Council Special Meeting

CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING CITY OF MONTEREY Friday, December 15, 2023 2:00 PM COUNCIL CHAMBER, 580 PACIFIC ST. MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA Councilmembers Present: Barber, Garcia*, Haffa, Smith Absent: Williamson * Attended remotely by teleconference pursuant to Gov. Code sec. 54953(f)(2)(A) due to emergency circumstances City Staff City Manager, Assistant City Manager, City Attorney, Community Present: Development Director, Police Chief, Finance Director, City Clerk, Senior Associate Planner, Planning Manager, Senior Engineer This meeting was held with a combination of in-person and teleconference attendance, pursuant to the Ralph M. Brown Act. CALL TO ORDER Vice Mayor Haffa called the meeting to order at 2:01 p.m. City Clerk Klein called the roll with the Council present as indicated above. EMERGENCY CIRCUMSTANCES REMOTE PARTICIPATION REQUEST Vice Mayor Haffa stated that Councilmember Garcia had requested to participate in the meeting remotely. On question from Vice Mayor Haffa, Councilmember Garcia confirmed that he could hear the meeting proceedings, and gave a brief description of the circumstances relating to his need to appear remotely pursuant to the Brown Act’s "Emergency Circumstances” clause, stating he was caring for an ill relative, who had then passed away. He stated that no one over the age of 18 was present in the room with him during the meeting. Public comment was not received. On a motion by Councilmember Smith, seconded by Councilmember Barber, and carried by the following roll-call vote, the Council approved Councilmember Garcia’s remote participation request: AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Haffa, Smith NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None) ABSENT: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Williamson ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: Garcia RECUSED: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None) PUBLIC HEARING 1. Consider Planning Commission Decisions on 2101 North Fremont Street Hotel to Approve (1) Use Permit UP-20-0227 to Demolish an Existing 18-Room Hotel, Restaurant and Parking Lot; and Construct a New 42-Room Hotel and Parking Lot, and Off-Street Loading Space; (2) 1st Reading by Title Only of an Ordinance to Amend Monterey City Code Chapter 38 Related to Visitor Accommodation Facility Parking Standards (38-36A), Offstreet Parking and Loading Standards (38-115) and Reduced Parking for Other Uses (38-117); (3) Adopt a Resolution Amending the North Fremont Specific Plan with Clarifying Applicability Language; (4) Certify City Council Minutes December 15, 2023 Environmental Impact Report prepared for project in accordance with CEQA Article 7, Section 15090; Visitor Accommodation Facility Zoning District, Commercial General Plan Land Use Designation; and any appeals of decisions of the Planning Commission thereto. Action: Adopted Resolution Nos. 23-150 C.S. (as amended to add a special condition of approval requiring a policy for peak hour parking conflicts and denying any and all appeals of decisions of the Planning Commission thereto), 23-151 C.S., and 23-152 C.S., and introduced by title only, waived full reading, and passed to print the draft Ordinance (4-0-1, Mayor Williamson absent) City Manager Uslar gave a verbal introduction, gave an example from another part of town that he said showed that dilapidated properties must be updated and that commercial areas must be invested in, and that the resulting revenues better served taxpayers. He provided background information on Visitor Accommodation Facilities (VAF) zoning and explained that the zoning for this purpose came about as the result of a late 1980s Charter amendment. He said that the City's General Plan specifically addressed the issue of hotels and encouraged adding additional hotel rooms within the limits of VAF zoning in order to increase Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT). He explained that the North Fremont Specific Plan was a tool that helped to implement the goals, policies, and objectives of the General Plan. He said that in his opinion the City needed this project in order to compete with hotel projects being completed in neighboring cities. He said that in the North Fremont Business District hotels were the single most dominant use: 17 hotels with 690 rooms. He said that most of the hotels had budget-to-medium designs and rates and were developed when Fremont Street was the main highway into Monterey. He said that staff's assessment was that this project was needed at a time when there was not a lot of investment into many of the other outdated hotels in the area. He said that this project would hopefully incentivize other developments in the district, and was the single most important project coming to the Council in the current year and perhaps for some time into the future. Planning Manager Hill then gave the staff presentation providing details on the staff's recommendations to certify the Environmental Impact Report (EIR), approve text amendments to the Zoning Code, approve an amendment to the North Fremont Specific Plan, and approve the Use Permit for the hotel and reduced loading space requirement. He answered Councilmembers' questions with input from City Manager Uslar, City Attorney Davi, and Community Development Director Cole. Councilmember Smith left the Chamber at 2:54 p.m. and returned at 2:55 p.m. The applicant was given ten (10) minutes to present on the project. On behalf of the project applicant, Tony Lombardo, of Anthony Lombardo & Associates, argued in favor of project approval. He complimented City staff for their work over the previous three years, and the prior two years in particular, to address what he called an unfortunate result of the ability to use the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as a weapon in opposition to properties being developed. He stated that the project site was about half (1/2) an acre in size. He said that under California law, urban sites up to five (5) acres would normally be allowed to proceed based on a categorical exemption, with no environmental analysis allowed due to the urban nature and zoning consistency of the project. He said that between the City and the applicant, over a quarter of a million dollars had been spent over the prior two years to prepare a very thorough and adequate EIR, which he said reached the same conclusions that the City had reached in 2020 when the project was applied for: that there were no significant, unmitigable environmental impacts resulting from the project, and that it should be approved as being consistent with the VAF zoning and the neighborhood policies and plans. He said that, as he had stated in the letter that he sent the day before, there had been a determined effort to mischaracterize the project by the project opponent, and to create controversy online including making incorrect statements about the project, City staff, and City staff's interpretation of the code. He said that these statements were not true and were in his opinion an attempt to create 2 City Council Minutes December 15, 2023 controversy and criticize City staff's actions unfairly. He said that the Planning Commission had approved the matter unanimously on two occasions, originally in 2021 and then again in the prior month of 2023. He said that pedestrian access was being improved because on North Fremont Street there were currently two driveways and this would be reduced to one. He said that as City staff had mentioned, because of existing utility infrastructure there was currently limited access on the sidewalk, which he said would be improved because the building would provide additional pedestrian access on the property side. He said that traffic impacts were analyzed thoroughly and that it had been determined that it would not significantly impact traffic, and that because there would be a second entrance onto Casa Verde, traffic exiting the facility would not have to enter North Fremont Street. He said that it would be possible to turn right from the hotel to get to Highway One without coming out onto North Fremont Street, which he indicated might improve traffic flow on North Fremont. He said it was not yet known whether it would be a left in or left out only, and that the City Traffic Engineer would make that determination, but that based on the analysis in the EIR he suspected it would not be necessary. Mr. Lombardo continued to address the Council on behalf of the project applicant. He said that the applicant had attempted to satisfy the next-door neighbor who opposed the project, and had agreed to build a sound wall in order to address the neighbor's request even though the EIR said it was not necessary. He said that the project applicant had agreed at two Planning Commission meetings to extend the sound wall in order to address the neighbor's request even though the EIR said it was not necessary. He said that he was an almost lifetime resident of the Monterey Peninsula and that he appreciated the applicant's willingness to take this step to build what he thought would be the first Avid Hotel in California or at least Northern California. He said that North Fremont could and should be improved and that approving the project would benefit the entire City and not detrimentally impact anyone. He said that this hotel project was basically the same size, very similar in height and scale, to the De Anza Inn with which he said the Council was familiar. He thanked Councilmember Garcia for attending remotely despite his personal situation. He thanked the Council for attending the hearing and said it had been a long road for the project, which he asserted should have been considered at least two, if not three, years prior. He referred to the amount of time that the project approval had taken and said it had resulted in construction and borrowing costs increasing. He said that the applicant was prepared to move forward with the project as quickly as possible, and requested that the Council support the Planning Commission's unanimous approval of the project. He closed by addressing allegations that he said had been made during the week before the hearing by the project opponent, alleging that the City's actions would violate State law. He said that the Charter could not be amended except by voters, and that the VAF zoning was a controlling instrument, and he said he wished to clarify that the amendments requested by staff were not amendments to the Charter, but rather clarification of the City Code, which he said was necessary because of threats of litigation. He said that these clarifications were to be instructive in terms of what the code was meant to mean. He gave an example that he said would exemplify this using the requirement for a fifty-room addition for two parking spaces: he said that if the code required additional spaces for fewer than fifty rooms, it would specify that a lower number of rooms required one parking space and fifty rooms required two parking spaces, which he said was not what the code meant and not how it had ever been interpreted. He said that the clarifications were to ensure that if the legal threats moved forward, there would be the best chance of explaining to the court how the Council had arrived at its decision and that it was the correct decision. He asked to save his remaining three minutes for any needed rebuttal. Vice Mayor Haffa called for public comments and, based on the number of individuals expressing an interest in speaking, allotted three (3) minutes to each speaker. 3 City Council Minutes December 15, 2023 Dianne Mahroom said that her family had come to Monterey in 1959 and that her parents had been Defense Language Institute (DLI) instructors who worked hard and became successful business and property owners while raising her and her sisters. She said that Mr. Lombardo's criticism of her family for their participation in the public process, expressing and pursuing good faith concerns and objections to the project, was astonishing, shameful, contrary to public policy, unsurprising, and unpersuasive. She said that he had been doing it for a long time and should know better. She stated that in Mr. Lombardo's second letter, dated December 14, 2023, he had contended that there was no evidence to support the opponent's interpretation of the City Code. She asserted that the fact that the City was considering an amendment was very good evidence that her family's interpretation was correct. She said that if their interpretation of the parking regulations was incorrect, as stated by Mr. Lombardo, then there should be no need for an amendment whether for clarity or otherwise. She noted that yet the proposed amendment remained, the result of which, as applied to the project, would reduce the parking regulations, which she said was in violation of the City Charter. She said that ultimately, the proposed amendment to reduce the parking regulations, in an area that she said was already suffering from insufficient parking and related bad traffic, must be put to a vote for the people of the City to decide. She said that in the same letter, Mr. Lombardo complained that the Mahrooms' lawyers had submitted a letter about 24 hours before the meeting, while acknowledging that the issues raised in the letter had restated an argument made two years prior. She said that indeed the letter served to highlight and remind the City of an important issue, not to raise a new issue at the last minute. Laila Mahroom said she was part of the partnership that owned the adjacent apartment building, and that the partnership was opposed to the project as it was currently planned. She said that they believed that the City had gone out of their way to allow noncompliance to the applicants and push the project through to the point that, instead of the applicant meeting the requirements, the requirements were being changed to meet the applicant's proposal. She stated that the City's proposed wording revisions to the requirements were viewed by the project opponents as changes, not clarifications. She alleged that the parking requirements were not being met, neither in the number of parking spaces required nor in size. She said that cars were constantly parking in their next-door property, in front of signs stating "no parking, tow away zone," even when there was not a special event taking place. She read the following quotation from the City Charter, Appendix A to Section 8.1: "there shall be no reduction in parking requirements for visitor accommodation facilities," and stated that the off-street parking requirements for the Avid Hotel project could not be reduced absent a voter-approved amendment to the Charter. Despite this, she said that there were changes to both the number and size of parking spaces for the project. She asserted that the correct City Code requirement was one space per guest room, plus two for every 50 rooms, which she said would result in 44 required spaces and not the 42 spaces provided. She said that this was confirmed by a previously submitted letter from Henry Ruhnke that included the City's project data sheet for the proposed Avid Hotel and a Public Works memo stating 44 stalls were required and 42 were proposed. She went on to state that the City had waived the story pole requirements despite there being viable alternatives to set the system up. She alleged that notice of this meeting was first posted by Monterey residents on the NextDoor social media website, and stated that it was clear from the many responses that many residents knew nothing about the proposed project. She said that there was also still an unsafe, narrow sidewalk, with electrical poles and power lines along the Casa Verde side of the proposed Avid Hotel, which she said was shown in email correspondence between the City Planner and project architect. She quoted: "Civil mentioned the corner would become a tripping hazard ... the only real way around that would be to underground utilities, which we obviously don't want to pay for." She said that City Planning staff responded, "I think you do not need to show unless asked. I have removed the sidewalk- related graphics from my draft powerpoint and only included the Google streetview photo that you sent to me." Concluding her remarks, she said that she was unaware of any actions taken 4 City Council Minutes December 15, 2023 to address this safety issue. Vice Mayor Haffa invited Ms. Mahroom to share information by email to the Council. Luis Osorio, former City Planning Commissioner, said that he had served on the Planning Commission's subcommittee when the North Fremont Specific Plan (NFSP) was adopted. He said that they had always been keenly aware of subtle differences between the goals of the NFSP and the requirements of the VAF zoning district. and that the hotel sites would not be subject to what the Planning Commission was trying to accomplish with the NFSP, but he said that the proposed project was in fact consistent with the goals of the NFSP, by modernizing and improving the area. From that perspective he said that there was no question of what the City Council's action should be. He noted that there could be a boundary between individual rights and rights of the community, and said that in this case the overarching benefit would be for the community. He stated that there was disagreement about two parking spaces and a loading space, and asserted that in the current environment where prioritizing parking was often discouraged, these points should not be an issue for the Council. He stated that CEQA had been abused by a lot of people and that the project illustrated a case of CEQA abuse that he stated had subjected applicants to unnecessary expenses and City staff to unnecessary time spent. He said that this project should be a "no brainer" for the City Council and suggested directing the Planning Commission and the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) to consider requiring a design for the project that would not appear so corporate. Duane Peterson, resident of the Villa Del Monte Neighborhood, said that it felt like the project was trying to pound a square peg into a round hole, and emphasized that he found that parking was currently an issue in the project area, and that people living three to four blocks away from him parked on his street. He noted that numerous locations in the City had underground parking and asked if it wasn't possible for this project. He asked where hotel staff and employees would park, and asked if there would be a shuttle system. He said it appeared there had been lots of "hoop jumping" with the project and asked who was in charge: the City or the developer. John McClellan, resident of the Villa Del Monte Neighborhood, agreed with Mr. Peterson that parking was an issue. He said that if so much time had been spent trying to work out issues, maybe it could have been worked out better from the start. He noted that the building would be further away from the neighbors than what existed there currently. He said that the lack of parking, and the height of the building, would be detrimental to the neighborhood. He said that he felt the parking could be worked out, and that he objected to the project as proposed. Mary Pendlay said she shopped in the area daily and agreed replacing the hotel with a hotel was a great idea but said that the size needed to be reduced. She stated that parking in the area was an issue due to the Fairground and events and stated that there was no parking along Fremont Street. She noted that Casa Verde was an exit for Highway 1 and said that it got backed up already and suggested that adding a left lane into the hotel would not help matters. She suggested rethinking the height and size of the hotel, suggesting instead three, two, or one story(s), and said that underground parking might work. She said that unauthorized parking was an issue at other hotel and pharmacy parking lots in Monterey and asked that the Council take parking into consideration when they reviewed the project. Kent Glenzer said that everyone had done a great job on the EIR. He said he would like to make a connection to the City's Regional Housing Needs Analysis (RHNA) numbers, and to the memorandum dated May 31, 2023 and revised June 7, 2023 ("Monterey 2031 – Preliminary Sites Inventory and Key Strategies"), from which he read from page four, North Fremont section, the phrase: "High density residential uses ... are conditionally permitted on commercial properties along the corridor," and the segment beginning with "In the recent citywide survey, community members expressed strong support for housing along North Fremont" and ending 5 City Council Minutes December 15, 2023 with "Sites are shown on Map 2." He said that the proposed project was also included in the memo's Map 2. He asked the City Council to consider the connection to the City's RHNA numbers as they made what he described as a potentially narrow decision about the EIR. Richard Ruccello said that when he moved to Monterey, what was then called Fremont Boulevard was the main highway entry into Monterey, with a vibrant commercial strip with many businesses serving local residents. He said that almost all of these businesses were now gone, and that the hotels that were old then prior to construction of the freeway were now very dilapidated. He asked the Council to look at the economic future of North Fremont Street. He detailed bankruptcies of three nationwide pharmacy chains and related store closures, and said that even with CVS Pharmacy still in place North Fremont businesses were already dying and failing. He said that inflation, the recession, and lost jobs were directly affecting the economic impact and that a shot of new construction was needed. He admitted that he found the modern design unattractive, but said that the design was what the younger market wanted. He said that he felt the only times that the hotel's parking needs could exceed the available spaces would be during the Car Week, AT&T Pro Am, and possibly California Roots festival events, and that in those instances an employee shuttle should be sufficient. He noted other stalled construction in the area, specifically the site of the former Eddie's (2200 North Fremont), and stated he was concerned about the Avid Hotel's ability to be constructed due to significantly increased construction costs. He said that the City really needed the TOT, and urged Council to read the Casa Verde Inn’s online reviews to see what the Avid Hotel would be replacing. Wendy Brickman, of the North Fremont Business District, said she was in the area all the time and was in favor of the Avid Hotel project, which she said was an exciting opportunity that should not be missed and would make a very positive impact on the district and the adjacent neighborhoods. She said that introducing a contemporary hotel would promise an increase in tourism and TOT for the City, which would then be partially invested into the neighborhood through the Neighborhood and Community Improvement Program, as well as increase employment opportunities and foot traffic in the area. She said that placing a modern Avid Hotel on a dilapidated vacant site would help to stimulate further investments in an area that had experienced a prolonged period of stagnation. She said that the hotel's modern design aimed to enhance the overall environment and suggested that the new hotel would probably be quieter than the sprawling Casa Verde Inn and Caruso's Restaurant. She stressed that it was important to her and to many others to lose the undeserved label of the North Fremont area being the less favorable part of town, especially when considering Monterey's reputation as a highly sought- after destination, because the North Fremont district was a great location adjacent to Fairground events and the freeway, and had enormous potential for residents and visitors. She said that neglecting investment and new structures on North Fremont such as the Avid Hotel project could trigger a decline in property values across the three neighborhoods for all property owners, and she said it was important to build it promptly as escalating construction costs posed a barrier to new development. As an example, she cited the planned 2200 North Fremont apartment building, which she noted had a modern design in harmony with the Avid Hotel design, and which she said had been unable to move forward since Covid began. She said business closures would be very detrimental. To address concerns about traffic she agreed that shuttle services for hotel employees during the three major events mentioned by Mr. Ruccello would ensure that traffic and congestion would be efficiently managed. She urged the City Council to approve the Avid Hotel project and allow it to move forward promptly. With no further individuals wishing to speak, Vice Mayor Haffa closed public comments. City Attorney Davi asked that any motion to approve the Use Permit include the statement "denying all and any appeals of decisions of the Planning Commission thereto." 6 City Council Minutes December 15, 2023 The City Council took up a discussion of the matter. Planning Manager Hill addressed questions from members of the Council: Regarding signage, Planning Manager Hill explained that signage for VAF-zoned properties was required to be approved by the Architectural Review Committee. Regarding hotel employee parking, Planning Manager Hill stated that the project's parking requirement was calculated at one parking space per hotel room, thereby 42 rooms required 42 parking spaces, and that the assumption behind that requirement seemed to be that every room would be associated with an individual car, which he stated was not always the case. He said the issue was something of which to be cognizant and suggested that the applicant's representative might have further information on the specifics of employee parking. Regarding underground parking, Planning Manager Hill said it had never been proposed as part of the project and that he did not know about the feasibility given the slope of the site, since it would be at such a higher grade along North Fremont than at the rear of the property. He noted that because the applicant had been able to satisfy the parking requirement with surface parking, the idea of underground parking probably hadn't been evaluated closely. Regarding a connection between the project and the City's RHNA numbers and the Housing Element process, Planning Manager Hill stated that he had confirmed that the project site had not been included as a potential housing site in the Housing Element. Regarding the sound wall, Planning Manager Hill stated that the sound wall was required to be built prior to construction and would still remain after construction, which the Council stated was a comforting fact. The City Council commented in favor of replacing the current structure which it was stated had been sitting empty for years. It was stated that this would be an exciting change because the building was becoming worse over time. Appreciation was shared for the members of the public who participated in the meeting and provided input and concerns. It was stated that having a new structure would be good, but it was also important to help jumpstart a revitalization process for the entire North Fremont corridor. It was stated that in multiple conversations with constituents of Council District 4, the residents tended to favor a change, which was long- coming for the North Fremont area. It was stated that the Avid Hotel could be that opportunity where a new structure coming into place would motivate other businesses and current businesses to participate in the area's revitalization. It was stated that this change would be important for residents, and that the Council had the opportunity to show their constituents that they were interested in changing the North Fremont area. It was shared that area businesses had expressed that they were experiencing hardships with the amount of business coming into the district. It was shared that residents in the area had the desire to walk to North Fremont to meet other neighbors, or just take a stroll through the neighborhood, and it was stated that at the moment North Fremont was not that place. It was stressed that the Avid Hotel project presented an opportunity for the long-term investment and beautification of the whole area. The Council asked a number of questions of the project applicant and noted that there was a bus stop in the front of the project site that could serve employees coming to and from the site. The Council invited the project applicant's attorney, Mr. Lombardo, to answer their questions. Regarding underground parking, Mr. Lombardo explained that due to the topography of the site, because it sloped so significantly, there wasn't really an opportunity for underground parking except by building a giant hole in the ground. He said that in addition, underground parking 7 City Council Minutes December 15, 2023 structures were extremely expensive to construct as they were essentially underground bunkers that could withstand the weight of structures on top. He said that even if it were physically possible at the site, which it was not due to the topography, it would not be economically possible for a project such as this, which he described as a small, limited-service hotel. Regarding the possibility of using the site for housing, Mr. Lombardo reiterated that this would not be permitted in this site due to its zoning, and said that his understanding was that no VAF- zoned site had been calculated into the City's RHNA numbers as available for housing. Regarding employee parking for the hotel, Mr. Lombardo stated that the applicant had designed a project that met the code requirement, but he noted that the applicant had demonstrated on numerous occasions over the years that they were absolutely willing to work with the City and had no objection to an additional condition requiring them to implement a parking shuttle program during the peak events listed by Mr. Ruccello during public comments. He stated that the average occupancy for Monterey hotels was in the 70th percentile and so usually there would be available extra spaces in the hotel lot even during a high average occupancy. He stated he didn't know the origin of the City's requirement for one space per room since hotels had always had employees, but speculated that it was probably because there were almost always vacancies leaving parking spaces available. Regarding whether the applicant would consider seeking a less corporate design, or seeking architectural approval from the ARC, Mr. Lombardo said that Avid Hotel was a national or international brand with an expected look, but said that the project would be moving forward to the ARC and the applicant would certainly try to determine what flexibility they had within the brand in terms of modifications to the design, acknowledging that McDonalds Corporation had apparently shown some flexibility with the design of their Monterey location, but he noted that the result would probably not look like the Casa Munras hotel. Mr. Lombardo closed by thanking the City Council for their consideration and thanking the City for the effort that had been put in for the prior three years getting the applicant to this point, and respectfully requesting that the Council approve the project. On question from the Council, City Manager Uslar confirmed that in the current environment the occupancy rate in Monterey hotels averaged about 70%. He reiterated that branding was an important element for many developments and that it could be difficult to attract economic partners without acknowledging their brand. He said that Mr. Ruccello had made a good argument about the project's design. Adam Lindgren, outside counsel with Meyers Nave, noted that there were now two proposed amendments to a motion adopting the resolution approving the use permit: the addition of the language previously given by the City Attorney, and also a condition that would require a high occupancy employee shuttle program that would be designed subject to approval by City staff. The Council thanked residents who provided input on the project, and stated that the project would have a significant impact on Council District 4 and on the neighborhood. It was acknowledged that change could be difficult. Regarding parking, it was stated by the Council that parking conflicts were not anticipated for this project. It was stated that parking needs for a small hotel with no on-premises activities would tend to vary during the 24 hours of operation and that typically hotel parking lots were fullest overnight. Support was expressed for a condition of the use permit requiring an employee parking plan, and shuttle, for high impact weekends. A remark was made stating that it was unclear how objectors to the project were interpreting a "crystal clear," "plain language" 8 City Council Minutes December 15, 2023 requirement for 42 parking spots as a requirement for 50 or more parking spots, and that an amendment for clarity should not be needed but if staff was advising it then the amendment was acceptable. It was stated that it was unclear whether parking at the De Anza Inn had ever caused problems and that the De Anza Inn and the proposed Avid Hotel were about the same size with roughly the same amount of parking and number of rooms. It was noted that there was existing curb parking at the site and that the City would have the ability to be flexible and make changes with matters such as red curbs, striping, and/or coordination with Monterey-Salinas Transit regarding bus stop locations if there turned out to be a parking or traffic issue. Regarding the look of the hotel, it was stated by the Council that it would be interesting to see the final design after going through the ARC's review and that there could be a few ways to soften it aesthetically while still retaining the branded look that the brand required. It was stated that the proposed design looked corporate and was fine but not exciting, but that including a condition of approval relating to the design was not necessary. It was expressed to the ARC that the Council would prefer to find a way to make the design more attractive if it was not a violation of the Avid Hotel corporate branding. Regarding the project's impact on the neighborhood, it was stated by the Council that the North Fremont corridor was in dire need of redevelopment and had been for a long time, and that residents felt encouraged that the Avid Hotel brand was picking Monterey and was willing to develop in the area. It was stated that the City had had many opportunities that had not come together on North Fremont Street, and that this one was important and would require compromises from all sides. It was stated that while nothing could ever be perfect, this project demonstrated the right balance of adjustments and compromises that would serve the greater good of the community and especially the neighborhood. It was stated that it would be good to see a property developed that had been sitting derelict for many years not generating any jobs or TOT. It was stated that the project site in its current state was blighted, and that there were other empty and blighted sites in the area, which felt unsafe to visitors and was bad for neighbors and for businesses. It was stated that the new hotel would benefit local businesses including the neighboring business that objected to the project. It was expressed that this project could present the possibility of finally seeing a "kick start" or infusion of rehabilitation and economic vitality in the area, and of execution on the hard work the Planning Commission had put into developing the NFSP. On a motion by Councilmember Smith, seconded by Councilmember Barber, and carried by the following roll-call vote, the City Council accepted the City staff's recommendation to: 1) Adopt Resolution No. 23-150 C.S. approving the Use Permit for the hotel use and reduced loading space requirements, as amended to add a special condition of approval requiring a policy for peak hour parking conflicts, and denying any and all appeals of decisions of the Planning Commission thereto; 2) Introduce by title only, waive full reading, and pass a first reading of an Ordinance to amend Monterey City Code Chapter 38 modifying the Visitor Accommodation Facility Parking Standards and Offstreet Parking and Loading Standards; 3) Adopt Resolution No. 23-151 C.S. to amend the North Fremont Specific Plan to provide clarifying applicability language; and 4) Adopt Resolution No. 23-152 C.S. to certify the Environmental Impact Report: AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Garcia, Haffa, Smith NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None) ABSENT: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Williamson ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None) RECUSED: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None) 9  City Council Minutes December 15, 2023 The Council once again thanked members of the public for their engagement and encouraged them to continue to participate in the public process as the project moved forward to the ARC for architectural review. CONSENT AGENDA Public comment on the Consent Agenda was not received. City Manager Uslar noted to the Council that he had just distributed at the dais, and emailed to Councilmember Garcia who was attending remotely, an updated salary schedule establishing the hourly rate for the proposed appointment of Andrew Miller as Interim Fire Chief effective December 31, 2023. City Attorney Davi suggested to pull Item 4 from the Consent Agenda. On a motion by Councilmember Barber, seconded by Councilmember Smith, and carried by the following roll-call vote, the City Council approved the Consent Agenda, except Items 3 and 4: AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Garcia, Haffa, Smith NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None) ABSENT: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Williamson ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None) RECUSED: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None) Award of Construction Contracts 2. Award a Construction Contract in the Amount of $970,600 to Global Diversified Voltage Services, Inc. for the Main Switchgear Upgrade Project in Camp Roberts (Categorically Excluded from NEPA 32 CFR, Part 651, Section II(e)(2) and II(g)(1) and CEQA Not a Project under (Pub. Resources Code, § 21080, subd. (a) and Pub. Resources Code, § 21080, subd. (b)(1)) ***IGSA*** Action: Adopted Resolution No. 23-153 C.S. Ordinances 3. 1st Reading by Title Only to Update Cannabis Business Ordinance (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Pulled from Consent; Introduced by title only, waived full reading, and passed to print the draft Ordinance (3-1-1, with Councilmember Smith voting no, and Mayor Williamson absent) This item was taken up after Item 4. Vice Mayor Haffa introduced the ordinance by reading its full title. It was noted by the Council that the ordinance modified and reduced some of the areas of the City that would be available for location of cannabis businesses, due to updated information regarding appropriate areas based on State law, redefined Youth Centers. Public comment on the matter was not received. On a motion by Councilmember Barber, seconded by Councilmember Garcia, and carried by the following vote, the City Council introduced by title only, waived full reading, and passed to print the draft Ordinance to update the Cannabis Business Ordinance: AYES: 3 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Garcia, Haffa NOES: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Smith ABSENT: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Williamson ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None) RECUSED: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None) 10  City Council Minutes December 15, 2023 Resolutions 4. Appoint Andrew Miller as Interim Fire Chief and Approve Employment Contract (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Pulled from Consent; Adopted Resolution Nos. 23-154 C.S. appointing Mr. Miller and 23-155 C.S. amending the Salary Schedule (4-0-1, Mayor Williamson absent) This item was heard first of the two items pulled from the Consent Agenda. City Attorney Davi said that a unanimous vote of the Council was required because of the addition at the dais of the resolution updating the Salary Schedule by establishing a new top step. She said that the Council could do this based upon findings that new facts and circumstances came to light that the City wasn't aware of until the meeting that would be detrimental if not addressed, necessitating bringing the new information to the Council for action at the meeting: that the top step for the Extra Help Retired Annuitant position did not have the hourly rate for the Fire Chief. She said that adding this to the Salary Schedule was required expeditiously because the position would start on December 18, 2023, with appointment as Interim Fire Chief effective on December 31, 2023. Public comment on the matter was not received. On a motion by Councilmember Smith, seconded by Councilmember Barber, and carried by the following vote, which was conducted by roll call, the City Council adopted Resolutions No. 23- 154 and 23-155 C.S.: AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Garcia, Haffa, Smith NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None) ABSENT: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Williamson ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None) RECUSED: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None) ***End of Consent Agenda*** ADJOURNMENT The Council adjourned at 4:04 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Approved, Clementine Bonner Klein Tyller Williamson City Clerk Mayor 11