Okay.

Okay.

Um, call the meeting to order.

Erica, would you mind?

Um doing a roll call and uh instructing online participants how they can call in.

Sure.

Thank you.

Um, I'll go ahead and announce the commissioner's present.

Chair Silva.

Here.

Vice Chair Latasa?

Here.

Commissioner Bluuth.

Rosa.

Commissioner Brassfield.

Present.

Commissioner Dawson is absent, and Commissioner Freeman here.

And our staff members present today.

We have our planning manager Levi Hill, Principal Planner Fernando Rovari, Principal Planner Christy Sabdo, Senior Associate Planner Chris Schmidt, and myself, recording Secretary Eric Cabrera.

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's their turn to speak, and a timer will be shown on the screen.

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

Is there anybody in the chamber, we recommend keeping phones and devices muted to prevent audio interference with the consent agenda?

I'm sorry.

Very good.

But we're doing the consent right now.

We'll do the public comments after the consent.

Anybody online, Erica?

There are no hands raised.

Very good.

We'll take the consent back to the to the commission.

What I would like to do is to separate out the various items for deliberation and a separate vote.

We can begin by uh doing uh item number two, which is uh recommend the city council amend chapter 38, section 38-11.5 of the Monterey City Code to establish local density incentives for qualifying housing projects and uh so this has been uh uh a continuance uh until September 23rd.

Uh any comments from commissioners on this?

Can I get a motion?

I'll move that we move this item to the September 23rd agenda.

Second.

So we have a motion to continue by uh Commissioner Latassa, second by Commissioner Bluth to uh continue this to September 23rd.

Uh all in favor, aye.

Aye, unanimous.

Okay.

Thank you.

Item number three.

Uh under full disclosure, I must recuse myself from voting on this item.

I did advise, I received advice from staff prior to today's meeting that uh I would not need to step out of the chambers because there's not going to be a um a discussion regarding this.

So we'll go ahead and uh bring this back to the commission.

Uh any uh any comments?

No, um I move to uh continue this item 2,400 garden road to is it September?

Is it a date certain?

September 23rd to September 23rd.

So we have a uh a motion by Commissioner Freeman and uh seconded by uh Commissioner Brassfield to continue this to September 23rd.

Uh this time we'll do a roll call, Erica.

Chair Silva recuse.

Vice Chair Latassa?

Yes, Commissioner Bluth.

Yes, Commissioner Brassfield, and Commissioner Freeman, yes.

Okay, that item's been continued to the September 23rd planning commission meeting.

Thank you, uh Erica.

We'll combine items four and five together.

Any uh comments by commissioners on the minutes.

Uh there I don't think a lot of the said is approved.

I don't know how we're gonna do that.

You can abstain.

That's my point.

If you're convincing, then I have staying on.

Okay, very well.

So we'll separate those out as well.

So item number four, which is August 12th, comments, no motion.

I think I wasn't there.

Uh I wasn't there.

Yeah, I'll make a motion to approve the minutes from August 13th, uh 2025.

August 12th.

Thank you, 2025.

I'll second that.

Uh so we can get a can we get a roll call, Erica, please.

Sure, chair sending.

Before we do the roll call, I'll just note uh, and looking at the minutes for August 12th, those present were Commissioner Blues, Commissioner Silva, Commissioner Brassfield, Commissioner Dawson, and Commissioner Freeman.

Thank you.

Okay.

Sorry, wouldn't we say that again?

Uh there for the August 12th meeting.

I want to make sure.

Yeah, so for the August 12th, we had Commissioner Bluth, Commissioner Silva, Commissioner Brassfield, Commissioner Dawson, and Commissioner Freeman.

And at the risk of being tedious.

I wasn't there, so you were absent.

So what how do I vote?

Uh you can choose to abstain.

If you've reviewed the minutes, you can still vote on that reviewed minutes.

Great.

Thanks.

Okay.

So did we get a motion and a second on this?

We did roll call, please.

Sure.

Chair, so Chair Silva.

Yes.

Vice Chair Latassa.

Yes.

Commissioner Bluth.

Yes.

Commissioner Brassfield.

Yes.

Commissioner Latassa.

I already said yes.

Sorry.

That's right.

Commissioner Freeman.

I get to vote twice.

You guys are at different orders now.

Who's on first?

Okay.

Moving on.

Uh item number five, which is the minutes for August 26th.

Uh comments by anybody.

This was the adjournment, so no one would have been present for this, but if you've reviewed the minutes, you can't still vote on the adjournment.

I uh move to approve the August 26th um minutes.

Second.

Very good.

So we have a motion by Commissioner Latasa, second by Commissioner Bluth to approve the August 26th minutes.

Roll call, please.

Sure, Chair Silva.

Yes.

Vice Chair Latassa.

Yes.

Commissioner Blue.

Yes.

Commissioner Brassfield and Commissioner Freeman.

Yes.

Okay, those have been approved.

Thank you, Erica.

Okay, so now it's your turn.

So we have we're going to open up uh public comments.

If anybody, anybody in chambers or online would like to speak to the planning commission regarding an item that is not on today's agenda, you may come up to the podium and state your name.

Hello, Chair and Commissioners.

My name is Marcia Renzulo.

I'm a resident of Monterey.

Many of us have experienced firsthand what it's like to have a rooster next door or a few houses away.

They often wake us up before dawn, crow throughout the day, and can be heard from several blocks away.

We would like to propose updating the city of Monterey's municipal code, section 6.6 on domestic foul.

So roosters are not allowed.

Egg-lings could still be permitted.

Let's talk about the noise issue.

As you know, section 3811 performance standards A noise sets the maximum decibels for different zones.

And in the residential area, which is where a lot of us live, the maximum decibel is 60.

Well, the average decibel of a rooster is 130, so that's more than double.

So they're already out of compliance.

Anyway, in addition to causing excessive noise and disturbing the peace, roosters can be used in cockfighting, cause a public health risk if waste is not managed properly, cause foul smells, invite pests, pass diseases to humans.

Currently, section 6.6, restrictions on keeping of divest domestic foul states, all chickens and other domestic fowl should be kept and maintained securely in an enclosure as provided for in the section.

Well, the issue is this ordinance is very broad and really only addresses the type of enclosure needed for uh the domestic fowl.

And it also says and refers to a chicken, which can be either a male rooster or an egg lane female hen.

So proposed solution.

Update 6.6 to allow egg laying hens, but roosters would not be allowed in the city of Monterey.

We wouldn't be alone in this.

Let's follow what our sister cities are doing.

Marina and Salinas have both done this.

They've updated their codes.

The City of Marina, they um updated, they have a section 1742-160.

It was passed in 2013 and amended in 2020.

And they define a domestic chicken as an egg-laying female hen.

And for the purposes of this section, domestic chickens shall not include roosters.

So they're excluded in marina.

City of Salinas, what do they have?

Both chickens and roosters are not allowed in their city limits.

Why?

City Council member said the city lacks animal control services.

Monterey, we don't have animal control services either.

Something to consider.

What would be the benefits if we updated this?

We'd have reduced noise pollution, reduced risk of cockfighting, reduced sanitary risks, reduced strain on the police departments, and all these benefits will contribute to an improved quality of life for more peaceful and a harmonious Monterey community.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

My name is Marilyn McDonald, and I'm also a resident in that area.

And I have to state that there is a lot to be said for peace of mind.

These roosters are very annoying.

And uh if you know anything about roosters, you know they only didn't just crow in the morning, they go all day.

So they're loud, they're very loud, they're noisy, and they disturb my peace in the peace of my neighborhood.

I'd like to have an audience and to keep up with the other people in our peninsula for not allowing roosters.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Erica, any uh hands waved online?

Uh there are currently no hands raised.

Okay, we'll close the uh public comments and uh we'll now open up the public hearing.

Uh we'll start with item number six, 1173 9th street use permit application, UP-25-0053 to allow conversion of an existing commercial office building to single family dwelling with expansion of floor area.

Applicant Jeffrey Edmonds admins home design, property owner, heavenly 2022 LLC, commercial office and professional district, development control and emergency shelter overlays, zoning district, commercial general plan land use designation, uh exempt from CEQA, et cetera, et cetera.

Boy, there's a lot there.

So uh Chris, would you like to uh provide us with a staff report?

Yes, thank you, Chair Silva.

My name is Chris Schmidt.

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

Uh so we are looking at a use permit at 1173 9th.

This is a conversion from office to single family.

And the staff recommendation to the planning commission is that the planning commission adopt a resolution approving the use permit for that conversion.

Uh so here we see the sites located in the Oak Grove neighborhood.

It has a CO commercial office uh zoning district that's located within that zoning district and has a D2 overlay, which is the development control overlay, as well as an emergency shelter overlay, which uh permits by right emergency shelters.

So typically the D2 overly uh overlay just adds the additional layer of uh planning commission review where the planning commission can add conditions of approval for neighborhood compatibility.

In this case, the staff has only recommended the standard conditions.

Uh so the project involves conversion of the existing office space to single family residential.

The existing building is approximately 850 square feet, uh and it was originally constructed as a single family dwelling, but was later rezoned and converted to an office use.

Uh so they're looking at returning it to that single family use as well as an approximately 1255 square foot addition, including uh a two-car garage.

And here is the site from 9th Street.

So 9th Street, um, if you could imagine, it actually dead ends just to the left here, where you have uh various uses surrounding.

So on the right, we have residential uses.

Um, if you could imagine kind of behind this view, you have a couple of different commercial uses, um, as well as some other nearby uses hotels and and multifamily other type uses.

Um, and so here's the site plan identifying on the left the existing structure and on the right the proposed uh addition and improvements in orange uh is the existing structure, and then and of course in blue is that addition.

Uh so in order to approve this application, the planning commission has to make three findings.

Uh the staff was able to make all three findings, including the first one that the uh use is in accord with the objectives of the zoning code, uh which is the chapter reference here, and the purposes of the zone, the CO zone.

Uh, this use is permitted by use permit.

It includes required parking, which is uh primary concern for these conversion projects.

Um it meets the development standards, including setbacks and the requirement for landscaping, et cetera.

And it is in the in keeping with the neighborhood scale of the surrounding developments.

The next finding has to do with compatibility uh consistency with the general plan uh and the sort of impacts that would be associated uh with the use on the surrounding neighborhood in reference to the public health safety or welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood.

Uh staff was able to make this finding.

It is consistent with the commercial general plan land use, which does allow up to 30 units per acre.

Um, of course, this is one single unit.

Uh, and again, is compatible with the neighborhood character and includes required parking.

And the last finding is is that the application will comply with the required conditions, just this as I mentioned, the standard conditions supply.

So with that, staff recommends approval of the application.

The project applicant is here.

Uh, the owner was not able to make it, but they did submit a public comment in support of their project, which they intend to live in in the future.

Thank you.

I think they did write a letter.

They did, yes.

Yeah.

Any questions for Chris?

I have one question.

So, you know, our 3,684 units, whatever we have to add.

This is one.

That's right.

Okay.

I thought so.

One day at a time.

One day at a time.

Chris, I have I have a question.

It's more of a global than specific, but considering that this is a resident, it's a conversion to residential.

Would the like the state's uh housing accountability act and objective standards apply to this?

Um, I don't know the answer to that question.

It's a good question.

So at the point that it becomes a housing project uh as defined, um, it would those requirements would trigger.

Okay.

Isn't it over three units?

I don't recall, I don't think a single family doesn't apply.

Um, under a housing accountability act.

I don't recall it's got to be a multi-unit.

I don't know if it's three, it might just be two or more.

I thought it was any housing project, but I could be wrong.

Okay, yeah.

I was just curious.

I can I can add a little bit.

Um the objective design standards apply to SB 35, SB9, um, which are two, uh, so SB 35 is when it's two or more housing units.

So it wouldn't apply to single family housing.

And SB9 objective standards would only apply if the applicant requests SB9 approval.

And this wasn't a SB9 request.

Okay, thank you very much.

Boy, it's great having a competent staff that can just whip out these answers like that.

Yeah, I wasn't, yeah, I didn't think so, but I wasn't sure.

Um, okay.

Would the applicant like to uh provide a presentation?

My name is Jeff Edmonds.

I'm a designer from Pacific Grove and a contractor.

Um Kelly Mai and David Meyer, the owners.

They live in Sacramento, but they want to be down here and enjoy the ocean.

I got I have a letter from them I'd like to read.

Uh, these are David and Kelly Mai, and we are proud owners of 1173 9th Street.

Thank you for the opportunity to share our home proposal.

This project is very special and personal to us.

Our 13-year-old son and our dog Atlas.

This house will be our retirement home and a supportive place for my son who would be attending Monterey High School next year.

Our goal is simple to build a forever home where we can age in place while giving our son a stable environment as he begins high school and MPC after high school.

He has ADHD and consistency is very important for his success and well-being.

We chose Monterey because it was small town field strong schools and welcoming community.

Our design is fully compatible with zoning requirements by our local wonderful and knowledgeable architect Jeff.

We understand setbacks height limits and lot coverage.

With materials and that's capping landscaping and respect Monterey's coastal character.

Since this is our retirement home, and we're also committed to building responsibly, the single level layout home is constructed with energy efficient systems that make environment and resources.

All in all, this is more than just a construction project.

It results stability for our son, the retirement home for ourselves, and a safe haven for our dog Atlas.

We respectfully ask for your support, and we truly look forward to making moderate our for our home.

So it's pretty much most of it.

Any questions or comments?

Thank you for your presentation.

Is there anybody in chambers that would like to speak before this item?

Hands waved online, Erica.

There are no hands raised.

Thank you, Erica.

We'll take this back to the commission.

Any uh any comments?

Seems like great worthy project.

And again, an addition of one to the housing uh element.

Um can I go ahead and move to, did you want to say something?

I don't want to interrupt.

I'm just reading it.

Okay.

It's a great design.

It's it's a nice uh craftsman design, very appropriate to the neighborhood.

I think so too.

Um I think that this is one of those rare applications that we don't often get that uh is 100% consistent with all of the zoning land use policies, and so it's really a slam dunk from you know an approval standpoint.

It also provides an example for other people who might want to convert a commercial use to residential and uh you know continue to develop a neighborhood, which is great.

Um so I move to approve 1173 9th street, the use permit application UP 25053 to allow conversion of an existing commercial office building to a single family dwelling.

We have a motion by Sandy Freeman to approve, and a second by Commissioner Grassfield.

Uh, can we do a roll call vote, please?

Sure, Chair Silva.

Yes, Vice Chair Latassa.

Yes.

Commissioner Blues, yes, Commissioner Brassfield.

And Commissioner Freeman.

Yes.

Okay, that's been approved.

The decision is appealable within 10 business or sorry, calendar days to the planning um, or sorry, to the city council.

We have applications online um or in our planning office.

Congratulations.

We will now move to item number seven.

Uh 750 cannery row.

It's a wireless uh permit.

I think we've seen a version of this one before.

Um, can we get a staff report?

Yes, I believe we have our contract planner Jerry Hittleman is online.

Um good afternoon, Chair and Planning Commissioners.

It's been a little while, good to see everybody.

Um, can you see the uh PowerPoint I'm sharing?

Yeah, yes.

Okay.

So um I think some, if not all of you have seen this project before.

It's 750 cannery row.

And it's a new T-Mobile wireless facility.

Use permit 25-0157.

And here's the project site.

So 750 Canary Row, it would be on the rooftop of the intercontinental uh Clement Month hotel, right on the ocean front.

Uh, the aquarium is to the north, and Bubba Gump's uh restaurant is to the just below that.

The property is owned by the Canary Row Hotel Development Venture LP, uh applicant of Samantha Alpha, which I believe I believe she joined online to answer any questions.

T-Mobile will be the carrier.

It's in the visitor accommodation zone, and the general plan designation is commercial.

Um just like the previous project, there'll be three um fiberglass reinforced uh plastic RFP closures with six antennas, six remote radio units, uh, three fiber cables, two cabinets, and another equipment as needed.

Uh on in February uh 27th, 2024, the Planning commission approved the use permit uh for T-Mobile with the same six antennas.

You'll see they're in a different configuration.

They have not built this structure.

So the new this new application was deemed complete on August 12th of 2025, and you'll see again the revised antenna placement and the FRP structures as well.

So here's a view of the rooftop of the previously approved project.

So we had four antennas and different arrays on this side of the roof, and then two antennas on this side.

The equipment also was right here.

For this application, we have those same two screening enclosures, except we only have two antennas now right here, two over here, and then an additional two in this location.

So we'll show those in more detail in a second.

So here's the enclosure with the two antennas.

This is called the beta sector, and here are the two antennas that are facing towards the front of the hotel.

These are on the side of the buildings, facing towards the Bubba Gump's side of the building, and then the new enclosure has two antennas, which is towards the back of the hotel or the rear.

I think you'll see it a little better on these elevations.

So here's the new front elevation, and you can see the new FRP enclosure with the antennas on this area, and also towards the middle of the building back here.

Showing the two new enclosures.

One towards the rear, this one has the equipment towards the front of the building.

This is the little overpass that goes over cannery row.

This is the rear of the structure.

So you can see that there will be a new FRP enclosure right here.

The antennas, the enclosure with the antennas in this location, and then this is looking towards the um side of the building, which is actually kind of like the front of the building.

We have four views.

The first view is from the parking lot across the street, looking at the two antenna enclosures on the side of the building.

View two would be from the parking lot or the area of Bubba Gump restaurant looking towards the building, and then views three and four are from Wave Street looking towards the antennas.

So this is the view from parking lot across the street, and you can see the enclosure on the front of the hotel in this location.

It's looking from uh Bubba Gump restaurant parking lot, and you can see the only see this enclosure on the side of the building.

Here, show the two views from Wave Street.

So here's a view looking towards the ocean here, and then a little bit closer view looking at two enclosures on top of the building.

So in our analysis, the facility is designed to meet the zoning code.

The structural reports confirm that the roof can support the equipment.

Noise levels would be a maximum 20.7 decibels, which comply with uh city standards, which is a maximum of 45 decibels at night time.

The previous submittal had that was approved, had actually an emergency generator that increased that noise level a little bit, but they have not included the emergency generator with this new application.

So as you can see from the photo simulations, the antennas and equipment are not visible to the public because of those FRP screens that would be painted and textured to match the existing building.

Moving on to the radio frequency compliance, um, the compliance report prepared and certified by a third party was reviewed by a third-party consultant, and they confirmed that the proposed antennas would be compliant with FCC rules, no public safety limits exceeded at ground level or at the adjacent buildings.

So this is the alpha sector, which is pointing towards Bubba Gump restaurant, and as you can see, the yellow is the occupational limit.

Um, and then the blue is the public limit.

And looking at this in a horizontal view, here's the restaurant adjacent to the building.

So the occupational limit, the public limit would be um not extend uh to any adjacent buildings or to the ground.

Looking at the beta sector, this is the two antennas that are pointing towards the front of the building.

The occupational limit and the public limit are confined to the rooftop, as you can see by this horizontal view, and moving toward the gamma sector.

This is the new enclosure with two antennas at the rear of the building, and here's the occupational limit, the public limit.

Now there is a gap between the hotel and the adjacent building.

So it says ground here, that is actually um, I think the ocean comes in in this direction.

There are some rocks on the ground here and along the beach front, and this shows in an aerial view that gamma sector.

So there is a little gap between the buildings, and that's where the RF emission array would occur.

Here's a horizontal view from the RF report.

So this is again towards the rear of the building, and we do have a little bit that might be affect this building.

This distance where is approximately nine feet above the rooftop.

So we do have a special condition to address that gamma sector with maybe the adjacent rooftop.

So prior to issuance of building permits, the adjacent property owners with potential for RF exposure beyond the general public limit shall be notified.

Written acknowledgement of the notification from the affected property or proof of one certified mailing attempt to notify the property owner shall be submitted to the city.

Then we have our RF standard conditions.

So as you know from past projects, the RF signage and barriers are required for areas exceeding the um occupational and public limits.

Again, the public is not allowed on the rooftop only.

Uh workers who are working on the roof.

Then post installation, the RF compliance report is required within 30 days to ensure that what is shown to you today is exactly what the RF emissions are on the project.

So with that, staff recommends that you approve use permit UP 250157 with the recommended findings and conditions of approval.

Thank you.

Thank you, Jerry.

Um questions for uh staff.

So is there the standard uh safety placards and stuff that are going to be installed on any of the entranceways up to the roof?

Um yes, that's correct.

There will be the safety um plaques and standards not only there, but also um at each enclosure.

So it'd be when they enter the roof and at each enclosure.

Jerry, is there only one company having transmitters on this roof?

That's correct.

Right now it's only T-Mobile.

There's no other um wireless companies or wireless facilities on the roof at this time.

My next question is as far as the required training, what does that entail?

Uh for people to go up on that roof.

Yeah, that would be um just an explanation of the different safety protocols that are on the signage, and then if if need be, the um actual uh antennas can be turned off temporarily if they have to work within that occupational um area.

So for instance, if if one of the workers has to work over here, we they can actually turn this off.

And then also I'll let uh Samantha Alpha, who's with team with the uh was the applicant explain any further training that would occur.

Those are the two things I know about.

I would assume that that includes public safety.

Yes, um, in terms of the fire department, police department.

So is that who you're referring to?

Sorry, would you repeat that?

Uh would that be uh for instance the fire department?

Correct.

Well, police and fire.

So uh I can weigh in here.

So the condition is written that's to apply for occupational personnel that's working with the facility or actually with the site.

So any training for the police or fire department would be separate than that.

So a roofer, um a painter, they would maybe required to have the training.

Yeah, be under aware of what the signage and the warning signage means.

And I mean, that's part of getting access to that area as well.

Correct.

Thank you.

Can you keep this uh drawing up on the screen, please?

Yes.

So thanks, Jerry.

So the rooms that are I assume there are hotel rooms directly underneath this to structure.

That's correct.

And the um, even though the um the uh uh the electromagnetic rays are you know projections are all happening horizontally with a little bit of uh you know pear-shaped dip below them.

There's no anticipated uh vertical uh projection uh of these um uh uh of the uh EM waves, uh that is correct, and make sure that it's all horizontal, and that's why we have that special condition about submitting an RF report after they're installed to ensure that there's no vertical uh projection.

And would that report include uh testing in the hotel rooms underneath it?

Um in this case, I don't think that's necessary, probably not.

It would just be for the rooftop to make sure that it's we're accurately showing the projection right here.

I see the um is there any engineering standards?

Are there any engineering standards of of I don't know, lead screening or some sort of shielding of habitation rooms from these devices?

Um not that I'm aware of.

Uh perhaps the applicant might be aware of any of those, but um nothing beyond typical construction.

Okay, I mean, we've approved these sort of things before, but uh especially the one down on um Franklin Street.

Um I can't remember whether there were hotel rooms directly underneath them.

Um anyways, uh so uh in the report you did the you're satisfied that these um these devices are going to be safe for the hotel rooms directly underneath them, yes, definitely, and that was confirmed by our third party reviewer, PTC.

Just to make sure that we are safe from any uh impacts to the public or to workers, right?

I mean it's really the hotel's liability, but um uh anyway, that's all I have.

Thank you.

I guess I did have one other question for staff.

The what is the um height limit in this zone?

This property is zoned VAF, so there's not a hard and fast height limit for the VAF zone.

Thanks, Sandy.

No, I don't have any questions.

Well, you actually asked one of my questions, which is related height limit, but I do have some other questions.

Jerry, what was the intent on uh selecting FRP as the screen as opposed to uh matching the siding material on the existing hotel?

Um my understanding is that FRP allows the um emissions or the mission from the antenna to go out unimpeded.

If you were to use some other materials that might actually block the um antennas from working properly, so they do have only special materials that can work to allow this facility to both be screened and to allow the emissions to occur perfectly.

Well, um let me uh ask you, I I do have a couple of comments regarding the FRP.

It's it's it's a plastic material, and I'm not sure if painting plastic is going to hold up, especially in this environment.

Um has that been looked at by the by the applicant?

The type of paint that's going to be used.

Uh yeah, we can ask the applicant, but there are quite a few examples like on other hotels, more towards downtown where the screening has held up and uh has you know if you do match it the paint color, it does blend in with the uh with the existing structure.

Is is there um is it at all feasible, Jerry, to relocate that enclosure just a couple of feet back from the facade of the building so that there's a clean break between the massing of the hotel and and the enclosure that's sitting up right on top.

Um good question.

Um, not sure it might affect their coverage, but we can uh ask the applicant.

Okay.

Any other questions?

May I ask why you would ask that?

What in your regional unit?

Uh it's really just the visual aesthetics of this being placed right on the facade and flush with the side of the building, and you've got uh fiber cement siding coming up to a parapet, and then without any kind of offset, you have this plastic screen on top.

But mass to match the color of the rest of the is I don't understand the if it's just aesthetics, that's what the concern I have is, and that's the only way we can do anything is to study.

I do have a couple other comments, or I can say years now on cell towers.

We've tried to find some way to examine these multiple company sites.

Because there is a danger.

Multiple companies, multiple phone numbers, and different directions of the signals.

We haven't resolved that.

Trying to find some answers, and one of suggestion would be that wherever we have multiple companies with multiple transmitters with different phone numbers, that we put it back on the companies to come up with a single phone number, hazard plaques, etc.

Instead of the city trying to be responsible for mitigating this multiple danger.

Mike, is that a question to the staff?

No, this is oh you're right.

This is the commentary.

We were getting into that.

Let's try to limit the comments.

Thank you.

Like Jeopardy, you could say what is oh no, I'm just kidding.

Yeah.

I do have one final question.

Go ahead.

Um there's a previous application that's still active.

Is that not correct, Jerry?

That one is still active, but this would replace what was previously approved.

The same company, same applicant.

So they are again to not construct this facility.

And um let me ask either Jerry or staff, would it not be appropriate for the commission to require that we send a recension of the previous approved application?

Should this one be approved?

Yes, uh, so we can add a provision to the resolution that would say that this action, if approved, repeals the previous uh approval from this applicant at this location.

Right.

I guess I do have one final question for Jerry.

So Jerry, the um there was a part of the report that talked about the sound um uh you know the decibels of sound from these devices.

Correct.

So the uh the 20 uh point seven dba.

Um also for the hotel rooms below.

I know you're supposed to have sound uh barriers between hotel rooms, but I'm not sure about the ceiling.

Uh is there, you know, is there any uh, you know, maybe it's not our purview, but you know, are these hotel rooms below these devices going to be uh hearing these devices uh 20.7 dBs?

Um they would be screened by the material on the roof, obviously, so it'd probably be lower than 20.7.

It would probably be maybe indistinguishable from the um if they had any air conditioning or other systems in the rooms.

Um these are from heat exchangers and again well below the 45 decibels for the uh maximum night time uh noise levels.

Okay, thank you.

Jerry, is there a shot clock on this application?

This is a new application, so it's 150 day shot clock, so that takes us pretty far out till December or January.

Would the applicant like to uh provide the commission with a presentation?

I'll go ahead and allow the applicant to speak.

Samantha Alpha, you can go ahead and speak.

The applicant is unmuted.

Samantha, are you online?

Let's uh have the applicant come back after public uh comments.

Uh anybody in chambers would like to speak about this application.

I don't see anybody online, Erica, any hand waved?

There are no hands raised, but once again information on how to participate remotely by Zoom or telephone is found at Monterey.gov for sash agendas.

If you're joining by telephone, dial star nine to raise your hand and star six to unmute.

All right, let's try Samantha again.

Samantha's been unmuted.

They had their hands, their hand raised and it seems like there may be some technical issues at their end.

Possibly.

Well, I'm gonna um take this back to the uh commission since it seems like this is um likely not to have the technical issues resolved in a timely manner.

It looks like do we have a raised hand again?

The hand is raised.

And they are still unmuted.

Okay, it appears we're still experiencing technical difficulties.

Well, um, I'm gonna bring this back to the to the commission.

Uh any uh any uh comments, deliberation.

I don't have a comment, but thank you, Peter, for saying that we should rescind the original active application and just replace with this one so that you're they're not doing double.

Thank you, Terry.

You know, I'm okay with this application.

It's it seems like the um the um public uh safety health and safety issues are are really um uh rigorously um uh researched in this report.

And also we're sort of our high hands are tied in a way.

Uh the only like uh Commissioner Brassfield said, we have aesthetics, but the buildings down there are so big and massive, and it's I'm not I don't really care if the thing is offset or not, you know, this little uh doghouse on top of the club end.

So I'm in probably in favor of the project.

Bob.

You know, I think um was thinking about your comment about the aesthetics and actually it kind of fits that can read industrial luck.

I mean those extra um structures on the top that have been like elevators or some type of uh old equipment that might have you know been used in the cannery stuff.

I think it kind of fits the the space given you know those kind of additions.

Um I guess it depends on how well you use your imagination, but that was the reason I have the question because the aesthetics is one of the things that we can in these cell phones.

And he brings up a good point that it fits in with the industrial look of Canary Growth.

So yeah, that's one positive regarding my previous comment.

We have still not been able to train or produce material to train our public safety people.

Who would have to walk up on those roof calling?

I've been done, I've been at Canary Row fires.

I have seen where we what firemen have to do.

I want to make sure that we're not covered.

I mean that we're not covering them with these unintentional RF Dave.

Um we don't have enough information.

So I do recommend that we continue in that regard.

Thank you.

Did you want to make a motion to that effect?

I'll make a motion we accept this this project.

Uh as stated in the description, rather than quote here, all the numbers and letters.

Sure.

And I can read up that special condition that you mentioned earlier regarding the previous in the original application.

So that would be a motion to approve the item as submitted with the inclusion of the additional special condition of approval that the previous approval under resolution P24-006 shall be repealed with this action.

Can I get a second?

Second.

I'd like to just make a comment.

Um I see where you're coming from.

I don't agree, but I don't think I'm going to get support on the commission.

So therefore, I think we're just going to go ahead and approve this.

Uh can we get a a roll call vote, please, Erica?

Sure.

Chair Silva.

Yes.

Vice Chair Latasa.

Yes.

Commissioner Bluth.

Yes.

Commissioner Brassfield.

Yes.

And Commissioner Freeman.

Yes.

Okay.

That's been approved and it is appealable within three days to the city council.

We have applications online or in our planning office.

Is it two days or three days?

Three days.

The meeting procedures indicate two days for wireless applications.

I believe it's three.

Let me confirm.

Bear with me.

I'm looking through the code right now.

I do want to make another comment.

It's troubling when we can't get the applicant on the phone.

And they have wireless too.

They can easily log in.

It doesn't happen often.

No.

Stop us, but it is troubling.

Yeah.

And I think it it must have been on their end.

They were probably using ATT and not T-Mobile.

Apologies.

There's a lot in this chapter.

Sorry, I'm not seeing it here.

J5.

Code's not prescribing a specific deadline.

It's I found it.

It's um the three section 38-207 says for what for wireless facility application controlled by section 38-11.4, which is the wireless section of our code.

Any appeal shall be filed or taken or action taken pursuant to section 38-208 within three business days from the date of the planning commission's decision to approve or deny a wireless facility application.

Thank you, Chris.

So I think we need to um update the meeting procedures instructions because it does indicate two days.

We will do that.

Okay.

So any committee member comments.

Um on the chickens.

Um I remember clearly Julie Kenner having a rooster, and I think she was told that she needed to get rid of it.

Um she has the house on um Jefferson and Pacific.

Um, so I think they're and I remember we have chickens in our backyard, at least we're down to one right now, and that the city told us that we couldn't act those things.

So my impression was that the city uh um had rules which didn't allow roosters but would allow you to have four check-ins.

Um you know if I'm correct, or any it's my understanding that there's not a distinction that's made, but I'll just point out that those rules come out out of as as the public commenter noted that comes out of chapter six, which is animals and foul, which is not actually within the purview of the planning commission.

Levi, can I ask the point of order?

Uh, because this item came about as public comments for an item not on the agenda.

Would that uh preclude us from making any comments regarding this item?

Any comments if it's regarding what the procedure or next step in addressing an issue, which was kind of I think what uh is being asked.

But yes, typically we would like to limit comment or deliberation on non-agendized items.

Uh, if it's something again, if it was something that the commission wanted to agendize for further discussion, uh, you could direct staff to do that.

Um, but that's why I was just pointing out that it's actually not out of chapter 38, which is the zoning code in the uh Monterey City Code, it's actually in chapter six.

And what is chapter six?

Animals and foul, I believe.

Is there a any kind of public body that oversees this?

City council, okay.

And I believe these comments have been made at city council.

Any other comments?

I have a question.

The um the thing that we're gonna do uh next meeting on 923, uh recommend the city council amend chapter 38 to establish local density incentives for qualifying housing.

Is this have anything to do with the city council decision to allow to split an R1 lot into six parcels?

No, so what you're referring to is the action that the city council took to adopt the SB9 ordinance for the city.

Uh this is a separate um separate initiative.

Okay.

Um, so I I read somewhere that there's a new state law that exempts certain projects from CEQA.

Is that true?

Uh there were new CEQA, there's new SQL legislation that was signed into effect that expanded the exemptions for residential infill projects.

That is true.

And will that affect our review of projects?

Uh, it will affect uh the CEQA determination that is made for some qualifying housing projects that meet the requirements of those exemptions, certainly.

Thanks.

Any other comments?

Thank you.

Uh Levi, would you like to give us an informal staff uh uh report?

Gladly.

Um so just as noted in the report, uh follow-up from the September 2nd uh 2025 city council meeting.

Uh the council did complete the second reading of the rezoning ordinance associated with 817 Martin Street.

If you recall that was a rezoning associated with the Mills Act contract and historic property that came before this commission not too long ago, and then also noted on the uh staff uh planning office update is the two items that are uh tentatively scheduled for September 23rd, which of course are the two items that were continued for tonight's meeting.

I think we should probably have you ask which commission members are going to be attending that if they know.

Sure, we would love to take uh yeah, we'd love to take a quick poll of who is going to be able to attend out of this group.

This is for September 23rd.

So we've got four.

Okay.

Terry, you're gonna be taking my place for that one item.

Yeah, okay.

All right, meeting adjourned.

Thank you, everybody.

Thank you.