones or twos or threes?

Yeah, we do know that. It's part of the staff report. Let me pull that up.

It's on page three.

Okay. Page 33, it is.

And then I had a question for clarification about the reduction of open space. Yes. What exactly does that mean?

So part of our regulations is requiring certain open spaces for development. And by reducing the open spaces, as you can see on the plans, let me go back to it. So we're talking about open spaces where there's no development with this particular slide here. So there's a requirement for a certain amount of open spaces. By reducing that requirement, we're able to build more units.

Does a park that's adjacent to it qualify as open space, or is it specific to the development itself, essentially? So the park is just a bonus you get for being next door?

We do count that as part of the open space.

And then my last question, if it's too specific, let me know is about the daycare center in particular. Yes. And how the city defines that. So like per ed code, right? I know it's different in the kind of what city construction expectations look like. So is there an age demographic that that's going to serve? And is there a cost?

Yeah. In the reports, In terms of the cost, I don't know that. We could ask the applicant who's here today. But in terms of the operation, that was part of the submittal in the package. And I could reference, let's see here, Exhibit L. Thank you.

Real quick, to go back to the open space calculation, there's a zoning code compliance table provided. Page 8 indicates that due to the number of units, approximately 44,000 square feet of open space would be required by pure zoning code compliance. In this case, a waiver is being requested down to 27,305 square feet.

Can you remind me of the exhibit again in the packet for the daycare center? I'm sorry.

Yes, exhibit L, as in Larry. The open space requirement is on page five. It's on the first row, one, two, three, four, fifth column. I'm sorry, fifth. Let me get that the opposite. It's on the first column, fifth row.

Thank you.

No more questions.

I just had a question about, I guess it could be in the packet, but I don't remember seeing it. Is the daycare part of the apartment complex, or is it ran separately?

Yes, the daycare runs separately.

Okay, and so once it's put in as a daycare, it can't be used as something different, or can it?

No, it is for the daycare based on the conditional use permit.

Okay. I did have a concern about the parking, but I think it's probably reasonable. I guess another question would be like just how much is, you know, Handicap versus the other you know spaces, but I mean just sometimes we have to deal with and hopefully there's you know people using public transit and Let's see. I think that was it Yeah, that's all the questions I have we'll go ahead and open up to public comment are there any comments from the public come on up

Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is Aaron Barger. I'm with Milestone Housing Group. I'm here today with our development partners and the property owner, the Housing Authority of Monterey County, and I'm just here to answer any questions. And so I know there were some questions on parking and open space. I don't know if I can provide any more clarity than what the planner provided, but if you have any direct questions, I can answer them. Any questions you would like to ask?

I do have questions about the daycare. If you've got the cost of it, who's going to be the primary facilitator of that space?

So the cost to build the daycare?

To run it. Are you going to charge students and families to use it, or is it going to generate revenue, essentially, for you guys?

Right. So we're working with an operator right now that's worked on some other projects that the housing authority has developed. They're called MAOF, Mexican American Opportunity Foundation. We don't have a lease with them yet, but we have been working with them on the design layout. The building's gonna have two different separate classrooms, one for children from zero years to roughly two years, and then from two years to five years. And as far as the cost to run it, I don't have those numbers. I have the estimated cost to build the building.

I appreciate it, though, because I was going to give you a lecture about using local folks, so I'm glad that you've got the Housing Authority and MAOF there, so I appreciate that.

I'm glad I did, too.

Thank you.

Any other commissioners have questions? Okay. Well, if you have nothing else, thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you.

Are there any other comments from the public? Anybody on Zoom? Okay. Mr. Wait, who's up? Mr. Garak. I'm sorry I couldn't hear. Mr. Guerra, go ahead.

Hi, good afternoon, Jose Guerra Montevideo community. Mr. Borgner, I wish you would have stepped up earlier because you could answer those questions earlier. They asked them pretty early and you were in the back. The transparency on that is not really good on your behalf there, sir. Second of all, I had the same questions that you guys had about the daycare. Who's going to rent it? Who's eligible for it? Is it for middle class too? Because, you know, the middle class families need daycares too. NOT JUST LOW INCOME, NOT MODERATE INCOME, ALSO MIDDLE CLASS PEOPLE, BLUE COLOR. I FOUND OUT WHO THE BUILDER WAS. YES, YOU ALREADY ASKED FOR THAT ONE. HOW ABOUT HAVING MR. TAYLOR BUILD OR FINANCE A LITTLE BIT OF THIS FROM TAYLOR FARMS, HAVE HIM FINANCE SOME OF THIS SO THAT WE CAN MAKE MORE BUILDINGS FOR OUR FARM WORKERS TOO. WE'VE LEFT OUT OUR FARM WORKERS. Housing also we have out here on the east side of East Salinas right now. We have 5 or 6 families. All in a 3, 4 bedroom apartment. A house probably has 6, 7 families in it. And then you're talking about affordable housing. What's affordable? What do you consider affordable? Those are my questions because I don't understand what affordable is to the city when 80% of the population is agriculture. So I don't know how they get those numbers. I don't get that. I don't understand how you guys come up with, oh, we're going to build this daycare center. And who's eligible? You don't have that information. You have the housing authority to run it. OK, that's fine. They're going to run it, but are they going to be fair with everybody else who needs daycare? And it's not a bad idea. We need daycare, of course. I mean, I wasn't fortunate enough to be able to have daycare provided for me at a low income cost. I had to pay full price, but some of us have to do that. You know, middle class always gets taken out. And I think we need to build better stuff for everybody, not just low income. Those are all my questions. Thank you and have a great day. God bless you.

Thank you. All right, Mr. Barbosa. Mr. Barbosa, are you there? I think you need to, there you go.

Can you guys hear me?

Yes, we can hear you now.

Okay. Hey, good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Juan Barbosa, and I'm a field representative with the North Coast States Carpenters Union, Local 646. And I wanted to talk about something that affects every carpenter and every working family. It's part of our area standards, and this is health care. Our work is very hard. It's physical. We lift heavy materials, use dangerous tools, and often work high above the ground. And even when we follow the safety rules, accidents can still happen. For many workers, one serious injury could lead to medical death or even bankruptcy. A single hospital visit can cost thousands of dollars, and no hardworking family should have to choose between paying medical bills or paying rent. That's why health care benefits are so important. And they are not just an extra benefit. They are a lifeline sometimes. Oftentimes, health care helps workers see a doctor when they need one, recover from injuries, and take care of their families during difficult times. As union carpenters, we stand together to protect these benefits. We fight to make sure our members have healthcare coverage they can rely on. It gives workers peace of mind and allows them to focus on doing their job safely and professionally. Responsible contractors understand this too. They know that healthy workers create better projects. Good contractors invest in their workers by providing fair wages, health care, and apprenticeship programs that train the next generation. No worker should lose everything because they got hurt building homes, schools, or buildings for their community. Every worker deserves to live a healthy and secure life and return home safe at the end of the day. That's all I have to say right now. Thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight, and have a good night.

All right, thank you. We'll now close public comment on this item. Are there any additional questions from the commissioners? Commissioner Rocamora?

Yeah, I'd like to commend the owners and the builders for this. You know, the city of Salinas does need housing. And I understand the comments on what's going on, but we could talk all we want. But if you don't get nothing started, we're nowhere. And I always wondered what we're going to do with that open term land there. And it's nice to see they're building a daycare center. We could argue the fact about the daycare center because we don't know what they're going to charge. But we're not going to get anywhere if we don't build it. We've got to start building in the city of Salinas because we do have problems here for housing. But I'd like to commend you guys on building that. If I had the money, I would do the same thing. And I know I probably would get a lot of feedback from a lot of people. But you know what? Salinas needs housing because rates are too high. And I believe in more housing. It's going to start bringing down the prices. But thank you for building that.

Any questions or comments, Commissioner Mora?

Not on my end, thank you.

Commissioner Flores?

Just for my clarification, the daycare center, what's the capacity going to be? How many children?

So there's roughly going to be space for 40 students. It's roughly broken up 24 of the older children, 18 of the younger. That's roughly the capacity.

Any questions, Commissioner Pernaut? I don't have questions. I, too, just wanted to extend my gratitude. I think this is a project long time coming, and I'm glad that we've got good local folks at the table leading the work.

All right, thank you. And yes, I have the same sentiment. I don't think you, only because I already knew from our preview, you didn't mention how long this has been a process that's finally been brought forward.

So this application came in in 2025 last year. So it's here today after we got all the information. And of course, part of our job is to make sure It fits within our regulations and policies and how it complies with also state regulations. So we had to make some adjustments, but overall, the project is here today and it meets all of the requirements. And one of the slides had talked about the analysis and how it meets the general plan.

But the original PUD, I think, was very old.

Oh, I see what you mean.

So that was good to hear that you are moving along very quickly.

That one's from 1992.

Yes. So like Commissioner Rocamora mentioned, we've seen that vacant for so long. I'm wondering, is anything going to happen there? Yes. I didn't realize there was anything that was ever open for it, you know, so it coming forward, I'm like, oh, it's something new until I learned that yesterday. So thank you for coming forward.

I understand.

All right. With that, thank you for your presentation. There's no other questions. Thank you. Oh, wait, we have to do a motion. Sorry about that. So would any commissioners like to make a motion?

I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE A RESOLUTION AFFIRMING THE FINDINGS RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL FIND THE PROJECT EXEMPT PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 15165, 15303, AND 15332 OF THE SEQUEL GUIDELINES. APPROVE A PLAN DEVELOPMENT PERMIT PUD 2025-003 TO CONSTRUCT 88 MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL UNITS. 2,400 square foot leasing and memory building and a 4,335 square foot daycare center and approve a conditional use permit CUP 2025-025 to construct and operate a 4,335 square foot daycare center.

All right, do we have a second?

Second.

Okay, with a motion from Commissioner Pernell and a second from Commissioner Mora, we'll have a roll call vote.

Commissioner Rocamora?

Yes.

Commissioner Mora?

Yes.

Commissioner Flores? Yes. Commissioner Perna?

Yes.

Chairperson McEvoy?

Yes.

Motion passes.

All right, so regarding plan unit development permit 2025-003, PUD 2025-003, and conditional use permit 2025-25, CUP 2025-025, request to construct 88 affordable multi-family housing units with a 4,335 square foot daycare center located at 200 Cassantini Street in the residential high density flood overlay RH 2.1-F, Zoning district the Planning Commission has just approved the request for a plan unit development and conditional use permit Which cannot be issued for 10 days during this 10-day period any persons having standing to do so under the law who is aggrieved by this action or Decision may file an appeal with the Community Development Department located at 65 West Alice L Street

Chair, if we could clarify that it's a recommendation to City Council and City Council will take the final action. Okay. Thank you.

You want me to repeat that or is that okay that she said that?

That's fine. The record has been corrected. This is not a final decision by the Planning Commission, only a recommendation. So next stop is City Council for a final decision.

All right. Thank you. Considerations? Looks like we have none. Commissioner comments or reports? Any commissioners have anything they'd like to report from their district? Commissioner Racamora?

Just a comment. This is graduation month and basically I know I have a college graduate and I know everybody's going to be having parties. Please be considerate to your neighbors at night with the music. I like to party too, but there's other people who want the peace. But please respect your neighbors and congratulations to all the high schoolers and college graduates.

Great. Commissioner Mora?

Yeah, I'll just make a quick plug for the city of Salinas' annual Progress Pride flag-raising ceremony, which will happen on Monday, June 1st at 9.30 a.m. right outside of the flagpole. Please join us for that.

All right, thank you. Commissioner Flores?

Just want to thank the commission for allowing me to serve. I look forward to working with all of you, with the city staff, and kind of quiet because I'm, you know, but I'll get into it, and I thank you for, you know, giving me the opportunity.

Thank you. Commissioner Pernaut? I have nothing to report on. And then I just had, let's see, I had a comment or a note I made from some of the comments made about the time of the meetings. I see this continually on the other city council and things, but it always crosses my mind. I think it's a valid point, but I think, well, how can you really get that right? I know people that have multiple shifts. So they might be on a swing shift. They might be in a graveyard. And some people have school schedules. And so it's really hard to have a particular time. In my opinion, sometimes we want to maybe look at what is efficient for the city, which their hours are. They tend to go longer on sometimes. But certain things may want to be handled during city hours. But an extension of that, there is a way around it. We do have public comment available on Zoom. So if somebody just can't make it across town or they can go on Zoom, like we had two participants today. And then also there is an email on all of the agendas that people can submit their public comment to. So once that's posted, or actually at any time, it'll be collected and then forwarded to the commissioners. So... I just want to remind everybody that that's on there. And along those lines, especially with the new commissioner coming on, we've been doing quite a few study sessions. And so they are all available on YouTube. For your spare time. And for anybody else in the public that's curious, you can search them and find them on there. So at least have some record of this great information that's being brought forth from the city to help educate us, not just the commissioners, but for the public as well. And let's see. What other note did I make? i think that was it i just want to again welcome our new commissioner um we we feel like we're a good group here so we hope you will think the same as you you get to know us better but we really appreciate you stepping up and serving the city thank you all right thank you okay any future agenda items

Yes, got a couple of those. June 3rd, we'll have three items. First item up is an appeal of a commercial cannabis permit 2025-004. This is a relocation from Moffett Street over to North Main Street. This would be known as Valley Farms. Second item, time extension, John and Abbott Street Mixed Use Project. The tentative map from 2022 is looking for an extension of time of three additional years for a total of five. This is in connection that the commission remembers a hotel development and a number of mixed use buildings surrounding the hotel. This is at the corner of John and Abbott. And third, finally, zoning code amendment phase one amendments that we just received a preview on a portion thereof earlier today.

All right. Thank you. So the next regular planning commission meeting is scheduled for June 3rd, 2026. Who will be able to attend by raising hands? Oh, no. No.

It's a one-off work thing, so I'll be back after.

Okay. We'll make sure and let Brisa know so she can plan accordingly to make sure we have quorum. You know, just remind her. Thank you. And with that, the meeting is adjourned.

Thank you.