Recording in progress.

Hello, everyone.

My name is Fernanda Roveri.

I'll be serving as the zoning administrator for today's meeting.

I'm calling the meeting to order at 3 p.m.

Spencer, could you let everyone know staff members present?

Yes, of course.

Staff members present today are Principal Planner Fernando Roveri, Senior Associate Planner Matthew Bugger, and myself, recording secretary Spencer Arganwright.

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 are connected on Zoom, the timer is accurate with no delay.

And in the chamber, we recommend keeping phones and devices muted to prevent audio interference with the meeting.

Thank you for participating in your city government.

Thank you for that.

Let's move on to the consent agenda.

The only item on the consent agenda is item number two, approval of minutes, June 18th, 2026.

Do we have anyone from the public who would like to pull the consent agenda and speak about it?

See, there are uh no attendees in person here, and I see no one online with their hands raised currently.

Alright, with that.

I reviewed the minutes and I watched the recording of the June 18th meeting, and I hereby approve the minutes as presented in the agenda packet.

That closes the consent agenda.

Now we'll move on to general public comments.

The public may speak to any item that is not on the agenda and that is in the city of Monterey subject matter jurisdiction.

Do we have anyone who would like to speak?

I see no one currently present, and uh there are no hands raised online.

All right, we will close the general public comments, and we will move on to the item number three.

Consider 379 Lighthouse Avenue, use permit application UP 260090 to allow an assembly minor, large instructional service use, Pilates studio, applicant Hayden Osekira, property owner, the entrust group Inc.

PCLH CB1, zoning district.

Mr.

Buggert, do we have a staff report?

Yes, we do.

I will share my screen.

Good afternoon.

My name is Matthew Buggert, and I'm a senior associate planner with the City of Monterey's planning division.

Today we're here to talk about 379 Lighthouse Avenue in Suite B for Assembly Minor Use Large Instructional Service Use Permit.

At today's zoning administrator meeting.

Some background on the project.

The address would be 379 Lighthouse Avenue.

It is a one-story building with two tenants in it.

It has a general plan land use designation of mixed-use neighborhood.

The zoning is PC-LH-CB1.

That is for planned community lighthouse specific plan with additional overlay.

The portion of the building that would be taken up by the tenant is on the southern southeastern portion of the building.

This is the tenant space as it stands today.

It was previously a massage studio.

And the individual rooms would be demolished and replaced with a variety of Pilates resistance exercise machines or reformers.

There are nine in this site plan.

The front entrance door is off to the right that faces into the parking lot, and there is a small access door to the back by the existing ADA restroom and utility slash shower area.

The proposed use is for rock salt Pilates, a small Pilates gym.

The anticipated schedule would run daily from 6 to 6, 6 a.m.

to 6 p.m.

Typical classes would have approximately nine participants, there being nine machines in the room.

There would be one to two staff members or trainers present.

No additional parking is required as it is within the lighthouse specific plan area that does not necessitate additional parking in the case of a use, one use taking over another without expansion of the building, and it would be complementary to surrounding mixed land uses.

There's another gym also on the same property.

It has no Pilates components.

So this would be more of a accentuating the property.

Analysis and findings from city staff.

There are three findings that must be made.

The first is that the proposed use is in accordance with the objectives of the zoning ordinance and the purposes of the zone.

The zone, PCLH allows for a variety of permitted uses, including this one assembly minor, large instructional service, as long as it is with a approved conditional use permit.

The second finding that's required is that the proposed project would not be detrimental to public health safety or welfare of persons residing or working in or adjacent to neighborhood of the use and would not be detrimental to properties in the vicinity.

The proposed use would be in an enclosed building, there's existing parking on site, and it would provide recreational opportunities for residents and visitors.

The amount of amplified sound would be minor, that is only the uh instructor would be mic'd, or the music would be quiet enough so that the instructor could talk over it.

Um connected to that, there is a noise limit of 65 decibels, which would be additionally put on this project.

The hours would be limited from six to six, and the occupancy maximum would be limited by the building code and fire.

With that, staff's recommendation is to approve the use permit with those conditions, and that concludes staff's presentation.

In speaking with the applicant, he should be online via Zoom.

If you have any questions, I'm available, and he is on maybe online.

Thank you for that presentation.

I do have some questions.

On packet page nine, it shows an aerial photograph of the subject property, and it has three addresses on it.

379, 389, and 399.

Can you explain?

Does that mean there are three tenants or two?

There used to be two tenants on site.

The I did not do extensive research into the property, 389, and 379 as part of the uh gym.

Yeah, it seems as though there used to be two thirds of the building, uh, that those addresses were essentially combined at that time.

I don't know if there is one address or another that's been assigned to that project, um, but just based on the interior layout of the building, it seems as though there were there used to be three tenant spaces, and then two of them got combined into the existing gym that's there on site, and this would be taking over the former third one.

Now there's just two.

And the suite B, is that is there a suite A for 379 lighthouse?

There is not on the plans, there was an indicated group A and group B area, and they were just referring to like this is one portion of the building, this is the second portion of the building.

Calling it suite B is technically not the address, it's more in reference to the building as a whole.

Okay, thank you.

Um the other question I had was the agenda report mentions that there would be alarm systems inside and outside of the building.

However, exhibit A says that no security would be necessary.

Uh that may be a question better directed to the applicant.

My understanding is that it would not be additional security in comparison to what is on site.

Okay, thank you, is the applicant present and would they like to make a presentation?

I do see a Hayden online.

Um you should be able to speak if you would like to.

Hi, yeah.

Can you hear me?

Yes, I am online, but I don't apart from what Matthew has provided.

I don't think there's anything that I would like to add.

He did a pretty uh good job at being transparent with what our uh intention is for the space, unless you have any questions for me.

So you in exhibit A, it was stated that no security would be needed.

Would that still be the case?

Correct, no additional security will be needed for the space.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Alright.

Uh now let's move on to public comments regarding this item.

Mr.

Argonbright, can you remind the public on how to participate?

Yes, of course.

Uh once again, information on how to participate remotely by Zoom or telephone is found at Monterey.gov forward slash agendas.

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

Um there are currently no members of the public in the chambers and no one with their hands raised online.

With that, we will close the public comment portion of this item.

And I will make my deliberation.

It is a compatible use with the mixed-use commercial nature of the area.

And it would introduce a business that could be that could serve both visitors and residents.

It would add to the mix of businesses on Lighthouse Avenue, and the use would be required to comply with the conditions listed on the resolution.

I have additions and some changes to the conditions of approval.

I would like to add a standard condition that reads that any modification to the approved plans requires review and approval by planning division staff or the zoning administrator as necessary.

And then I would like to modify special condition of approval number two.

I would delete the second sentence of that uh that condition because the maximum decibel level depends on the zoning of the receiving property.

And so that may be different based on what property the surrounding properties.

So just deleting that second part.

And with those changes, I approve the use permit application.

This decision is appealable to the planning commission within ten days of today's date on forms available by in the planning office or online.

Congratulations.

And with that, that adjourns today's zoning administrator meeting at three fourteen PM.