OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

Monterey Zoning Administrator Meeting - September 3, 2026: Two Use Permits Approved

Boards and Commissions — Thursday, September 3, 2026
BodyMonterey, California
SessionBoards and Commissions
DateThursday, September 3, 2026
StatusFILED
Video Record
0:00 / 32:05

Transcript — Verbatim
2:22

Meeting to order.

2:23

My name is Levi Hill.

2:24

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

2:27

Also in attendance today is Senior Associate Planner Chris Schmidt, Senior Associate Planner Matthew Buggert, and recording Secretary Spencer Argentbright.

2:36

Mr.

2:37

Argonbright, will you please remind the public how they can participate in today's meeting?

2:41

Of course.

2:42

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 board slash agendas.

2:52

Remote commenters will be muted until it is their turn to speak, and a timer will be shown on the on the screen.

2:56

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

2:59

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

3:04

Thank you for participating in your city government.

3:07

Thank you.

3:15

Are there any members of the public online or in the chambers who wish to speak or comment on the consent agenda?

3:23

I see no one approaching the podium here in person, and there are no attendees online with their hands raised.

3:38

Have no edits to add.

5:01

And it's a substandard lot at approximately 4,500 square feet with an existing commercial office building.

5:08

Land uses within the immediate area include residential, office, and other commercial uses.

5:15

So as I mentioned, the site is commercial, a commercial office in the CO district to convert a commercial or to convert a structure to a single family dwelling.

5:27

It requires approval of a use permit.

5:29

The applicant does propose to keep that existing structure and its its general form with some uh minor improvements, uh windows, doors, reconstruction of the rear uh decks and stairs with a minor expansion of that area, and then um also a new garage at the rear to meet the uh covered parking requirement.

5:51

And they've submitted a architectural review permit that would address those exterior alterations uh that will be subject to review after if the use permit is approved.

6:04

Uh so moving on to the project description.

6:06

The proposal involves conversion of the approximately 1,178 square foot office building to single family.

6:15

Uh the floor plan would be changed from office to a three-bedroom, two-bath uh floor plan.

6:20

No additional floor area is proposed.

6:23

And as I'm noted, a garage is proposed at the rear.

6:26

It is a two-car garage, reconstruction of the rear landing and stairs, and then it, as I mentioned, other exterior alterations to the building.

6:35

Uh, and here we see uh the existing on the left and proposed site plans on the right.

6:42

Um, and as you can see, we've got a shared driveway that's existing today, shared with the neighboring property on the left.

6:51

Uh, and then the proposed garage would be accessible at the rear, and then you can see how that floor plan changes.

7:00

Uh, one thing worth noting with the parking.

7:03

So the as I noted, the the garage would be accessed from the existing shared driveway.

7:08

Um, and it would be accessible with depending upon the continued use of that shared use of that driveway.

7:15

Staff's recommending a condition that prior to a building permit be issued for this project that the owner uh show that there is a recorded easement that uh establishes or or or is already in place, established legal right for shared uh vehicular access.

7:34

Um so staff is recommending that to ensure that both sites will still have access to their parking areas.

7:43

Um, in addition to that condition, staff is recommending a condition to require a boundary survey as well as a historic resource evaluation.

7:51

The the site uh just based on its appearance, uh, appears that it could be greater than older than 50 years old, warranting uh a historic evaluation.

8:01

Um, and then also the plans uh based on any sort of survey that is prepared should be updated to ensure that the proposed garage meets the setback requirements.

8:12

Um, in addition to the easement as well, staff is recommending the standard conditions required by the city.

8:20

Uh so in order to approve the use permit, the zoning administrator has to make three findings, and I've provided a detailed uh in the staff report.

8:30

You'll find a detailed uh detailed description of of how staff was able to make those findings, but here we have a finding summary.

8:37

Um, the single family use is conditionally permitted in the CEO, which is why they've submitted this application.

8:43

Conversion uh would retain the existing structure, so it's a fairly minor uh change.

8:50

Uh it does it does uh involve construction of a new garage.

8:54

Uh the residential uses are compatible with the surrounding areas.

8:57

This this area did receive a multifamily overlay in the past, so we do will continue to see residential uses uh as we see more development along this Cass Street area.

9:08

Uh the commercial general plan designation does allow for residential development.

9:14

And uh the required residential parking would be provided at the rear.

9:18

And then there are, as I noted, a number of conditions to ensure compliance with the zoning ordinance and parking.

9:23

And of course, the architectural review permit, which has already been submitted, is required as as a condition as well.

9:31

So with that, staff's recommending approval.

9:33

I'm available for questions.

9:34

The applicant is here as well.

9:35

Thank you.

9:36

Thank that report, Mr.

9:38

Schmidt.

9:38

Um, I think I do have some questions for you.

9:43

If we get to the applicant, um, you mentioned the architectural review permit.

9:47

What's the status of that application?

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Zoning And Land Use█████████████████████████████████████████████66%
Cannabis Regulation██████████████20%
Procedural████6%
Public Engagement███5%
Affordable Housing██3%
Summary of Proceedings

Monterey Zoning Administrator Meeting – September 3, 2026

This meeting, held at 21:58 UTC on September 3, 2026, was chaired by Zoning Administrator Levi Hill with Senior Associate Planners Chris Schmidt and Matthew Buggert, and Recording Secretary Spencer Argentbright. Two use permit applications were considered: conversion of a commercial office to a single-family dwelling at a substandard lot, and a retail sales major use permit with outdoor sales for Farm Fresh Fruits at 899 Lighthouse Avenue. Both were approved with conditions.

Consent Calendar

  • No public comments were offered on the consent calendar. No edits were made.

Public Comments & Testimony

  • Item 3 (Conversion to Single-Family): No members of the public spoke in the chambers or online.
  • Item 4 (Farm Fresh Fruits):
    • Bob Paulis, a Monterey resident and restaurant developer, expressed support for the fruit stand, stating it would enhance Lighthouse Avenue as a walkable area and provided community benefits. He referenced a municipal code section that he believed allowed temporary ancillary sales like pumpkins. He encouraged approval.
    • Nelson Bega, an apartment and property owner in the area, expressed support for the business, noting it serves nearby tenants and improved the corner from its prior unsightly condition. He urged the committee to assist the applicant.

Discussion Items

Item 3: Use Permit UP 260103 – Conversion of Commercial Office to Single-Family Dwelling

  • Project Description: The site is a 4,500 sq ft substandard lot in the CO (Commercial Office) zoning district with an existing 1,178 sq ft commercial office building. The applicant proposed converting the building to a three-bedroom, two-bath single-family home with no additional floor area. A new two-car garage is proposed at the rear, accessed via an existing shared driveway. Exterior alterations include windows, doors, and reconstruction of rear decks and stairs. An architectural review permit was submitted but is incomplete.
  • Staff Report: Senior Associate Planner Chris Schmidt presented the proposal. Staff recommended approval with conditions including: (1) a recorded easement for shared vehicular access, (2) a boundary survey, (3) a historic resource evaluation (since the building may be over 50 years old), and (4) updated plans to ensure the garage meets setback requirements. The zoning administrator must make three findings: that the use is conditionally permitted in the CO district, is compatible with surrounding areas (which have a multifamily overlay), and complies with zoning conditions.
  • Applicant Comments: The applicant (unnamed in the transcript, but representing the property owner) agreed with the conditions and noted that a preliminary title report would be provided during escrow. They expressed confidence that a prescriptive easement exists for the shared driveway and would work with the neighbor to formalize access.
  • Zoning Administrator Questions: The zoning administrator asked about the status of the architectural review permit (incomplete) and the shared driveway easement. The applicant stated they are comfortable with the conditions.

Item 4: Use Permit UP 260064 – Retail Sales Major Use and Outdoor Sales at 899 Lighthouse Avenue

  • Project Description: The site is a one-story building with parking lot in the Planned Community – Lighthouse Specific Plan zoning with a cannabis business overlay. The proposed business, Farm Fresh Fruits, would operate from 8 AM to 7 PM with up to three employees. A 432 sq ft outdoor sales area is proposed under an awning near the structure. A forklift would be stored outdoors for lifting heavy pallets. The use requires a conditional use permit and an architectural review permit.
  • Background: The item was continued from the August 6, 2026 meeting due to unpermitted outdoor activities. Staff issued a letter requiring removal of outdoor storage and sales, but upon inspection the week before this meeting, produce, the forklift, and other materials were still present. As of the meeting date, outdoor produce sales and storage continued.
  • Staff Report: Senior Associate Planner Matthew Buggert presented. Staff recommended approval with conditions, including removal of two parking spaces that conflict with the sales area, that outdoor sales be primarily within 10 feet of the building, and that all outdoor merchandise be brought indoors when closed. Three findings are required: consistency with zoning objectives, no detriment to public health/safety/welfare, and compliance with conditions. Staff noted that the non-permitted activities had not been remedied.
  • Applicant Comments: Randy Marino, the applicant, stated that the pumpkins currently displayed outdoors were believed to be exempt from the use permit requirement. The zoning administrator clarified that all outdoor sales require the permit and that the conditions apply to all outdoor activities. Mr. Marino acknowledged the misunderstanding and agreed to abide by the conditions of approval.
  • Additional Conditions Read into Record: The zoning administrator imposed three special conditions:
    1. Outdoor sales area limited to 430 sq ft, not protruding more than 10 feet from the building toward Lighthouse Avenue, and not extending past the building wall plane along David Avenue.
    2. Installation of four permanent concrete protective bollards along the boundary between the sales area and the David Avenue vehicular entry, to be installed within 45 days of approval unless extended.
    3. Accessory equipment (e.g., forklift) shall be stored out of view from public right-of-way or adjacent properties when not in use.

Key Outcomes

  • Item 3 (UP 260103): Approved by Zoning Administrator Levi Hill with the conditions from the staff report. The decision is appealable to the Planning Commission within 10 days.
  • Item 4 (UP 260064): Approved with the three special conditions read into the record, in addition to the previously drafted conditions. The decision is appealable to the Planning Commission within 10 days.

Meeting Transcript

Meeting to order. My name is Levi Hill. I'll be serving as zoning administrator for today's meeting. Also in attendance today is Senior Associate Planner Chris Schmidt, Senior Associate Planner Matthew Buggert, and recording Secretary Spencer Argentbright. Mr. Argonbright, will you please remind the public how they can participate in today's meeting? Of course. 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 board slash agendas. Remote commenters will be muted until it is their turn to speak, and a timer will be shown on the on the screen. If you are 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. Thank you. Are there any members of the public online or in the chambers who wish to speak or comment on the consent agenda? I see no one approaching the podium here in person, and there are no attendees online with their hands raised. Have no edits to add. And it's a substandard lot at approximately 4,500 square feet with an existing commercial office building. Land uses within the immediate area include residential, office, and other commercial uses. So as I mentioned, the site is commercial, a commercial office in the CO district to convert a commercial or to convert a structure to a single family dwelling. It requires approval of a use permit. The applicant does propose to keep that existing structure and its its general form with some uh minor improvements, uh windows, doors, reconstruction of the rear uh decks and stairs with a minor expansion of that area, and then um also a new garage at the rear to meet the uh covered parking requirement. And they've submitted a architectural review permit that would address those exterior alterations uh that will be subject to review after if the use permit is approved. Uh so moving on to the project description. The proposal involves conversion of the approximately 1,178 square foot office building to single family. Uh the floor plan would be changed from office to a three-bedroom, two-bath uh floor plan. No additional floor area is proposed. And as I'm noted, a garage is proposed at the rear. It is a two-car garage, reconstruction of the rear landing and stairs, and then it, as I mentioned, other exterior alterations to the building. Uh, and here we see uh the existing on the left and proposed site plans on the right. Um, and as you can see, we've got a shared driveway that's existing today, shared with the neighboring property on the left. Uh, and then the proposed garage would be accessible at the rear, and then you can see how that floor plan changes. Uh, one thing worth noting with the parking. So the as I noted, the the garage would be accessed from the existing shared driveway. Um, and it would be accessible with depending upon the continued use of that shared use of that driveway. Staff's recommending a condition that prior to a building permit be issued for this project that the owner uh show that there is a recorded easement that uh establishes or or or is already in place, established legal right for shared uh vehicular access. Um so staff is recommending that to ensure that both sites will still have access to their parking areas. Um, in addition to that condition, staff is recommending a condition to require a boundary survey as well as a historic resource evaluation. The the site uh just based on its appearance, uh, appears that it could be greater than older than 50 years old, warranting uh a historic evaluation. Um, and then also the plans uh based on any sort of survey that is prepared should be updated to ensure that the proposed garage meets the setback requirements. Um, in addition to the easement as well, staff is recommending the standard conditions required by the city. Uh so in order to approve the use permit, the zoning administrator has to make three findings, and I've provided a detailed uh in the staff report. You'll find a detailed uh detailed description of of how staff was able to make those findings, but here we have a finding summary. Um, the single family use is conditionally permitted in the CEO, which is why they've submitted this application. Conversion uh would retain the existing structure, so it's a fairly minor uh change. Uh it does it does uh involve construction of a new garage. Uh the residential uses are compatible with the surrounding areas. This this area did receive a multifamily overlay in the past, so we do will continue to see residential uses uh as we see more development along this Cass Street area. Uh the commercial general plan designation does allow for residential development. And uh the required residential parking would be provided at the rear. And then there are, as I noted, a number of conditions to ensure compliance with the zoning ordinance and parking.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com