Monterey City Council
November 4, 2025

REF250022, 2400 Garden Road, Monterey,
(APN: 013-322-008-000).

WHEREAS, on June 30, 2025, the City of Monterey (City) submitted an ALUC application (ALUC File No. REF250022) to ALUC staff requesting a consistency determination of the proposed conversion of an existing commercial office building into a day care/school facility (Montessori Community School) located at 2400 Garden Road, Monterey; and
WHEREAS, the ALUC is responsible for the review of local land use regulations affecting land uses within the Airport Influence Area for Monterey Regional Airport, as identified in the Monterey Regional Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP), incorporated herein by reference, for consistency with the ALUCP; and WHEREAS, as proposed project includes the demolition and reconstruction of approximately 8,136 square feet of the interior portions of upper floor area of the existing office building to accommodate new classroom spaces and support areas, and other site improvements including construction of a new waste enclosure, reconfiguration of the parking lot to meet current standards and provide the required number of parking spaces, and modifications to existing landscaped areas. The existing building would be occupied by Montessori Community School, providing daycare and educational programs for infants and children up to 6 years old; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Table 4A of the ALUCP, “Educational facilities (including daycare centers with more than 14 children, K–12 schools, adult schools, colleges, and universities)” are incompatible land uses within the 65–69, 70–74, and 75+ CNEL noise contour ranges. Pursuant to ALUCP Exhibit 4B, Noise Compatibility Criteria and Long Range Noise Exposure Contours, the subject property is located outside of the 65-, 70-, or 75- Community Noise Equivalent Levels (CNELs), and therefore, the proposed development is a compatible use; and WHEREAS, the project site is entirely located within the 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 77 horizontal surface elevation of 406 feet above mean sea level (AMSL). The proposed development does not include increasing the height of any structure beyond what is currently existing on site and therefore will not encroach on Part Attachment A
Planning Commission Meeting, 9/23/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 71, Packet Page 88 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 96, Packet Page 237 77 Surfaces and is an allowed use with respect to airspace protection criteria (ALUCP Policy 4.2.3); and
WHEREAS, the project site is located within Safety Zone 7 (Airport Influence Area), as delineated in the ALUCP. Safety Zone 7 is the most permissible safety zone, allowing residential development at unrestricted densities, non-residential land uses up to a maximum intensity of 300 persons per acre, and all development types except hazards to flight, outdoor stadiums, and other very high-intensity uses.

WHEREAS, the proposed site is approximately 0.75 acres in size and the proposed day care/school facility would have a maximum on-site occupancy of 120 persons (104 students and 16 staff), which complies with the maximum intensity standards for Safety Zone 7 (300 persons per acre); and WHEREAS, pursuant to Table 4B of the ALUCP, projects within Safety Zone 7 that involve vulnerable occupants (including children, the elderly, and persons with disabilities) within 6,000 feet from the side of a runway require ALUC review and are “strongly discouraged”. The subject property is located approximately 1,395 feet from the Monterey Regional Airport runway 10R-28L. The California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (CALUPH) states that in cases where such uses should be avoided, it may be allowed only if a site outside the zone would not serve the intended function; and WHEREAS, the Applicant (Montessori Community School) testified that “there are no other sites that are suitable within the Montessori Community School target area which includes the housing developments along Garden Road. Zone 7 is a very large zone that encompasses most of Monterey, Pacific Grove and parts of Seaside. Locating the school outside of this zone would be outside of the target area”; and WHEREAS, the existing building was previously used as a church, and thus would have been occupied by children, the elderly, and people with disabilities; and WHEREAS, although the proposed use is strongly discouraged due to its proximity to Runway 10R-28L, the ALUC recognizes that the site has historically been occupied by vulnerable occupants. Further, the ALUC acknowledges that Safety Zone 7 encompasses a substantial portion of the City of Monterey, and prohibiting day care or school facilities across the entire area would significantly restrict development opportunities; and
WHEREAS, as designed and conditioned, the proposed development is an allowed use within Safety Zone 7 and will not introduce a substantial number of vulnerable occupants into an area subject to higher aircraft-related risk, and therefore is a compatible use; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Table 4B, Condition No. ALUC-7, requires recordation of the airport disclosure notice; and
WHEREAS, The Monterey Regional Airport District commented on the project, stating, “Due to the potential presence of vulnerable occupants within the vicinity of the airport, Monterey Regional Airport does not support the proposed use of 2400 Garden Road as a Day Care Center”; and
Planning Commission Meeting, 9/23/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 72, Packet Page 89 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 97, Packet Page 238 WHEREAS, on July 28, 2025, the ALUC conducted a duly noticed public meeting to consider the proposed project located at 2400 Garden Road, Monterey (APN:
013-322-008-000); and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Monterey County Airport Land Use Commission does hereby find that the conversion of an existing 11,177 SF commercial office building into a day care/school facility and accompanying proposed improvements are consistent with the 2019 ALUCP for Monterey Regional Airport, subject to the conditions of approval incorporated here by reference.

PASSED AND ADOPTED on this 28th day of July 2025, upon motion of Commissioner ________ and seconded by Commissioner ___________, by the following vote, to-wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

ATTEST
Craig Spencer, Secretary to the ALUC
By: ___________________________________________
Fionna Jensen, Designee of Secretary to the ALUC
July 28, 2025
Planning Commission Meeting, 9/23/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 73, Packet Page 90 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 98, Packet Page 239

MONTEREY COUNTY

ALUC CONDITIONS
The following standard and/or non-standard conditions may be applied to an application being considered before the ALUC. If the box next to the condition is marked, that indicates the condition is to be applied to the project as part of the ALUC recommendation.

PROJECT NAME: 2400 Garden Road Montessori Day Care Project ALUC FILE NO.: REF250022
ALUC-3

NOISE STANDARDS
The project shall conform to noise standards pursuant to the California Building Code (California Code of Regulations, Title 24).

ALUC-7
NON-STANDARD: REAL ESTATE DISCLOSURE NOTICE
Prior to issuance of construction permits, the applicant/owner shall record a California Real Estate Disclosure Notice pursuant to California Business and Professions Code, Section 11010(b)(13), that states “This property is presently located in the vicinity of an airport, within what is known as an airport influence area. For that reason, the property may be subject to some of the annoyances or inconveniences associated with proximity to airport operations (for example: noise, vibration, or odors).

Individual sensitivities to those annoyances can vary from person to person. You may wish to consider what airport annoyances, if any, are associated with the property before you complete your purchase and determine whether they are acceptable to you.”
If such Notice has already been recorded on title, evidence must be provided to City of Monterey staff.

PROJECT REVIEWED BY THE ALUC ON: 7/28/25.

AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION
Planning Commission Meeting, 9/23/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 74, Packet Page 91 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 99, Packet Page 240 COVER SHEET A00124094-A001 SC PRINT DATE: DRAWN BY: JOB NO. 2340 GARDEN ROAD, SUITE 100 MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA 93940 PHONE: 831.649.4642 FAX: 831.649.3530 WWW.WRDARCH.COM A.P.N. NO.: SHEET NAME: SHEET NO.: FILE NAME.: SET ISSUED: CHECKED BY: THE USE OF THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS IS RESTRICTED TO THE ORIGINAL SITE FOR WHICH THEY WERE PREPARED, AND PUBLICATION THEREOF IS EXPRESSLY LIMITED TO SUCH USE. REUSE, REPRODUCTION OR PUBLICATION BY ANY METHOD IN WHOLE OR IN PART IS PROHIBITED. TITLE TO THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS REMAINS WITH THE ARCHITECT, AND VISUAL CONTACT WITH THEM CONSTITUTES PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF THE ACCEPTANCE OF THESE RESTRICTIONS. PLOT DATE: 6.25.2025 24094 MONTESSORI COMMUNITY SCHOOL

ALUC SUBMITTAL PACKAGE

MONTESSORI COMMUNITY SCHOOL
2400 GARDEN ROAD
MONTEREY, CA 93940 013-322-008-000 CITY OF MONTEREY APPROVAL VICINITY MAP A.C. PAVING GYPSUM WALLBOARD PLYWOOD WOOD BLOCKING WOOD FRAMING CONTINUOUS MEMBER METAL WOOD FINISH SOUND INSULATED STUD WALL (E) STUD WALL TO BE REMOVED X PROPERTY LINE REVISION +XXX.X +XXX.X +XXX.X +XXX.X
XAX.XXAX.X DETAIL DETAIL IDENTIFICATION SHEET WHERE DETAIL IS DRAWN FINISH GRADE (SPOT) ELEVATION SURFACE EXISTING GRADE (SPOT) ELEVATION SURFACE SECTION SECTION IDENTIFICATION SHEET WHERE SECTION IS DRAWN (N) STUD WALL (E) STUD WALL CAST-IN-PLACE (C.I.P.) CONCRETE EARTH ROCK CONCRETE BLOCK SAND, MORTAR, PLASTER LEGEND XXXX XXX

XXX DEMOLITION TAG VERTICAL OR HORIZONTAL DIAPHRAGM KEY WORK POINT, DATUM POINT OR CONTROL MATCH LINE KEY TAG DOOR SYMBOL WINDOW SYMBOL ABREVIATIONS SYMBOLS PROJECT TEAM & AND
∠ ANGLE @ AT℄ CENTERLINE Ø DIAMETER OR ROUND ┴ PERPENDICULAR⅊ PROPERTY LINE # POUND OR NUMBER A.B. ANCHOR BOLT A.B.S. ACRYLONITRILE BUTADIENE ABV. ABOVE A.A. ASPHALTIC CONCRETE A/C AIR CONDITIONING ACOUS. ACOUSTICAL ADJ. ADJUSTABLE A.F.F. ABOVE FINISH FLOOR AGGR. AGGREGATE ALUM. ALUMINUM ANOD. ANODIZED A.P.A AMERICAN PLYWOOD ASSOCIATION APPROX. APPROXIMATE ARCH. ARCHITECTURAL A.S. ADJUSTABLE SHELF BD. BOARD BIT. BITUMINOUS BLDG. BUILDING BLK. BLOCK BLKG. BLOCKING BM. BEAM B.M. BENCH MARK BOT. BOTTOM BRG. BEARING BTWN. BETWEEN B.U.R. BUILD-UP ROOFING B.W. BOTH WAYS CAB. CABINET C.B. CATCH BASIN CBC CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE CEM. CEMENT CER. CERAMIC CFCI. CONTRACTOR FURNISHED, CONTRACTOR INSTALLED C.F. CUBIC FEET C.I. CAST IRON C.J. CONTROL JOINT CL. CLOSET CLG. CEILING CLKG. CAULKING CLR. CLEAR(ANCE) C.M.U. CONCRETE MASONRY UNIT COL. COLUMN COMP. COMPOSITION CONC. CONCRETE CONN. CONNECTION CONSTR. CONSTRUCTION CONT. CONTINUOUS COR. CORRUGATED C.O.T.G. CLEAN-OUT TO GRADE CSMT. CASEMENT CSWK. CASEWORK C.T. CERAMIC TILE CTR. COUNTER CTSK. COUNTERSINK C.Y. CUBIC YARD DBL. DOUBLE DEPT. DEPARTMENT DET. DETAIL DF. DRINKING FOUNTAIN D.F. DOUGLAS FIR D.G. DECOMPOSED GRANITE D.H. DOUBLE HUNG DIAG. DIAGONAL DIA. DIAMETER DIMEN. DIMENSION DISP. DISPENSER/DISPOSER DN. DOWN DR. DOOR DRWG. DRAWING D.S.B. DBL. STRENGTH B GRADE (GLASS) D.S. DOWNSPOUT DWR. DRAWER D.W. DISH WASHER E. EAST EA. EACH E.J. EXPANSION JOINT ELEV. ELEVATION, ELEVATOR ELEC. ELECTRIC(AL) EMER. EMERGENCY ENCL. ENCLOSURE EQUIP. EQUIPMENT N.I.C. W/ WITH EWC. ELECTRIC WATER COOLER (E) EXISTING EXH. EXHAUST EXP. EXPOSED/EXPANSION EXT. EXTERIOR F.A. FIRE ALARM FAST. FASTEN(ER) F.A. FLAT BAR F.D. FLOOR DRAIN FEC. FIRE EXTINGUISHER CABINET F.F. FINISH FLOOR F.G. FINISH GRADE FND. FOUNDATION F.E. FIRE EXTINGUISHER F. FIBERGLASS FIN. FINISH(ED) F.H.M.S. FLATHEAD MECHANICAL SCREW F.H.W.S. FLATHEAD WOOD SCREW FLASH. FLASHING FLR. FLOOR(ING) FLUOR. FLUORESCENT F.O. FACE OF F.O.B. FACE OF BLOCK F.O.C. FACE OF CONCRETE F.O.F. FACE OF FINISH F.O.M. FACE OF MASONRY F.O.S. FACE OF STUD F.P. FIREPLACE F.R.P. FIBERGLASS REINF. PANEL F.S. FULL SIZE FT. FOOT/FEET FTG. FOOTING FURR. FURRED(ING) FUT. FUTURE GA. GAUGE/GAGE GALV. GALVANIZED G.B. GRAB BAR G.I. GALVANIZED IRON GL. GLASS/GLAZING G.L.B. GLUE-LAM BEAM GR. GRADE(ING) G.W.B. GYPSUM WALLBOARD H.B. HOSE BIB HBD. HARDBOARD H.A. HOLLOW CORE HDR. HEADER HDWR. HARDWARE H.M. HOLLOW METAL HORZ. HORIZONTAL H.S. HEAVY SHEET HT. HEIGHT HTG. HEATING H.W. HOT WATER HWD. HARDWOOD HVAC. HEATING/VENTILATING/AIR CONDITIONING I.C.C. INTERNATIONAL CODE COUNCIL ID. INSIDE DIAMETER INCL. INCLUDE(D) (ING) INSUL. INSULATE(D) (ING) INT. INTERIOR INV. INVERT JAN. JANITOR J.H. JOIST HANGER JT. JOINT KIT. KITCHEN L. LENGTH LAM. LAMINATE LAV. LAVATORY L.B. LAG BOLT LOC. LOCATE(ION) L.V.L. LAMINATED VENEER LUMBER L.W. LIGHTWEIGHT MAS. MASONRY MAT. MATERIAL(S) MAX. MAXIMUM M.B. MACHINE BOLT M.C. MEDICINE CABINET M.H. MAN HOLE MECH. MECHANICAL MEMB. MEMBRANE MEZZ. MEZZANINE MFR. MANUFACTURE(ER) MIN. MINIMUM MIR. MIRROR MISC. MISCELLANEOUS MLDG. MOLDING/MOULDING M.I.W. MALLEABLE IRON WASHER M.O. MASONRY OPENING MTD. MOUNTED MET. METAL MULL. MULLION N. NORTH (N) NEW NAT. NATURAL N.I.C. NOT IN CONTRACT NOM. NOMINAL N.T.S. NOT TO SCALE O/ OVER OBS. OBSCURE O.C. ON CENTER(S) O.D. OUTSIDE DIAMETER OFF. OFFICE OFCI. OWNER FURNISHED, CONTRACTOR INSTALLED OFOI. OWNER FURNISHED, OWNER INSTALLED O.H. OVER HANG O.H.M.S. OVALHEAD MACHINE SCREW O.H.W.S. OVALHEAD WOOD SCREW OPNG. OPENING OPP. OPPOSITE P.A.F. POWDER ACTUATED FASTENER P.B. PANIC BAR PART. TBD. PARTICLE BOARD PCF. POUNDS PER CUBIC FOOT P.D. POWDER DRIVEN P.G. PAINT GRADE PERF. PERFORATE PLF POUNDS PER LINEAR FOOT PLAS. LAM. PLASTIC LAMINATE PLAS. PLASTER PLYWD. PLYWOOD PR. PAIR PSF POUNDS PER SQUARE FOOT PSI POUNDS PER SQUARE INCH P.T. PRESSURE TREATED PART. PARTITION P.T. DISP. PAPER TOWEL DISPENSER P.V.C. POLYVINYL CHLORIDE R. RISER R.A. RETURN AIR RAD. RADIUS R.D. ROOF DRAIN REG. REGISTER REF. REFRIGERATOR REINF. REINFORCED REQ'D. REQUIRED REQMT. REQUIREMENT RESIL. RESILIENT REV. REVERSED R.H.M.S. ROUNDHEAD MACHINE SCREW R.H.W.S. ROUNDHEAD WOOD SCREW RM. ROOM R.O. ROUGH OPENING R.O.W. RIGHT OF WAY R.S. RESAWN RUB. RUBBER RWD. REDWOOD R.W.L. RAIN WATER LEADER S. SOUTH S.B. SOLID BLOCKING S.C. SOLID CORE SCHED. SCHEDULE S.A. STORM DRAIN SECT. SECTION SERV. SERVICE S.F. SQUARE FOOT S.G. STAIN GRADE SH. SHELF/SHELVING SHWR. SHOWER SHT. SHEET SHT'G. SHEATHING SIM. SIMILAR S.S. STAINLESS STEEL SERVICE SINK S.S.D. SEE STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS S.M. SHEET METAL S.M.S. SHEET METAL SCREW SPEC. SPECIFICATION SQ. SQUARE STL. STEEL STD. STANDARD STAG. STAGGERED STOR. STORAGE STRUCT. STRUCTURAL SUSP. SUSPENDED SYM. SYMMETRY(ICAL) SYS. SYSTEM T. TREAD T.B. TOWEL BAR T.B.D. TO BE DETERMINED T.C. TOP OF CURB TEL. TELEPHONE TEMP. TEMPERED T.E.N. TYPICAL EDGE NAILING T & G TONGUE & GROOVE THK. THICK(NESS) THRESH. THRESHOLD T.J.I. TRUSS JOIST INTERNATIONAL T.O. TOP OF T.P.H. TOILET PAPER HOLDER T.Q. TOP OF PAVEMENT TV TELEVISION T.W. TOP OF WALL TYP. TYPICAL U/L UNDERWRITER'S LABORATORY U.N.O. UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE U.O.N. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED UR. URINAL V.I.F. VERIFY IN FIELD W. WEST/WIDTH/WIDE W/ WITH W.C. WATER CLOSET WD. WOOD WDW. WINDOW W.H. WATER HEATER WI. WOODWORK INSTITUTE W/O WITHOUT W.P. WATERPROOF(ING) W.R. WATER RESISTANT W.S. WOOD SCREW WSCT. WAINSCOT WT. WEIGHT W.W.M. WELDED WIRE MESH SHEET INDEX SHEET # SHEET TITLE TITLE A001 COVER SHEET ARCHITECTURAL D101 DEMOLITION SITE PLAN D202 DEMOLITION UPPER FLOOR PLAN A101 PROPOSED SITE PLAN A201 EXISTING LOWER FLOOR PLAN A202 PROPOSED UPPER FLOOR PLAN PROJECT INFORMATION 2400 GARDEN ROAD MONTEREY, CA. 93940 MONTESSORI COMMUNITY SCHOOL ALUC SUBMITTAL OWNER MONTESSORI COMMUNITY SCHOOL 123 SOUTH NAVARRA DRIVE SCOTTS VALLEY, CA 95066 ph: (831) 439-9625 Email: [email protected] Contact: MADELYNN VAN DEN HUEVEL 013-322-008-000 2400 GARDEN ROAD MONTEREY, CA 93940 I-R-40 MONTESSORI COMMUNITY SCHOOL ALUC SUBMITTAL PROJECT LOCATION ARCHITECT WALD, RUHNKE & DOST ARCHITECTS, LLP 2340 GARDEN ROAD, SUITE 100 MONTEREY, CA 93940 ph: (831) 649-4642 fax: (831) 649-3530 Email: [email protected] Contact: SHAWN CAPPS THESE DRAWINGS SHALL BE CONSIDERED SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLETE. HOWEVER, IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE ALL LABOR AND MATERIALS NECESSARY TO RENDER THE WORK COMPLETE, AS IS THE INTENT OF THESE DRAWINGS, EITHER SHOWN OR INFERRED HEREIN, THROUGH PROPER AND ESTABLISHED CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES. PROVIDE ALL REQUIRED FIRE BLOCKING IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 708 OF THE CURRENT ADOPTED EDITION OF C.B.C. ANY PROPOSAL FOR WORK THAT TAKES PLACE AFTER NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS SHALL BE MADE IN WRITING AT LEAST SEVEN (7) WORKING DAYS IN ADVANCE. REQUESTS SHALL BE DIRECTED TO THE ARCHITECT. ANY PROPOSED SHUT DOWN OF UTILITIES SHALL BE REGISTERED IN WRITING AT LEAST SEVEN (7) WORKING DAYS IN ADVANCE. REQUESTS SHALL BE DIRECTED TO THE ARCHITECT. EXISTING CONSTRUCTION DETAILS SHOWN HERE ARE ASSUMED TO BE SUBSTANTIALLY CORRECT AND MAY NOT DEPICT THE ACTUAL CONDITION. THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY THE (E) CONDITION AND NOTIFY THE ARCHITECT IF ANY DISCRIPENCES PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK. 11. 10. 9. 8. THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE VERIFICATION OF ALL DIMENSIONS, GRADES, AND OTHER CONDITIONS, AND SHALL CORRELATE AT THE JOB SITE ALL SUCH ITEMS. GENERAL CONTRACTOR SHALL REPORT ANY DISCREPANCIES TO THE ARCHITECT FOR CLARIFICATION AND CORRECTION PRIOR TO BEGINNING ANY WORK. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL HAVE PRECEDENCE OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS. ANY AND ALL DISCREPANCIES SHALL BE REPORTED TO THE ARCHITECT IMMEDIATELY, PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK. IT SHALL BE THE GENERAL CONTRACTORS RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE SUPERVISION OF THE WORK. THE ARCHITECT ASSUMES NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE SUPERVISION OF THE WORK OR THE PROPER EXECUTION OF SAME. THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE WORK AND THE COORDINATION OF ALL TRADES AND GOVERNING AGENCIES, AND SHALL PROVIDE ALL MATERIALS AND LABOR SHOWN OR INFERRED ON THESE PLANS TO RENDER THE WORK COMPLETE. 3. 2. 5. 4. 6. 7. GENERAL NOTES THIS BUILDING SHALL CONFORM TO ALL FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PHYSICALLY DISABLED. 1. SIGNS ARE NOT APPROVED FOR INSTALLATION AS PART OF THIS BUILDING PERMIT. SUBMIT FOR SEPARATE SIGN REVIEW. (CONTACT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION). 12. AT THE TIME OF PERMIT ISSUANCE, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL HAVE A CURRENT CITY OF SALINAS BUSINESS LICENSE. 13. AT THE TIME OF PERMIT ISSUANCE, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL HAVE EVIDENCE OF CURRENT WORKMAN'S COMPENSATION INSURANCE ON FILE WITH THE BUILDING DIVISION. SEC. .3800, CA LABOR CODE. 14. DOORS THAT OPEN OUT SHALL HAVE LANDINGS 5'-0" MINIMUM IN LENGTH AND 5'-4" MINIMUM IN WIDTH. MINIMUM DISTANCE FROM THE STRIKE SIDE OF THE DOOR TO THE EDGE OF THE LANDING AT THE EXTERIOR SHALL BE (24) INCH. 15. ALL CHANGES IN ELEVATION OF MORE THAN 12" AT A PRIMARY ENTRANCE DOOR(S) SHALL BE ACCOMPLISHED BY MEANS OF A RAMP (SLOPE NOT TO EXCEED 1:12). 16. PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF (1) OF 2A-10BC MINIMUM RATED FIRE EXTINGUISHER SO THAT THE MAXIMUM TRAVEL DISTANCE TO ANY ONE EXTINGUISHER IS (75) FEET. ALL EXTINGUISHERS SHALL MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF NFPA PAMPHLET 10, AND SHALL BE SERVICED REGULARLY PER FIRE DEPARTMENT REQUIREMENTS. 17. REFER TO MECHANICAL PLAN FOR CONTROL LOCATIONS. VERIFY EQUIPMENT POWER REQUIREMENTS PRIOR TO ROUGH IN. 18. ALL INFORMATION REGARDING EXISTING CONDITIONS WAS OBTAINED FROM SOURCES DEEMED RELIABLE BY THE ARCHITECT, THE ACCURACY OF WHICH IS IN NO WAY GUARANTEED BY THE ARCHITECT. 19. HOT WATER AND DRAINPIPES UNDER LAVATORIES SHALL BE INSULATED TO MEET CITY/COUNTY/STATE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PHYSICALLY DISABLED. 20. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ARE TO BE CONSIDERED "DEFERRED SUBMITTAL" PER CBC 106.3.4.2: - AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM - AUTOMATIC FIRE ALARM SYSTEM FIRE SPRINKLER NOTES FIRE ALARM PLAN SUBMITTED IS FOR REFERENCE ONLY; A SEPERATE SUBMITTAL IS REQUIRED. DRAWINGS AND SUPPORTIVE CALCULATIONS FOR ALL MODIFICATIONS TO THE EXISTING FIRE ALARM CONTRACTOR TO THE FIRE PREVENTION DEPARTMENT FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. DRAWINGS AND SUPPORTIVE CALCULATIONS FOR ALL MODIFICATIONS TO THE EXISTING FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM ARE REQUIRED TO BE SUBMITTED BY THE INSTALLING LICENSED FIRE SPRINKLER CONTRACTOR (C-16) TO THE FIRE PREVENTION DEPARTMENT FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY IN A "KNOX BOX" EXISTS, IF NOT A "KNOX BOX" SHALL BE PROVIDED AND LOCATED PER FIRE DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS. IF "KNOX BOX" EXISTS THEN CONTENTS SHALL BE UPDATED TO REFLECT NEW TENANT. EMERGENCY ACCESS KEYS INCLUDING A GRAND MASTER KEY FOR ROOMS, ELEVATOR OVERRIDE KEY, ACCESS KEY TO THE FIRE ALARM PANEL AND SPECIAL ACCESS KEYS (WHERE APPLICABLE) SHALL ALSO BE MADE PART OF THE "KNOX BOX" INVENTORY. ALL PLAN SUBMITTALS REQUIRING FIRE SPRINKLERS, FIRE SERVICE UNDERGROUND, FIRE ALARMS, AND HOOD AND DUCT SYSTEMS, SHALL BE SUBMITTED AND SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE FIRE DEPARTMENT BEFORE A FRAMING INSPECTION SHALL BE GRANTED BY THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT. 5. 4. 3. 1. THIS IS AN EXISTING, FULLY FIRE SPRINKLERED BUILDING 2. THE FIRE ALARM SYSTEM IS A DEFFERED SUBMITTAL. DRAWINGS AND SUPPORTIVE CALCULATIONS FOR THE FIRE ALARM SYSTEM ARE REQUIRED TO BE SUBMITTED BY THE LICENSED FIRE ALARM CONTRACTOR (C-10) TO THE SALINAS FIRE DEPARTMENT FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. 6. FIRE DEPARTMENT NOTES FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEMS AND ALTERATIONS OF AN EXISTING SYSTEM AND ALL COMPONENTS SHALL CONFORM TO NFPA 13 MINIMUM STANDARDS AND SHALL BE REVIEWED BY THE FIRE DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. STAMPED, APPROVED PLANS MUST BE KEPT ON SITE FOR FIRE INSPECTOR. (A.) SUBMITTAL TO INCLUDE A MINIMUM OF FOUR SETS OF PLANS AND CALCULATIONS WITH ALL DETAILS PER NFPA 13. (B.) CONTRACTOR IS REQUIRED TO SUBMIT A SET OF "AS-BUILT" DOCUMENTS/DRAWINGS FOR APPROVAL PRIOR TO FINAL INSPECTION WHEN NOT INSTALLED PER PLAN. (C.) INSTALL THE FIRE INSPECTORS TEST VALVE AT THE FURTHEST MOST POINT FROM THE RISER AND PLUMB TO THE EXTERIOR OF THE BUILDING. (D.) TEST REQUIRED, (NEW SYSTEM, 200 PSI FOR 2 HOURS). 1. FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION (FDC) THREADS SHALL BE PROTECTED WITH APPROVED BRASS OR ALUMINUM ALLOY SCREW-IN PLUGS. 2. THE FOLLOWING COMPONENTS ARE REQUIRED FOR SPRINKLER SYSTEMS WITH OVER 100 HEADS INSTALLED PER CBC 904.3 & CFC 1003.3: (A.) MONITORING PER CFC 1006.3.3.6, CFC 1003.3. (B.) AUTOMATIC SMOKE DETECTION AT CONTROL UNIT (ALARM PANEL) WHEN LOCATED IN AN AREA THAT IS NOT CONTINUOUSLY OCCUPIED (i.e. WHEN LOCATED IN A STORAGE CLOSET). CMC 2019, SECTION 608. (C.) SMOKE DETECTION RECALL FOR ELEVATORS WHEN REQUIRED BY CBC 2019, SECTION 3003.2 AND INSTALLED PER CBC 2019 AND NFPA 72. (D.) DUCT DETECTORS WHEN REQUIRED BY CMC 2019, SECTION 608. (E.) ONE PULL STATION REQUIRED AT MAIN EXIT FROM BUILDING PER NFPA 72, SECTION 3-8.1.2. (F.) HORN/STROBE DEVICES TO BE PROVIDED WHICH SATISFACTORILY MEET THE INTENT OF CFC 1003.3.2. EXAMPLES: A MINIMUM OF ONE PER FLOOR IN MULTISTORY BUILDINGS, OR ONE PER TENANT SPACE IN A MULTI TENANT BUILDING. WHERE THE MAJORITY OF THE OCCUPANTS CAN HEAR OR SEE THE ALARM. (G.) TEMPORAL 3 NOTIFICATION PATTERN IS REQUIRED. NFPA 72, SECTION 3-7.2. (H.) WHEN TWO OR MORE AUDIBLE APPLIANCES CAN BE HEARD, SYNCHRONIZATION IS REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN TEMPORAL 3 PATTERN. (I.) AUDIBILITY AND VISIBILITY OF NOTIFICATION APPLIANCES WILL BE FIELD VERIFIED AT TIME OF ACCEPTANCE TESTING TO ENSURE THEY ARE LOCATED PER SECTION ABOVE. 3. FIRE ALARM SYSTEM AND ALL COMPONENTS SHALL CONFORM TO NFPA 72 MINIMUM STANDARDS AND SHALL BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE FIRE DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. STAMPED, APPROVED PLANS MUST BE KEPT ON SITE FOR THE FIRE INSPECTOR. (A.) FIRE ALARM CONTRACTOR MUST PICK UP SUBMITTAL PACKET PRIOR TO SUBMITTAL FROM FIRE DEPT. (B.) COMPLETED PACKET MUST BE INCLUDED WITH ALL FIRE ALARM PLAN SUBMITTAL. FIRE ALARM TO BE MONITORED BY REMOTE OR CENTRAL STATION. 4. AIR-MOVING SYSTEMS SUPPLYING AIR IN EXCESS OF 2000 CFM TO ENCLOSED SPACES WITHIN BUILDINGS SHALL BE EQUIPPED WITH AN AUTOMATIC SHUTOFF. (SMOKE DETECTOR). TO BE INSTALLED PER NFPA 90A, CMC 2022 SECTION 608, AND NFPA 72 SECTION 5-11.4.2. ALL DUCT DETECTORS AND FIRE AND SMOKE DAMPERS SHALL BE CONNECTED TO THE FIRE ALARM CONTROL PANEL AND MONITORED UNDER A SUPERVISORY ZONE. 5. ALL SITE INSPECTIONS REQUIRE A MINIMUM 24 HOURS NOTICE. ALL FIRE DEPARTMENT INSPECTIONS ARE TO BE REQUESTED THROUGH THE BUILDING DIVISION, PLEASE BE SPECIFIC TO TYPE OF INSPECTION. 6. FIRE SAFETY DURING CONSTRUCTION SHALL FOLLOW 2022 CFC ARTICLE 87. FIRE EXTINGUISHERS SHALL BE PROVIDED. THE AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM IS TO REMAIN IN SERVICE AT ALL TIMES. UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCE SHALL THE FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM BE LEFT OUT OF SERVICE OVERNIGHT. 7. 8. ROOF CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE CLASS A OR B, WITH FIRE RESISTIVE MATERIALS. EXTERIOR DOORS AND OPENINGS REQUIRED BY THIS CODE OR THE INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE SHALL BE MAINTAINED READILY ACCESSIBLE FOR EMERGENCY ACCESS BY THE FIRE DEPARTMENT. AN APPROVED ACCESS WALKWAY LEADING FROM FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROADS TO EXTERIOR OPENINGS SHALL BE PROVIDED AND MAINTAINED TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE FIRE INSPECTOR. 9. ALL BUILDINGS EQUIPPED WITH A MONITORED FIRE ALARM AND / OR FIRE SPRINKLER AND / OR OTHER AUTOMATIC FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEM SHALL HAVE AN APPROVED KEY BOX ON SITE, IN AN APPROVED LOCATION. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS SHALL BE PROVIDED AND / OR MAINTAINED IN THE KNOX BOX PRIOR TO FINAL FIRE INSPECTION. ITEMS TO BE MASTER KEY, FIRE ALARM / SPRINKLER KEYS AND POINTS OF CONTACT AFTER HOURS. 10. INTERIOR WALL AND CEILING FINISH AND TRIM IN EXISTING BUILDINGS: THE PROVISIONS OF CBC SECTION 803 SHALL LIMIT THE ALLOWABLE FLAME SPREAD AND SMOKE DEVELOPMENT OF INTERIOR WALL AND CEILING FINISHES AND INTERIOR WALL AND CEILING TRIM IN EXISTING BUILDINGS BASED ON LOCATION AND OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION. INTERIOR WALL AND CEILING FINISHES SHALL BE CLASSIFIED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CBC SECTION 803. SUCH MATERIALS SHALL BE GROUPED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM E 84, AS INDICATED IN CFC SECTION 803.1.1, OR IN ACCORDANCE WITH NFPA 286, AS INDICATED IN CFC SECTION 803.1.2. 24. THE PROVISIONS OF THE CFC GOVERN INTERIOR FINISH, INTERIOR TRIM, FURNITURE, FURNISHINGS, DECORATIVE MATERIALS AND DECORATIVE VEGETATION IN BUILDINGS. NEW BUILDINGS SHALL COMPLY WITH CFC 804 THROUGH 808, NFPA 286, AND CBC SECTION 803. 25. LOCATION MAP PROJECT TO CONSISTS OF CONVERTING EXISTING 11,177 SF OFFICE BUILDING TO A NEW MONTESSORI COMMUNITY SCHOOL. NEW SITE LAYOUT TO PROVIDE REQUIRED PLAYGROUND AREAS AND REQUIRED PARKING. EXTERIOR WINDOWS TO BE MODIFIED TO PROVIDE EXTERIOR DOORS TO THE PLAYGROUND AREA DECKS. INTERIOR IMPROVEMENTS WILL CONSISTS ON NEW DAYCARE CLASSROOMS AND REQUIRED CHILDREN RESTROOMS ON UPPER FLOOR. NO WORK TO OCCUR ON LOWER FLOOR. TYPE V-B, FIRE-SPRINKLERED I-4 CONSTRUCTION: OCCUPANCY: TENANT IMPROVEMENT AREA: EXISTING BUILDING AREA: APN: ZONING: LOCATION: PROJECT: NOTE: THIS BUILDING OR SPACE SHALL PROVIDE A READILY DISTINGUISHABLE MEANS OF EGRESS COMPLYING WITH CHAPTER 10 AND CHAPTER 11 (WHERE APPLICABLE FOR ACCESSIBILITY PURPOSE) OF THE 2022 EDITION OF THE CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE. THE EXIT SYSTEM SHALL MAINTAIN A CONTINUOUS, UNOBSTRUCTED AND UNDIMINISHED PATH OF EXIT TRAVEL FROM ANY OCCUPIED POINT WITHIN THE BUILDING TO A PUBLIC WAY. EXITING: NFPA 13, AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEMS, (CA AMENDED) 2022 EDITION NFPA 72, NATIONAL FIRE ALARM CODE, (CA AMENDED) 2022 EDITION PARTIAL LIST OF APPLICABLE STATE STANDARDS 2022 CALIFORNIA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE (CAC), PART 1, TITLE 24, CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS (C.C.R.) 2022 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE (CBC), PART 2, (VOL. 1 & 2 )TITLE 24 C.C.R. 2022 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE (CEC), PART 3, TITLE 24 C.C.R. 2022 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE (CMC), PART 4, TITLE 24 C.C.R. 2022 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE (CPC), PART 5, TITLE 24 C.C.R. 2022 CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE (CEC), PART 6, TITLE 24 C.C.R. 2022 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE (CFC), PART 9, TITLE 24 C.C.R. 2022 CALIFORNIA EXISTING BUILDING CODE (CEBC), PART 10, TITLE 24 C.C.R. 2022 CALIFORNIA GREEN STANDARDS CODE (CALGreen), PART 11, TITLE 24 C.C.R. 2022 CALIFORNIA REFERENCED STANDARDS CODE, PART 12, TITLE 24 C.C.R. TITLE 19 C.C.R., PUBLIC SAFETY, DIVISION 1, STATE FIRE MARSHAL REGULATIONS APPLICABLE BUILDING CODES & STANDARDS 3,041 S.F. 8,136 S.F. 11,177 S.F. LOWER FLOOR: UPPER FLOOR: TOTAL: DEFERRED SUBMITTAL SCOPE OF WORK PROJECT LOCATION 156 152Hollister Chualar Soledad to Big Sur G16 Castroville Seaside TRUE NORTH Carmel Pacific Grove 1Monterey Marina 101 68 Carmel Valley Salinas Prunedale 183 Fort Ord 156 1 Aptos Santa Cruz 152 Watsonville 101 Gilroy to San Francisco Gonzales 17.33 STALLS: 104 / 6 (CHILDREN) 18 STANDARD STALLS 1 VAN ACCESSIBLE STALL 19 TOTAL PARKING STALLS REQUIRED: PROVIDED: PARKING REQUIREMENTS8,136 S.F. NOTE: FOR BUILDING ALTERATIONS OR IMPROVEMENTS, ALL NON-COMPLIANT PLUMBING FIXTURES THAT SERVE THE SPECIFIC AREA OF ALTERATION OR IMPROVEMENT WILL BE REQUIRED TO BE UPGRADED WITH WATER-CONSERVING PLUMBING FIXTURES (CIVIL CODE SECTION 1101.5(d)(1)(B)). Planning Commission Meeting, 9/23/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 75, Packet Page 92 Attachment 2 Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 100, Packet Page 241 1 1TYP.
1 2
3 5 4 TYP.
4 5TYP.
7TYP.
7TYP.
8 D1 TYP.
9 D2
2 D2 D5 D6 TYP. D6 D4 TYP. D3 D7TYP. D6
FH WV

WATER METER
HB
HB
SSCO
LP
LP
LP
12"P
12"P
12"P
12"P
12"P
12"P
10"P
10"P
10"P
10"P
10"P
10"P
10"P
10"P
10"P
10"Q
6"Q
6"Q
6"Q
14"P
14"P
14"P
14"P
24"P
24"P
6"P
6"P
6"P
6"P
6"P
16"P
16"P
18"P
18"P
8"P
8"P
8"P
6"P
8"P
14"P
DIRT
DIRT
CONC.

TELECOM

VAULT MANHOLE

TELECOM
DIRT
DIRT

GAS METER
24"P
ACU
ACU
ACUACU
SSCO
SSCO
ACU
P
P

MULIT-STORY CONCRETE & WOOD FRAME

BUILDING
FDC
24"P
12"P
12"P
8"T
6"T
6"T
18"P
2-PRONG
PINE, 12"-14"
18"P
16"P
16"P
ACU S 0°06'20" W 190.00'
S 24°38'31" W

44.09'
Δ=66°21'29" R=50.00' L=57.91'

81.51' S 89°00'00" E
226.31'
N 15°41'03" E
N 15°41'03" E

43.65'
L=112.60'
R=1960.00'
Δ=3°17'29"
N 74°18'57" W

55.10'
N 89°00'00" W 146.79'
FOGLINE PROPERTY LINE D1 TYP. 10 11
2 D6 13 12 D8
1 1
1 D202 DEMOLITION UPPER FLOOR PLAN EXISTING ROAD EASEMENT DEMOLITION SITE PLAN D10124094-D101 SC PRINT DATE: DRAWN BY: JOB NO. 2340 GARDEN ROAD, SUITE 100 MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA 93940 PHONE: 831.649.4642 FAX: 831.649.3530 WWW.WRDARCH.COM A.P.N. NO.: SHEET NAME: SHEET NO.: FILE NAME.: SET ISSUED: CHECKED BY: THE USE OF THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS IS RESTRICTED TO THE ORIGINAL SITE FOR WHICH THEY WERE PREPARED, AND PUBLICATION THEREOF IS EXPRESSLY LIMITED TO SUCH USE. REUSE, REPRODUCTION OR PUBLICATION BY ANY METHOD IN WHOLE OR IN PART IS PROHIBITED. TITLE TO THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS REMAINS WITH THE ARCHITECT, AND VISUAL CONTACT WITH THEM CONSTITUTES PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF THE ACCEPTANCE OF THESE RESTRICTIONS. PLOT DATE: 6.25.2025 24094 MONTESSORI COMMUNITY SCHOOL

ALUC SUBMITTAL PACKAGE

MONTESSORI COMMUNITY SCHOOL
2400 GARDEN ROAD
MONTEREY, CA 93940 013-322-008-000 CITY OF MONTEREY APPROVAL 1 THE KEY NOTES THAT FOLLOW APPLY TO THE DRAWING(S) ON THIS SHEET ONLY. REFER TO FOLLOWING SHEETS FOR NOTES THAT ARE APPLICABLE TO THOSE DRAWINGS. KEY NOTES DEMOLITION KEY NOTES DEMOLITION GENERAL NOTES 1. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE VERIFICATION OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES IN THE FIELD PRIOR TO WORK. LOCATIONS SHOWN ON THE PLANS ARE APPROXIMATE AND FOR GENERAL INFORMATION ONLY. 2. ALL WORK SHALL BE DONE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORATION STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS, THE PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS AND ANY APPLICABLE STANDARD DETAILS FOR THE PROJECT. 3. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PERFORM ALL CLEARING, DEMOLITION, REMOVAL OF OBSTRUCTIONS AND SITE PREPARATIONS NECESSARY FOR THE PROPER EXECUTION OF ALL WORK SHOWN ON THESE PLANS AND AS DESCRIBED IN THE SPECIFICATIONS. 4. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT (U.S.A.) AT LEAST 48 HOURS PRIOR TO ANY EXCAVATION ON THIS PROJECT (800-227-2600). THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE ALL U.S.A. MARKINGS AS SOON AS THEY ARE NO LONGER NEEDED, BY USING A HIGH PRESSURE WATER METHOD ONLY. THE CITY ENCOURAGES THE USE OF CHALK PAINT WHENEVER POSSIBLE. 5. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE UNDER THIS CONTRACT FOR REPAIRING AND REPLACING AT CONTRACTOR EXPENSE, ANY STRUCTURES, FENCES, WALLS, OR PLANT LIFE DAMAGED OR DESTROYED BY THE OPERATIONS. LIKEWISE, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR REPAIRING OR REPLACING ANY AND ALL DAMAGES OCCURRING BY THE OPERATIONS ON ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND ANYWHERE OUTSIDE THE CONTRACT LIMIT LINES. THE DAMAGED ITEMS WILL BE RESTORED TO THEIR ORIGINAL CONDITION AND TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE ARCHITECT AND ENGINEER. 6. KEEP ALL PLANTING, PAVING AND CURB AREAS FREE FROM DEBRIS AND TRASH DURING THE ENTIRE DURATION OF THE CONTRACT. 7. CARE SHOULD BE TAKEN WITH EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN. GRADES WITHIN THE DRIP LINE OF THE TREE SHALL NOT BE CHANGED UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED ON THE PLANS. UNNECESSARY COMPACTION OF THE AREA WITHIN THE DRIP LINE SHALL BE AVOIDED. SEE LANDSCAPE PLANS FOR ADDITIONAL NOTATION. 8. ALL ITEMS INDICATED TO BE REMOVED SHALL BE DISPOSED OF FROM THE PROJECT SITE, EXCEPT ITEMS INDICATED TO BE SALVAGED. 9. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES WITHIN THE LIMITS OF DEMOLITION SHALL BE CAPPED AND ABANDONED OR REMOVED AS REQUIRED, UNLESS SHOWN OTHERWISE. SEE UTILITY PLANS FOR FURTHER DETAILS. D3 CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE AND LEGALLY DISPOSE OF EXISTING CONCRETE CURB / GUTTER / WALKWAY / DRIVEWAY APRON AS REQUIRED TO ACCOMMODATE NEW WORK. EXISTING PROPERTY LINE. 23 D245 EXISTING BUILDING FOOTPRINT TO REMAIN INTACT. PROTECT FROM DAMAGE.6 EXISTING AC PAVED ROAD TO REMAIN INTACT.7 EXISTING CURB, GUTTER AND WALKWAYS TO REMAIN INTACT. EXISTING LANDSCAPED AREA. CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE AND LEGALLY DISPOSE OF EXISTING AC PAVEMENT AND BASE AGGREGATE AS REQUIRED TO ACCOMMODATE NEW WORK. EXISTING CONCRETE WALKWAY TO REMAIN INTACT. PROTECT FROM DAMAGE. CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE AND LEGALLY DISPOSE OF EXISTING CONCRETE PAD. THE KEY NOTES THAT FOLLOW APPLY TO THE DRAWING(S) ON THIS SHEET ONLY. REFER TO FOLLOWING SHEETS FOR NOTES THAT ARE APPLICABLE TO THOSE DRAWINGS. D1 not used. 8 EXISTING RAMP TO REMAIN. 9 EXISTING LIGHT POST TO REMAIN. D4 REMOVE EXISTING PARKING STRIPING TO ACCOMMODATE NEW WORK. D6 REMOVE EXISTING TREE AND/OR STUMP TO ACCOMMODATE NEW WORK. D5 REMOVE AND RELOCATE EXISTING LIGHT POLE. D7 REMOVE EXISTING ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALL SIGNS AND POLES. 10 EXISTING ROAD EASEMENT PER REEL 747 PAGE 495. 11 EXISTING ROAD EASEMENT PER REEL 932 PAGE 668. 12 EXISTING SHED TO REMAIN. 13 EXISTING TRENCH DRAIN TO REMAIN. D8 REMOVE EXISTING TRASH ENCLOSURE TO ACCOMMODATE NEW WORK. NORTH SCALE:
1 DEMOLITION SITE PLAN 1" = 10'-0" Planning Commission Meeting, 9/23/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 76, Packet Page 93 Attachment 2 Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 101, Packet Page 242 DN UP D1 TYP. D4 TYP. D4 TYP. D4 TYP. D3 D3 D3 D3 D3 D1 TYP. D1 TYP. D6 D2 D5 TYP. D2 TYP. D2 TYP. 2TYP. 3TYP. 3 1TYP. 3TYP. 2 TYP. 1TYP. 6 D1 TYP. D1 TYP. D2 TYP. D2 TYP. D1 TYP. D1 TYP. D2 TYP. 7 D3D1 TYP. 2 2 TYP. TYP. 2 TYP. TYP. 2 TYP. 2 TYP. 2 TYP. 2 D1 D1 D1 TYP. TYP. D1 TYP. D1 TYP. D1 TYP. D1 D1 D1 D1 D1 D3 D3 D3 D3 3TYP. 3TYP. 3TYP. 3TYP. 3TYP. 3TYP. 3TYP. 3 TYP. 3 TYP. 3 TYP. 3 TYP. TYP. 3 TYP. 3 TYP. 3 TYP. 3 TYP. 3 TYP. 3 TYP. 3 TYP. 3 TYP. 3TYP. 3TYP. 3TYP. 3 TYP. D2 TYP. D2 TYP. D2 TYP. TYP. D2 TYP. D2 D2 TYP. D2 TYP. D7 2 TYP. 8 TYP. 8TYP. 1 TYP. TYP. 1 1 TYP. 1 TYP. 1 TYP. 1TYP. D8 D9 9 9 10 11 11 TYP. 1 TYP. D2 D2 D2 D7 D3 D2 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 1212 D2 D1 D2 D6 D5 D10 13 DEMOLITION UPPER FLOOR PLAN D20224094-D202 SC PRINT DATE: DRAWN BY: JOB NO. 2340 GARDEN ROAD, SUITE 100 MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA 93940 PHONE: 831.649.4642 FAX: 831.649.3530 WWW.WRDARCH.COM A.P.N. NO.: SHEET NAME: SHEET NO.: FILE NAME.: SET ISSUED: CHECKED BY: THE USE OF THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS IS RESTRICTED TO THE ORIGINAL SITE FOR WHICH THEY WERE PREPARED, AND PUBLICATION THEREOF IS EXPRESSLY LIMITED TO SUCH USE. REUSE, REPRODUCTION OR PUBLICATION BY ANY METHOD IN WHOLE OR IN PART IS PROHIBITED. TITLE TO THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS REMAINS WITH THE ARCHITECT, AND VISUAL CONTACT WITH THEM CONSTITUTES PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF THE ACCEPTANCE OF THESE RESTRICTIONS. PLOT DATE: 6.25.2025 24094 MONTESSORI COMMUNITY SCHOOL

ALUC SUBMITTAL PACKAGE

MONTESSORI COMMUNITY SCHOOL
2400 GARDEN ROAD
MONTEREY, CA 93940 013-322-008-000 CITY OF MONTEREY APPROVAL THE KEY NOTES THAT FOLLOW APPLY TO THE DRAWING(S) ON THIS SHEET ONLY. REFER TO FOLLOWING SHEETS FOR NOTES THAT ARE APPLICABLE TO THOSE DRAWINGS. 1 EXISTING WALL OR PORTION OF WALL TO REMAIN. 23 EXISTING EXTERIOR WINDOWS TO REMAIN U.O.N. EXISTING DOOR TO REMAIN. THE KEY NOTES THAT FOLLOW APPLY TO THE DRAWING(S) ON THIS SHEET ONLY. REFER TO FOLLOWING SHEETS FOR NOTES THAT ARE APPLICABLE TO THOSE DRAWINGS. 1. CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY ALL EXISTING CONDITIONS PRIOR TO BEGINNING WORK. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE ARCHITECT OF ANY DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THE DOCUMENTS AND FIELD CONDITIONS PRIOR TO PROCEEDING WITH THE WORK. IF ANY QUESTIONS ARISE AS TO THE REMOVAL OF ANY MATERIAL, CLARIFY THE POINT IN QUESTION WITH THE ARCHITECT BEFORE PROCEEDING. 2. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROTECT ALL EXISTING ITEMS THAT ARE NOT SCHEDULED FOR REMOVAL FROM DAMAGE. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PATCHING AND/OR REPAIRING ANY DAMAGE CAUSED TO ITEMS TO REMAIN. 3. CONTRACTOR SHALL FURNISH ALL LABOR AND MATERIALS/EQUIPMENT AS REQUIRED TO COMPLETE DEMOLITION AND REMOVAL OF ALL ITEMS AS INDICATED. 4. CONTRACTOR TO CLEAN AND PROPERLY DISPOSE OF ALL ABANDONED EQUIPMENT AND TRASH/DEBRIS LEFT FROM PREVIOUS TENANT. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL ITEMS FOR DISPOSAL WITH TENANT AND/OR OWNER PRIOR TO STARTING WORK. 5. CONTRACTOR SHALL IMPLEMENT CONSTRUCTION DUST / DEBRIS CONTROL MEASURES THROUGHOUT THE DURATION OF CONSTRUCTION. 6. AT COMPLETION OF DEMO WORK, THE CONSTRUCTION AREA SHALL BE LEFT IN "BROOM CLEAN" CONDITION. ALL DEBRIS AND MISC. MATERIAL SHALL BE REMOVED. 7. DEMOLITION IS NOT NECESSARILY LIMITED TO WHAT IS SHOWN ON DRAWINGS. THE INTENT IS TO INDICATE THE GENERAL SCOPE OF DEMOLITION REQUIRED TO COMPLETE THE WORK IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. 8. REMOVE TO SOURCE AND CAP ALL PIPES, VENTS, APPLIANCES AND/OR DRAINS NOT BEING RE-USED. 9. GENERAL CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE APPROPRIATE WEATHER PROTECTION OF EXISTING STRUCTURE WHEN DEMOLITION WORK CAUSES EXPOSURE OF EXISTING CONSTRUCTION TO THE ELEMENTS. LEGEND EXISTING DOOR TO REMAIN EXISTING WALL TO REMAIN EXISTING WINDOW EXISTING WALL TO BE REMOVED. EXISTING DOOR AND DOOR FRAME TO BE REMOVED. EXISTING SIDELIGHT WINDOW TO BE REMOVED. D1 D2 D4 D3 REMOVE EXISTING FLOORING TYPICAL THROUGH OUT UPPER FLOOR. PREP FLOOR AS REQUIRED TO ACCOMMODATE NEW FLOOR FINISH. REMOVE EXISTING WALL, OR PORTION OF WALL, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO GYP. BOARD, STUDS, AND BASE TO ACCOMMODATE NEW WORK. 10. CONTRACTOR TO ENSURE THAT EXISTING UTILITIES (GAS, ELECTRIC OR PHONE, ETC.), ACCESS FOR TENANT & CUSTOMER USE, MECHANICAL VENTILATION, HEATING AND/OR COOLING SYSTEMS, PROVIDED TO ALL TENANTS IN THE EXISTING BUILDINGS WHERE WORK WILL OCCUR (AS WELL AS IN BUILDINGS WHERE WORK WILL NOT OCCUR). 11. CARE SHALL BE TAKEN BY CONTRACTOR TO MINIMIZE DISRUPTION TO THE BUSINESS THROUGHOUT DURATION OF CONSTRUCTION. CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE ALL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE AND HOURS OF CONSTRUCTION WITH BUILDING OWNER PRIOR TO WORK. 12. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROTECT ALL EXISTING FLOOR COVERINGS TO REMAIN FROM DAMAGE. 13. CONTRACTOR SHALL LEGALLY DISPOSE OF ANY MATERIALS SCHEDULED FOR DEMOLITION. D5 REMOVE AND LEGALLY DISPOSE OF EXISTING DOOR AND DOOR FRAME TO ACCOMMODATE NEW WORK - TYP. AS SHOWN. REMOVE AND LEGALLY DISPOSE OF EXISTING WINDOW AND PORTION OF WALL BELOW AS OCCURS TO ACCOMMODATE NEW WORK - TYP. AS SHOWN. REMOVE AND LEGALLY DISPOSE OF EXISTING SINK TO ACCOMMODATE NEW WORK - TYPICAL AS SHOWN. CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE AND LEGALLY DISPOSE OF EXISTING CABINETRY TO ACCOMMODATE NEW WORK - TYPICAL AS SHOWN. D6 KEY NOTES 4 EXISTING TOILET TO REMAIN. PROTECT FROM DAMAGE. GENERAL NOTES DEMOLITION KEY NOTES 5 EXISTING SINK TO REMAIN. PROTECT FROM DAMAGE. 6 EXISTING SHOWER TO REMAIN. PROTECT FROM DAMAGE. 7 EXISTING STRUCTURAL COLUMN TO REMAIN. PROTECT FROM DAMAGE. CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE AND LEGALLY DISPOSE OF EXISTING WOOD STAIRS AND/OR WOOD DECKING TO ACCOMMODATE NEW WORK - TYPICAL AS SHOWN. D78 EXISTING HANDRAILS. PROTECT FROM DAMAGE. CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE OR RELOCATE EXISTING WALL MOUNTED FIRE EXTINGUISHER. D8 CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE AND LEGALLY DISPOSE OF EXISTING ELECTRICAL SUB-PANEL TO ACCOMMODATE NEW WORK - TYPICAL AS SHOWN. D99 EXISTING WALL MOUNTED FIRE EXTINGUISHER. PROTECT FROM DAMAGE. 10 EXISTING RECESSED ELECTRICAL PANEL. PROTECT FROM DAMAGE. 11 EXISTING SURFACE MOUNTED ELECTRICAL PANEL. CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE AND LEGALLY DISPOSE OF EXISTING TOILET TO ACCOMMODATE NEW WORK - TYPICAL AS SHOWN. D10 12 EXISTING URINAL TO REMAIN. PROTECT FROM DAMAGE. 13 EXISTING DRINKING FOUNTAIN TO REMAIN. PROTECT FROM DAMAGE. SCALE: 1 DEMOLITION UPPER FLOOR PLAN 1/4" = 1'-0" PLAN NORTH TRUE NORTH Planning Commission Meeting, 9/23/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 77, Packet Page 94 Attachment 2 Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 102, Packet Page 243 FH WV

WATER METER
HB
HB
SSCO
LP
LP
12"P
12"P
12"P
12"P
10"P
10"P
10"P
10"P
10"P
10"P
10"P
10"P
10"Q
6"Q
6"Q
14"P
14"P
14"P
24"P
24"P
6"P
6"P
6"P
6"P
6"P
16"P
18"P
18"P
8"P
8"P
8"P
6"P
8"P
CONC.

TELECOM

VAULT MANHOLE

TELECOM

GAS METER
24"P
SIGN
ACU
ACU
ACUACU
SSCO
SSCO
ACU
P
P

MULIT-STORY CONCRETE & WOOD FRAME

BUILDING
FDC
24"P
12"P
12"P
8"T
6"T
6"T
18"P
2-PRONG
PINE, 12"-14"
18"P
16"P
16"P
ACU
ACU S 0°06'20" W 190.00'
S 24°38'31" W

44.09'
Δ=66°21'29" R=50.00' L=57.91'

81.51' S 89°00'00" E
226.31'
N 15°41'03" E
N 15°41'03" E

43.65'
L=112.60'
R=1960.00'
Δ=3°17'29"
N 74°18'57" W

55.10'
N 89°00'00" W 146.79'

FOGLINE PROPERTY LINE
LP 96 GAL. BIN 96 GAL. BIN 96 GAL. BIN 4 CUBIC YARD 96 GAL. BIN 4 CUBIC YARD CARDBOARD 13 13TYP. 13 28 16 29 20 TYP. 2029TYP. 24 19 TYP. 21 5 28 22 23 28 27 26 24 24 17 17 17 17 11
9 15 6
3 27
1 124
7 7 14 14
1 4 10
4 1
4 7 18 17
4 12 25 18'-0"
9'-0" TYP.
18'-0" 24'-0" 18'-0" 6'-0" 15'-0" 10'-0" 9'-0" TYP. 15'-0" 12 30 9'-0" TYP. 1 A2011 A202 LOWER FLOOR PLAN UPPER FLOOR PLAN
15'-9"
2'-10"
34'-4"
4'-8"
26'-11"
817 31 TYP. TYP. 31 31 TYP.
±10'-0" DECK
±30'-0" DECK
8'-0"
±22'-0" DECK
±10'-0" DECK EXISTING ROAD EASEMENT 13 13 5'-0" 13
±4'-3" TYP. TYP. TYP. 32 32 32 34 34 35 35 34 1'-2"
±12'-2" SITE PLAN A10124094-A101 SC PRINT DATE: DRAWN BY: JOB NO. 2340 GARDEN ROAD, SUITE 100 MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA 93940 PHONE: 831.649.4642 FAX: 831.649.3530 WWW.WRDARCH.COM A.P.N. NO.: SHEET NAME: SHEET NO.: FILE NAME.: SET ISSUED: CHECKED BY: THE USE OF THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS IS RESTRICTED TO THE ORIGINAL SITE FOR WHICH THEY WERE PREPARED, AND PUBLICATION THEREOF IS EXPRESSLY LIMITED TO SUCH USE. REUSE, REPRODUCTION OR PUBLICATION BY ANY METHOD IN WHOLE OR IN PART IS PROHIBITED. TITLE TO THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS REMAINS WITH THE ARCHITECT, AND VISUAL CONTACT WITH THEM CONSTITUTES PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF THE ACCEPTANCE OF THESE RESTRICTIONS. PLOT DATE: 6.25.2025 24094 MONTESSORI COMMUNITY SCHOOL

ALUC SUBMITTAL PACKAGE

MONTESSORI COMMUNITY SCHOOL
2400 GARDEN ROAD
MONTEREY, CA 93940 013-322-008-000 CITY OF MONTEREY APPROVAL THE KEY NOTES THAT FOLLOW APPLY TO THE DRAWING(S) ON THIS SHEET ONLY. REFER TO FOLLOWING SHEETS FOR NOTES THAT ARE APPLICABLE TO THOSE DRAWINGS. KEY NOTES GENERAL NOTES 22 EXISTING AC PAVED ROAD TO REMAIN INTACT. 1 4" WIDE PAINTED PARKING STALL STRIPING PER CITY STANDARDS. PROVIDE 4" THICK CONCRETE WALKWAY WITH SLIP RESISITANT FINISH AND PROPERLY PLACED 6"X6"/10X10 WELDED WIRE MESH OVER A MIN. 4" CLASS IV AGGREGATE BASE WORK OVER COMPACTED SUBGRADE. CONCRETE WALK TO BE A MIN. 4'-0" WIDE. PROVIDE POSITIVE SLOPE AWAY FROM BUILDING WHERE APPLICABLE. REFER TO CIVIL DRAWINGS FOR EXACT CONFIGURATION OF CONCRETE WALKWAY SECTION.2 WALKWAY CURBCUT TO ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALL. COORDINATE WITH CIVIL DRAWINGS FOR GRADES. 34 LANDSCAPED AREA. SEE LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS56 INDICATES "VAN ACCESSIBLE" STALL. INDICATES EXTENT OF 6" HIGH CURBS WHICH SHALL BE PAINTED RED WITH 4" HIGH WHITE LETTERS STATING "FIRE LANES - NO PARKING" AT 30'-0" O.C. MAX. WHEN 6" CURB(S) NOT AVAILABLE, INSTALL A "FIRE LANES - NO PARKING ANYTIME" SIGN (R28 - 12"X18"). SIGN HEIGHT SHALL BE 54" FROM TOP OF PAVEMENT/LANDSCAPE AREA TO BOTTOM OF SIGN ON A WALL, FENCE OR BUILDING 75'-0" O.C. MAX. A POLE-MOUNTED SIGN IN A PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY SHALL BE 84" FROM THE BOTTOM OF THE SIGN TO TOP OF WALKWAY. REFER ALSO TO CITY STANDARD PLAN.7 89 PROVIDE CONCRETE WHEEL STOP. PROVIDE A "ACCESSIBLE PARKING ENTRY" SIGN ("VEHICLE TOW-AWAY" SIGN) AND "NOTICE ALL ROADS ARE FIRE LANES" ENTRANCE SIGN INSTALLED TOGETHER FOR VEHICLES ENTERING INTO THE PARKING LOT AT DRIVEWAY ENTRANCE. 1011 PROVIDE 6" HIGH CONCRETE CURB TYPICAL AS SHOWN. REFER TO CIVIL DRAWINGS FOR ADDTIONAL NOTATION. 1213 INDICATES PROPERTY LINE. PROVIDE NEW AC PAVEMENT OVER AGGREGATE BASE AND COMPACTED SOIL SUBGRADE. REFER TO CIVIL DRAWINGS FOR ADDITIONAL NOTATION. 1415 PROVIDE INTERNATIONAL SYMBOL OF ACCESSIBILITY. INDICATES CONCRETE CONTROL OR EXPANSION JOINTS AT CONCRETE WALKWAY. 18 EXISTING BUILDING FOOTPRINT TO REMAIN INTACT. PROTECT FROM DAMAGE. 16 INDICATES LOCATION OF NEW 6'-0" HIGH WOOD FENCE. WHEN FENCE SEPARATES PARKING LOT, PROVIDE A 48" HIGH CONCRETE FILLED STEEL BOLLARD AT 5'-0" APART WITH WOOD FENCE ON BACKSIDE TO CONCEAL BOLLARDS. 17 1920 EXISTING LANDSCAPE AREA TO REMAIN INTACT. PROTECT FROM DAMAGE. 21 1. CONTRACTOR SHALL RECONSTRUCT ALL DAMAGED CURB, GUTTER AND SIDEWALK ALONG SITE'S WEST MARKET STREET FRONTAGE. 2. "FIRE LANE" SIGNS ARE REQUIRED TO BE INSTALLED AT EACH ENTRANCE IN LOCATIONS WHERE VEHICLE PARKING WOULD ENCROACH ON THE REQUIRED 24'-0" CLEAR WIDTH OF ROADWAY. ALL RAISED CURBS AT THESE LOCATIONS SHALL BE PAINTED RED WITH "FIRE LANE - NO PARKING ANYTIME" STENCILED 4" HIGH AT 30'-0" INTERVALS PER CITY STANDARDS. 3. APPROVED NUMBERS AND/OR LETTERS SHALL BE PLACED ON ALL BUILDINGS TO BE VISIBLE FROM THE STREET, WITH THE COLOR CONTRASTING THE BACKGROUND. ADDRESS POSTING IS REQUIRED ON BUILDING, FIRE DEPARTMENT ACCESS AND ON ALL REAR DOORS. THE PROJECT REQUIRES AN ILLUMINATED DIRECTORY AT THE MAIN ENTRANCE. INDIVIDUAL ROOM/SUITE NUMERALS TO BE A MINIMUM OF 4" HIGH. 6" HIGH x 3/4" STROKE; 9" HIGH x 1-1/4" STROKE WHEN 36'-50' FROM ACCESS; 12" HIGH x 1-1/2" STROKE WHEN OVER 50' FROM ACCESS. 4. NO TREES OR HIGH-GROWING SHRUBS SHALL BE CLOSER THAN 6'-0" FROM ANY OF THE REQUIRED ACCESS ROADWAYS AND SHALL MAINTAIN CLEAR UP TO 13'-6". INDICATES EXISTING LIGHT POLE AND CONCRETE BASE TO REMAIN. CONTRACTOR TO PROTECT FROM DAMAGE. NEW "VAN ACCESSIBLE" STALL SIGNAGE. 2324 PROPOSED TRASH ENCLOSURE. EXISTING ROAD EASEMENT PER REEL 747 PAGE 495. EXISTING PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT PER REEL 932 PAGE 668. NEW WOOD DECK. EXISTING CURB, GUTTER AND WALKWAYS TO REMAIN INTACT. EXISTING CONCRETE WALKWAY TO REMAIN INTACT. PROTECT FROM DAMAGE. EXISTING RAMP TO REMAIN. EXISTING SHED TO REMAIN. EXISTING TRENCH DRAIN TO REMAIN. 252627282930 INDICATES WAITING AREA. PROVIDE PAINTED MARKINGS AND DIRECTIONAL ARROWS PER CALTRANS STANDARDS. TYPICAL AS SHOWN ON PLAN. 31 ACCESSIBLE PATH OF TRAVEL AND EGRESS INDICATOR ARROWS. ARROWS SHOWN ON PLAN ARE FOR REFERENCE ONLY AND NOT FOR PHYSICAL APPLICATION. WALKWAY ALONG ACCESSIBLE PATH OF TRAVEL SHALL BE CONTINUOUSLY ACCESSIBLE, HAVE A MAX. 1/2" CHANGES IN ELEVATION, MIN. 48" WIDTH, HAVE A MAX. 1/4" PER FOOT CROSS SLOPES, AND A MAX. RUNNING SLOPE NOT TO EXCEED 5% (1:20). ACCESSIBLE PATH OCCURS BETWEEN ACCESSIBLE STALL AND MAIN BUILDING ENTRY ONLY PER 11B-206.2.1 EXCEPTION #2 AS THERE IS NO SIDEWALK AT PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. ~ A103
3 A102
6 A102
9 A102 32 INDICATES NEW 36" WIDE, 6'-0" HIGH EGRESS METAL GATE. 33 NEW MASONRY LANDSCAPE WALL 34 PROPOSED HANDRAILS AT EXTERIOR STAIRS PROPOSED GUARDRAILS AT EXTERIOR WALKWAYS WITH A GRADE DIFFERENCE OVER 30" HIGH. 35 18 A103 13 A102 19 A102 NORTH SCALE:
1 PROPOSED SITE PLAN 1" = 10'-0" Planning Commission Meeting, 9/23/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 78, Packet Page 95 Attachment 2 Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 103, Packet Page 244 UP OPEN AREA 101 STORAGE 109 OPEN AREA 102 STORAGE 103 STORAGE 106 BREAK 107 STORAGE 108 RESTROOM 105 OFFICE 104 UTILITY 110 WATER STORAGE TANK PER PLUMBING DRAWINGS PROPOSED WATER HEATER PER PLUMBING DRAWINGS PROPOSED WATER HEATER PER PLUMBING DRAWINGS DASHED LINE INDICATES EXTERIOR WALL OF UPPER FLOOR. EXISTING LOWER FLOOR PLAN A20124094-A201 SC PRINT DATE: DRAWN BY: JOB NO. 2340 GARDEN ROAD, SUITE 100 MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA 93940 PHONE: 831.649.4642 FAX: 831.649.3530 WWW.WRDARCH.COM A.P.N. NO.: SHEET NAME: SHEET NO.: FILE NAME.: SET ISSUED: CHECKED BY: THE USE OF THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS IS RESTRICTED TO THE ORIGINAL SITE FOR WHICH THEY WERE PREPARED, AND PUBLICATION THEREOF IS EXPRESSLY LIMITED TO SUCH USE. REUSE, REPRODUCTION OR PUBLICATION BY ANY METHOD IN WHOLE OR IN PART IS PROHIBITED. TITLE TO THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS REMAINS WITH THE ARCHITECT, AND VISUAL CONTACT WITH THEM CONSTITUTES PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF THE ACCEPTANCE OF THESE RESTRICTIONS. PLOT DATE: 6.25.2025 24094 MONTESSORI COMMUNITY SCHOOL

ALUC SUBMITTAL PACKAGE

MONTESSORI COMMUNITY SCHOOL
2400 GARDEN ROAD
MONTEREY, CA 93940 013-322-008-000 CITY OF MONTEREY APPROVAL NO WORK TO OCCUR ON LOWER FLOOR PLAN OTHER THAN MECHANICAL / PLUMBING EQUIPMENT WITHIN EXISTING UTILITY ROOM AS SHOWN OR TO GAIN ACCESS TO FRAMING OR UTILITIES THAT OCCUR ON THE UPPER FLOOR. SCALE: 1 EXISTING LOWER FLOOR PLAN 1/4" = 1'-0" PLAN NORTH TRUE NORTH Planning Commission Meeting, 9/23/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 79, Packet Page 96 Attachment 2 Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 104, Packet Page 245 DN
3TYP.
7TYP.
7TYP.
7TYP.
5TYP. 2TYP. 138
1TYP.82TYP. 3129
91112 17
4TYP. 3110
3TYP. 1TYP. 3129
3TYP.
4 1TYP. 111512
6 11
912311010 311010 303129
6 6 5TYP.
666 31 114'-6" 62'-6" 8'-0" 44'-0"
99'-2
1 4" 19'-2
1 4" 13'-6" 6'-0" 35'-6"
6'-0" 13'-2
1 4" 114'-6" 16'-10" 13'-4" 24'-11" 15'-5" 44'-0"
10'-2" 14'-10" 20'-1" 19'-0" 9'-4" 14'-1"
62'-1
1 2" 23'-10
1 2"
±30'-4
1 2" 6'-0" OPENING ±5'-11" ALIGN ALIGN ALIGN 1'-8" 10'-0" OPENING 1'-8" 10'-0" OPENING 1'-6"
6'-0" OPENING 3'-6" 6'-0"
9'-8" 10'-7"
32'-7" 1'-11" 2'-0"
±15'-0"
3'-9" ±4'-0" 14 16 15 17 3110 15 18 D.W.
911121518 D.W. D.W. D.W. 18 11
9121518 D.W. 11121518 111215 11
9121518 D.W. 19 19 20 30 31 10 22 22 22
6'-0"
±23'-6"22
1'-0" 1'-0" ±9'-0"
3'-0"
2 A501
1 A501
4 4
4 1 203A 202A 210B 209A203B 210A 211A 209A 210A 211E 211D 211C 211B 210B 211A 202A 202B (E) 3080
(E) 3080
(E) 3080
(E) 3080
(E) 3080
(E) 3080
(E) 3080
(E) 3080
(E) 3080
(E) 3080
(E) 3080 DAYCARE CLASSROOM 202 DAYCARE CLASSROOM 202 LOBBY 201 WOMEN 207 MEN 206 BREAK ROOM 205 DAYCARE CLASSROOM 203 DAYCARE CLASSROOM 209 DAYCARE CLASSROOM 210 DAYCARE CLASSROOM 211 HALLWAY 208 DAYCARE CLASSROOM 203 DAYCARE CLASSROOM 203 RESTROOM 204 (E) 2680 14 A500 6 D A500 7 D A500 1 D A500 10
D A500 11
D A500 5 B A500 9 B A500 15
B A500 14
D A500 12A
B A500 13B
C A500 2 A500
B
8A A500 4 B A500 3 B 2425 24 23 TYP. 23 TYP. 26 ALIGN
1 A401
2 A401
1 A402
2 A402 209B 203A 210C 211F 202C 27 SIM. 27 SIM. 27 27 SIM. 27 SIM. 27 SIM. 27 SIM. SIM. 10 20 20 20 20 20 2020 209B 203C 211B 28 88 7'-0" +36" WALL HEIGHT +36" WALL HEIGHT +36" WALL HEIGHT 22 +36" WALL HEIGHT +42" WALL HEIGHT ±2'-6" 21 21 7TYP.
8 2
5 8
5 8
7TYP. 7TYP.
5 8
5 2
5 7
7 7
5 2 2
2 1
2 2
8 3232
B
B
B
AA
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
A 33 3434 34 34 ALIGN 34 343434 35 35 35 35 35 36
±11'-2"
±15'-2"
±15'-2"
±6'-11"
±6'-0"
±4'-0"
±14'-2" ±13'-2" ±6'-8" ±6'-8"
±4'-0" ±4'-0"
±9'-1"
±4'-0"
±4'-0" PROPOSED UPPER FLOOR PLAN A20224094-A202 SC PRINT DATE: DRAWN BY: JOB NO. 2340 GARDEN ROAD, SUITE 100 MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA 93940 PHONE: 831.649.4642 FAX: 831.649.3530 WWW.WRDARCH.COM A.P.N. NO.: SHEET NAME: SHEET NO.: FILE NAME.: SET ISSUED: CHECKED BY: THE USE OF THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS IS RESTRICTED TO THE ORIGINAL SITE FOR WHICH THEY WERE PREPARED, AND PUBLICATION THEREOF IS EXPRESSLY LIMITED TO SUCH USE. REUSE, REPRODUCTION OR PUBLICATION BY ANY METHOD IN WHOLE OR IN PART IS PROHIBITED. TITLE TO THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS REMAINS WITH THE ARCHITECT, AND VISUAL CONTACT WITH THEM CONSTITUTES PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF THE ACCEPTANCE OF THESE RESTRICTIONS. PLOT DATE: 6.25.2025 24094 MONTESSORI COMMUNITY SCHOOL

ALUC SUBMITTAL PACKAGE

MONTESSORI COMMUNITY SCHOOL
2400 GARDEN ROAD
MONTEREY, CA 93940 013-322-008-000 CITY OF MONTEREY APPROVAL THE KEY NOTES THAT FOLLOW APPLY TO THE DRAWING(S) ON THIS SHEET ONLY. REFER TO FOLLOWING SHEETS FOR NOTES THAT ARE APPLICABLE TO THOSE DRAWINGS. 1 EXISTING WALL, OR PORTION OF WALL, TO REMAIN. 2 3 EXISTING WINDOW TO REMAIN. CONTRACTOR TO PROTECT FROM DAMAGE. 4 EXISTING DOOR TO REMAIN. CONTRACTOR TO PROTECT FROM DAMAGE. LEGEND NEW DOOR EXISTING DOOR TO REMAIN INTACT EXISTING NON-RATED WALL TO REMAIN INTACT EXISTING WINDOW NEW NON-RATED, NON-LOAD BEARING WALL NEW WALL, OR INFILL PORTION OF WALL. NEW WINDOW567 NEW DOOR. MATCH WITH EXISTING DOOR. NEW WINDOW. MATCH NEW WITH EXISTING WINDOW. NEW FLOORING OVER RADIANT FLOOR THROUGHOUT ALL CLASSROOMS AS SHOWN. REFER TO PLUMBING DRAWINGS FOR RADIANT FLOOR INFORMATION. INDICATES NEW CHILDREN'S HEIGHT COUNTER MOUNTED SINK. SEE PLUMBING DRAWINGS FOR ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS. 98 INFILL EXISTING OPENING. CONTRACTOR TO MATCH WITH ADJACENT EXTERIOR AND INTERIOR FINISHES. KEY NOTES SOLID SURFACE COUNTERTOP WITH INTEGRAL 4" BACKSPLASH AND RETURN OVER BASE CABINET. BASE CABINET SHALL HAVE (1) ADJUSTABLE SHELF, ALL INTERIOR EDGES AND SURFACES SHALL HAVE "MELAMINE" FINISH, WITH PLASTIC LAMINATE FACED FULL FLUSH OVERLAY DOORS/ DRAWERS WITH HARDWARE TO BE APPROVED BY OWNER. CABINET SUPPLIER SHALL FIELD VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS. 101112 PLASTIC LAMINATE FACED FLUSH OVERLAY UPPER CABINET WITH MIN. (2) ADJUSTABLE SHELVES. ALL EXTERIOR OR EXPOSED SURFACES SHALL BE PLASTIC LAMINATE AS NOTED IN FINISH LEGEND. REFER TO FINISH PLANS FOR FINISH LEGEND. ALL INTERIOR EDGES AND SURFACES SHALL HAVE "WHITE MELAMINE" FINISH. CABINETS SHALL BE SECURELY ANCHORED AND SCRIBED TO ADJACENT SURFACE - PROVIDE ALL REQUIRED BLOCKING. CABINET HARDWARE SHALL HAVE FULLY EXTENDED DRAWER GLIDES, FULLY CONCEALED HINGES, FULLY RECESSED STANDARDS FOR ALL ADJUSTABLE SHELVES, AND CABINET PULLS. CABINET SUPPLIER SHALL FIELD VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS. PROVIDE NEW CHILDREN'S HEIGHT TOILET. 13 EXISTING DRINKING FOUNTAIN. CONTRACTOR TO PROTECT FROM DAMAGE. 14 EXISTING WALL MOUNTED FIRE EXTINGUISHER TYPE 2A-10BC TO MEET NFPA 10 MIN. STANDARD. ONE FIRE EXTINGUISHER PER 3,000 S.F. OR FRACTION THEREOF. MAX TRAVEL DISTANCE FROM ANY SPOT WITHIN THE BUILDING TO EXTINGUISHER SHALL NOT EXCEED 75 FEET. 15 EXISTING RECESSED ELECTRICAL PANEL TO REMAIN INDICATES NEW ACCESSIBLE HEIGHT COUNTER MOUNTED SINK. SEE PLUMBING DRAWINGS FOR ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS. 16 PROVIDE NEW ELECTRIC RANGE & RANGE HOOD: REFER TO EQUIPMENT/ APPLIANCE SCHEDULE BELOW. 17 PROVIDE NEW DISHWASHER: REFER TO EQUIPMENT/ APPLIANCE SCHEDULE BELOW. 18 STACKED CLOTHES WASHER/DRYER: REFER TO EQUIPMENT/ APPLIANCE SCHEDULE. 1920 REFRIGERATOR: REFER TO EQUIPMENT/ APPLIANCE SCHEDULE BELOW. 21 EXISTING TOILET TO REMAIN. CONTRACTOR TO PROTECT FROM DAMAGE. 22 NEW PARTIAL HEIGHT WALL, REFER TO PLAN FOR HEIGHT. 23 EXISTING SKYLIGHT ABOVE TO REMAIN. 24 EXISTING 42" HIGH MIN. LOW WALL TO REMAIN. 25 EXISTING STAIRWAY HANDRAILS, TREADS AND RISERS TO REMAIN. EXISTING SURFACE MOUNTED ELECTRICAL PANEL. FURR OUT WALL AT PANEL TO PROVIDE FLUSH ELECTRICAL PANEL. 26 RADIANT FLOOR SLOPE TRANSITION AT DOOR. 27 14 A801 EXISTING WOOD POST TO REMAIN 28 EQUIPMENT/ APPLIANCE SCHEDULE TYPE DESCRIPTION BASIS OF DESIGN; MANUF. MODEL NOTES A REFRIGERATOR: 18cf, TOP FREEZER WITH OPTIONAL ICEMAKER. ENERGY STAR. GE GTE 18ETHWW SPECIFIC MODEL TO BE PROVIDED BY OWNER B 30" WIDE FREE STANDING ELECTRIC 4-BURNER RANGE; STANDARD CLEAN, NOT SELF-CLEANING; WITH FRONT CONTROLS GE JBS45DFWW SPECIFIC MODEL TO BE PROVIDED BY OWNER C RANGE HOOD: 30" WIDE VENTED TO EXTERIOR. INSTALL CONTROLLERS ON FACE OF LOWER CABINETS ADJACENT TO RANGE GE JV338HWW SPECIFIC MODEL TO BE PROVIDED BY OWNER D STACKED WASHER: GE Profile 5.3 cu. ft. Capacity Smart Front Load Washer. ENERGY STAR. GE Model #: PFW870SSVWW SPECIFIC MODEL TO BE PROVIDED BY OWNER E STACKED DRYER: GE Profile 7.8 cu. ft. Capacity Smart Front Load Electric Dryer. ENERGY STAR. GE Model #: PFD87ESSVWW SPECIFIC MODEL TO BE PROVIDED BY OWNER F ACCESSIBLE DISHWASHER: GE ADA COMPLIANT DISHWASHER GE Model #: GDT225SSLSS SPECIFIC MODEL TO BE PROVIDED BY OWNER 29 PROVIDE NEW CHILDREN'S HEIGHT ACCESSIBLE COMPLIANT TOILET. 18 A502 30 INDICATES NEW ACCESSIBLE HEIGHT WALL MOUNTED SINK. SEE PLUMBING DRAWINGS FOR ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS. 16 A502 18 A801 31 INDICATES NEW CHILDREN'S ACCESSIBLE HEIGHT WALL MOUNTED SINK. SEE PLUMBING DRAWINGS FOR ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS. 20 A801 8 A8028 A802 32 PROPOSED WALL MOUNTED FIRE EXTINGUISHER TYPE 2A-10BC TO MEET NFPA 10 MIN. STANDARD. ONE FIRE EXTINGUISHER PER 3,000 S.F. OR FRACTION THEREOF. MAX TRAVEL DISTANCE FROM ANY SPOT WITHIN THE BUILDING TO EXTINGUISHER SHALL NOT EXCEED 75 FEET. MOUNT EXTINGUISHER AT ACCESSIBLE HEIGHT. 14 A802 SYMBOL TYPE DESCRIPTION

A WALL SCHEDULE
A WALL TYPE SYMBOL: THE SYMBOL ILLUSTRATED BELOW REPRESENTS THE TYPE OF EACH WALL INDICATED BY THE SYMBOL ON THE DRAWINGS. DETAILS OF EACH WALL TYPE ARE REFERENCED BY THE "WALL TYPE LETTER" INDICATED FIRST WITHIN EACH SYMBOL. REFER TO METAL STUD SPAN TABLE & NOTES AND DETAILS FOR STUD GAGE SHOWN ON A803. WALL INDICATED ON PLANS WALL TYPE LETTER WALL TYPE 'A' - FULL HT. WALL - NON RATED. EXTEND FRAMING FROM FLOOR TO UNDERSIDE OF EXISTING FLOOR JOISTS. REFER TO DETAIL 20-A803 WALL TYPE 'B' - FULL HT. WALL - NON RATED. EXTEND FRAMING FROM FLOOR TO UNDERSIDE OF EXISTING FLOOR JOISTS. REFER TO DETAIL 20-A803 3 58" x 20 GA. METAL STUDS @ 16" O.C. (20'-0" MAX SPAN HEIGHT) 6" x 20 GA. METAL STUDS @ 16" O.C. (20'-0" MAX SPAN HEIGHT) B 33 PROPOSED ELECTRICAL PANEL, REFER TO ELECTRICAL DRAWINGS. ELECTRICAL PANEL LOCATION SHALL NOT INTERFERE WITH REQUIRED GRAB BAR BLOCKING WITHIN WALL. 34 WALL TYPE MINIMUM STUD THICKNESS AND GAUGE SHOWN BELOW ON WALL SCHEDULE. CONTRACTOR SHALL ADJUST THE STUD WIDTH OR SHIM AS REQUIRED TO PLAIN OUT THE EXISTING AND PROPOSED FINISHES 35 RADIANT FLOOR MANIFOLD, REFER TO MECHANICAL DRAWINGS. MANIFOLDS SHALL BE COMPLETELY CONCEALED WITHIN WALL FRAMING. 36 PROPOSED 5" x 5" INTERNATIONAL SYMBOL OF ACCESSIBILITY DECAL AT PRIMARY ENTRANCE. 8 A102 9 A801 SCALE:
1 UPPER FLOOR PLAN 1/4" = 1'-0" PLAN NORTH TRUE NORTH Planning Commission Meeting, 9/23/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 80, Packet Page 97 Attachment 2 Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 105, Packet Page 246

MEMORANDUM
TO: Monterey County ALUC Staff
FROM: Chris Schmidt, Senior Associate Planner, City of Monterey DATE: June 26, 2025
SUBJECT: 2400 Garden Road Montessori Day Care Project
The applicant proposes to convert an existing commercial office building into a day care facility, construct a new waste enclosure, and reconstruct portions of the parking lot and landscaped areas at 2400 Garden Road. The project site is located within Zone 7 of the Airport Influence Area (AIA), as designated in the Monterey Regional Airport (MRY) Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP). While the proposed use is not listed as a prohibited use in the ALUCP’s Safety Criteria Matrix, the matrix notes that uses involving vulnerable occupants, including children, the elderly, and individuals with disabilities, are strongly discouraged. Figures 1 and 2 below illustrate the project site's location relative to the designated Airport Safety Zones.

Figure 1. Monterey Regional Airport Safety Zones (MRY ALUCP Exhibit 4C) Attachment C
Planning Commission Meeting, 9/23/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 81, Packet Page 98 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 106, Packet Page 247 Figure 2. Monterey Regional Airport Safety Zones (MRY ALUCP Exhibit 4C (continued)) The MRY ALUCP describes the AIA Zone 7 as follows:

Zone 7 ‐ Airport Influence Area (AIA). The AIA zone includes all other portions of regular aircraft traffic patterns based upon the 14 CFR Part 77 conical surface from the 2014 MRY airport layout plan and sections of the AIA from the 1987 Comprehensive Land Use Plan south and east of the airport. The aircraft accident risk level is considered to be low within the AIA.

The ALUCP includes Table 4B, which outlines development restrictions for land uses that pose particular hazards to the public or to vulnerable populations in the event of an aircraft accident.

It also establishes intensity criteria for each Monterey Regional Airport (MRY) compatibility zone. An excerpt of Table 4B, including the criteria for Zone 7 and all associated table notes, is provided below.

Planning Commission Meeting, 9/23/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 82, Packet Page 99 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 107, Packet Page 248 a
Planning Commission Meeting, 9/23/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 83, Packet Page 100 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 108, Packet Page 249 The project site is approximately 0.75 acres in size. The Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) establishes a maximum occupancy density of 300 persons per acre for Zone 7.

According to the applicant, the proposed day care facility would have a maximum on-site occupancy of 120 persons (104 students and 16 staff), resulting in a density of approximately 160 persons per acre. As such, the proposed use complies with the applicable density requirement. Additionally, the project site includes 11,069 square feet of open space, exceeding the 10% open space requirement.

The ALUCP discusses airport noise and compatibility with surrounding land use. To ensure noise compatibility near airports, development of noise-sensitive land uses is limited based on defined noise exposure levels. Proposed land uses within airport noise contours are evaluated using the criteria in Table 4A, which identify maximum acceptable CNEL (Community Noise Equivalent Level) values.
• Compatible uses may proceed without special noise mitigation. • Conditionally compatible uses are allowed if specific conditions in Table 4A are met. • Not compatible uses are considered inappropriate due to excessive noise exposure.

These criteria guide the determination of whether proposed land uses are appropriate based on their location within airport noise contour zones. Figures 3 and 4 below identify the project site in relation to the existing and 20-year forecast noise contours. An excerpt of Table 4A has been included below to support the analysis of the proposed use in the context of its noise exposure.

Figure 3. Existing Noise Contours (MRY ALUCP Exhibit 2D) Planning Commission Meeting, 9/23/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 84, Packet Page 101 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 109, Packet Page 250 Figure 3. Long Range Noise Exposure Contours (MRY ALUCP Exhibit 2E) Table 4A identifies “Educational facilities (including daycare centers with more than 14 children, K–12 schools, adult schools, colleges, and universities)” as incompatible land uses within the 65–69, 70–74, and 75+ CNEL noise contour ranges. However, as shown in Figures 3 and 4 above, the project site is located outside of these noise contour ranges.

Planning Commission Meeting, 9/23/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 85, Packet Page 102 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 110, Packet Page 251 The proposed day care is not a prohibited use (hazard to flight or outdoor stadium or similar high intensity use). The City has concluded the project is consistent with allowed uses.

The Plan requires:
• Airspace review required for objects >100 feet tall
• New structures are prohibited on existing terrain that penetrates 14 CFR part 77 surfaces
• New structures require additional airspace analysis within the 50-foot terrain penetration buffer
• Proposed uses involving vulnerable occupants within 6,000 feet from the side of the runway shall require ALUC review. In addition to the prohibited uses listed with Table 4B, any use involving vulnerable occupants in the area described above is strongly discouraged.

The proposed project involves conversion of an existing building, and does not include development of structures greater than 100’ in height. The existing terrain does not appear to penetrate the 14 CFR part 77 surface or encroach into the 50 foot terrain penetration buffer pending confirmation from the County of Monterey.

Although AIA Zone 7 policies strongly discourage the siting of land uses involving vulnerable populations, such as child care centers, it is important to note that Zone 7 encompasses a substantial portion of the City of Monterey. Prohibiting these uses across the entirety of this broad area would significantly restrict uses throughout the jurisdiction. Furthermore, the Monterey Regional Airport ALUCP indicates that aircraft accident risk in Zone 7 is low.

In summary, the City of Monterey planning staff recommends the project be found consistent with the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.

Sincerely,
Chris Schmidt
Senior Associate Planner
Planning Commission Meeting, 9/23/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 86, Packet Page 103 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 111, Packet Page 252

BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Carl Miller, Chair
John Gaglioti
Jonathan Ahmadi
Danial Pick
Mary Ann Leffel

EXECUTIVE STAFF
Chris Morello
Interim Executive Director
Scott Huber
District Counsel
July 18, 2025
TO: Airport Land Use Commission
Monterey Regional Airport was involved in the preparation of the 2019 Monterey Regional Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) and appreciates the Airport Land Use Commission’s efforts to use the ALUCP to protect and promote the safety and welfare of residents, businesses, and airport users near the Airport, while supporting the continued operation of MRY.

Based on the Monterey Regional Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan adopted in 2019, the proposed Day Care – General Use designation is located within Zone 7 – Airport Influence Area (AIA) and is located approximately 1,395 feet south of the south side of Runway 10R28L, as noted on the attached exhibit. Given the location of the proposed development, Monterey Regional Airport provides the following observations related to key airport land use compatibility criteria outlined in the ALUCP:

Vulnerable Occupants: As noted in Section 4.2.2.2 – Safety Zone Criteria, the ALUCP compatibility standards in Table 4B restrict the development of land uses that could pose hazards to the public or vulnerable populations in the event of an aircraft accident. Vulnerable occupants are defined in footnote 12 of Table 4B as “children, the elderly, and people with disabilities.” Table 4B provides additional guidance on vulnerable occupants in the “Other Development Conditions” column, which states that any proposed uses involving vulnerable occupants within 6,000 feet of the side of the runway or 10,000 feet of the runway’s end shall require ALUC review and is strongly discouraged.

Prohibited Uses: Hazards to flight, classified as “Prohibited Uses” in Table 4B, include physical obstructions (e.g., tall objects), as well as visual and electronic forms of interference with the safe operation of aircraft. If there are any proposed modifications that would affect the building’s exterior, an FAA Form 7460-1 Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration must be filed to determine if the proposed project would introduce a hazard to flight. As noted in the attached Notice Criteria Tool report, the site is located “in proximity to a navigation facility and may impact the assurance of navigation signal reception.” Due to the potential presence of vulnerable occupants within the vicinity of the airport, Monterey Regional Airport does not support the proposed use of 2400 Garden Road as a Day Care Center.

Sincerely,
Monterey Regional Airport
Chris Morello
Interim Executive Director

ATTACHMENT
Attachment D
Planning Commission Meeting, 9/23/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 87, Packet Page 104 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 112, Packet Page 253 0 6,800
Feet
¯
Source:ESRI Basemap Imagery
1"=7,000'
Legend
Municipal BoundaryAirport Property LineUrban Area1
Safety Zones
Runway ProtectionInner Approach/DepartureInner TurningOuter Approach/DepartureSidelineAirport PropertyAirport Influence Area City of
Del Rey Oaks
Pacific Ocean
Monterey County
City of Seaside
City of Monterey
City of
Sand City
City of
Pacific Grove
City of
Pacific Grove
City of
Sand City
City of
Seaside
Pacific Ocean
Inset
1Urban Areas are based on "mixed used
use areas" identified in the City of Monterey General Plan dated August 2013.

Exhibit 4C

MONTEREY REGIONAL AIRPORT SAFETY ZONES
Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
Planning Commission Meeting, 9/23/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 88, Packet Page 105 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 113, Packet Page 254 28L
28R
10L
10R
28L
28R
10L
10R2 1 4
6 5
5 2 2
3 3
3 13 3
6 6 6
6 4
4 6 3 6
5 3
3 3 5
6 6
1 1 2 4
5 5 2
Legend
Municipal BoundaryRunway Protection Zone (Zone 1)Approach Protection Zone (Zone 2) Inner Turning Zone (Zone 3)Outer Approach/Departure Zone (Zone 4)Sideline Zone (Zone 5) Airport Property Zone (Zone 6)Parcels
0 1,200
Feet ¯
1,395 ft
2400 Garden Road
Exhibit 4C (conƟnued)

MONTEREY REGIONAL AIRPORT SAFETY ZONES
Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
Planning Commission Meeting, 9/23/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 89, Packet Page 106 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 114, Packet Page 255 Before the Monterey County Airport Land Use Commission, State of California
Resolution No. 25-003
Finding the proposed conversion of an
existing 11,177 SF commercial office
building into a day care/school facility and
accompanying proposed improvements
inconsistent with the 2019 Airport Land Use
Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) for Monterey
Regional Airport.

REF250022, 2400 Garden Road, Monterey,
(APN: 013-322-008-000).

WHEREAS, on June 30, 2025, the City of Monterey (City) submitted an ALUC application (ALUC File No. REF250022) to ALUC staff requesting a consistency determination of the proposed conversion of an existing commercial office building into a day care/school facility (Montessori Community School) located at 2400 Garden Road, Monterey; and
WHEREAS, the ALUC is responsible for the review of local land use regulations affecting land uses within the Airport Influence Area for Monterey Regional Airport, as identified in the Monterey Regional Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP), incorporated herein by reference, for consistency with the ALUCP; and WHEREAS, as proposed project includes the demolition and reconstruction of approximately 8,136 square feet of the interior portions of upper floor area of the existing office building to accommodate new classroom spaces and support areas, and other site improvements including construction of a new waste enclosure, reconfiguration of the parking lot to meet current standards and provide the required number of parking spaces, and modifications to existing landscaped areas. The existing building would be occupied by Montessori Community School, providing daycare and educational programs for infants and children up to 6 years old. The proposed day care/school facility would have a maximum on-site occupancy of 120 persons (104 students and 16 staff); and WHEREAS, pursuant to ALUCP Exhibit 4B, Noise Compatibility Criteria and Long Range Noise Exposure Contours, the subject property is located outside of the 65-, 70-, or 75- Community Noise Equivalent Levels (CNELs), and therefore, the proposed development is a compatible use; and
WHEREAS, the project site is entirely located within the 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 77 horizontal surface elevation of 406 feet above mean sea level (AMSL). The proposed development does not include increasing the height of any structure beyond what is currently existing on site and therefore will not encroach on Part 77 Surfaces and is an allowed use with respect to airspace protection criteria (ALUCP Policy 4.2.3); and
Planning Commission Meeting, 9/23/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 90, Packet Page 107 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 115, Packet Page 256 WHEREAS, the project site is located within Safety Zone 7 (Airport Influence Area), as delineated in the ALUCP. Safety Zone 7 is the most permissible safety zone, allowing residential development at unrestricted densities, non-residential land uses up to a maximum intensity of 300 persons per acre, and all development types except hazards to flight, outdoor stadiums, and other very high-intensity uses.

WHEREAS, pursuant to Table 4B of the ALUCP, projects within Safety Zone 7 that involve vulnerable occupants (including children, the elderly, and persons with disabilities) within 6,000 feet from the side of a runway require ALUC review and are “strongly discouraged”. The subject property is located approximately 1,395 feet south of Monterey Regional Airport runway 10R-28L; and
WHEREAS, Exhibit D2 of the ALUCP identifies the various factors (runway length, arrival and departure accidents1, flight patterns, long-range noise contours), that were considered to create the MRY Safety Zones. Per Exhibit D2, and based on data from airports around the U.S, the subject property is located in an area that may experience multiple arrival and departure accidents; and WHEREAS, Policy 4.2.2.2 of the ALUCP states, “The safety zone land use compatibility standards in Table 4B restrict the development of land uses that could pose particular hazards to the public or to vulnerable populations in case of an aircraft accident.” The proposed use is strongly discouraged by the ALUCP due to its close proximity to MRY runway 10R-28L. In addition, the proposed use is directly adjacent to Safety Zone 5, which prohibits daycares and school facilities; and WHEREAS, as set out in California Public Utilities Code section 21670, the ALUC is created “to protect public health, safety, and welfare by ensuring the orderly expansion of airports and the adoption of land use measures that minimize the public’s exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around public airports to the extent that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses.” As proposed, the project would introduce vulnerable occupants into an area subject to higher aircraftrelated hazards; therefore, creating a potential public safety concern; and WHEREAS, the ALUC testified during the July 28, 2025 hearing that introduction of the proposed use is not compatible with 2019 ALUCP as it introduces a use that would be exposed to aircraft related noise and potential accidents, and traffic associated with operation of MRY. Accordingly, the ALUC finds that establishment, maintenance, and operation of the project will the circumstances of this particular case be detrimental to the health, safety, comfort, and general welfare of persons occupied by the project site, and be potentially detrimental or injurious to the project’s occupants; and WHEREAS, on July 21, 2025, the California Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics, verbally informed ALUC staff of it’s general discouragement to introduce vulnerable occupants within 6,000 feet of the side of a runway.

WHEREAS, the Monterey Regional Airport District commented on the project, and verbally testified at the July 28, 2025 hearing, stating, “Due to the potential presence 1 Nominalized from other airports across the United States. Accident Data from California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook, 2011.

Planning Commission Meeting, 9/23/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 91, Packet Page 108 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 116, Packet Page 257 of vulnerable occupants within the vicinity of the airport, Monterey Regional Airport does not support the proposed use of 2400 Garden Road as a Day Care Center” (letter dated July 18, 2025); and
WHEREAS, on July 28, 2025, the ALUC conducted a duly noticed public meeting to consider the proposed project located at 2400 Garden Road, Monterey (APN:
013-322-008-000); and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Monterey County Airport Land Use Commission does hereby find that the conversion of an existing 11,177 SF commercial office building into a day care/school facility and accompanying proposed improvements are inconsistent with the 2019 ALUCP for Monterey Regional Airport.

PASSED AND ADOPTED on this 28th day of July 2025, upon motion of Commissioner Leffel and seconded by Commissioner Cleveland, by the following vote, to-wit:

AYES: Commissioners Leffel, Carbone, Cleveland, Scherer, Kerr, and Donaldson NOES:

ABSENT: Commissioner Cohan
ABSTAIN:

ATTEST
Craig Spencer, Secretary to the ALUC
By: ___________________________________________
Fionna Jensen, Designee of Secretary to the ALUC
July 28, 2025
Planning Commission Meeting, 9/23/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 92, Packet Page 109 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 117, Packet Page 258 • Outlook
Support to the community Montessori School
From Krisel Swartz
Date Sat 8/9/2025 11:13 AM
To Oncall Planning <[email protected]>
Cc alexhswartz
You don't often get email fron
To whom it may concern,
I hope this message finds you well. I am reaching out to express my strong support for the initiative to open a Montessori school in our community of Monterey, California.

Having a Montessori school in our area would provide invaluable educational opportunities for our children, fostering their independence, creativity, and critical thinking skills. The Montessori approach not only nurtures academic growth but also emphasizes social and emotional development, which is essential for our children's overall well-being.

I believe that this school will meet the growing demand for quality childcare and education in our community. It would serve as a vital resource for families seeking an engaging and supportive learning environment.

I encourage everyone to come together and support this initiative. Whether through attending meetings, sharing our experiences, or advocating for the school's establishment, every effort counts.

Thank you for considering my support for this important cause. Together, we can make a difference for our children and our community.

Best regards,
Krisel Swartz and Alex Swartz
Monterey
CA, 93940
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Planning Commission Meeting, 9/23/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 93, Packet Page 110 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 118, Packet Page 259 � Outlook
Montessori Community - Letter of Support
From Devan Denton
Date Mon 8/11/2025 1 :32 PM
To Oncall Planning <[email protected]>
[You don't often get email from
https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification ]
Hello Monterey Planning Department,
Learn why this is important at
My wife and I, Kimberly & Devan Denton, wanted to reach out and give our full hearted support of Montessori Community School. My daughter Dylan (now 5) attended several years at MCS in Scott's valley. We moved in during the middle of the school year and had limited options. We were very lucky and ended up sending Dylan to MCS. We could not have been happier with the school itself, the curriculum, and the staff. By the end of our tenure we had developed a deep level of trust and confidence in both their staff and program. Dylan has recently started kindergarten at a public school and it is clear that she has been fully prepared for the challenging transition. While other students struggle to get started with their day, Dylan confidently walks into class and starts work. She is generous, focused, and kind. These attributes, while somewhat innate, have certainly been kindled and strengthened by her time at MCS. I personally hope you will give MCS the opportunity to support and guide the children of your community.

If you have any questions, or want to follow-up in person, don't hesitate to get in touch.

Sincerely,
Devan & Kimberly Denton
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Planning Commission Meeting, 9/23/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 94, Packet Page 111 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 119, Packet Page 260 • Outlook
Montessori School is needed!
From Dave. A Pond
Date Mon 8/11/2025 8:07 AM
To Oncall Planning <[email protected]>
Y n' f n g mail fr
Dear Mayor, Planning Comn1ittee and Members of the City Council, My narne is David Pond, owner of Carmel Custorn Homes and a proud mernber of the Monterey county conununity. I'm writing to advocate for the establishment of a new Iv1ontessori school in our city-something I believe Monterey both needs and deserves.

Families here face limited access to Montessori education, often having to travel outside the city for this proven, child-centered approach. With Monterey's population near 30,000 and MPUSD serving over 9,000 students, the demand for high-quality, diverse educational options is clear. Montessori programs have a strong track record of fostering independence, creativity, and academic exce11ence while supporting social responsibility-values that align perfectly with our community.

By creating a local Montessori option, we could:
• Address docurnented shortages in early education and child care • Support working families and retain young residents
• Partner with local educators and organizations to ensure equitable access • Strengthen Monterey's appeal as a vibrant, forward-thinking community I urge the city council to approve the proposal at 2400 Garden Rd., as it will create valuable partner with educators, attract new families, strengthen our community.

Wjth your support we can tum this opportunity into a lasting benefit for Monterey and help Planning Commission Meeting, 9/23/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 95, Packet Page 112 make this vision a reality.

Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 120, Packet Page 261 Thank you for your time and your dedication to the future of Monterey! Thank you,
Dave Pond
Carmel Custom Homes
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Planning Commission Meeting, 9/23/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 96, Packet Page 113 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 121, Packet Page 262 8/12/25, 11 :54 AM Mail - Erica Barrera - Outlook
� Outlook
FW: Montessori Community School 2400 Garden Road
From Levi Hill <[email protected]>
Date Tue 8/12/2025 11 :53 AM
To Erica Barrera <[email protected]>
Levi Hill, AICP
Planning Manager I City of Monterey
570 Pacific Street I Monterey, CA 93940
831-646-3885 (main) I 831-646-3437
From: Henry Ruhnke
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2025 1:16 PM
To: Kimberly Cole <[email protected]>
Cc: Levi Hill <[email protected]>; Christopher Schmidt <[email protected]>; 'Bill Tershy' Subject: Montessori Community School 2400 Garden Road
Dear Kim,
This email formally requests a continuance for the 2400 Garden Road Montessori Community School project to the next available Monterey Planning Commission meeting.

Please schedule the session for 7:00 pm would facilitate community attendance and participation.

The continuance is needed because the staff report was received Friday afternoon. Additional time is required to discuss the project and prepare a presentation for the Planning Commission.

Thank you for your consideration,
Henry Ruhnke
Principal
Wald, Ruhnke & Dost Architects, LLP
2340 Garden Rd., Suite 100
Monterey, CA 93940
www.wrdarch.com
W. (831) 649-4642
F. (831) 649-3530
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAkALgAAAAAAHYQDEapmEc2byACqAC%2FEWg0AZGQoSW4nuEeoqNfi0M%2FrMAADjZNBqAAA 1/2 Planning Commission Meeting, 9/23/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 97, Packet Page 114 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 122, Packet Page 263 • Outlook
A note regarding Montessori Community School
From Sarah Silva
Date Mon 8/11/202S 1 :32 PM
To Oncall Planning <[email protected]>
You don't often get email from a rn wh �
I'm shocked to hear that the planning department wants to deny Montessori Community School from opening a new location in Monterey. There is a childcare shortage. I had to wait a year to get off the waitlist for my infant son and every daycare I spoke with had a similar waitlist. I told daycares that I was pregnant before I told most of my friends and family because the waitlists were so bad.

Besides the fact that there is a shortage and more childcare is needed, MCS is especially wonderful and valuable to the community. My son is now 2 years old and has been attending MCS in Scotts Valley since he was 5 months old. The infant class was so supportive, caring, accommodating, and welcoming. I could focus on my work because I knew I could trust them to care for my tiny little baby.

And in the toddler class, my son is thriving. At 2 years old he makes bread, sets the table, cleans the windows, waters plants, cuts with scissors, and rides bikes (in addition to the more expected toddler activities like stacking blocks and playing with stickers). He loves school, and they have really helped him grow in so many areas. I'm always telling others about how great this school is. And other people notice too -- moms at playgrounds ask if he goes to daycare because he shares so well, and friends ask how my house is so clean with a toddler around (he cleans up!).

It would really be a disservice to Monterey to deny the community access to this extraordinary school.

Sarah Silva
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Planning Commission Meeting, 9/23/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 98, Packet Page 115 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 123, Packet Page 264 • Outlook
Reaching out in Support of Montessori Community School
From Grace Teram
Date Tue 8/12/2025 11 :48 AM
To Oncall Planning <[email protected]>
You don't often get email fro
Dear Planning Commission,
arn wh this is imP.ortant
My name is Gracie, and I am reaching out in support of Montessori Community School. I am an employee of Medialocate Inc in Pacific Grove, and a parent of three. Over the past few years, I have struggled to continue as a working mother while having virtually no options of care for my children.

Nearly all my friends in the area have struggled with the same challenge, many of whom have dropped out of their careers because there isn't an option for quality care.

Monterey is a growing area with many new families; it is essential that quality education is offered for early childhood education so parents can be at peace leaving their little ones. Can you imagine leaving an infant in the hands of just anyone? Our babies cant advocate for themselves or even share their experience at school. We need options in the Monterey area where parents can be at ease dropping off their children, and I feel strongly that Montessori Community School will provide that.

Two of my three children are on the waiting list for the new Monterey site, and I have been anxiously waiting for their opening. I am going to be extremely disappointed in our planning department and City Council if this project does not go through.

Thank you for taking the time to read this.

Warm Regards,
Gracie Teramo
DISCLAIMER: : This message is intended exclusively for its addressee and may contain information that is CONFIDENTIAL and protected by professional privilege. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copy or disclosure of this communication is strictly prohibited by law. If this message has been received in error, please notify the Media locate sender immediately.
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Planning Commission Meeting, 9/23/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 99, Packet Page 116 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 124, Packet Page 265 Eli Outlook
Strong Support for Opening Montessori Community School in Monterey From Sunny ZHANG
Date Wed 8/13/2025 11:03 AM
To Oneal Planning <[email protected]>
Cc
I 1 attachment (128 KB)
WechatlMG 1 Ojpg;
You don't often get email fro
Dear Planning Department,
. Learn why this is important
I am writing to express my wholehearted support for the approval and opening of Montessori Community School in Monterey. I am a future teacher at the school, and I deeply believe this project will be an invaluable gift not only to the local community, but also to the broader society.

Montessori education is rooted in respect for the child, fostering independence, curiosity, collaboration, and a lifelong love of lea ming. It does more than teach academics - it builds a village where children grow into thoughtful, responsible, and compassionate citizens. By establishing this school in Monterey, we would be nurturing future leaders for our city, our country, and beyond.

As an Asian Montessori teacher, I am also excited about how this project will bring greater diversity to Monterey, both in the teaching community and in the student body. A new school will create more local job opportunities and foster cultural richness - qualities that strengthen the fabric of any city.

I have friends who are Monterey residents and instructors at the Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center. They have shared with me that several of their colleagues are already eagerly waiting for the school to open so they can enroll their children.

This means supporting this school is not just a local investment, but also a service to families who contribute to our national security and International diplomacy.

Monterey, with its beautiful natural surroundings, is a perfect place to apply the Montessori pedagogy. Nature is an essential part of Montessori learning - it inspires creativity, observation, and peace in both children and teachers.

I would also like to share a personal story from my current campus In San Rafael, Marin County. Recently, we received a heartfelt letter from a local resident, Jon Gardner, who lived across from our school building nearly 50 years ago when it was still a funeral home. He recalled how, as a child, he and his friends used to play in the ivy-covered lot where our playground now stands - much to the dismay of the funeral home staff. Seeing the space now filled with children's laughter brings him joy, and he ended his note by saying, "In the end, the noisy kids won the day." This story beautifully captures the lasting, positive impact that a school can have on a community's spirit I attached this lovely letter in this email.

Planning Commission Meeting, 9/23/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 100, Packet Page 117 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 125, Packet Page 266 Montessori Community School in Monterey will be one of those rare projects that benefits everyone - children, families, the local economy, and even future generations. We all hope kids will win the world and take good care of it, don't we? Thank you for your time and consideration.

Warm regards,
Sunny/Le Zhang
Future Teacher, Montessori Community School
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.]
Planning Commission Meeting, 9/23/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 101, Packet Page 118 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 126, Packet Page 267 Dear People at Guidepost Montessori.
f just wanted to drop you a note.

As a child almost 50 years ago I lived across the street.

The building you are now in was a funeral home back
then. Russel and Gooch I think it was called. They had a huge ivy covered area where your playground now ,s. M'J young tr;ends and I would come over and p\ay noisi\'J \n the ivy from time to time.

The people who ran the funeral home would come out
and yell at us and run us off. It was a funeral home after all.

Whenever I drive by and see a playground where the ivy
was I laugh. In the end, the noisy kids won the day.
- Jon Gardner
Planning Commission Meeting, 9/23/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 102, Packet Page 119 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 127, Packet Page 268 • Outlook
In Support of Montessori Community School Use Permit
From Adam Aranyos
Date Thu 8/14/2025 3:21 PM
To Oncall Planning <[email protected]>
Cc Madelynn Tershy
You don't often get email fro Learn wh this is imP.ortant Dear City of Monterey Planning Department,
As a parent of two young children, I can speak firsthand to the severe shortage of quality childcare options in our community. The Montessori Community School is an important resource for families, and approving its use permit would help address a critical need.

Our area already has very few choices for high-quality early education, and the ongoing development of multi-bedroom residential apartments along Garden Road will only increase the demand. Without proactive measures to expand childcare capacity, many working families will struggle to find safe, nurturing, and educational environments for their children.

Approving the school use permit for the Montessori Community School is an investment in the wellbeing of our children and the stability of our community. I strongly urge you to support this permit so that we can better meet the needs of both current and future families in Monterey.

Thank you for your consideration.

Best regards,
Adam
Adam Aranyos
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Planning Commission Meeting, 9/23/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 103, Packet Page 120 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 128, Packet Page 269 I'll Outlook
Public Comment re: Application of Montessori Community School From Brendan Radke
Date Fri 8/15/2025 1 :07 PM
To Oncall Planning <[email protected]>
@J 1 attachment (113 KB)
B. Radke Public Comment (Montessori Comm'ty School).pdf; You don't often get email fro-Learn why this is im�
Good afternoon,
I'm writing to submit the attached letter as a public comment to the application of the Montessori Community School pending before the Planning Committee of the City of Monterey. Thank you for your consideration of the attached.

Please let me know if there is a different preferred method of submission.

Thanks,
Brendan E. Radke
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Planning Commission Meeting, 9/23/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 104, Packet Page 121 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 129, Packet Page 270 Brendan E. Radke
August 15, 2025
Planning Committee
City Council
City of Monterey
[email protected]
RE: Public Comment: Montessori Community School
To Whom It May Concern:

I respectfully submit this letter as a public comment in support of the pending application of the Montessori Community School (“MCS”).

My family has been part of the MCS community in Scotts Valley for the past five years, with our younger daughter currently enrolled and our older daughter having aged into the public school last year. When in 2020 the pandemic forced my family out of San Francisco due to lack of childcare options, we faced an uncertain situation and struggled to find the right fit for our daughter in a new environment. Ultimately, we were very fortunate to find a home in Scotts Valley, but childcare challenges continued until we found MCS and secured a place for her there.

MCS has provided a welcoming and safe learning environment for our children, one that honors the principles of a Montessori education. From their first day, my daughters’ experience at the school has been overwhelmingly positive. They love their teachers and classmates, and their lessons have been engaging and have had a lasting impact on their development. When last year our eldest daughter graduated from the school and into the larger public school setting, we found that her time at MCS had prepared her well for the new environment.

As parents of children at MCS, we have found the teachers and school leadership to be diligent, responsive, and attentive, and we have enjoyed the parent community that the school has provided.

MCS has been thorough in explaining their curriculum to parents and providing parent education events and other opportunities for parents to raise any concerns and be heard. MCS has made parenting easier for us.

It is my belief that MCS would have the same positive impact on the Monterey community that it has provided to Scotts Valley. Lack of quality childcare options can be very disruptive for families of young children, a situation that my family faced before we found MCS. I feel confident that MCS would prove to be an excellent option for the families of Monterey.

Thank you for your time and consideration of this letter.

Sincerely,
Brendan E. Radke, Esq.

Planning Commission Meeting, 9/23/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 105, Packet Page 122 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 130, Packet Page 271 • Outlook
Montessori School Permit
From Andy Swart
Date Tue 8/26/2025 10:02 AM
To Oncall Planning <[email protected]>
Cc Ed Smith <[email protected]>
You don't often get email fro earn wh this is important Dear Monterey Planning and Councilman Ed Smith
I strongly urge the city to approve the permit for the Montessori school project at 2400 Garden Road. The building has been purchased and is ready to provide badly needed services to the community. I can think of no valid reason why anyone would oppose such a request. Again please approve this permit even if you have to impose reasonable conditions .. Thanks Sincerely
Andy Swartz
Walker & Reed
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Planning Commission Meeting, 9/23/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 106, Packet Page 123 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 131, Packet Page 272 • Outlook
Urgent
From hannah dunn
Date Tue 8/26/2025 12:47 PM
To Oncall Planning <[email protected]>
[You don't often get email fro
http,s://aka.ms/LearnAboutSen
Dear Planning Commission,
Learn why this is important at
I was planning to move to Monterey a few months ago from Corralitos. I have a few friends that live in this area and I know how beautiful and welcoming it is. I started the house hunt and found a house I liked and luckily looked into child care in the area before committing to buying the house. To my surprise there were no high quality schools in the area that I could put my children into. I thought to myself how this was the one thing that was flawed in Monterey and a big enough flaw to stop people from moving here. My only options were low quality, play based daycares where teachers were playing on their phones rather than working with the children. We ultimately decided not to move to Monterey since there was no where we felt happy and secure putting our children and instead stayed in the Corralitos area.

When my friend in Monterey told me about how the school that two of her children are on the waiting list for may not be permitted to open because it was "too close to an airport" I was shocked. It brought me back to all the frustration and sadness I felt when I couldn't move to Monterey because there was no proper childcare. I thought to myself how is that even possible? What I do not understand is why the planning commission and airport even have a say in this when it is a private childcare facility that parents choose to put their children in. This is a choice for parents, not for the city. Parents are very capable of gauging what is best for their children and families a lot better than a city council who has never met the child before. Hearing about this situation made me so frustrated for my friend and for the community that I knew I had to write in and share my experience so that I can hopefully help you all make the right choice for the community.

Best,
Hannah Dunn
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Planning Commission Meeting, 9/23/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 107, Packet Page 124 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 132, Packet Page 273 2 1 5 W . F R A N K L I N S T R E E T , 5 TH F L O O R | M O N T E R E Y , C A L I F O R N I A 9 3 9 4 0 831 - 649 - 1 1 0 0 | W W W . W A L K E R A N D R E E D . C O M Via Email: [email protected]
August 26, 2025
Kim Cole
Community Development Director
City of Monterey
570 Pacific Street
Monterey, CA 93940
Planning Commissioners
City of Monterey
570 Pacific Street
Monterey, CA 93940
Re: Consider 2400 Garden Road: Use Permit Application UP-25-0013 for a Day CareGeneral Use and Variance Application VA-25-0075 for Reduced Front and Side Yard Setbacks; Applicant Shawn Capps, Wald Ruhnke and Dost Architects; Owner W R MONT LLC; Industrial, Administration, and Research, Religious Assembly Overlay, Emergency Shelter Overlay, Multi-Family Residential Overlay (I-R-130- RA-ES-MF1) Zoning District; Employment General Plan Designation (Exempt from CEQA per Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1 and Section 15303, Class 3) (“Project”) Kim and Commissioners,
Per my discussions with Kim, I have been retained by WR Mont, LLC, to conduct a legal review of the above noted City of Monterey Planning Commission Agenda Item and provide advice to my client and Henry Ruhnke and his team at WRD Architects. My client’s Project is for a Use Permit UP-25-0013 (“Use Permit”) to operate a Montessori based day care facility at 2400 Garden Road, Monterey, CA.

Pursuant to the Project Agenda Report, the City Planning Staff is now, after prior public recommendations of approval1, recommending denial of the Use Permit based upon the “unique” public safety concern due to its being located in Safety Zone 7 – Airport Influence Area, and the the introduction of “vulnerable occupants” within 6,000 of the side of a runway.

It is my recommendation that for the following reasons the Planning Commission approve Use Permit subject to the City Council’s overriding of the ALUC inconsistency determination, and recommend to the City Council that the ALUC inconsistency determination be overridden. 1 See Chris Schmidt’s Memorandum on the Planning Commission Agenda Packet Page 76 Planning Commission Meeting, 9/23/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 108, Packet Page 125 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 133, Packet Page 274 2 1 5 W . F R A N K L I N S T R E E T , 5 TH F L O O R | M O N T E R E Y , C A L I F O R N I A 9 3 9 4 0 831 - 649 - 1 1 0 0 | W W W . W A L K E R A N D R E E D . C O M The following are my conclusions of the Use Permit findings based upon my review of the Project Planning Commission Agenda Report, the and applicable law.

Finding 2:

As stated in the Project Agenda Report and the accompanying resolution two of the three findings can be made (Findings 1 and 3), but Finding 2 “…cannot be made…”. Finding 2 in the Agenda Report states the following:
2) That the proposed use and the proposed conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will be consistent with the General Plan; will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare of persons residing or working in or adjacent to the neighborhood of such use; and will not be detrimental to properties or improvements in the vicinity or to the general welfare of the city; and
Staff response: This finding cannot be made. While the Employment General Plan designation encourages supportive secondary uses, the proposed use presents a unique public safety concern due to its location within an active airport influence area. The ALUCP strongly discourages facilities that serve vulnerable populations, including children, within 6,000 feet of the side of a runway2. The subject property lies approximately 1,395 feet from Runway 10R28L. In July 2025, the Monterey County Airport Land Use Commission determined the project to be inconsistent with the 2019 ALUCP, citing unacceptable risk exposure to vulnerable occupants in the event of an aircraft incident. The Monterey Regional Airport expressed formal opposition in writing as well as verbal public comment at the ALUC meeting. Additionally, Monterey County ALUC Planning staff indicated that the California Department of Transportation Division of Aeronautics had been consulted and stated general discouragement for the proposed use to be introduced at the site, as described in the ALUC staff report (Attachment 4). As proposed, the project introduces a high number of vulnerable individuals into an area with documented aircraft arrival and departure risk. This potential impact to public safety cannot be mitigated through operational conditions alone, and thus, the project is considered detrimental to the general welfare of the City and the safety of potential vulnerable occupants.

Vulnerable occupants:

A significant portion of the City of Monterey and some of the other surrounding communities are within the 6,000 feet of the side of a runway and 10,000 feet of the end of a runway. 6,000 feet runs close to Broadway Avenue/Kimble Avenue in Seaside, CA to the north and Jacks Peak Park and Deer Flats to the south. The 10,000 feet runs close to Fisherman’s Warf to the west and past York School to the east.

Current uses that specifically serve “vulnerable occupants” within this these parameters include3: City of Monterey’s Sport Center, Jacks Ball Park, Frank Sollecito Ball Park, El Estero Park, El Estero Park Center, Dennis the Mennis Park, and Casa Nova Oak Knoll Park Center; Monterey Peninsula Unified School Districts Foothill School and Del Rey Woods School; Ryan Ranch Day Care Center; Montage Health Buildings; Ohana Center for Child and Adolescent 2 The Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan also discourages uses involving “vulnerable occupants” within 10,000 feet from the end of the runway.
3 This not intended as an exhaustive list but a list for example purposes only.

Planning Commission Meeting, 9/23/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 109, Packet Page 126 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 134, Packet Page 275 2 1 5 W . F R A N K L I N S T R E E T , 5 TH F L O O R | M O N T E R E Y , C A L I F O R N I A 9 3 9 4 0 831 - 649 - 1 1 0 0 | W W W . W A L K E R A N D R E E D . C O M Behavioral Health; Bay View Academy; Del Rey Oaks Park; Santa Cadelina School; Monterey County Fair Ground.

Further, Garden Road is soon to be home to several new apartment projects. One appears to be coming on line very shortly and there are at least 2 more apartment projects in the works.

Each of those apartment projects will likely be rented by work force employees that include families with young children and the elderly, i.e. vulnerable occupants. Having a day care option within walking distance of these new apartments should be praised, applauded and approved, not rejected.

Even the Staff of the ALUC in the Staff Report for the July 28, 2025 Airport Land Use Commission recommended approval and provided findings to support approval4. The Staff Report state “The California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (CALUPH) states that in cases where such uses should be avoided, it may be allowed only if a site outside the zone would not serve the intended function. Additionally, the CALUPH places a higher level of emphasis on limiting schools and daycares at the ends of runways than parallel to runways.” There is nothing “unique” about uses involving vulnerable occupants within these parameters. What is unique is having an airport set in the middle of a relatively small landmass surrounded by ocean that is an active and vibrant community. Approving a use that will be greatly needed in the near future is good.

California Department of Transportation Division of Aeronautics:

The California Department of Transportation Division of Aeronautics was wrongly and inappropriately contacted by ALUC’s Staff Member, which may also be in violation of due process.

On or about July 21, 2025, the ALUC’s Staff Member stated that she communicated directly with California Department of Transportation stating California Education Code Sections 17215 and 81033 require that the Department of Transportation investigate and make a recommendation regarding the acquisition of property for a school and community college sites within 2 miles of airports. I have attached a copy of both sections of the Education Code and the email chain for your review. City of Monterey Senior Planner Chris Schmidt was on that email chain.

In short, neither of those education codes, 17125 “Site near airport” and 81033 – Community Colleges – School Sites “Investigation; geologic and soil engineering studies; airport proximity”, apply to the private day care Montessori Community School5.

The Montessori Community School location in Scotts Valley currently has two licenses Toddler/Preschool: 444417076, and Nido: 44408900. It is operated as a private day care and not a private primary education school. I presume the Monterey location will either be operated under those license numbers or licenses under identical classifications. 4 See Planning Commission Agenda Packet Page 60.
5 The use of “Community” in the day care business name does not make it a Community College.

Planning Commission Meeting, 9/23/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 110, Packet Page 127 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 135, Packet Page 276 2 1 5 W . F R A N K L I N S T R E E T , 5 TH F L O O R | M O N T E R E Y , C A L I F O R N I A 9 3 9 4 0 831 - 649 - 1 1 0 0 | W W W . W A L K E R A N D R E E D . C O M All private schools are required to file annual reports to the Department of Education. This is unique and only applies to private schools. The Department of Education is required to maintain a public list of all private schools in the state of California. The Montessori Community School Scotts Valley location is not listed as a private school with the Department of Education. I would also presume the Monterey location would also not be a private school and not listed as one with the Department of Education.

California Education Code 81033 solely applies to proposed new Community College (public institutions) school sites (acquisition or lease) within two miles of an operative airport runway. It has nothing to do with proposed private or public day care or private or public primary or secondary education facilities. This Code section should not even be mistakenly part of the conversation about the Monterey Montessori Community School.

California Education Code 17215 solely applies to proposed new school sites (acquisition or lease) for public schools, primary and secondary, within two miles of an airport runway or proposed airport runway. 17215 provides that each “governing board of each school district including any district governed by a city board of education, or a charter school” must notify the State Department of Education, which must then notify the Department of Transportation, which then shall investigate the site and within 30 days submit a report to the State Department of Education. “Governing board of each school district including any district governed by a city board of education” by its definition is a public school district and charter schools are also governed by public school boards (either local or county).

Private schools and private day care centers operate independently of public school districts and are not subject to the procedural requirements of 17215. Additionally, there is no related case law that private day cares or private education institutions are included within its scope. As a result, Montessori Community School, a proposed private day care facility, is not subject to the procedural requirements of 17215 Education.

Neither Education Code Section 17125 nor 88033 are applicable to the City of Monterey’s review of the Use Permit Application UP-25-0013 and should not have any bearing on the Planning Commissions’ review or the City Councils’ overruling of the ALUC denial of this project. The ALUC’s Staff Member should never have communicated with the Department of Transportation and all information received from that communication is irrelevant and prejudicial to this Project.

The August 12, 2025, City of Monterey Staff Packet incorrectly indicated the Department of Transportation had “formally” stated it was against the project.

The Department of Transportation’s sole participation going forward follows California Public Utilities Code Section 21676. Where The Department of Transportation is to receive a 45 day notice that the City Council plans to overrule the ALUC’s decision and finding. During those 45 days, the Department of Transportation may provide comments to the City Council, which comments are advisory only [emphasis added]. The comments have no binding influence on the City Council.

Planning Commission Meeting, 9/23/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 111, Packet Page 128 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 136, Packet Page 277 2 1 5 W . F R A N K L I N S T R E E T , 5 TH F L O O R | M O N T E R E Y , C A L I F O R N I A 9 3 9 4 0 831 - 649 - 1 1 0 0 | W W W . W A L K E R A N D R E E D . C O M City Planning Prior Public Recommendation to ALUC to Approve Project:

Chris Schmidt, Senior Associate Planner, on June 26, 2025, just two months ago, publicly stated City of Monterey Planning Department “…recommends the project be found consistent with the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.”
6 It is incomprehensible that on June 26, 2025, the City of Monterey Planning Departments official position on the Project was a six page memorandum recommendation for approval with detailed finding for approval and now the same City of Monterey Planning Department is recommending denial. There is no explanation for this reversal of position.

On June 26, 2025, the Planning Department’s position was “Although AIA Zone 7 policies strongly discourage the siting of land uses involving vulnerable populations, such as child care centers, it is important to note that Zone 7 encompasses a substantial portion of the City of Monterey. Prohibiting these uses across the entirety of this broad area would significantly restrict uses throughout the jurisdiction. Furthermore, the Monterey Regional Airport ALUCP indicates that aircraft accident risk in Zone 7 is low.”
City Council’s Overrule ALUC’s decision and finding:

Both Chris Schmidt’s June 26, 2025 Memorandum to the ALUC and the ALUC Staff Member’s July 20, 2025 Project Memorandum sets out and makes all of the necessary finding to approve this Project and override the ALUC’s denial.

This Project is a good project and will provide a day care option for families that likely will not be able afford to drive miles out of their way to get day care for their children.

Very truly yours,
Hansen P. Reed, Shareholder
HPR/bhs
6 Planning Commission Agenda Packet Page 76
Planning Commission Meeting, 9/23/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 112, Packet Page 129 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 137, Packet Page 278 Shawn Capps, AIA | Architect

WALD, RUHNKE & DOST ARCHITECTS, LLP
2340 Garden Road, Suite 100
Monterey, California 93940
EMAIL: [email protected]: (831) 649-4642 x149
WEB: www.wrdarch.com
From: Henry Ruhnke
To: Hansen Reed
Subject: FW: 2400 Garden Road ALUC Application - submittal Date: Wednesday, August 20, 2025 1:01:55 PM
Attachments: image001.png
image003.png
From: Shawn Capps <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2025 3:10 PM
To: Henry Ruhnke <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: 2400 Garden Road ALUC Application - submittal See below
From: Jensen, Fionna <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2025 3:13 PM
To: Christopher Schmidt <[email protected]>; Henry Ruhnke <[email protected]> Cc: Shawn Capps <[email protected]>; Levi Hill <[email protected]>; Sanchez, Edgar <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: 2400 Garden Road ALUC Application - submittal This is for a daycare or a private school?
Thank you,
Fionna Jensen
Principal Planner – Current Planning
County of Monterey Housing & Community
Development
1441 Schilling Place, South 2nd Floor
Main: (831)755-5025 | Direct: (831) 796-6407
Accela Citizens Access
Effective immediately, discretionary planning permits will be managed by two teams. The Development Review team will process applications from initial submittal to deeming it complete. All submittals and resubmittals shall be sent to Planning Commission Meeting, 9/23/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 113, Packet Page 130 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 138, Packet Page 279 [email protected] with your assigned planner cc’d. Once deemed complete, the Consistency Review team will prepare the application for consideration by the appropriate authority. Temporarily restructuring Current Planning is intended to better manage its demanding workload and address staffing shortages. HCD recognizes that it will take time to adjust to this new structure, and your patience is appreciated. Please contact 831- 755-5025 if you have any questions.

From: Christopher Schmidt <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2025 3:12 PM
To: Henry Ruhnke <[email protected]>; Jensen, Fionna <[email protected]> Cc: Shawn Capps <[email protected]>; Levi Hill <[email protected]>; Sanchez, Edgar <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: 2400 Garden Road ALUC Application - submittal [CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the County. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. ] Hi Fionna,
Caltrans has not been notified, as this is a private daycare and not a public school or charter school.

Thanks,
Chris
Chris Schmidt
Senior Associate Planner
City of Monterey
570 Pacific Street, Monterey, CA 93940
831-646-3885 (main)
831-646-3910 (desk)
Useful links:

Community Engagement
How to Apply for Planning Permits
Land Use and Regulations
Historic Preservation
GIS Maps and Data
Building and Encroachment Permits
City Holiday & Closure Schedule
From: Henry Ruhnke <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2025 2:59 PM
To: Fionna Jensen <[email protected]>
Cc: Shawn Capps <[email protected]>; Christopher Schmidt <[email protected]>; Levi Hill <[email protected]>; Edgar Sanchez <[email protected]> Subject: Re: 2400 Garden Road ALUC Application - submittal Hi Fionna
Planning Commission Meeting, 9/23/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 114, Packet Page 131 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 139, Packet Page 280 This is a private school and is not governed by a school district or is a charter school. I don’t believe either of these code sections apply.

Henry
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 21, 2025, at 2:48 PM, Jensen, Fionna
<[email protected]> wrote:

Chris,
Two sections of the State Education Code (17215 and 81033) require that the Department of Transportation investigate and make recommendations regarding the acquisition of property for school and community college sites near (within 2 miles) airports. Has Caltrans been notified of the application? I have reached out to them and am awaiting a response.
@Shawn Capps, the ALUC meetings are held in the Board Room at the Monterey Airport (upstairs) at 3PM. If the above has not been completed, I will not be scheduling the item for the July 28th ALUC hearing.

Thank you,
<image002.png> Fionna Jensen
Principal Planner – Current Planning
County of Monterey Housing & Community
Development
1441 Schilling Place, South 2nd Floor
Main: (831)755-5025 | Direct: (831) 796-6407
Accela Citizens Access
Effective immediately, discretionary planning permits will be managed by two teams. The Development Review team will process applications from initial submittal to deeming it complete. All submittals and resubmittals shall be sent to [email protected] with your assigned planner cc’d. Once deemed complete, the Consistency Review team will prepare the application for consideration by the appropriate authority. Temporarily restructuring Current Planning is intended to better manage its demanding workload and address staffing shortages. HCD recognizes that it will take time to adjust to this new structure, and your patience is appreciated. Please contact 831-755-5025 if you have any questions.

From: Shawn Capps <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2025 2:13 PM
To: Jensen, Fionna <[email protected]>; Henry Ruhnke <[email protected]>; Christopher Schmidt <[email protected]> Planning Commission Meeting, 9/23/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 115, Packet Page 132 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 140, Packet Page 281 <image007.png> Shawn Capps, AIA | Architect

WALD, RUHNKE & DOST ARCHITECTS, LLP
2340 Garden Road, Suite 100
Monterey, California 93940
EMAIL: [email protected]: (831) 649-4642 x149
WEB: www.wrdarch.com
Cc: Levi Hill <[email protected]>; Sanchez, Edgar
<[email protected]>
Subject: RE: 2400 Garden Road ALUC Application - submittal [CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the County. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. ] Fionna,
Good afternoon, no there are no other sites that are suitable within the Montessori Community School target area which includes the housing developments along Garden Road. Zone 7 is a very large zone that encompasses most of Monterey, Pacific Grove and parts of Seaside. Locating the school outside of this zone would be outside of the target area. No there is no exterior lighting proposed. The existing exterior lighting would remain. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments.

From: Jensen, Fionna <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2025 1:52 PM
To: Shawn Capps <[email protected]>; Henry Ruhnke <[email protected]>; Christopher Schmidt <[email protected]>
Cc: Levi Hill <[email protected]>; Sanchez, Edgar
<[email protected]>
Subject: RE: 2400 Garden Road ALUC Application - submittal Shawn,
Table 4B of the ALUCP establishes various development conditions per Safety Zone. Although day cares and schools are not prohibited uses within Safety Zone 7, projects that involve or would be occupied by “vulnerable occupants” (defined as children, the elderly, and people with disabilities) within 6,000 feet from the side of the runway shall require ALUC review, and such use is “strongly discouraged”. The California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook states that in cases where such uses should be avoided, it may be allowed only if a site outside the zone would not serve the intended function.

Planning Commission Meeting, 9/23/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 116, Packet Page 133 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 141, Packet Page 282 <image007.png> Shawn Capps, AIA | Architect

WALD, RUHNKE & DOST ARCHITECTS, LLP
2340 Garden Road, Suite 100
Monterey, California 93940
EMAIL: [email protected]: (831) 649-4642 x149
WEB: www.wrdarch.com
Are there any other sites you identified as potentially suitable for this site? Separately, is any exterior lighting proposed?
Thank you,
<image002.png> Fionna Jensen
Principal Planner – Current Planning
County of Monterey Housing & Community
Development
1441 Schilling Place, South 2nd Floor
Main: (831)755-5025 | Direct: (831) 796-6407
Accela Citizens Access
Effective immediately, discretionary planning permits will be managed by two teams. The Development Review team will process applications from initial submittal to deeming it complete. All submittals and resubmittals shall be sent to [email protected] with your assigned planner cc’d. Once deemed complete, the Consistency Review team will prepare the application for consideration by the appropriate authority. Temporarily restructuring Current Planning is intended to better manage its demanding workload and address staffing shortages. HCD recognizes that it will take time to adjust to this new structure, and your patience is appreciated. Please contact 831-755-5025 if you have any questions.

From: Shawn Capps <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 14, 2025 9:57 AM
To: Jensen, Fionna <[email protected]>; Henry Ruhnke <[email protected]>; Christopher Schmidt <[email protected]> Cc: Levi Hill <[email protected]>; Sanchez, Edgar
<[email protected]>
Subject: 2400 Garden Road ALUC Application - submittal
[CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the County. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. ] Fionna,
Good morning, I wanted to confirm that we are on the ALUC agenda for July 28th.

Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments.

Planning Commission Meeting, 9/23/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 117, Packet Page 134 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 142, Packet Page 283 <image007.png> Shawn Capps, AIA | Architect

WALD, RUHNKE & DOST ARCHITECTS, LLP
2340 Garden Road, Suite 100
Monterey, California 93940
EMAIL: [email protected]: (831) 649-4642 x149
WEB: www.wrdarch.com
From: Shawn Capps
Sent: Wednesday, July 9, 2025 3:40 PM
To: Jensen, Fionna <[email protected]>; Henry Ruhnke <[email protected]>; Christopher Schmidt <[email protected]> Cc: Levi Hill <[email protected]>; Sanchez, Edgar
<[email protected]>
Subject: RE: 2400 Garden Road ALUC Application - submittal invoice Fionna,
Good afternoon, the invoice has been paid. Confirmation number is 56329886. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments.

From: Jensen, Fionna <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 9, 2025 2:18 PM
To: Henry Ruhnke <[email protected]>; Shawn Capps <[email protected]>; Christopher Schmidt <[email protected]>
Cc: Levi Hill <[email protected]>; Sanchez, Edgar
<[email protected]>
Subject: RE: 2400 Garden Road ALUC Application - submittal invoice Please see the attached invoice.

Thank you,
<image002.png> Fionna Jensen
Principal Planner – Current Planning
County of Monterey Housing & Community
Development
1441 Schilling Place, South 2nd Floor
Main: (831)755-5025 | Direct: (831) 796-6407
Planning Commission Meeting, 9/23/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 118, Packet Page 135 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 143, Packet Page 284 Accela Citizens Access
Effective immediately, discretionary planning permits will be managed by two teams. The Development Review team will process applications from initial submittal to deeming it complete. All submittals and resubmittals shall be sent to [email protected] with your assigned planner cc’d. Once deemed complete, the Consistency Review team will prepare the application for consideration by the appropriate authority. Temporarily restructuring Current Planning is intended to better manage its demanding workload and address staffing shortages. HCD recognizes that it will take time to adjust to this new structure, and your patience is appreciated. Please contact 831-755-5025 if you have any questions.

From: Henry Ruhnke <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 9, 2025 11:40 AM
To: Jensen, Fionna <[email protected]>; Shawn Capps <[email protected]>; Christopher Schmidt <[email protected]> Cc: Levi Hill <[email protected]>; Sanchez, Edgar
<[email protected]>
Subject: RE: 2400 Garden Road ALUC Application - submittal invoice [CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the County. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. ] Hi Fionna,
This is Henry. Thanks for your efforts. It is extremely important that we make the meeting on the 27th. The school was hoping to be open in time for the school year and any additional delay will further complicate matters. Anything you can do to keep us on the July 28th meeting would be greatly appreciated.

All the best,
Henry
From: Jensen, Fionna <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 9, 2025 11:36 AM
To: Shawn Capps <[email protected]>; Christopher Schmidt <[email protected]>
Cc: Levi Hill <[email protected]>; Henry Ruhnke <[email protected]>; Sanchez, Edgar <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: 2400 Garden Road ALUC Application - submittal invoice Hi Shawn,
I am still waiting on our office assistants to initialize this application so I can invoice the fees. Hoping that it occurs in the next day or so. Edgar is reviewing the materials and will let you know if he has any questions. The item is tentatively scheduled for July 28th.

Planning Commission Meeting, 9/23/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 119, Packet Page 136 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 144, Packet Page 285 <image008.png> Shawn Capps, AIA | Architect

WALD, RUHNKE & DOST ARCHITECTS, LLP
2340 Garden Road, Suite 100
Monterey, California 93940
EMAIL: [email protected]: (831) 649-4642 x149
WEB: www.wrdarch.com
Thank you,
<image002.png> Fionna Jensen
Principal Planner – Current Planning
County of Monterey Housing & Community
Development
1441 Schilling Place, South 2nd Floor
Main: (831)755-5025 | Direct: (831) 796-6407
Accela Citizens Access
Effective immediately, discretionary planning permits will be managed by two teams. The Development Review team will process applications from initial submittal to deeming it complete. All submittals and resubmittals shall be sent to [email protected] with your assigned planner cc’d. Once deemed complete, the Consistency Review team will prepare the application for consideration by the appropriate authority. Temporarily restructuring Current Planning is intended to better manage its demanding workload and address staffing shortages. HCD recognizes that it will take time to adjust to this new structure, and your patience is appreciated. Please contact 831-755-5025 if you have any questions.

From: Shawn Capps <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 8, 2025 11:24 AM
To: Jensen, Fionna <[email protected]>; Christopher Schmidt <[email protected]>
Cc: Levi Hill <[email protected]>; Henry Ruhnke <[email protected]>; Sanchez, Edgar <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: 2400 Garden Road ALUC Application - submittal invoice [CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the County. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. ] Fionna,
Good morning, can you give me a status update on the ALUC review application for 2400 Garden Road? I haven’t seen the invoice come through for the ALUC application. I’m assuming we are still on for July 28th.

Planning Commission Meeting, 9/23/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 120, Packet Page 137 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 145, Packet Page 286 You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important From: Jensen, Fionna <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 30, 2025 3:25 PM
To: Shawn Capps <[email protected]>; Christopher Schmidt <[email protected]>
Cc: Levi Hill <[email protected]>; Henry Ruhnke <[email protected]>; Sanchez, Edgar <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: 2400 Garden Road ALUC Application - submittal invoice Received and will be initializing the application today. Once initialized, I will send over the invoice. My colleague, Edgar (cc’d), will be analyzing the project and will let you know if he has any questions.

Thank you,
<image002.png> Fionna Jensen
Principal Planner – Current Planning
County of Monterey Housing & Community
Development
1441 Schilling Place, South 2nd Floor
Main: (831)755-5025 | Direct: (831) 796-6407
Accela Citizens Access
Effective immediately, discretionary planning permits will be managed by two teams. The Development Review team will process applications from initial submittal to deeming it complete. All submittals and resubmittals shall be sent to [email protected] with your assigned planner cc’d. Once deemed complete, the Consistency Review team will prepare the application for consideration by the appropriate authority. Temporarily restructuring Current Planning is intended to better manage its demanding workload and address staffing shortages. HCD recognizes that it will take time to adjust to this new structure, and your patience is appreciated. Please contact 831-755-5025 if you have any questions.

From: Shawn Capps <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 30, 2025 1:46 PM
To: Christopher Schmidt <[email protected]>; Jensen, Fionna <[email protected]>
Cc: Levi Hill <[email protected]>; Henry Ruhnke <[email protected]> Subject: 2400 Garden Road ALUC Application - submittal invoice [CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the County. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. ] Fionna,
Good afternoon, I’m following up on the 2400 Garden Road ALUC application.

Can you confirm that you received the submittal from Chris Schmidt? Can you Planning Commission Meeting, 9/23/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 121, Packet Page 138 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 146, Packet Page 287 <image009.png> Shawn Capps, AIA | Architect

WALD, RUHNKE & DOST ARCHITECTS, LLP
2340 Garden Road, Suite 100
Monterey, California 93940
EMAIL: [email protected]: (831) 649-4642 x149
WEB: www.wrdarch.com
send me the ALUC fee invoice for $2,115.30 so that I can get this to the owner to get paid? Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments.

From: Christopher Schmidt <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2025 8:52 AM
To: Jensen, Fionna <[email protected]>
Cc: Levi Hill <[email protected]>; Shawn Capps <[email protected]>; Henry Ruhnke <[email protected]>
Subject: 2400 Garden Road ALUC Application Materials
Hi Fionna,
See the attached materials in reference to the Montessori daycare project at 2400 Garden Road in Monterey. Please feel free to contact Shawn or me if you have any further questions.

Thanks,
Chris
Chris Schmidt
Senior Associate Planner
City of Monterey
570 Pacific Street, Monterey, CA 93940
831-646-3885 (main)
831-646-3910 (desk)
Useful links:

Community Engagement
How to Apply for Planning Permits
Land Use and Regulations
Historic Preservation
GIS Maps and Data
Building and Encroachment Permits
City Holiday & Closure Schedule
<image010.jpg>
<image011.jpg>
Planning Commission Meeting, 9/23/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 122, Packet Page 139 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 147, Packet Page 288 <image011.jpg>
<image011.jpg>
<image011.jpg>
<image011.jpg>
www.monterey.gov
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] www.monterey.gov
Planning Commission Meeting, 9/23/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 123, Packet Page 140 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 148, Packet Page 289 § 17215. Site near airport, CA EDUC § 17215
© 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1 West’s Annotated California Codes
Education Code (Refs & Annos)
Title 1. General Education Code Provisions
Division 1. General Education Code Provisions (Refs & Annos) Part 10.5. School Facilities (Refs & Annos)
Chapter 1. Schoolsites (Refs & Annos)
Article 1. General Provisions (Refs & Annos)
West’s Ann.Cal.Educ.Code § 17215
§ 17215. Site near airport
Currentness
(a) In order to promote the safety of pupils, comprehensive community planning, and greater educational usefulness of schoolsites, before acquiring title to or leasing property for a new schoolsite, the governing board of each school district, including any district governed by a city board of education, or a charter school, shall give the State Department of Education written notice of the proposed acquisition or lease and shall submit any information required by the State Department of Education if the site is within two miles, measured by air line, of that point on an airport runway or a potential runway included in an airport master plan that is nearest to the site. (b) Upon receipt of the notice required pursuant to subdivision (a), the State Department of Education shall notify the Department of Transportation in writing of the proposed acquisition or lease. If the Department of Transportation is no longer in operation, the State Department of Education shall, in lieu of notifying the Department of Transportation, notify the United States Department of Transportation or any other appropriate agency, in writing, of the proposed acquisition or lease for the purpose of obtaining from the department or other agency any information or assistance that it may desire to give. (c) The Department of Transportation shall investigate the site and, within 30 working days after receipt of the notice, shall submit to the State Department of Education a written report of its findings including recommendations concerning acquisition or lease of the site. As part of the investigation, the Department of Transportation shall give notice thereof to the owner and operator of the airport who shall be granted the opportunity to comment upon the site. The Department of Transportation shall adopt regulations setting forth the criteria by which a site will be evaluated pursuant to this section. (d) The State Department of Education shall, within 10 days of receiving the Department of Transportation’s report, forward the report to the governing board of the school district or charter school. The governing board or charter school may not acquire title to or lease the property until the report of the Department of Transportation has been received. If the report does not favor the acquisition or lease of the property for a schoolsite or an addition to a present schoolsite, the governing board or charter school may not acquire title to or lease the property. If the report does favor the acquisition or lease of the property for a schoolsite or an addition to a present schoolsite, the governing board or charter school shall hold a public hearing on the matter prior to acquiring or leasing the site.

Planning Commission Meeting, 9/23/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 124, Packet Page 141 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 149, Packet Page 290 § 17215. Site near airport, CA EDUC § 17215
© 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 2 (e) If the Department of Transportation’s recommendation does not favor acquisition or lease of the proposed site, state funds or local funds may not be apportioned or expended for the acquisition or lease of that site, construction of any school building on that site, or for the expansion of any existing site to include that site. (f) This section does not apply to sites acquired prior to January 1, 1966, nor to any additions or extensions to those sites.

Credits
(Added by Stats.1997, c. 893 (S.B.161), § 96. Amended by Stats.1999, c. 837 (A.B.747), § 1; Stats.2005, c. 229 (A.B.1358), § 1.)
Notes of Decisions (11)
West’s Ann. Cal. Educ. Code § 17215, CA EDUC § 17215
Current with urgency legislation through Ch. 79 of 2025 Reg.Sess. Some statute sections may be more current, see credits for details.

End of Document © 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

Planning Commission Meeting, 9/23/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 125, Packet Page 142 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 150, Packet Page 291 § 81033. Investigation; geologic and soil engineering studies;..., CA EDUC § 81033 © 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1 West’s Annotated California Codes
Education Code (Refs & Annos)
Title 3. Postsecondary Education (Refs & Annos)
Division 7. Community Colleges (Refs & Annos)
Part 49. Community Colleges, Education Facilities (Refs & Annos) Chapter 1. School Sites (Refs & Annos)
Article 2. School Sites (Refs & Annos)
West’s Ann.Cal.Educ.Code § 81033
§ 81033. Investigation; geologic and soil engineering studies; airport in proximity Currentness
(a) The governing board of a community college district, prior to acquiring any site on which it proposes to construct any school building as defined in Section 81130.5, shall have the site, or sites, under consideration investigated by competent personnel to ensure that the final site selection is determined by an evaluation of all factors affecting the public interest and is not limited to selection on the basis of raw land cost only. If the prospective college site is located within the boundaries of any special studies zone or within an area designated as geologically hazardous in the safety element of the local general plan as provided in subdivision (g) of Section 65302 of the Government Code, the investigation shall include any geological and soil engineering studies by competent personnel needed to provide an assessment of the nature of the site and potential for earthquake or other geological hazard damage.

The geological and soil engineering studies of the site shall be of a nature that will preclude siting of a college in any location where the geological and site characteristics are such that the construction effort required to make the school building safe for occupancy is economically unfeasible. No studies are required to be made if the site or sites under consideration have been the subject of adequate prior studies. The evaluation also shall include location of the site with respect to population, transportation, water supply, waste disposal facilities, utilities, traffic hazards, surface drainage conditions, and other factors affecting the operating costs, as well as the initial costs, of the total project.

For the purposes of this article, a special studies zone is an area that is identified as a special studies zone on any map, or maps, compiled by the State Geologist pursuant to Chapter 7.5 (commencing with Section 2621) of Division 2 of the Public Resources Code. A copy of the report of each investigation conducted pursuant to this section shall be submitted to the board of governors.
(b) Geological and soil engineering studies as described in subdivision (a) shall be made, within the boundaries of any special studies zone, for the construction of any school building as defined in Section 81130.5 or, if the estimated cost exceeds twenty thousand dollars ($20,000), for the reconstruction or alteration of or addition to that building for work which alters structural elements. The Department of General Services may require similar geological and soil engineering studies for the construction or alteration of any building on a site located outside of the boundaries of any special studies zone. These studies need not be made if the site under consideration has been the subject of adequate prior studies.

Planning Commission Meeting, 9/23/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 126, Packet Page 143 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 151, Packet Page 292 § 81033. Investigation; geologic and soil engineering studies;..., CA EDUC § 81033 © 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 2 No school building shall be constructed, reconstructed, or relocated on the trace of a geological fault along which surface rupture can reasonably be expected to occur within the life of the school building.

A copy of the report of each investigation conducted pursuant to this section shall be submitted to the Department of General Services pursuant to Article 7 (commencing with Section 81130) and to the Chancellor’s office of the California Community Colleges. The cost of geological and soil engineering studies and investigations conducted pursuant to this section may be treated as a capital expenditure.
(c) To promote the safety of students, comprehensive community planning, and greater educational usefulness of community college sites, the governing board of each community college district, if the proposed site is within two miles, measured by air line, of that point on an airport runway, or runway proposed by an airport master plan, which is nearest the site and excluding them if the property is not so located, before acquiring title to property for a new community college site or for an addition to a present site, shall give the board of governors notice in writing of the proposed acquisition and shall submit any information required by the board of governors.

Immediately after receiving notice of the proposed acquisition of property which is within two miles, measured by air line, of that point on an airport runway, or runway proposed by an airport master plan, which is nearest the site, the board of governors shall notify the Division of Aeronautics of the Department of Transportation, in writing, of the proposed acquisition. The Division of Aeronautics shall make an investigation and report to the board of governors within 30 working days after receipt of the notice. If the Division of Aeronautics is no longer in operation, the board of governors, in lieu of notifying the Division of Aeronautics, shall notify the Federal Aviation Administration or any other appropriate agency, in writing, of the proposed acquisition for the purpose of obtaining from the authority or other agency any information or assistance it may desire to give.

The board of governors shall investigate the proposed site and, within 35 working days after receipt of the notice, shall submit to the governing board a written report and its recommendations concerning acquisition of the site. The governing board shall not acquire title to the property until the report of the board of governors has been received. If the report does not favor the acquisition of the property for a community college site or an addition to a present community college site, the governing board shall not acquire title to the property until 30 days after the department’s report is received and until the board of governors’ report has been read at a public hearing duly called after 10 days’ notice published once in a newspaper of general circulation within the community college district, or if there is no such newspaper, then in a newspaper of general circulation within the county in which the property is located. (d) If, with respect to a proposed site located within two miles of an operative airport runway, the report of the board of governors submitted to a community college district governing board under subdivision (c) does not favor the acquisition of the site on the sole or partial basis of the unfavorable recommendation of the Division of Aeronautics of the Department of Transportation, no state agency or officer shall grant, apportion, or allow to that community college district for expenditure in connection with that site, any state funds otherwise made available under any state law whatever for community college site acquisition or college building construction, or for expansion of existing sites and buildings, and no funds of the community college district or of the county in which the district lies shall be expended for those purposes. However, this section shall not be applicable to sites acquired prior to January 1, 1966, or to any additions or extensions to those sites.

If the recommendation of the Division of Aeronautics is unfavorable, the recommendation shall not be overruled without the express approval of the board of governors and the State Allocation Board.

Planning Commission Meeting, 9/23/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 127, Packet Page 144 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 152, Packet Page 293 § 81033. Investigation; geologic and soil engineering studies;..., CA EDUC § 81033 © 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 3 (e) No action undertaken by the board of governors or by any other state agency or by any political subdivision pursuant to this chapter, or in compliance with this chapter, shall be construed to affect any rights arising under Section 19 of Article I of the California Constitution.

Credits
(Stats.1976, c. 1010, § 2, operative April 30, 1977. Amended by Stats.1977, c. 36, § 315, eff. April 29, 1977, operative April 30, 1977; Stats.1981, c. 470, p. 1764, § 206; Stats.1984, c. 1009, § 1.1; Stats.1990, c. 1372 (S.B.1854), § 538; Stats.1993, c. 272 (A.B.301), § 3, eff. Aug. 2, 1993; Stats.1995, c. 758 (A.B.446), § 109.) Notes of Decisions (3)
West’s Ann. Cal. Educ. Code § 81033, CA EDUC § 81033
Current with urgency legislation through Ch. 79 of 2025 Reg.Sess. Some statute sections may be more current, see credits for details.

End of Document © 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

Planning Commission Meeting, 9/23/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 128, Packet Page 145 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 153, Packet Page 294 • Outlook
Support of Approving Montessori School - 2400 Garden Road, Monterey From Dadwal, Navdeep (F)
Date Tue 8/26/2025 12:19 PM
To Oncall Planning <[email protected]>
You don't often get email fron
Navdeep Dadwal
Monterey, CA 93940
August 26th, 2025
rn wh this is imP.ortant
To the Monterey County Board and Community Members:

My name is Navdeep Dadwal, and I am the parent of Amira & Ariya Dadwal who are two years of age. I am writing in support of approving the Montessori school for toddlers in our community.

As a parent, I believe the earliest years of a child's life are the most important for building the foundation of who they will become. The Montessori approach provides a nurturing, respectful, and developmentally appropriate environment where children can explore, learn, and grow at their own pace. It emphasizes independence, hands-on learning, and kindness - qualities I want to see fostered in my own child and in the next generation of our community.

In recent years, Monterey County has seen growth in the number of young professionals moving here to build careers and raise families. With this growth comes a greater need for high-quality early childhood education and care. Families like mine are seeking programs that not only prepare our children academically but also support their social and emotional development. A Montessori toddler program would meet that need, offering a trusted and enriching option that aligns with the values of today's parents.

I respectfully urge the County to approve this proposal. By doing so, you will be supporting families, responding to the needs of a growing community, and investing in the future of Monterey County.

Thank you for your consideration and for your dedication to the well-being of our children.

Sincerely,
Navdeep Dadwal
Parent of Amira & Ariya Dadwal
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Planning Commission Meeting, 9/23/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 129, Packet Page 146 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 154, Packet Page 295 Planning Commission Meeting, 9/23/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 130, Packet Page 147 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 155, Packet Page 296 Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
Legend
:"_ "_ ·_ ·_: Municipal Boundary
D Airport Property Line -UrbanArea1
Safety Zones
-Runway Protection LJ Inner Approach/Departure
-lnnerTurning
-Outer Approach/Departure
-Sideline -Airport Property
-Airport Influence Area
1Urban Areas are based on "mixed used
use areas" identified in the City of
Monterey General Plan dated August
2013.

Source:

ESRI Basemap Imagery
N
A
I- Ir-eel
0 6,800
1"=7,000'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- w i bit 4C
MONTEREY lr!EGIONIIL il.lRPORT s:.fEn' ZONES
Planning Commission Meeting, 9/23/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 131, Packet Page 148 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 156, Packet Page 297 Planning Commission & City Council
8/26/25
Dear Monterey Planning Commission and City Council,
My name is Madelynn. I am here to speak as a former Montessori child, current Montessori parent of two, and longstanding Montessori Director. A parent’s goal for their child is the same--to be benevolent, honorable, confident, successful, and a good and moral citizen of the world. This goal is inherent in each of us parents. I believe deeply in Montessori education because this is not only my goal as a parent, but it encompasses the vision and focus of Maria Montessori. Montessori education is not focused on rote memorization or play-based learning. Montessori education focuses on each child’s whole and individualized development and guiding them through these formative years so they can have a foundation in life based on the above goal. A child will build his/her personality before the age of 6; it is critical that we provide the best environment to support this development so we can support our children, which are the future of our world. This is what we want to bring to the Monterey area. I could go on and on about the benefits of a Montessori education, but in my short, allotted time I want to focus on how illogical it is to prevent our Montessori school from opening in the community.

The whole premise of this recommended denial is based on irrational fear. The fear that something so improbable and extremely rare would happen to our school. There is risk in absolutely everything we do. Using this same logic, children and elderly would be banned from flying in an airplane for the risk of it crashing. The same logic would also ban children from driving for the risk of crashing, which is an exponentially higher risk. The same fearbased logic would not allow a daycare from opening along any street for the risk of a car going through, which would also be a higher probability. Instead, in these scenarios our community allows the parents to decide what is safe for their family and make their own choices. That is what I am asking for you to allow. Let each parent decide what is safe, just like deciding to allow their child in a car.

As you have heard from countless people, and I am sure you are already aware of, Monterey is simply in need of childcare options. Childcare is essential to a community, and without it, parents cant work. Our school is not only offering that essential need, but also an environment designed just for the child, focused on their whole development. A place where parents can feel confident about leaving their children. A place that is focused on partnering with parents to raise benevolent, honorable, confident, successful, and good Planning Commission Meeting, 9/23/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 132, Packet Page 149 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 157, Packet Page 298 and moral citizens of the world. Please do not rob our community of that. Parents should have the right to decide what is best and safe for their family.

Thank you for your consideration,
Madelynn Van Den Heuvel
Planning Commission Meeting, 9/23/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 133, Packet Page 150 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 158, Packet Page 299 • Outlook
Montessori Community School Comment
From Aurora Tershy
Date Thu 9/4/2025 3:41 PM
To Oncall Planning <[email protected]>
You don't often get email fro
Dear Planning Commission,
arn wh this is important
Monterey County is in dire need of childcare and it is unfair to try to stop a high quality preschool from joining this community over a hypothetical fear. The comment from the aerodynamics department was made under the understanding that this was a public or charter school which it is not. It would make more sense if it was a public or charter school because some families have to put their children there without choice but this is a private preschool where families are able to make that choice themselves.

Parents should be able to make the choice on whether or not they send their children to a school nearby an airport rather than the planning commission taking away the choice from parents and leaving them in a terrible spot where they have to stay home from work, not socialize their children in a school setting, put them in a low quality daycare or even put them in an unlicensed daycare where they are not supervised properly and could face neglect, abuse, serious injury, or sadly death like how we have seen at the incident in Salinas. If there were more preschools open with financial assistance options would that death have been preventable? The Monterey Airport said that they are denying it so it won't be on their conscience if something happened from the airport but if this is the case how will you all feel if there is another death in an unlicensed daycare in the area. That will too be on your conscience. I urge you to allow parents to make the choice on whether or not the school is too close to the airport themselves and not take away the parents choice and leave some with their only option being an unsafe or low quality school.

Thank you,
Aurora Tershy
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Planning Commission Meeting, 9/23/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 134, Packet Page 151 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 159, Packet Page 300 • Outlook
Montessori Community School hearing
From Keanna Miller
Date Fri 9/5/2025 2:29 PM
To Oncall Planning <[email protected]>
You don't often get email from
Dear Planning Commission and City Council,
I am the mother of Malia , and member of our Monterey Community. Over the past three years, when my oldest was born, I have struggled finding childcare in the area. I have toured multiple campuses, all with long waitlists and inexperienced teachers. I ultimately settled on hiring a nanny since I couldn't find one adequate enough and available. Having a nanny allows us to work, however, I constantly feel guilt because my children are not having the socialization and education needed at this age, ultimately not meeting their growing needs. When I heard there was an accredited Montessori school potentially coming to our area, I was overjoyed and got on the waiting list as soon as possible. Having this school is exactly what our community needs and is lacking. A safe, nurturing, and educational early childhood establishment.

I understand there is concern about the proximity to the airport, but why is that any different than everything else around the airport? There are children's doctor offices, other schools, homes, all within the same radius. It doesn't make sense to me that this project would be denied. The daily need far outreaches the extremely small potential risk. Parents should have the right to make that decision for their own. Our community needs this establishment. It will not only benefit every family in the area, but also make Monterey City a better community focused City.

Thank you
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Planning Commission Meeting, 9/23/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 135, Packet Page 152 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 160, Packet Page 301 • Outlook
Montessori Community School Monterey-- Use Permit Hearing 9/23 From Nido Montessori
Date Wed 9/17/2025 10:15 PM
To Oncall Planning <[email protected]>
@ 1 attachment (37 KB)
Use Permit Hearing 9_23 DORAN.pdf;
Y u 't fte get email fr m
Hello!
earn wh this is i111P.ortant
I would like my letter in support of opening the new Montessori School in Monterey to be added to the record for their use permit hearing on September 23rd. Please feel free to contact rne via email or phone at�hank you!
Montessori Community School
Monterey
2400 Garden Rd, Monterey, CA, 93940
Contact:
-Zoe Doran
she/her/hers
MCS, Lead Nido Guide
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Planning Commission Meeting, 9/23/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 136, Packet Page 153 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 161, Packet Page 302 Monterey Campus–MCS
Use Permit Hearing
Septmber 23rd, 2025
To whom it may concern.

I have been fortunate to be part of Montessori Community School for the past six years, and I have seen numerous families go through our Infant, or Nido, Program. Finding quality and dependable care for infants is can be challenging. Our program offers a safe, licensed community where parents can bring their young babies, enabling them to continue their careers, improve themselves, and maintain a healthy work-life balance. This program genuinely serves families. Opening another location in Monterey will help support even more families.

Families research, tour, and apply to multiple preschools to find the best fit for their children. The effort they put in ensures they can confidently choose the right school. While we recognize the board’s dedication to public safety, we strongly believe that families are capable of making informed decisions about their children's education and well-being. Parents carefully research where they send their children, considering all relevant factors, including the school's location. This is their choice, and they are fully capable of assessing the risks and benefits.

Denying this permit would unfairly limit educational options for families and ignore their ability to make decisions based on their individual research and circumstances.

The opening of our school would not only meet a vital educational need but also attract new families and residents to the area, boosting the local economy and strengthening the community's reputation for educational excellence. Montessori education encourages independence, community, and a sense of belonging. A new campus would expand the prepared environment for children, create a broader network for families, and foster deeper social connections. This school will truly serve the people of Monterey. Thank you. -Zoe Doran
Lead Nido Guide
M. Ed. Montessori Education
Planning Commission Meeting, 9/23/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 137, Packet Page 154 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 162, Packet Page 303 October 3, 2025
City of Monterey
Planning Department
Attn: Levi Hill, Planning Manager
Re: Appeal of Planning Commission denial of use-permit for Montessori Community School
Dear Planning Manager Hill:

We are appealing the September 23, 2025, use permit denial made by The Planning Commission for the following reasons:

First, the Planning Commission spent much time discussing potential liability issues related to approval of the Montessori School. Some members mentioned the airport land use commission may have denied Montessori to relieve the airport from liability stemming from an accident. A Planning Commission member questioned whether or not these liability issues would then be transferred to the City of Monterey if the project were approved.

Unfortunately, the city attorney was not at the meeting, nor was the question of liability addressed in the staff report. Discussions related to liability, liability waiver to the City and liability waivers for students. The question of liability was clearly a factor the Planning Commission considered in the decision to deny the use permit. Legal questions, such as liability issues, should not be a factor in the Planning Commission’s decision-making process.

Second, the resolution to deny the use permit references the Department of Transportation Division of Aeronautics (DTDA) having “general discouragement of the proposed use”. DTDA is not an approving authority for this project and should never have been referenced in the staff report and the resolution to deny. Monterey County ALUC Planning Staff mistakenly contacted DTDA assuming our project was a public-school entity which could require DTDA approval. In addition, there has never been any formal or written referral to DTDA or any written or formal response from DTDA. The reference to DTDA is hearsay and should never been included as part of the Planning Commission staff report or included in the resolution to deny.

Third, staff presented information the ALUC’s decision is precedent for the Planning Commission that effectively should be followed. This is prejudicial to the Planning Commission as what the ALUC decided is irrelevant to the Planning Commission.

Fourth, the discussion also revolved around how close the location is to the airport, when the zone 7 does not have a sliding scale. The zone is the zone.

Meaning, 5,999 feet and 1 foot into the zone are to be treated the same.

That effectively is the only place to put the Montessori School, is in New Monterey and that the number of possible locations is zero to almost zero (one that meets the criteria necessary to operate).
2340 Garden Road
Suite 100
Monterey, CA
93940-5347
T: (831) 649-4642
F: (831) 649-3530
www.wrdarch.com
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 163, Packet Page 304

The Montessori Community School is needed by our community as evidenced by the overwhelming community support for this project. Planning Commission clearly errored in the decision to deny the project. We request the City Council overturn Planning Commission’s decision and approve the use permit.

Best Regards,
Henry Ruhnke, Principal
Wald, Ruhnke & Dost Architects, LLP
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 164, Packet Page 305

M I N U T E S

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, September 23, 2025
7:00 PM
COUNCIL CHAMBER, 580 PACIFIC STREET

MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA
Commissioners Present: Latasa, Bluth, Brassfield, Freeman

Absent: Dawson, Silva
Staff Members Present: Planning Manager Hill, Principal Planner Roveri, Principal Planner Sabdo, Senior Associate Planner Schmidt, Recording Secretary Barrera
***Evening Session***
7:00 p.m.

CALL TO ORDER
Vice-Chair Latasa called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Recording Secretary Barrera announced staff present and provided information to the public about how to participate by calling in to give public comment on the live web meeting.

CONSENT AGENDA
Approval of Minutes

2. September 11, 2025 (Not a project under CEQA per Article 20 Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5 Section 15061)
ACTION: Approved as submitted
On a motion by Commissioner Brassfield seconded by Commissioner Bluth and carried by the following vote, the Planning Commission approved the September 11, 2025, Minutes:

AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Latasa, Bluth, Brassfield, Freeman NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Dawson, Silva
ABSTAIN: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
RECUSED: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None

GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.

PUBLIC HEARING

3. Recommend the City Council Amend Chapter 38, Section 38-112.5 of the Monterey City Code to Establish Local Density Incentives for Qualifying Housing Projects (CEQA:

Certified Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2023080034), Article 11, Section 15168(c))
Docusign Envelope ID: 2AB9551C-7A98-49A7-A1B5-0C4D38ADA9D7 Attachment 4
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 165, Packet Page 306 Planning Commission Minutes
Tuesday, September 23, 2025
2 ACTION: Approved a Resolution Recommending that the City Council Amend Chapter 38, Section 38-112.5 of the Monterey City Code to Establish Local Density Incentives for Qualifying Housing Projects
Staff Presentation/Commissioner Questions
Planning Manger Hill presented the Agenda Report and answered the Commissioners’ questions regarding potential development challenges, water limitations and future water allocations.

Commissioner Freeman asked clarifying questions regarding the definition of density bonus and what it means for affordable housing.

Public Comments
Public comments were received from Jean Rasch.

On a motion by Commissioner Brassfield seconded by Commissioner Freeman and carried by the following vote, the Planning Commission approved a resolution recommending that the City Council amend Chapter 38, Section 38-112.5 of the Monterey city code to establish local density incentives for qualifying housing projects:

AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Latasa, Bluth, Brassfield, Freeman NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Dawson, Silva
ABSTAIN: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
RECUSED: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None

4. Consider 2400 Garden Road: Use Permit Application UP-25-0013 for a Day Care-General Use and Variance Application VA-25-0075 for Reduced Front and Side Yard Setbacks; Applicant Shawn Capps, Wald Ruhnke and Dost Architects; Owner W R MONT LLC; Industrial, Administration, and Research, Religious Assembly Overlay, Emergency Shelter Overlay, Multi-Family Residential Overlay (I-R-130-RA-ES-MF1) Zoning District; Employment General Plan Designation (Exempt from CEQA per Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1 and Section 15303, Class 3)
ACTION: Denied Use Permit Application UP-25-0013 for a Day Care-General Use and Approved Variance Application VA-25-0075 for Reduced Front and Side Yard Setbacks at 2400 Garden Road
Staff Presentation/Commissioner Questions
Senior Associate Planner Schmidt presented the agenda report and answered the Commissioners’ questions regarding the Airport Land Use Commission’s (ALUC) reasons for denial, setback requirements, and proposed tree removal.

Vice-Chair Latasa mentioned various surrounding institutions and questioned their proximity to the runway. Planning Manager Hill clarified that city staff analyzed the findings rather than the precedent for approval.

Docusign Envelope ID: 2AB9551C-7A98-49A7-A1B5-0C4D38ADA9D7 Attachment 4
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 166, Packet Page 307 Planning Commission Minutes
Tuesday, September 23, 2025
3 Applicant
Applicant Shawn Capps gave a presentation and answered Commissioners’ questions regarding operating locations.

Owner
Bill Tershy gave a presentation answered Commissioner questions regarding drop off and pick up times and the proposed location of the deck and play area. Mr. Tershy stated they were willing to indemnify the city.

Madelynn Van Den Heuvel answered Commissioner questions regarding the play time and after care itinerary.

Public Comments
Comments were received from Madelynn Van Den Heuvel, Alex Swartz, Aurora, Melissa Copt, Shikha Kaushik, Kim, Ernie Lostrom, Dylan, Samantha, Jean Rasch, Gracie Teramo, Hansen Reed, Zoe Doran, Gerard Tershy.

Commissioner Comments
Commissioner Bluth shared safety concerns relating to pollution and liability. Commissioner Bluth suggested consideration of indemnification due to potential safety concerns.

Mr. Hill said that the Commission must decide on the use permit, explaining that if denied, the applicant could appeal; if approved, the project would require an ALUC override request which would come from City Council.

Commissioner Brassfield echoed concerns about safety, noise, and pollution impacts on children and nearby residents. Commissioner Brassfield acknowledged the need for this type of school in the community but stated that he could not support the project.

Commissioner Freeman agreed with Commissioner Bluth and Commissioner Brassfield, noting that while the Garden Road area is appropriate for development in general, safety and environmental concerns remain. Commissioner Freeman spoke in support of variance but opposed the use permit due to liability and safety issues.

Vice-Chair Latasa recognized the community’s need for childcare but questioned whether the proposed site was appropriate. Vice-Chair Latasa encouraged the applicant to coordinate with the City Attorney regarding indemnification before the project proceeds to Council and noted that the map provided is misleading regarding the airport approach zones.

On a motion by Commissioner Freeman seconded by Commissioner Bluth and carried by the following vote, the Planning Commission denied Use Permit Application UP-25-0013 for a day care-general use at 2400 Garden Road:

AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Latasa, Bluth, Brassfield, Freeman NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Dawson, Silva
ABSTAIN: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
RECUSED: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
Docusign Envelope ID: 2AB9551C-7A98-49A7-A1B5-0C4D38ADA9D7 Attachment 4
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 167, Packet Page 308 Planning Commission Minutes
Tuesday, September 23, 2025
4 On a motion by Commissioner Brassfield seconded by Commissioner Bluth and carried by the following vote, the Planning Commission approved Variance Application VA-25-0075 for waste enclosure within front and side yard setbacks and variance for deck in side yard setback at reduced front and side yard setbacks at 2400 Garden Road:

AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Latasa, Bluth, Brassfield, Freeman NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Dawson, Silva
ABSTAIN: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
RECUSED: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None

COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
Commissioner Bluth mentioned an upcoming tour at Monterey One Water.

INFORMATIONAL REPORTS & STAFF COMMENTS
Mr. Hill provided an update mentioned an upcoming American Planning Association (APA) Conference that will be hosted in the city.

ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:06 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted, Approved,
Levi Hill
Planning Manager
Chair
Planning Commission
Docusign Envelope ID: 2AB9551C-7A98-49A7-A1B5-0C4D38ADA9D7 Attachment 4
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 168, Packet Page 309 Council
Agenda Report
№11/25
FROM: Tyller Williamson, Mayor
SUBJECT: Mayor Williamson’s Request to Agendize a Discussion Regarding Regulation of Temporary Noncommercial Signs on Private Property (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378, and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION: Direct staff on whether to agendize the discussion.

VALUE DRIVERS: As provided in the attached request.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

The City Council’s Governance Policy (Resolution No. 23-131 C.S.) provides:

Agendizing of City Council Items by Individual Councilmembers.

1. A Councilmember may submit an agenda report to the City Clerk’s Office outlining a request to agendize a matter of business on a future agenda. This agenda report should, in 350 words or less, describe what, how, and why the matter of business should be considered by the City Council. The City Clerk’s Office will add the item to an upcoming agenda.

2. At the Council Meeting where the request is considered, the Councilmember who submitted the request will deliver a verbal report consistent with the agenda report. This verbal report should not exceed three minutes. The City Council may ask questions pertaining to whether the item should be agendized (e.g., the required amount of staff time, the priority level to be assigned to the item, etc.).

3. Public comment will be received.

4. In deliberating the request, the sole issue to be determined is whether the substantive issue warrants being heard at a future date. A majority vote is not required, instead, the motion will pass with two “yes” votes.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE ACT) APPLIES: No.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: Agendizing a matter does not have a fiscal implication. Fiscal implications of the suggested changes will be included in the future agenda item, if agendized.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

The City of Monterey determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)(CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 (CEQA Guidelines), Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to Date: 11/4/2025
Item No.: 18.

Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 18., Item Page 1, Packet Page 310 №11/25
CEQA. Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project. Because the matter does not cause a direct or any reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change on or in the environment, this matter is not a project. Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED: The Council could choose not to agendize the matter.

DISCUSSION:

On October 29, 2025, Councilmember Williamson provided a written request to agendize, which is attached as Attachment 1.

At its meeting on November 4, 2025, the City Council will consider whether this item should be added to a future City Council meeting agenda. Consistent with the City Council’s Governance Policy, the member of Council who submitted the request will deliver a verbal report consistent with the agenda report. This verbal report should not exceed three minutes. The City Council may ask questions pertaining to whether the item should be agendized (e.g., the required amount of staff time, the priority level to be assigned to the item, etc.). Public comment will then be received. In deliberating the request, the sole issue to be determined is whether the substantive issue warrants being heard at a future date. A majority vote is not required, instead, the motion will pass with two “yes” votes.

TW/cbk
Attachments: 1. Request
Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link:
https://monterey.gov/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 18., Item Page 2, Packet Page 311

ATTACHMENT
11/4/25
From: Tyller Williamson
Subject: Regulation of Temporary Noncommercial Signs on Private Property Purpose:

To ensure fairness, visual harmony, and compliance with the intent of Monterey’s sign regulations by clarifying placement standards for temporary signs displaying noncommercial messages (e.g., political, ideological, or religious).

Background:

During our most recent election, several properties displayed multiple temporary signs placed directly adjacent to each other, effectively creating the appearance of a single, large sign. While current code limits the total allowable sign area, it does not specify minimum spacing between signs. This omission has led to inconsistent application of the ordinance and diminished the visual character of our neighborhoods.

Proposal:

Amend City Code section 31-3, Table 31-1.1 (Exempt Signs) to read as follows:

Temporary Private Party Ground-Mounted Signs on Private Property — Temporary signs displaying a noncommercial (e.g., ideological, religious, political) message shall have a maximum area of 16 square feet per individual sign and a cumulative total of 80 square feet per property. Individual signs must be placed a minimum of 5 feet apart from one another. The placement of signs next to each other to create the appearance of a single, large sign is prohibited.

Alternatives for Consideration:

1. Alternative A: Require 10 feet minimum spacing for parcels larger than one-half acre to reduce visual clutter on larger lots.

2. Alternative B: Limit the number of temporary signs per property frontage (e.g., one per 10 linear feet of frontage) to balance expression and aesthetics.

Recommendation:

That the City Council direct staff to prepare a draft ordinance amendment consistent with this proposal and update the City’s sign guidelines accordingly.

Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 18., Item Page 3, Packet Page 312