Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

14th 2026 Planning Commission. Welcome everybody. We will start with a roll call and introduction of staff and instructions for online participants. Erica.

Sure. I'll start with role. We have Chair Silva. Here. Vice Chair La Tassa.

Here.

Commissioner Bluth.

Here.

Commissioner Freeman. Here. Commissioner Palmer.

Here.

Commissioner Pauley. Here. And Commissioner Stoker.

Here.

With us today from staff, we have our Community Development Director, Kim Cole, our Planning Manager, Levi Hill, our Principal Planner, Fernando Rovery, and myself, Recording Secretary, Erica Brera. information on participating in this meeting and providing public comment including remotely by zoom or telephone is on this meeting's agenda which is online at monterey.gov forward slash agendas remote commenters will be muted until it is their turn to speak and a timer will be shown on the screen if you're connected on zoom the timer is accurate with no delay in the chamber we recommend keeping phones and devices muted to prevent audio interference with the meeting thank you for participating in your city government

Thanks, Erica. We will begin with the consent agenda. The only item that we have is the approval of minutes from the June 23 planning commission. Is there anybody in chambers or online that wishes to speak regarding this item? Seeing nobody, anyone raise their hands, Erica?

There are no hands raised.

I will bring it back to the commission. And can I get a motion, please, from somebody?

Move to approve.

and a second. I'll second rate. So we have a motion to approve the minutes by Commissioner Freeman. And we have a second by Commissioner Latasa. And if we get a roll call, please.

Sure. Sure. Chair Silva. Yes. Vice Chair Latasa.

Yes.

Commissioner Bluth. Yes. Commissioner Freeman. Yes. Commissioner Palmer.

Yes.

Commissioner Polly abstain. Okay. And Commissioner Stoker abstain. The minutes have been approved.

Thank you, Erica. We will now direct our attention to general public comments. If there's anybody in chambers that wishes to speak before the Commission on an item that is not on today's agenda, you may come up to the podium. And seeing nobody, is there any hands waved online?

I see no hands raised.

Okay, well, we're going to then close the general public comments and move right into our public hearing. We have one, two, three, four items this afternoon, and I actually have a conflict of interest on three of these items. And so in order to make the best use of the chair's time, I would like to reorder the public hearing items so that we begin with item number six. And after item number six has been acted upon, Vice Chair La Tassa will take the reins as chair and continue with items three, four, and five. So with that, can we have a staff report, please, Levi?

sure thank you chair give me just a moment i have a question just a point of order or do we have to make a mortar a motion to do that or is it just that you do not have to make a motion so the chair actually has the discretion to reorder the agenda okay right thanks of course Thank you, Chair. As mentioned, we'll start with item six on this afternoon's agenda, which is a request or a proposed zoning amendment to apply minimum density standards to the multifamily overlay. And some of this may seem familiar because this was before this commission of November last year, but we do have some new commissioners since that time. So I'll be covering pretty much the entire presentation that was covered previously, and then the proposed amendment that's before you today. And the staff recommendation is that the Planning Commission hold a public hearing and adopt a resolution recommending the City Council amend the zoning code to establish minimum density requirements in the multi-family residential overlay district. a little bit of background on this uh proposal uh in july 16th as many of you probably are aware the city council adopted the monterey 2031 general plan update which included the city's sixth cycle housing element on december 17 2024 the city council approved the first wave of implementation of the housing action plan that was contained within the housing element which is, of course, a series of programs and actions the city is committed to taking to further implement the policies included in the housing element. One of those programs was Program 1B, which is the multifamily residential overlay amendments. And as you recall, prior to the adoption of the housing element, there was an existing multifamily overlay area on the south side of Garden Road. And Program 1B proposed that the city would amend the overlay to expand into other areas of the city and we'll go over those in just a moment and of course also increase the permitted density of those areas to 60 dwelling units per acre where it was previously 30. so this was that south side of garden road overlay area which was existing i believe originally adopted or rezoned in 2019 and uh was included and as i said uh the density was modified to allow up to 60 dwelling units per acre This is the MF2 overlay area. This was one of the areas that the program committed the city to amending the overlay to expand into. So this is the Pacific Munris CAS area, as I noted earlier, referred to as MF2 in our zoning code. And then this is the county courthouse site represented in our zoning code as the MF3 overlay area, which also includes now multifamily uses under that overlay. So after the original implementation or the rezoning of those areas to expand the overlay and also increase the density to 60 dwelling units per acre, the city did receive communication from the California Housing and Community Development Department, otherwise known as HCD. HCD provided technical assistance letter to the city, drawing our attention to a specific government code section 65583, as noted on the slide, and pointed out that there are minimum density standards for sites that are included in your housing element sites analysis, specifically accommodating your low and very low income RHNA. And that density requirement, as noted here, is 20 dwelling units per acre. And they essentially alluded that there were amendments that were required to be made to those rezonings that were implementing our housing element to accommodate that minimum density requirement in order to remain in substantial compliance. staff engaged in a series of meetings with HCD to talk through our concerns with implementing that provision of the state law, specifically noting that there's regulatory water constraints that impact the city. And normally that's primarily what controls density on properties within the city is the water credits available to those sites rather than actual regulatory zoning density maximums. Obviously, the concern the staff was trying to express to HCD was that if there's properties that don't have adequate water credits to develop at 20 dwelling units per acre, that provisions such as this may have the impact of precluding development altogether on those sites if they're unable to meet that minimum density. So as noted here, we met with HCD on April 29th, August 2nd, and October 7th, leading up to our Planning Commission meeting last year regarding this topic. And here, once again, this is a citation out of their correspondence stating the housing element law fails to provide statutory relief from minimum density requirements, further indicating to us that this is a required step for us to take. So in November 25th, 2025, staff brought forward a proposed amendment at that time that would incorporate the minimum density requirements into the multifamily overlay. And the 2025 proposed ordinance was crafted in such a way that it would to optimistically continue to allow development in these sites that maybe had limited water credits, specifically looking at conversion projects that are being seen in the Garden Road overlay area. So as noted, the 2025 proposed ordinance had exemptions for conversion projects that didn't propose new floor area. It also had provisions that would allow for projects to be looked at for multi-phase projects to be had the entire build out considered when calculating density, even if that build out was contention on additional water being allocated to the site. And it also had exclusions for property included in recorded scenic easements when calculating density. At that time, the Planning Commission was reluctant to take action on the proposed amendment without further consultation from HCD and really wanting to see, I believe there's also intention to see where the water situation were to change in the upcoming months. And ultimately the Planning Commission tabled that item. The day after that meeting, HCD actually provided correspondence to staff indicating that the exemptions that were contained within that proposed ordinance in 2025 would not meet the requirements of government code section 65583.2. And then they followed up with a corrective action letter on May 20th of 2026, indicating that the city had still failed to implement the 20 dwelling units per acre minimum density requirement. And that brings us to the proposed amendment that's before you today, which is a pretty straightforward application of a minimum density standard of 20 dwelling units per acre in the multifamily residential overlay districts. The table shown on this slide kind of gives you a breakdown of what that looks like various. project sites dependent on their size. And then ultimately requires 2,178 square feet of lot area per unit under that 20 dwelling units per acre minimum density. So with that staff is recommending that the planning commission hold a public hearing and adopt a resolution recommending that the city council amend the zoning code to establish the minimum density requirements in the multifamily residential overlay district. I'm happy to answer any questions. Thanks, Levi. Questions? Oh, I love these. Go ahead. Is there a choice? Not legally. It seems that when we brought the situation kind of repeatedly up with HCD staff, they indicated there's no really relief built into the legislation for circumstances such as this, and that the strict application of the law is what they were going to be leaning on from an enforcement standpoint, and that essentially we are required to implement that minimum density standard.

and hc i'll just add to that hcd's remedy if the city doesn't come into compliance they can decertify our housing element and that the correction letter we received was sort of the first step in that direction and if they decertify our housing element then we would you know be subject to issues like builder builder's remedy which we've seen in our adjacent communities.

Levi, given the fact that City Council is going to ultimately decide on this item, I think there's consent. Well, I'm not going to do any kind of forward thinking here, but in the event that the Planning Commission decides to take a stand on the unfairness of this state mandate without carving out any local exceptions that we asked for, Could the Planning Commission vote against this as a political stance, a message, if you will, to send to HCD, knowing that City Council is going to eventually take action on it?

I mean, all the votes are to the discretion of individual commissioners. So, I mean, I think that... Obviously the staff recommendation is that the amendment be approved. A recommendation to the city council from the commission could have a negative impact on seeing that through. So I think my answer would be, I mean, I think the council will ultimately make a decision regardless of the recommendation from the planning commission, if that's what you're asking. Yeah.

Well, I guess I'm bringing this up because there doesn't seem to be any way to really convey the frustration that the City of Monterey has with HCD regarding some of the very important specific conditions that affect us that are not being taken into consideration for this.

I think it's been conveyed to HCD. I think it's just not been very well received.

And really what it comes down to is it's a legislative

uh action that needs to happen if monterey and other communities wishes to pursue these types of amendments exceptions correct that was the guidance that we received from hcd that is that the current statutory requirements doesn't provide that relief for these circumstances and that if that was something the city wanted to see further that they can consult with their legislative representatives

all right yep um thanks go ahead terry so just to understand the process the approval process if an applicant comes in with a 19 unit per acre project is there any kind of a variance process or appeal process or is it just you can't even make an application unless you're at the 20 mark

It would not meet the density standards of the zoning if that application were to come in in the overlay areas. So I will point out that this standard would apply specifically to those areas shown earlier. Right. And which is the multifamily residential overlay. But the short answer to your question is essentially they would not meet the density standards if applied for less than that 20 dwelling units per acre.

So really an application wouldn't be accepted for a noncompliant application.

What about appeals? There's not an appeal process, and there's no variances that are processed for density requirements. Okay, thanks.

I had a question, probably a dumb question. I think we're talking about floors and ceilings, where we used to have a ceiling of 30, and then we went up to 60, but now the state says 20, but 20 isn't the ceiling, 20 is the floor.

That is correct. I hear the frustration. I think 20 units per acre is lesser evil than a lot of the builders remedy projects I've seen throughout the state. So I don't think the city wants to get into that. I do have a question, though, on like some of the, you know, aside from Garden Road, there was the other sort of housing overlay district in downtown Monterey where there's some small parcels in there. And is there any did you guys look at things like setbacks And floor area ratios like art is like all the zoning regulations stay in the same except now you have to meet 20 units per acre on them. Like you must have expanded the zoning envelopes on these parcels in order to allow for this, I assume.

So not as attached to the minimum density requirements that you're seeing today. Most of that happened whenever we actually applied the overlay areas to that area of the city. So a lot of those areas, for instance, the Pacific Monarchs Cass area is on C2 or a commercial office. Uh, however, if you're developing, um, multifamily or mixed use developments, you're subject to the multifamily overlay standards, which are reduced standards comparatively, like, uh, with setbacks and have reduced setbacks. So that was kind of, uh, accommodated whenever we applied that maximum density of 30 dwelling, uh, 60 dwelling units breaker, we knew we'd have to accommodate that and the development standards with reduced setbacks and additional lot coverage.

Okay. Um, and then. I guess my second question, and maybe some of this was covered in the first hearing, I must not have been in it, but if you're going in in this area and applying for an office building, are you forced to build housing? No. So this is subject to, this is any residential density. So if someone adds an ADU or like, so if someone has an existing single family residence in this zone and adds an ADU, are they going to be forced to go up to 20 units per acre?

So ADUs are permitted ministerially. So that's subject to a different state law and process. So those would, the ADU law would allow for ADUs.

And ADUs are also exempt from density.

Correct.

Which in this case hurts you. We may see a lot of ADUs. Eric, do you have any comments?

I was just gonna, yeah. We asked for consultation with HCD in November and it's been eight months of deliberation. That's what we asked for. And it's coming back saying that we need to take corrective action to be compliant with state law. So I personally don't wanna add any more bureaucracy to staff and our community moving forward with our housing element.

Are we at questions? We're asking.

I'm sorry. I should have said. Yeah, that's why I was waiting. I was waiting for that part of it. But there it is. But there it is.

Dr. Shepardy.

Okay. Anything else?

Very good. So we'll open this up to members of the public. Anybody in chambers wishes to come up to the podium and speak before us about this? Seeing nobody. Any hands waved online, Erica?

There is one hand raised.

Let's go ahead.

Go ahead and allow Matt Knorr to unmute. Matt, you're unmuted.

Ray, can you hear me?

We can hear you.

Great. Good afternoon, Chair Silva and fellow commissioners. Appreciate the opportunity. Boy, what a tough situation we find ourselves in here with the state and housing. I did get a kick out of Commissioner's comment about do we have a choice? It feels like we don't. It takes me back to my childhood sitting at dining room table and my parents were saying, hey, you eat your vegetables or else. It's just It's a tough situation. And as the property owner of 2200 Garden Road, where we're trying to develop that property, we have multiple public utility easements, the 100 foot all of those can cite constraints as kind of what we previously talked to you about last year in November all directly impact our development and I need to commend Levi and staff for trying to talk to the state and find some reasonable middle ground here but it just doesn't feel like that's at all even remotely possible um so we were really open to trying to have a dialogue with both the planning commission and staff of what other tools there's ways to revise any zoning language or definitions in the zoning about how density is calculated or maybe there's density bonus law instead of adding you know more units or or using concessions like instead of having to achieve the minimum density maybe we have a lesser density i don't know but we're just really looking for some creative out of the box thinking for developers who want to advance a project but can't achieve it because of you know site constraints and other considerations um again just going back to our 2200 garden road we're at 18 units per acre and we're just maxed out at the ability to achieve any more units we're already going to four stories if we go even more i mean it starts to create conflicts with the airport uh and just uh you know fitting into the neighborhood SO IF THERE IS SOME CONSIDERATION OR DISCUSSION INTO OTHER OPTIONS, WE WOULD GREATLY ENCOURAGE PLANNING COMMISSION AND STAFF TO CONSIDER THAT. AGAIN, REALLY APPRECIATE ALL OF STAFF'S ADVOCATION TO TRY TO, YOU KNOW, GET SOME KIND OF SIGHT LOCAL CONSIDERATION WITH THE STATE. UNFORTUNATELY, IT'S JUST FALLING UNDER DEATH EARS. SO THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, MATT. ANYBODY ELSE, ERICA?

There are no other hands raised.

All right. We're going to close public hearing and bring this back to the commission. Now we can deliver. Eric, do you want to start?

Well, maybe to follow up on the speaker's questions, I'm sure planning has looked at other options. So maybe you can mention some of those. But again, I'll just reiterate. that, you know, getting that letter from the state is letting us know we have our hands tied. And I know we're eager to move forward with our housing element. So I'm going to be in support so far for council's recommendation, the staff recommendation.

Well, under the we have no choice, I'm going to second that. But I think I don't think the correct answer is to vote against it. I think the correct answer is to make some comments during this that I don't know if it will ever get to HCC. Whenever somebody does a must instead of a shall ordinance, we get this all the time. And we are seeing this at the state level. Perhaps we should all call our state representatives and let them know this continues over and over and over. There must be exceptions because if there are no exceptions, you don't have good planning. You don't have logical planning. We know about the one on garden road. There are other ones. So I will vote for it as the staff says, I like it when Levi tells me I have no choice. But it is frustrating because it really is a shall and not a must. And that's what we need to get to the state and tell them to stop passing laws that force things down our throat that do not work in a community that has pretty stringent constraints. That was the second. Did you get that?

So yeah, I agree with that. It seems like the last five years is sort of a new regime of very forceful state law in housing that's really tying our hands. Almost every meeting now, we have some item that's coming to us because of the process, but we can't really do anything except approve it. It's just the way the state of California is. They really want housing, and they are making that an adamant case. I do wonder if there is some creative, not to be sneaky, but I wonder if there is some creative way of creating scenic easements that the city would be amenable to approving that would make the math easier for an applicant um i can you know you can just do the 18 18 units per acre if you had a bigger scenic easement it might put you right over the edge so um hopefully the city has some possible work around uh kind of uh potentials like that um so i'm in support of the item

I think there's very little that we can discuss. I don't want staff put in a bind and I think our water situation will force a lot of these issues to be limited anyhow. So I think I'm with the rest of the commission will vote for it.

I echo what everybody else has said. It is interesting, based on Terry's suggestion about using a scenic easement to add acreage and thus units, it just so happens that the three areas that we've discussed, the one where the courthouse is, Garden Road, and what was the third one out at Ryan Ranch, these are areas where that actually could happen. I mean, we're not talking about downtown Monterey, we're talking about areas. So I think your idea is great.

Echo the sentiments and I'll support it.

Well, this reminds me of... I'm sure the architects who are sitting beside me all are aware that the building and fire codes have what is termed local amendments. And so a municipality or a local jurisdiction has the ability to amend various sections in the California Code of Regulations Title 24 to suit local climatic or topographical constraints that would otherwise prohibit certain code things from from occurring. And so the state does have a process and it does recognize that there is some value in having local say in its codes and its regulations. And I would hope that when this goes before city council, there could be some type of direction by Council to reach out to our legislative representatives to see if there's any future and having some type of an amendment passed at the state level allowing local exemptions like this. I mean otherwise there's really not nothing that anybody can do and Unfortunately, even though the state is trying to promote housing by doing this, it's having the opposite effect. So I said earlier that I might make a political stance, and I think I'm going to just to voice my concern over this, knowing full well where the rest of the commission is going to act and how the city council is likely to act. So there you have it. Can we get a motion, please?

I'll move to approve that we recommend Chapter 38 of the Monterey City Code to establish minimum density requirements in the multifamily residential overlay district. I'll second.

So we have a motion to approve by Commissioner Palmer, and we have a second by Commissioner Bluth. Can we get a roll call, please, Erica?

Sure, Chair Silva.

No.

Vice Chair La Tassa?

Yes.

Commissioner Bluth? Yes. Commissioner Freeman? Yes. Commissioner Palmer?

Yes.

Commissioner Pauley?

Yes.

And Commissioner Stoker? Yes. Okay, that motion carries.

Thanks, Erica. Okay, now we're going to direct our attention to items 3, 4, and 5. Okay. And due to my conflict of interest, I will be leaving the chambers and not returning. Okay. And Vice Chair LaTossa will take over. Chair Sullivan?

Yes, sir. There's item number 7 as well.

Oh, yes, right. But that's a public appearance, not public hearing.

Yes, correct.

Okay.

All right. Thank you, Chair Silva, for your service. I think this is it.

I think this is it.

Don't let the door hit you.

Don't let the door hit you on the way out, as they say. Okay. So I'm Vice Chair La Tassa for the time being, and we will skip back to item number three on the agenda. which is 2101 North Fremont Street, approve architectural review permit application, ARP 26-0027, and use permit application, UP 26-0097, for the remodel of an existing motel and increase in motel rooms. Applicant, Henry Runke, Wald Runke and Dust Architects, owner, the Isabella LLC. So we will start with a staff report.

Thank you, Vice Chair Latassa. My name is Fernando Rovery, principal planner for the City of Monterey. I'm presenting on behalf of Chris Schmidt. He was the project planner assigned. Staff's recommendation is that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution approving the architectural review permit and use permit applications for the remodel and increase in motel rooms with conditions. The subject property is located at the corner of Casa Verde Way and North Fremont Street and within the North Fremont specific plan planning area. However, the subject site is zoned BAF, Visitor Accommodation Facility, which is governed by the charter. The zoning regulations are governed by the charter, not the North Fremont specific plan. The general plan land use is also VAF. There's an existing 18 room motel on site and a former restaurant known as Caruso's Corner. It is a roughly 0.58 acre site. So some background, the site again is developed with Casa Verde Inn, which is not occupied, it's vacant right now. And also Caruso's Corner is vacant. The existing development has 18 guest rooms and a manager's unit. A separate 42-room hotel redevelopment was previously approved following preparation of an EIR, but it was not constructed. The current owner proposes to retain and renovate the existing buildings. The proposal includes a comprehensive remodel of the existing motel, conversion of the manager's unit to a guest room, which would increase the total guest room count from 18 to 19, It also includes remodel of the former restaurant area for a guest services and prepackaged continental breakfast area. The exterior building, landscaping, parking, accessibility and site improvements would all get a facelift. So as you will see in the next few slides, I'll show you some of those changes. There is an approximately 143 square foot addition to the building area to increase one of the unit sizes. And again, this is an existing one story motel and the building height will stay the same. The proposed use and operations, so going from 18 to 19 guest rooms. It would have 24-hour on-site staffing, daily housekeeping. The laundry would be handled off-site. The employee and guest parking would be accommodated on-site. The continental breakfast would be limited to register motel guests only. And it would include prepackaged foods, coffee, and non-alcoholic beverages. The restaurant area would not be a public restaurant. It would be limited to guests only. And there would be no commercial cooking proposed. The existing site plan is similar to what's proposed. So the existing floor area will roughly stay the same with the exception of an addition, which is highlighted in an orange square, where one of the units will have an increased floor area to accommodate a better layout. But in gray is the building. And in the middle is the parking lot, which would be completely redone. And there's also a outdoor seating area at the front facing North Fremont Street, and it would all be surrounded by landscaping. On the left is the proposed floor plan. In grayed out is the kitchen area. And there's also a new prep area and a breakfast area for guests only. So there's tables and seats. There's also a new reception area, new lounge, new office, new storage, and a new ADA restroom. And then immediately to the right is a new accessible unit. So this unit is taking the place of the former restaurant. And then here I'm showing that expanded unit to accommodate a new bathroom. And the floor plans for the rest of the units are fairly similar. They all include bedrooms with restrooms and some of them have a seating area and desk area and the closet. So here are the existing and proposed elevations. On the left is existing. The top view is what you would see from Casa Verde Way. So as you move toward the right, you're reaching the North Fremont intersection. At the middle view is what you would see from North Fremont Street right now. I'm pointing to the entrance of the former Caruso's Corner restaurant. And then on the bottom is the view that you would see from the parking lot. On the right hand side are the proposed elevations. So you can see that there would be new windows, a remodeled facade with new paint, new roofing, and new fencing. On the middle is the view from North Fremont Street. So where before the restaurant had a clear entrance from North Fremont Street, now the entrance is highlighted by a new canopy, which faces toward the interior of the property. At the bottom is the view from the parking lot. And here's again that canopy. Just highlighting some of the materials, cement plaster, smooth texture painted in a variety of white tones, as well as the doors and the window trim painted a dark gray. The roofing would be asphalt shingle, dark gray as well. So it maintains a consistent tone throughout the property. And the canopy would be a fun yellow and white stripe to highlight the entrance. and the lighting is subdued it's in grayish tones metal lighting most of it facing downward but some accent wall lights to near entrances and the proposed landscaping is There is substantial landscaping proposed facing North Fremont Street, so along the sidewalk and in that outdoor seating area, on both sides of the driveway going into the parking lot, and again at each corner of the parking lot. The landscaping includes three species of trees and several shrubs and ground covers. The staff recommended conditions is that the project be maintained as described in exhibit A, so that the project maintain a maximum of 19 guest rooms. 24-hour on-site staffing, daily housekeeping, laundry handled off-site, employee and guest parking accommodated on-site, that the continental breakfast be limited to registered guests, that it include prepackaged foods only, so no cooking, and no, it wouldn't be a public restaurant. The findings that the Planning Commission needs to make are the use permit findings and the architectural review findings. And they are summarized here. So for the use permit, the existing visitor accommodation use would continue and is consistent with the VAF zoning. The 19 guest rooms comply with the applicable density standards. The site has enough site area to accommodate up to 25 rooms, so 19 is well below 25. There are 23 parking spaces provided for the 19-room motel, which meets the parking standard. And again, the guest only continental breakfast area would remain accessory to the motel, would not operate as a public restaurant. So that would, that means that the parking that accommodates the guests is also the same parking for the restaurant. And for the ARP, the Architectural Review Permit, the existing one-story form, low-scale massing, roofing and building height would be retained, but it would receive exterior improvements and landscaping appropriate for the North Fremont Street facade and the Casa Byrd away frontage. The project would not unreasonably impair views, privacy or living environment. Again, there is no additional floor area or increase in height. There is only one guest room being added. And there is no... This project doesn't include the approval of any amplified noise or anything that would disrupt the neighborhood. And it's consistent with the general plan and the applicable VAF regulations. So with that staff recommends that the planning commission adopt the resolution approving the permits and I'm available for questions and the applicant is also here.

Thanks, Fernanda. Are there any questions of staff?

Eric? Yes, I was just curious why staff's recommending 19 guest rooms. I saw that the previous proposal that came before us had over 40, and the site can accommodate 25. And many other motels along North Fremont have two stories or more. It just seems like a loss of TOT potential, and I was just curious if the cities having that as a condition or the developer proposed that number themselves?

The 19 guest room count was proposed by the developer. So we are in support because it meets the density required, the maximum density.

Thank you. David. Okay, Bob, Sandy.

Just a couple of questions. What happened? I mean, we've looked at this either on the basis of the ARC or the Planning Commission at least three or four times where they were turned down by the neighbors next door. Has the ownership changed?

Yes, there is a new owner and Mr. Ranke can speak on behalf of the owner. But yes, so the previous owner sold and did not move forward with the building permit.

Okay. And then the concrete pad that's on, you know, how Casa Verde goes down, down, down, down. And then at the back, there was that concrete pad, which was an extra entrance, really. or at least it was proposed to be, right behind the kitchen.

That is not proposed to have any changes to it at this time.

Just adjacent to the driveway to the apartments next door.

Right, so that area is not identified to receive any improvements at this time.

Well, I just have one comment. I went through the architectural set of drawings. I was very impressed with the parking lot description that showed the turning radiuses that you could do in order to get your car in and out. I haven't seen that before. I thought that was real good. But anyway, thank you.

Justin, do you have any questions? Okay, I just have a few. So does a project like this sometimes require a trash enclosure? How come there was no trash enclosure?

There is an existing trash, sorry, there's existing trash receptacles. And when this project went before the Development Review Committee, it wasn't a requirement that was made at that time.

Oh, so there's been a previous approval of this project, of this 19-unit project?

Oh, the Development Review Committee is made up of our different department staff, like our solid waste sustainability staff, and public works and city forestry, we all meet and we look at what requirements apply to the development from all parts of the city code, including the solid waste part of the code. And it was determined that the current configuration met the requirements.

Okay. So there's no trigger of development that requires a trash enclosure?

it's uh so usually we require that it be plumbed to the sewer but however this site does not have an enclosure so it that sewer plumb to the sewer requirement would not be triggered well yeah i mean they're just showing receptacles so it's just almost like a residential kind of a trash situation

okay um okay uh well i guess that's all the commissioner questions so um henry would you like to come up and say a few words good afternoon members of the planning commission henry runkey wald runkey and dosed architects um

Maybe I'll start with some of the questions. I think the reason why it was never built with the 43 units was the cost. I think it wasn't just too expensive to develop. When the new owners purchased the property, they did take a look at the prior approvals. They made the determination that it was just going to be too expensive. So, Good question on the trash enclosure issue. The trash has always been handled in the back area that Commissioner Freeman was talking about. There actually is a large fence that goes around the area. We're gonna be replacing that. We're gonna be replacing the gate, cleaning that whole area up. But for the most part, it's a big service yard. And so we did meet with the trash people. We did talk to the trash person at the city and public works. They took a look at it. There was the desire at first, let's see about getting a trash enclosure. But actually, the garbage collection company, their representative didn't want to have a dumpster. They preferred the totes. and the uh you can take the totes you can put it out onto the street it's easy to do they don't want to go into the backing and have to pull a dumpster so um there was a lot there was discussion on that and that's how we came to this solution and the city's happy with it the trash company's happy with it and the owner is happy with this also and it's going to be screened so you won't see any of the totes that are in the back um You've all been there in the past, I'm sure, if you've lived in this area for any time. Going to Caruso's, you always felt a little uncomfortable driving your car into their parking lot with the motel units right commingled between hotel guests and restaurant guests. You had windows where you pull your car into a parking space and you're shining your headlights right into the motel rooms. It was really not a great experience. motel experience at that time and when the new owners took the property what they really saw was some charm that was there kind of hidden and they really saw an opportunity for a boutique hotel and so that's what we're really trying to do is create more of a boutique experience a little bit retro i would say but one of the things that we're looking at or we looked at was well do you save the restaurant and the initial thought was oh yeah we'll get another restaurant there but as we started to develop the project it became pretty clear that You're not going to be able to make a high quality boutique experience when you've got a restaurant and people are trying to sleep. There's a lot of noise. There's a lot of traffic. And so that was it was decided to take that space, use it for the hotel guests, provide a space to be able to go in and get a continental breakfast. We'd have the check-in, check-out area there. And when we did that, we didn't need the manager's unit any longer. We're also outsourcing the laundry. We're going to have somebody there 24 hours a day. So it's going to be a completely different experience. And then the other thing that if you were looking at it today, you've got two driveway entrances that are separated by a sign. um it's very confusing it's very difficult it really ruins the parking lot in many aspects so we got too much circulation so we limited it to one and thank you COMMISSIONER ABOUT THE DIAGRAMS. WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT WORKED. BUT IT ALSO GAVE US THE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE MORE LANDSCAPING AND THEN IT ALSO GAVE US AN AREA FOR KIND OF A LITTLE PRIVATE OR PATIO AREA RIGHT NEAR THE ENTRANCE TO THE LOBBY AND THAT CREATES, I THINK, A LOT MORE CHARM. IT ALSO ALLOWS US TO PUT A WALL so that we can be able to reduce the amount of noise from Fremont. And then the way that the units are configured, if you look at it, we've actually taken the bathrooms and moved them toward the parking area so we don't have windows facing the parking lot. So it reduces the amount of noise, but it also keeps the headlights from going into the guest rooms. So anyway, the whole intent is to make this a much, much better, the best boutique hotel in the city. So that's the goal. Everything in the staff report, I agree with. I think this is a great project. I think staff supports that, which is great. The one thing that I think that if, and this may be something that Planning Commission can chime in on, we did refer into our project description that we'd be doing a continental breakfast. But we it says that it's limited to just prepackaged, and I think a lot of it will be prepackaged. But, you know, if you wanted to have like some hard boiled eggs or you wanted to have a little bit of scrambled eggs or something like that as part of the continental breakfast, it'd be nice if we could be able to include that type of light fare into our continental breakfast description. So that would be the only thing that i would request that the commission study if there's a way that we can limit it to something other than just pre-packaged we have no intent of creating a restaurant there so you know it is for the the guests it's the type of experience you expect when you come to a nice boutique hotel or motel and so that would be the only uh change that we would request the commission to consider

otherwise i'm available if you have any questions i'd be happy to answer them any questions of the applicant okay thank you well before you go um i don't i don't have a copy of the conditions right in front of me uh i imagine there's uh one condition oh thanks dave oh let's see findings Conditions of approval.

It says no hard-boiled eggs.

No hard-boiled eggs. That's very specific. I hate hard-boiled eggs. Well, yeah, maybe... That feels like government overreach.

That's the city.

no if the government's going to overreach it should ban hardware so here's uh condition number three the continental breakfast area shall be accessible until and available only for breakfast service shall be limited to pre-packaged foods coffee and non-alcoholic drinks so there it is um thanks so i there are no other questions for the applicant Oh, thank you, Henry. Great. Thank you. Okay. So now we'll move on to other public comments. Is there anyone in the Chamber that would like to speak on this item? Anybody online?

Erica? I see no hands raised, but once again, information on how to participate remotely by Zoom or telephone is found at monterey.gov forward slash agendas. If you're joining by telephone, dial star nine to raise your hand and star six to unmute. Having said that, there are still no hands raised.

Okay. So we'll bring the item back to the Commission for comments.

I think I just like to ask staff, why is the city not allowing fresh weed?

I think the intent was to have the restaurant just provide breakfast, that it didn't turn into a full service restaurant all day. But just cooking some eggs during breakfast time, I don't see a reason for not allowing that.

Yeah, and I'll just chime in as well. I think just the elimination of the second sentence of condition number three would accommodate what the applicant's requesting. And it would still limit the continental breakfast area just to registered motel guests, which is the intent of staff.

Okay. Any other? So the recommendation is to change item three? What?

It was condition number three.

Any other questions?

No, I'd move for approval of this with the changes noted.

But wait, we haven't had other comments yet.

Oh, okay. But maybe you're jumping the... I'm going to jump into it.

I'm going to move for approval. Okay, so we have a motion to approve.

I'm close with Dave. I don't think we need to waste any time on this one. I mean, getting rid of that awful dead lot there on Greenwood and Casserole, it would be fantastic. And I like the idea of them being able to cook real food and not have something come out of a... Twinkie box.

Yeah, they have a full kitchen. So, okay, Sandy, any comments?

Same as everybody. I just removed that one sentence about only prepackaged foods.

Okay, and Justin?

I'll second.

Okay, so we have a motion and a second to approve with a modification to condition number three to remove the prepackaged foods.

And did we pick up the ban on hard-boiled eggs?

Okay. We have a motion. And I also wanted to say a great project. It's a good adaptive reuse. I mean, it was quite an ambitious project before with angry neighbors and a maxed out lot. And this is really a way of accommodating this existing restaurant and hotel in a nice way. So good work. And you get rid of that lovely mansard roof.

uh so and the landscaping is a nice touch too you know that's an outdoor seating that's really missing on north remont and hopefully this this project and um the old uh dive bar site sorry i don't remember the name um having that be housing i hope it leads to further uh revitalization so thank you to the applicant and the developer okay so uh we have a motion in a second uh roll call

Sure, Vice Chair La Tassa?

Yes.

Commissioner Bluth? Yes. Commissioner Freeman? Yes. Commissioner Palmer? Yes. Commissioner Pauley?

Yes.

And Commissioner Stoker?

Yes.

Okay, that item's been approved. The decision is appealable to the city council within 10 days. We have applications online or in our planning office.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. So we will move on to item number four, which is 1410 Del Monte Center. Recommend that the city council amend the Del Monte Center SC plan and approve applications ARP 26-0068 and ART 26-0107 for changes to landscaping, outdoor amenities, and lighting. Applicant Stuart McDonald, owner F.R. Del Monte LLC. So we will start with the staff report.

Thank you. It's me again. All right. So staff's recommendation is that the planning commission adopt resolutions recommending that the city council amend the Del Monte Center SC plan and approve applications, the architectural review entry removal applications or changes to landscaping, outdoor amenities and lighting. The subject property is the Del Monte Shopping Center. It's roughly 46.75 acres, and it includes 16 buildings totaling 642,980 square feet. So you can, I'm sure you're familiar with it. It has community commercial district with shopping center planned commercial overlay zoning. So that's why there is an adopted shopping center plan. It has that overlay that allows for that to happen and it allows for a more cohesive planning shopping experience by coming up with a more specific plan for the shopping center. So some background. In 1963, the Del Monte Center SC plan was created. In the early 1980s, resolutions were adopted to amend parking and some conditions of approval, as well as construction phasing. In 1997, the plan from 1982 was repealed and a new plan was adopted to allow the construction of a new west anchor. In 2002, that plan was amended and now it was called the East Anchor because it was to be an indoor theater where currently It's constructed and it's toward the east of the shopping center. And also that amendment adopted an EIR with mitigation monitoring reporting program. In 2009 and also 2023, the plan was amended again to modify the permitted and prohibited land uses allowed in the shopping center area. And today's proposal is to amend the plan once again to create a landscaping and outdoor amenity program mostly for the central pedestrian promenade, but also to enhance the landscaping surrounding the property throughout the parking lot and the existing planters. So the project area is shown here. As you can see, the project area also touches the entrance median from Munrus Avenue. And in green is all the areas that will receive enhanced landscaping. Also in the center again, the central promenade would receive outdoor seating, pottery, enhanced plantings, umbrellas, outdoor sofas, the fountain would be enhanced, and it would create spaces for people to gather, expanding the shopping experience into other areas of the shopping center. This is, again, the central promenade. And I'll let the applicant talk about it more. But each of the areas highlighted here has a different design intent to them. And so, for example, the first area in blue is called the waterfront. And there are specific design elements for that area. But again, I'll let the applicant explain further. This is the entrance median, and there are two design options included in the agenda packet, but both options would basically include infill planting. And one option on the bottom left would replace the existing trellises and would add raised metal planters. and then a strip of cobblestone in the middle. And then the top right, that option would keep the trellises, but add the cobblestone to unite all of them and create a cohesive design. This is an example of the treatment that would be proposed for the fountain area. So the fountain would be refurbished with new cobblestone with pottery surrounding it, outdoor seating, umbrellas and enhanced plantings. The existing paving is also proposed to be redone and given a different color palette. And there's also a new play area proposed So it's proposed to have natural elements made from natural wood, like an upside down tree, a log tunnel, some logs like stepping stones for kids to play with natural elements. It would also receive a rubberized surface so that if children fall, they don't hurt themselves. And then there's an example here of outdoor lighting. So for example, this seating area sandwiched between two landscape planters, there's lighting proposed to overhead lighting in the form of poles with string lights. and all of the lighting would be shielded as shown here and directed toward the subject area. So the intent of the lighting is to have shopping center guests enjoy the shopping area even after sunset and so that they can linger and relax in the center. And there's also lighting proposed for the tree canopy, to light the trunks, to create that design intent, highlighting the trunks and the natural sculpture of trees. There's also 18 tree removals proposed. And these are all included within that central pedestrian promenade. And they are circled in red. And there are two types of trees to be removed. And they're shown here. But they would all be replaced with some local species such as coast live oak and Monterey pine, as well as some adaptable species like the Arbutus marina. But these would all be replaced basically in the same place. And the replacement ratio is 4 to 1. So for 8 removals, they would be replaced with... Sorry, 18 removals would be replaced with 72 trees. All mostly in this area. And just to show some of the... The finishes proposed. So here are some examples of the cobblestone, examples of the boulders and the rubberized clay surface. The planters would have aluminum edging or quartz and steel edging. And here are examples of the pottery. The outdoor seating would include benches, sofas, tables, picnic tables, umbrellas and for people to enjoy. And they would be placed throughout the promenade. So in order to approve this project, the Planning Commission needs to make the architectural review findings as well as the tree removal findings. And the first architectural review finding is that the building siding, mass, form and style are appropriate and they are not changing. So this project doesn't include any change to the building forms. It's just a landscaping and outdoor amenity improvement program. And it's meant to improve existing outdoor common areas that are already developed. There would be no changes to the parking lot. Instead of changes to the planters, you would just see increased plantings. Finding number two is that there would be no increase in building heights, new floor area, there would be no reduced parking or no incompatible uses being introduced. Again, the improvements are primarily internal to the existing shopping center promenade. The lighting, as you saw, it would be placed in select areas, illuminating the outdoor seating as well as the underside of the tree canopy. Staff is recommending a condition that the final lighting placement requires planning division staff review to ensure that the fixtures are shielded and directed downward or angled toward tree trunks or art pieces. Just so that to ensure that there is no glare or living environment impacts. Finding number three is that the project is consistent with the general plan urban design element policy to discourage high levels of ambient light and maintain night skies where stars can be seen. So with that condition that I just read to you, the lighting would be placed in a way that it would not spill beyond its subject and it would not create any spillage. The improvements would support the continued use and reinvestment of the established commercial center, which is consistent with the site's general plan commercial designation. The fourth architectural review finding is that all of the landscaping and finishes are appropriate for the site and the city. And all of them, as I showed you, would enhance the landscaping, replace trees at a 4 to 1 replacement ratio, The pottery is consistent, would be consistent throughout, keeping the same theme. The cobblestone would also be placed throughout. There would also be some areas would be replaced instead of live turf would be replaced with artificial turf to reduce water usage. Again, the play area would have rubberized play surface and natural wood play elements. And the outdoor seating and furniture are also appropriate in that the metal parts would be painted black for a consistent look. And again, the lighting would also be consistent throughout with that condition added by staff. The tree removal finding is listed here. In situations where a healthy tree prevents reasonable development of permitted uses, the tree may be approved for removal. Existing development on similar sites in the same zone and having similar topographic and vegetation characteristics shall be considered when determining reasonable development. And as mentioned, the shopping center is an existing development. The planters are already there. What the applicant is proposing is just to change out the trees that are there with more appropriate species for the area. So 18 trees would be removed. The species are, there are six Prunus cerulata and 12 Platanus acerifolia, and those would be replaced with 72 trees. Then these are reasonable improvements for the shopping center. The city forester reviewed the replanting proposal and determined that the number, size and species are appropriate. With that, staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the permits, and I'm available for questions. The applicant is also here, and they have a short presentation.

Great. Thank you, Fernanda. So, Commissioner, questions?

I do have one question. I thought we were not supposed to uplight trees because we're a dark sky, and we have light fixtures shown pointing toward the sky.

So do you want to repeat?

The city has not adopted a dark sky ordinance. We've discussed it over the years. There are some standards in other plans like the lighthouse specific plan downtown that have specific requirements for shielding lights, but it's not a adopted standard.

So the city doesn't have shielded light requirements? Yes, Cardinal.

And the way the staff evaluated this is that we typically do require whether through conditions of approval or some other mechanism that the any lighting is shielded or downward facing and doesn't allow for light trespass similar to conditions that have been applied to this permit as well. As staff analyzed it, the tree canopy itself would provide some level of shielding from above the way that the lights are proposed in the package. So that's the way the staff viewed it. But obviously the planning commission feels differently. They can add to that existing condition of approval. It's been included addressing lighting to preclude that piece or if they're not concerned and approve as is. Okay.

Other questions go ahead for the fountain, the structure, the other fountain will remain the same. So the. decorative feature isn't going to get changed, right?

I can let the applicant talk about that. But on the plans, it shows that the cobblestone that's inside of the fountain would be refurbished and the pavement outside surrounding the fountain would also receive an uplift. But there was not mention of changing out the sculptures inside the fountain.

Sandy? No, Justin. I guess this will be 2 different motions or it could be 1 motion. Oh, yeah, please.

With all the lighting being added, it's the lighting limited by hours of operation.

So there was no hours of operation proposed for the lighting, but if the Planning Commission wants to add that as a condition to limit the lighting to a certain hours, that's possible.

And I will just add on to that that the request after this is a request for business in the del monte center that would be 24 hours so if you were to go that path we would be looking for specific times rather than hours of operation in the center of the businesses so the motions will we have to have two separate motions for this

There's one resolution included in the packet, which you can, you can just use that as your motion, or if you need to, you can separate if, if you're not approving one permit, but you're, and you're approving the other one, you can separate.

Great. Thanks. Okay. Um, the applicant, uh, would like to make a presentation. I think he could say your name for the record.

Good afternoon. Can you hear me? Yes. All right. My name's Stuart McDonald. I'm representing the Del Monte Shopping Center, Vice Chair La Tassa and Planning Commissioners. Appreciate the opportunity to talk to you this afternoon about our vision for the center. And I also want to thank planning staff for their input during the submittal process along the way. We've reviewed the staff findings and the staff presentation today and concur with the findings. My company, Federal Realty, is very excited to become a member of the Monterey community. We've looked at this region for quite a while and finally have opportunity to make our mark here with this center. As many of you I'm sure know, it's a terrific shopping center. It's got great bones. It was designed by a renowned architect and is a collection of classic mid-century modern architecture buildings. So frustratingly for me, as a former architect, there's not a lot architecturally to do, we believe, with the center, and it's mostly about improving the exterior landscape environment for our center. We think that there's a real opportunity here to enhance the customer experience, to increase dwell time and also sort of reinvest in the way that the landscaping has been handled. A lot of the existing planting materials are more formal, of a bygone era. And we think there's an opportunity to embrace a more California and coastal aesthetic, as well as be cognizant of water consumption, which the landscape architect will talk more about. in addition we're looking at some new tenanting operate opportunities for the property um one of which you'll hear about a little bit later in today's hearing and there are a number of other prospects as well that i'm not at liberty to discuss at this time but in general you know the center is well received by um the the shop community and we have a lot of interest so there will be some interesting new um tenanting coming coming our way soon With that, I'd like to introduce Mike Myers of Lifescapes International, a well-known firm that we've worked with over the last, I guess, over a decade, renovating shopping centers throughout the state of California. Mike.

Thank you. Thank you. My name is Mike Myers with Lightscapes International. Thanks for the time and the chance to share our revisioning of a great site. I'll kind of go quickly through sort of our thoughts as the chief designer. We can go to the next slide. We wanted to create really kind of spaces within this space. So we divided up that central core into several different rooms by refreshing the landscape throughout and adding some connecting materials, most notably the cobble. We create a sort of a thread that goes through that ties all the rooms together, but each kind of has its own unique flavor and taste. We tried to, or we didn't try, we used material that's appropriate for the area. We wanted to sort of pull from the nearby riparian zone, the coastal feel, and get plants that are adaptable to the area, low water use. And then we also, what is consistent is we've taken all the live turf throughout. And then we also, what is consistent is we've taken all the live turf throughout the property out. We've created a few areas where we will have synthetic turf so the dogs do have some place to kind of go and wander. But other than that, all the real turf has been taken out as sort of a nod to help with the water conservation. So through the rooms, let's go just to the next slide. We really wanted to capture that stay time, have a place, a destination where people can come, gather, of course, shop, eat, but a place to kind of go. And we wanted to create a garden setting. And we think we've done that, and Federal Realty has really supported that. It really is gonna become, I think, a beacon to the community for people to kind of go, you know, Let's go meet at the Del Monte Center. Let's go to the next slide. This is kind of a section through that fountain area, using a lot of multi-trunk trees, addressing the light issue in the shielding. We're looking at really not uplining the trees directly straight up in the canopy because we're using a lot of those multi-trunk trees like the Arbutus marina. which has a really kind of sculptural look and a bright red bark, we'll be kind of hitting it from angles. So the top shields will kind of help with that dark sky issue, but will really light up that bottom trunk sculpture and just the undersides of those canopies. The fountain, we're gonna give it kind of a refresh with new cobble at the bottom, keeping really the bones of it still there. You'll see it's going to be a great place around the fountain to gather, keeping a lot of those existing trees there, adding evergreen canopy trees, flowering trees, deciduous trees. You'll get a really good mix. So throughout the year, the seasons will be evident in the property. Go to the next slide, please. The play area, again, pulling from the surrounding areas of the riparian zone, we wanted to use real natural materials instead of a sort of a prefab play structure. We're using real wood elements. One's an upside down tree, some logs set on top of each other. some hopping stumps, so it could be a fun place. And then we've arranged it now from where it is kind of towards the theater on the east side, it's now in the central core. And we've made it sort of a central spot with ample seating around, so it's a great place you can go get a slice of pizza, let the kids run amok in the play area, in a safe area, and enjoy your time there. Go to the next slide, please. This, the picture on the top left, kind of gives you an indication of what that look would be. The rubber surface is gonna be sort of earth-coney. It'll be helpful when kids fall down. But it gives us sort of a natural look, almost like a soil, the DG, without the problems of DG. And you can see how around you have areas for sitting and watching. The top right, it's gonna kind of show that planting area with the new trees. Really, it's much less formal than it is now. We've gotten rid of the turf again in the middle, the hedges, that's all gone. It's gonna be a more looser, natural feel, which will kind of tie with the theme we're going throughout. We go to the next one. Talking about the trees, we're using trees that are appropriate for the area. The trees we're getting rid of, we saw some challenges. The 12 of the sycamores have been pollard over a year, so they're They're really deformed. The cherries, there's four cherries next to those. They're girdled on top and they're struggling. And we have a couple more that the cherries, the pears are actually kind of they're struggling. And then, you know, with that, we're adding a plethora of trees throughout the entire site and on some of the perimeter drive coming in. And again, it's gonna be a mix. You can see we have some deciduous trees with the maples. We have the evergreen canopy trees with like the arbutus and the Quercus agrifoli, the coast live oaks. So it's gonna be a nice mix of materials, evergreens, flowering, and deciduous trees. Is that the last slide? Oh, the shrubs. The shrubs, a mix of shrubs that are adaptable. The Cianothus, we have that actually as your first hello as you come in. That's a one, two, three, four, five, six one from the top left. So that dark green foliage, pops of blue color, very adaptable to the area. And you can see we got a mix of foliage colors, flower colors, textures, fragrance. We have a couple pockets in the drive where we're gonna have a sort of a desert succulent garden, making use of the opportunity that's a planter that doesn't have irrigation. We're also gonna keep the idea of that flower pollinator garden. So we've taken what's there now and we're really gonna supercharge that so you get that fun movement and look of the flowers and the hummingbirds and the butterflies. We think it'll be a really sensational space and we're proposing to put seating right next to that so you can, again, have a slice of pizza and watch a hummingbird flitter around. I think that was it.

Any questions? Okay, any questions of the applicant?

Just to be sure, the sculpture for the fountain is going to stay the same?

Yes.

I was curious where the artificial turf is mainly going to be deposited.

It's gonna be on the entry drive in, if you know where the pizza place is, it's gonna kind of be where the office is, the leasing office, and right kind of by the pizza, those two areas. We kind of create two big sort of areas so people coming in with the dogs can kind of use that area and keep it out of the central core.

okay well thank you for your very thorough presentation thank you so much okay and um are there any um is anybody in the chambers other that would like to speak i don't see anybody oh you want to say something else okay

There was the comment about the tree lighting, and I'd just like to add that we looked at it very carefully during the design phase. We think that the uplighting of the tree canopy is actually tremendously important for the nighttime experience of that center and the ambiance that it creates. We are proposing that the lighting is on a dimming circuit so it can be controlled. These are very low output lights that are well shielded. if there needs to be some sort of stipulation on hours of operation, we would certainly look into that.

Great. Okay, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Okay, so we will, there's nobody in the chambers. Is there anybody online who would like to speak on this item?

I don't see any hands raised, but once again, if you're joining by telephone, dial star nine to raise your hand and star six to unmute. And there are no hands raised.

Great. So we will bring it back to the commission for comments and a motion. Bob?

That's nice. My girls love that place, so anything that's going to make it better will be wonderful for the community.

Sandy?

No, no comment.

Okay. Justin? No, I commend these guys for investing so much money in the mall. It's nice to see that happen. I'm curious, what about a landscape job on a private parcel necessitates a Planning Commission approval? Good question.

Yeah, so as Fernanda mentioned at the beginning of her presentation, this property actually is within the SC shopping center overlay, which allows for properties such as this to have an approved SC plan or shopping center plan. So there is a section of our code that regulates how the process for getting one of those plans adopted as well as amended. is to go and those plans are required to be amended in the same fashion that they're adopted, which requires public hearings, not just at planning commission, but at city council as well. So this particular application, yes, we'll be making a recommendation to the city council. So this application, and we don't have any SE plans, so that's why this doesn't come up very often. But yeah, this particular application, whenever making modifications to landscaping that was previously required landscaping in place of new landscaping does represent an amendment to the SE plan.

OK. Yeah, my only other comment would be that as someone who lives in that neighborhood, I think exploring hours of operation to limit the uplighting. I realize they're shooting in the canopies, but it's hard for me to believe when I saw some of the string lights and the tree lighting that there's not going to be some degree of ambient light emitting from... I mean, I like the idea of making it more of a celebratory space in there and animating at night. I think that's a great idea, but not all night.

I'll just add, so currently staff has the condition of approval number one that does require the planning division staff review and approve the final lighting plan. If the commission wants to add some specific parameters for staff to kind of be looking at when we do that, that would be easily modified.

And I'm still concerned about the up lighting. I didn't know we still allowed it. Nobody else does because we are a dark sky area. And except Del Monte Center, which looks like home for ET when it's foggy out, it glows the entire thing at night. And it is an issue. And I think the lighting needs to be controlled. I think what they proposed is fabulous. But the lighting is overdone. I know we're safety in parking lots at night and everything else. It glows over the whole area. And when it is foggy, It's the first thing you see as you come over the hill from Carmel or wherever. It's just glowing. So I think we need to control that. I think the up lighting needs to be controlled. But again, I think they've done a great job putting together. I'm always disappointed, though, that we're not getting some housing into this area, kind of Santana Rowish. It seems like a great spot if you want people there at night. you got to have people living there um and the parking lots are empty at night uh so i think i'm always disappointed when we don't see something years ago when the movie theater was in front of us which i voted against by the way um the uh i was hoping at that point that that would be uh housing could that unfortunate building have housing so i'd love to see housing i would gladly support housing uh but anyway i'm not trashing the project i don't like europe lights on the tree

Eric? Yes, I think it's absolutely beautiful. Just agreeing with all comments all around. As we get into the conversation about lighting, you know, I'd love to hear suggestions so that we can give staff a recommendation. know i visit there often so i understand a lot of it is retail though they do have a movie theater and a few restaurants that i'm sure are open to 10 maybe 9 or 10 of the latest so um i'm just curious how we move forward with uh with that i don't know if that comes from staff or the commission

It seems like we're pretty close. David and Justin are the ones who have raised this issue of lighting. And you had mentioned maybe modifying the condition to talk about a time limit as far as night. Could you put forward a notion of what that would be? Midnight or 10 o'clock?

Yeah, I think some degree of... You know, 10 o'clock at night, I realized that our next item on our agenda is a 24-hour gym. But that seems to be in a place within the mall that is accessible without traveling through the main pedestrian promenades in the mall. So I... To me, it seems like short of telling them to get rid of the up lights or the string lights, which I don't want to do, because I think those would be nice at night. I think we need to impose some sort of hours of operation for the main pedestrian promenades in the mall.

I mean, you would still have all kinds of other lighting, you know, secure, you know, just basic.

Yeah, it seems there is path lighting or, yeah. And I don't know, like the glow, I imagine that's coming from the parking lot lighting, which it seems, you know, I imagine that technology is,

progressed somewhat from when those lights have gone in but it's uh it's a hard problem i mean i've yet to see a parking lot that's well lit well lit in terms of not feeling like a giant glow stick but there's the other issue is you they can't close it at night so yeah there's no gates yeah um and you don't want it dark when people could be there so again there's this balance The shopping center developers are going to have to look at the operation. I don't really want to impose a, we should do a must condition when forcing them to do something. No, I don't want to do that. I want them to look at it and say, look, it needs to tone down at night to realistic levels. It is surrounded by residential communities, although it could have a neat 15-story building looking at it. But they've got to be realistic. So that's what I would ask the shopping sellers, developers to realize that it is in a residential community.

I want to make one comment also. I understood that the owners, the new owners are also the owners of Santana Row. Is that correct? Is there a lighting shutdown at Santana Row? That seems like party central all the time.

know that that center does operate 24 7 you know and there is a residential component to that project so it is you know it is always striking a balance between you know live work and play because all of those activities do occur on the property um we do have pretty strict noise regulations on the property which is something that could prohibit somebody from sleeping but that's the main component of what we control. The lighting runs 24-7. I would think that in the case of what we're talking about today for Del Monte, I would propose a distinction between what we would consider accent lights versus functional or safety lights, like accent lights, the string lights, or the up lights of the tree trunks, I think would be something that could be, you know, shut off at a certain time and dimmed but the the lighting that it provides for pedestrian safety so the people walking through the mall in the middle of night can see where steps are and and other things um as well as the parking lots i think it is a different standard that needs to be applied okay because just my opinion one thing that is different

about Del Monte Shopping Center and Santana Row is that Santana Row, for every two businesses, there is a restaurant that is facing that central mall and seating in the central mall using the food that people buy at restaurants. And I don't see a lot of restaurants in the Del Monte Shopping Center that face the central mall, which could contribute to your population. So it's an evolution.

Yeah.

And I don't really think there's any hard and fast solution to the lighting until the population develops that's using it, the new decorative promenade.

Right. Okay, thank you. Okay. So, Justin, I have an idea. Why don't you make a motion with the modified lighting timing condition included?

I'll... I'm going to muddle my way through this, so we'll consider the first motion a work in progress. I'll make a motion to approve ARP 26068 and ART 260107. You know, in the spirit of David's must and not shall and not must, the applicant work with staff to impose some sort of restrictions on accent lighting

uh in off business hours and second that okay uh we have a motion in a second any other discussion okay we'll do a roll call here we go vice chair latasa yes commissioner bluth yes commissioner freeman yes commissioner palmer yes commissioner paulie yes and commissioner stoker yes that item's been approved Thanks for coming in. It was an awesome presentation, too. And what a thorough job of landscaping. I've never seen as thorough a landscaping presentation.

Thank you.

I don't think they're leaving, though.

Oh, you're staying, yeah.

Okay, so that's that item. Now we'll move on to item number five. 200, or was that 260 Del Monte Center, approved use permit application, UP260052, architectural review permit application, ARP26-0062, and signed permit application, SI260117, for personal improvement services, health studio, or SPA within an existing commercial building with associated building and site modifications and signage. Applicant Heather Roberts, EPD Solutions Incorporated. The property owner is F.R. Del Monte, LLC. And we'll start with a staff report.

Thank you. I'm presenting on behalf of Chris Schmidt. This was his project. Let's see. Staff's recommendation is that the Planning Commission approve the use permit architectural review and sign permit applications for the health studio slash spa exterior building and site modifications and two wall signs with conditions. The subject property is the same. It's the Dalmani Shopping Center. However, we're honing in to the former Macy's Furniture Store. It's highlighted in orange here. The zoning district is again that C2SC shopping center overlay area, and it's governed by the Dalmani Center SC plan. The proposal is for that former Macy's furniture store, which is approximately 38,767 square feet, to become a fitness and wellness facility, which would include strength, cardiovascular, personal training and group fitness areas. Also, specialized boxing, cycling and reformer studios. It would also have recovery areas, red light therapy, locker rooms, showers and saunas. There would be an accessory juice bar and med spa. And there would be exterior building modifications and repainting just to that portion of the center. And two halo illuminated wall signs are proposed. There is no increase in gross leaseable floor area. So the proposed use and operations, it would be open 24 hours per day, seven days per week. And there would be a minimum of two employees on site at all times. And the minimum, it would be basically during the nighttime hours, but there would be a lot more during peak hours. There would be up to five simultaneous group fitness classes. Class sizes would generally range between 19 and 49 participants, but there would be an overall estimated maximum occupancy of 200 to 250 persons. The fitness classes, some of them would have amplified sound, however, they would all be conducted indoors. And there would be continuous staffing, security cameras and alarmed emergency exits. The shopping center also has 24-hour security that they provide. The floor plan, this is the view. North is facing up. So this is the former Macy's Furniture Store tenant space, which would be now the fitness center. It's rather large. There is various fitness areas. So you can see here that there are stationary bikes. There's areas for equipment, areas for specific fitness classes, locker rooms, restrooms. There is a med spa area. And the juice bar is toward the entrance. So it would be in this area here. Again, this is the reception, so this is the primary entrance. But it's a rather large facility. It's facing the parking lot to the north. This is the north elevation. On the top is the existing. And on the bottom is the proposed. So that area, that entrance area that I pointed to at the previous slide is here. So this is the reception area. There is signage proposed above. And they would receive, I'll present it on the following slides, the external improvements. And this is the east elevation. So this is the other side of the entrance. This is existing on the left and on the right is proposed. Again, this side of the entrance would also have a sign above the entrance. These are the details of the proposed signage. So this is the one facing north. So it would say Club Studio and it includes the logo. And it is proposed... at roughly 100 square feet. And then on the bottom is the other side of the entrance facing east. That sign is proposed at 70 square feet. Some of the exterior improvements include painting for the entrance in various tones of gray and white. Let me see if there's... Okay. And then this is a close-up of the lettering and logo. The proposed illumination type is Halo Lit. And it's a reverse pen design. So that means that the letters, the front of the letters and the side of the letters will be opaque, but the back will be translucent so that the light shines toward the back, the sign backer. And that's what creates that halo effect. So here is the proposed facade extension. So for that sign to fit, that roughly 100 square foot sign, the applicant is proposing to extend the building fascia north. So I'm highlighting that in orange. So that fascia would have to basically extend over the existing railing to accommodate that sign. Staff placed a special condition because the citywide sign guidelines place a recommended maximum sign area of 50 square feet. And this sign facing north is about 100, so it's double the recommended 50. And this sign facing east is proposed at 70 square feet. So staff is placing a condition to reduce the signs to be 50 square feet and to fit within the existing building fascia. And so here on the left is a representation of what that what that would look like. This is not to scale. This is just to show what staff's recommended condition, what the intent is, that the signs stay within the existing fascia. On the right side is what the applicant is proposing. So again, you can see here on the left, there is railing, but the applicant is proposing to increase the size of the fascia and overcome the railing to accommodate that 70 square foot sign. So staff is recommending additional conditions. consistent with the proposal, so that there be a minimum of two employees on site during all operating hours, that the juice bar and med spa recovery services remain accessory to the fitness facility, that there would be no outdoor amplified sound, compliant with noise regulations, that exterior doors and windows remain closed during fitness classes with amplified sound to contain all noise, that security cameras and alarm systems be maintained, that each wall sign be limited to 50 square feet and located entirely within the existing stucco fascia, retaining existing fascia dimensions. The sign illumination be limited to halo, with 3500 kelvin temperature and 200 lumens maximum per sign in order to approve this permit the planning commission must make the use permit architectural review and sign permit findings and they are summarized here For the use permit, the health studio slash spa is appropriate within this zoning district. It falls under the personal improvement services use, which is allowed by use permit. The existing commercial space would be reused with no increase in gross leaseable area or increase to the required parking. The 24-hour operation would be appropriately regulated through staffing security and noise conditions. And the juice bar, med spa and recovery services would remain accessory and subordinate to the principal fitness use. The finding summary for the architectural review and sign permits are listed here. The existing building siding, roof form, structural character and massing would be retained as conditioned. The facade extension is not recommended by staff. As conditioned, the wall signs would be limited to 50 square feet located within the existing fascia and the illumination will be halo. As conditioned, the project would not unreasonably impair views, privacy, or living environment, and is consistent with the General Plan, Del Monte Center SC Plan, and applicable sign guidelines. With that, staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the permits as presented in the agenda packet with the attached conditions.

Thanks, Fernanda.

I'm available for questions, and the applicant should be participating on Zoom.

Great. Thank you, Fernanda. Any questions of staff?

And one clarification. Are you recommending limiting each sign to 50 square feet or total signage? Each sign limited to 50 square feet. I think we should make sure it says that. It kind of, the way it reads, it could be taken as both signs total of 50.

Okay.

Other questions of staff?

Is there any, this would be the first, is Gold's Gym 24 hours? I bet they're excited about these folks arriving. I do not know the operating hours. I looked online, it's 11 o'clock. It's 11 o'clock. Is there, there's no limitation on hours currently at the mall?

Not currently.

Fernando, can you put up the sort of photo montage that shows the main 70-foot sign that faces the parking lot?

Yes. Let me pull it up. 70 foot? Or whatever.

Oh, 100 and 17. 100. Right. It's 100.

Oh. this so oh you mean the applicant yes it's this one okay so the um the the size of it is 100 square feet approximately 100 and something um i believe it's 100.75 okay and that that area of 100.75 square feet is the um what exactly is that the entire white area or just the area where the letters for the sign are

So it is 33 feet by three feet.

Okay.

So that's about 100.

Yeah.

100.75.

Commissioner Pauly is showing the exhibit in the staff report. So it's just the letters, really. And the symbol.

And the logo.

Okay. All right. Thank you. And so both situations include a modification of the existing sort of fascia.

Yes, so the architectural review permit includes a proposal to increase the fascia.

Yes, okay.

And the sign would fit within the increased fascia.

Okay, great. The staff is not recommending that.

Staff is not recommending increasing the fascia and limiting each sign to 50 square feet.

And you provided an approximation of the secondary sign, the smaller sign, of how that would look in the reduced fascia, but you didn't provide one that faces the parking lot. They'd be the same size.

No.

Yeah, they'd be the same. It's got to fit the fascia. Right, right.

Yes, that was just to show the intent is to keep the fascia the same dimensions.

Okay, great. Any other questions? Yeah. Why is this really in front of us? Does everything that goes to Del Monte Center have to show up here? Is it because they want to do 24 Center 7? Or is it because I don't know what a med spa is?

So the use permit is required to be approved by Planning Commission. It's a personal improvement service and in the code, those uses are required, require a use permit approval.

Anywhere in the city?

Yes.

What is a med spa?

A med spa includes, I can let the applicant talk about that, but it includes recovery services, fitness specific recovery.

I don't think we need a big presentation on that.

So are all these injection storefronts considered med spas? Well, like these, you know what I'm talking about? Like the injections, the oxygen, you know, there's been two that have opened downtown, and I don't think we've seen those at the Planning Commission.

Yeah, like on Webster, and they have a sign that...

Yeah, so the reason for this is the base zoning of the site is C2 with an SC overlay. And if I remember correctly, personal improvement service, which are like gyms and health care, not health care, health clubs require use permit with the underlying zoning. And that's why it's before you. And I'm pretty sure that you've reviewed all. Jim's in the city. I, in fact, as part of this record, we went back and looked at the conditions of approval for Gold's Gym and how that was processed. So I think that's why you're reviewing this application is because it's a personal improvement service.

i was just wondering and i'm guessing it's because it's a different base zoning down where we're seeing these injection companies i'm calling them injection companies yeah the iv and iv infusions and they're doing that that's what it is from monterey county bank yeah yeah and so maybe we can get back to you regarding what the downtown specific plan classifies those as i don't remember off the top of my head okay okay any other questions

Okay, would the applicant like to come forward? Or is the...

They don't have to, if they're on their own.

Okay. Okay, so we will go online, and is there somebody to make a presentation?

I'll go ahead and allow Rod to speak.

Great.

Clicking to ask to unmute. There, they've been asked. They're unmuted. Rod, you can go ahead.

I thank you to the Planning Commission. This is Rod Furman. I am a representative with Federal Realty and wanted to thank you for allowing me to speak and also just wanted to say thank you to Levi and the staff for all of their help and guidance on this project. We're really excited to have this new tenant, having another world class tenant like Club Studio come in. They essentially bring LA Fitness, which is their higher end full service concept. So they basically bring traditional gym functions, plus a more modern boutique fitness of all of the studios that are here. We have reviewed all the conditions and we're in agreement with those conditions. We would like to just talk to you a little bit about the enlargement of the facade and the signage to see if there's some compromise that we could discuss. That enlargement of the building was primarily oversized due to and was really driven by the signage itself. And when we did a lot of the pre planning for for this meeting, a lot of that, as you look in the front of the building on that front edge cut across, we, we had done a design of all of that that that essentially cut across that backside. And we ended up reducing that down to really focus. on the center uh the the entrance of that building and um essentially that back area uh really leads to nothing it it's kind of the back parking lot it's not really out in the front of the del monte and so we wanted to see if planning commission would take a look at that and hopefully provide a little bit of guidance if that could be maybe reduced down if it's above what is per code that maybe we go half of that signage that's there that would drive really the enlargement portion of the building. And we've kept everything pretty much the same as far as the exterior and the natural stone that is there and continue to have the natural colors that are there as part of the elevations.

Okay, thank you. Is that your presentation? Yes. Oh, thank you very much, Mr. Kerman. Any questions of the applicant? Okay, well, thanks again for your presentation. And seeing no other people online or in the chamber, we'll bring it back to the Commission for deliberations and motion. Maybe we can just check online real fast.

There's one hand raised.

Oh, okay.

And go ahead and ask Mike to unmute. Mike, you're unmuted.

Yes, thank you. My name is Mike Callahan. I'm employed by Fitness International. We're the prospective tenant here. I'd like to thank the planning staff and Rod and his team with Federal Realty to bring this project forward. And thank you, Vice Chair La Taza and commissioners. Yeah, I will say we're, as a tenant, embracing the conditions that the planning staff has recommended We'll do that. I am disappointed, however, that staff feels that we shouldn't enlarge the facade. And I think it's more than just the signage positioning. We'd like to have something that's created that looks like an entrance. And our proposed elevation, I think, does that. You know, with the signage, ironically, Um, there's 287 lineal feet of frontage on this building, which would allow us to have, you know, five 50 square foot signs and a 28 square foot sign thrown in. So, uh, it's pretty ironic that, um, we're not proposing anything near that with these two signs. So, But I did do some research and found that the building was originally designed by John Carlisle Warnecke, who, if you're an architect, you know full well who he is. So perhaps that is the rationale for not letting us create this storefront. So at any rate, I just wanted to say that and we're so happy to have the opportunity to be here at Del Monte Center. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Kalanick. So, are there any other online speakers? Great. So we will bring this item back to the Commission for a motion and deliberations.

Bob. I'm open to hear more discussion about the sign. I mean, it is in the back of the mall. It doesn't get a lot of attention. It's kind of dark back there anyhow. It's a good use. So

And we have, you know, we've given, or at least the ARC used to give exceptions to this 50-foot thing.

You know, I'm not sure if the historic or the architectural nature of the building was a driving factor for staff. But if it wasn't, I would be open to looking at more signage for them to draw people and know where to park.

Great. Sandy?

I don't think they should be too disappointed about the sign. I think a good example is the Portola Hotel. They have a small facade above their doorway entrance, and they have, but they don't have the letters like this has the letters individually illuminated from the back, which will already make it easier to see. But the proposal to increase the, what do you call it, the fascia?

The fascia.

The fascia. necessitates increasing the sign, leave the fascia the same size and make the sign appropriate to that size, I don't think you'll be disappointed. People will be able to see it. And I think you should drive by the Partola Hotel at night and take a look at their sign because that's worked very well and it's very easy to see from the street.

Justin.

Yeah, I don't... I don't necessarily have a problem with a bigger sign, but once it's illuminated, it's sort of a game changer for me. So I would say knocking the size down, if it were like, you know, if it had like goosenecks above it that were just pointing down at it, I might be more amenable to it. But the fact that it is ostensibly internally illuminated, I think I would just knock it down as staff has recommended. I think it's also sort of a very intentional destination. you know, no one's going to be it's not a drive by destination, you know where you're going when you go to the gym when you pull back into that lot. So I think it's it's going to serve its purpose regardless of the size. One thing I meant to ask staff about there's some sort of regulations on access into that back that back alley I believe it cuts it off back closer to the movie theater but my concern would be that both of those entrances to the mall remain open if we're going to start allowing 24-hour businesses so that we're not funneling all that traffic into one traffic light and I don't I can't remember where the gate is is it

Do you know what I'm saying? There's like a gate. Can we, I guess, do we reopen the public hearing to engage staff with this question? Not to engage staff. You don't have to reopen the public hearing. So there's a question for you.

Kim, I'll let you respond. Do you have more background on the gate and the history of that?

Yeah, so when the cinema was proposed and that they don't remember the year of the sea plan amendment, the neighborhood was concerned about trips in that direction. It was either a condition of approval of the theater or a mitigation measure. I don't remember which, but it was specifically placed. So that's not easy to remove. That would require an SC plan amendment, if I remember correctly, because it's either a condition or part of the original environmental impact report.

But that gate would not preclude people from coming in either entrance to access this? Correct.

You'll be able to go by the California Pizza Kitchen in that way, or you'll be able to go out the other way?

You just wouldn't be able to do a loop.

Around them all. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Right. That's fine. Okay. David.

And I wouldn't mess with the facial. I agree with the staff backlit sign there. And I got to tell you, nobody is walking by there and going, I'm going to go to Lala's for a drink. Oh, wait, there's a place to work out. I'll do that instead. i don't think that that's realistic people are going there as a destination this will be plenty big but i think that fascia proposed was unattractive and it really messes that linear shape of the building yeah i don't feel too

I don't feel too strongly about it either way. I was leaning toward what Bob was saying. It is in a more dark area of the facility. You know, we got investments into a large area that doesn't have much uses for it anymore. It used to be a large department store a lot of people used to go to.

um so to me it seems it to make sense to give some leniency toward that but doesn't seem like maybe the vote's going to go that way okay thank you this was the busiest section of the shopping center at one time that was the movie theater right right and that was hugely busy and people went there all the time wasn't there a gym once there before no it was movie theater and then empty for a while and then macy's furniture um well i

I agree with what's been said. I'm not opposed to the over 50 square foot sign as much as the way David put it, that linear architectural element of the fascia is better, I think, to maintain that. And it really won't detract from the basic communication of the sign. So I think staff got this right. So can I hear a motion?

Before we move forward to a motion, if I may just interject real quickly. In the spirit of the conversation on the last item regarding lighting and this being a 24-hour business, is there any desire for the Commission to limit the illumination of the signage to any specific time, or are we comfortable with 24 hours illuminated?

It is a 24-hour, Jim. I think we have to allow them to illuminate their sign. Got it. Thank you. That's all.

Yeah.

So I move to recommend that the City Council amend the Del Monte Center's SC plan and approve the applications ARP 260068 and ART 26- I'm sorry, I believe that's the motion or the title for the previous item, yes. I move to approve this one as presented by staff.

Okay, okay, we have a motion.

This one is.

Can I hear a second?

I'll second that.

Okay, so we have a motion by Sandy and a second by Bob. And any other discussion? Okay, we'll do a roll call.

Vice Chair La Tassa?

Yes.

Commissioner Bluth? Yes. Commissioner Freeman? Yes. Commissioner Palmer?

Yes.

Commissioner Pauley?

Yes.

And Commissioner Stoker?

Yes.

Okay, that item's been approved. The decision is appealable to the City Council within 10 days. We have applications online or in our planning office.

Great. Okay, thank you. So, next item number seven, confirm annual appointments for chair and vice chair. We should make you do chair. So, horseshoe.

I think the rule is that since Peter's not here, we get to do it to him again.

Well, I will accept. Who's going to be vice chair? I'll nominate you for chair. Okay. It's that official nomination. Okay. Do we need a second? What about vice chair?

I would just do it in order of seniority.

Okay, do you know- Seniority, three of us came in late.

But you were appointed first and you recommended that I get appointed.

Well, if nobody else wants it, I'll do vice chair. But I want to make Terry be chair. He deserves it.

But have you been chair? You guys have both been chair?

It's funny, I was chair for about five minutes.

That was embarrassing.

Five years ago. I still don't know what happened. There was a shepherd's crook suddenly appeared and I had to leave the room. I don't know what that was.

I'm fairly sure that was my fault. Sorry, Terry.

no harm no foul okay so uh i hear a motion uh for latasha as chair and stoker as vice chair do we have to do it as a typical voted we do need a we do need a vote uh it doesn't have to we just recorded there's no resolution but we recorded by minute action so but we do need a vote based on that section of the ordinance okay do we need a second

That would be preferable. Yeah. Okay.

I'll second. Okay, so we have a motion for a second from Mr. Pauly. So a roll call.

Okay. Vice Chair La Tassa?

Yes.

Commissioner Bluth? Yes. Commissioner Freeman? Yes. Commissioner Palmer?

Yes.

Commissioner Pauly? Yes. And Commissioner Stoker?

Yes. Okay, there you go. So next item is Commissioner Comments.

It's late. I know everyone wants to go home, but there was discussion of a trash enclosure earlier at the hotel on Fremont, and it reminded me of something in the spirit of David's incessant haranguing about the corner store. There's been something that's been driving me crazy on Moon Ross, and it's our friends at the Surf Inn. and um you know now they've got little placards up to say they want community input on the improvements that they want to make on their site and whatnot but their trash enclosure is constantly swung open with trash spewing out on the street right next to the monument to beater's gate and these guys are i think they're still operating under a red tag if i'm not correctly if i'm not

It's not a red tag, so their building code compliance issues have been handled. They do have a pending application with the planning division for the exterior site improvements. That also includes a new waste enclosure, so that's being reviewed now in coordination with our sustainability division and Monterey City Waste Disposal.

fast track that one because i mean it's it's like they can't even hit the can when they're throwing the trash in that thing it is spewing out of that thing and you look in there and there's trash it just looks awful well not only that commissioner paulie um they there's also the fencing you know that we require to be lower if you look over that there's large uh electronic waste back there which is hazardous um can leach leach into our natural areas our groundwater

um when it rains i was just shuddering to think of all that electronic waste being um rained on and going to a bay walk away these guys are about to dump a couple of million into landscaping only a couple of minutes you know it's like we gotta we gotta hold these motels to a higher standard

i want to add into that i agree with what justin was saying but i also like to follow up with the marriott hotel they have an entrance on franklin with a door that doesn't exist anymore there's rails in there but there's no door. And so it looks awful on Franklin. And that's where they put their trash, it's where all the internal activities for deliveries are supposed to happen. And I really do think it would be great if we could look at having them reinstall their door. So when it's not being used, it can be closed. And so as you're walking down Franklin, you're not seeing this internal

working business workings of that building sorry okay sorry to add one more code enforcement thing while we're around here um speaking of signs the injection sign i was just shocked to see you know in our beautiful downtown right next to the stevenson house right in front of that beautiful um relatively new um uh you know adobe like uh building where the scoops ice cream is and everything uh that injection center there's clip art of different kinds of injections that you can get just doesn't seem like i mean i know i've been on the arc and we're planning for the last few years uh that never came before us so i just wondered if that was an approved sign just down there doesn't seem like um something that belongs in monterey right

Can we assign Levi to do all of this?

Yes. You know, I think what I'm hearing is that the commission wants to see more signage proposals. That's not, that's not what we said. And I've recorded that.

I love signage. I can assure you, we're on top of it. Who is our cold complaint officer and can we have him come in? I'm glad that you asked.

His name is Rory Lakin. He can be reached at 831-646-3750. And these are all great things to bring to his attention. And you don't have to wait until the next planning commission meeting to do that. Okay.

okay we're just about done i i wanted to since no one else has brought it up the um e-bikes on the bike trail i think is really a substantial safety issue and and uh we're gonna keep nagging on that one it's it's uh every time i go down there it's it's kind of alarming i i actually spent some time today just researching accidents with e-bikes and they are it's rampant for people dying all over the state from these things they're big and heavy and dangerous and it would be great if the city was proactive on this issue so i'm just i've mentioned this before um so the community development department does not regulate e-bikes or the speed of e-bikes that would all be through

If the city council was able to adopt a different ordinance, it would probably be brought forward either by our police department or public works traffic division. So I know we sit here and we just sort of look back at you, but I guess if you're wanting to pursue change as individuals, THAT'S WHERE YOU WOULD GO TO CITY COUNCIL AND SPEAK DURING PUBLIC COMMENT OR HOWEVER YOU REACH OUT TO OUR COUNCIL PEOPLE AS RESIDENTS AND SAY, WE REALLY THINK THE CITY NEEDS TO MOVE THIS FORWARD. AND I DO BELIEVE THAT, YOU KNOW, COME AFTER NOVEMBER WHEN WE UNDERSTAND WHERE OUR COUNCIL SITS, WE'LL BE WORKING MUCH MORE ON OUR WORK PROGRAM. We hear you. I just don't want you to think it's just it's not in our area of expertise.

We're just nagging.

That's fine if you want to nag. I always just feel bad as I just sit here and look back at you.

It's just where, you know, I hope it doesn't end up in some... You know, somebody's in the hospital and we're thinking, oh, we should have gotten, we're going on that sooner. So I guess planning office update is the last item.

Yeah. So will be a quick one. As noted in the agenda packet, we don't have any items that are tentatively scheduled for our July 28th meeting. So we'll be moving to cancel that meeting. So you will have your Tuesday afternoon back. Okay.

Meeting adjourned.

See, the minute you're chair, they start canceling meetings.