Council Regular Meeting

MINUTES CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING CITY OF MONTEREY Tuesday, July 17, 2018 4:00 p.m. - 5:30 p.m. 7:00 p.m. - 11:00 p.m. FEW MEMORIAL HALL OF RECORDS, 580 PACIFIC STREET MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA Councilmembers Present: Councilmembers Albert, Barrett, Haffa, Smith, Roberson Absent: None City Staff Interim City Manager, City Attorney, Interim Assistant City Manager, Human Present: Resources Director, Assistant Police Chief, Community Development Director, Public Works Director, Acting City Clerk, Associate Planner, Conference Center General Manager, Principal Engineer, General Services Senior Administrative Analyst CALL TO ORDER Mayor Roberson called the meeting to order at 4:04 p.m. PUBLIC COMMENTS Mayor Roberson opened the floor for public comments on matters not on the agenda. Hebard Olsen, resident of 720 Woodcrest Lane, said that he is concerned about fire and believes that neighbors should be required to have non-flammable or fire-proof fences that would be checked every three years by the City. With no further requests to speak, Mayor Roberson closed public comments. CONSENT ITEMS On a motion by Councilmember Barrett, seconded by Councilmember Smith, and carried by the following vote, the City Council approved the Consent Agenda, except Item 5: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Albert, Barrett, Haffa, Smith, Roberson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None Approval of Minutes 1. June 19, 2018 (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) (City Clerk - 701-09) Action: Approved 2. June 27, 2018 (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) (City Clerk - 701-09) Action: Approved  City Council Minutes Tuesday, July 17, 2018 Resolutions 3. Authorize Agreement with Monterey County Convention & Visitors Bureau for FY 2018-2019 Destination Marketing and Group Sale Services, Convention Housing and Delegate Services, and Operation of Visitor Information Center (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) (Community Services - 902-01) Action: Adopted Resolution No. 18-112 C.S. 4. Authorize the City Manager to Execute Agreements with the California Department of Transportation to Accept Grant Funds for the Purpose of Developing the City of Monterey Transportation Adaptation Plan and to Appropriate the Funds (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) (Plans & Public Works - 701-13) Action: Adopted Resolution No. 18-113 C.S. 5. Authorize the City Manager to Enter Into a Memorandum of Understanding Between the City of Monterey and the Monterey Peninsula Unified School District Regarding the School Resource Officer Program (Not a project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) (Police - 704-05) Action: Pulled from Consent; Discussed; Adopted Resolution No. 18-114 C.S. The City Council discussed the value of the School Resource Officer (SRO) Program and complications regarding the political climate and the Monterey Peninsula Unified School District budget. On question, Assistant Police Chief Clark stated that the SRO would remain on campus unless the Police Department’s minimum staffing level were reached, in which case the officer could be needed on patrol elsewhere. Interim City Manager Uslar said that further funding options would come back to Council, and described funding methods for SROs in nearby cities. Mayor Roberson opened the floor for public comments, and receiving none, closed public comments. On a motion by Councilmember Roberson, seconded by Councilmember Albert, and carried by the following vote, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 18-114 C.S. to Authorize the City Manager to Enter Into a Memorandum of Understanding Between the City of Monterey and the Monterey Peninsula Unified School District Regarding the School Resource Officer Program (Not a project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061): AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Albert, Barrett, Haffa, Smith, Roberson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None 6. Accept and Authorize the Appropriation of Funds in the Presidio of Monterey Public Works Fund for an Army Roof Replacement Project under the Presidio Municipal Services Agency Intergovernmental Support Agreement ***PMSA*** (NEPA Not a Project, CEQA Not a Project under (Pub. Resources Code, § 21080, subd. (a) and Pub. Resources Code, § 21080, subd. (b)(1))) (Plans & Public Works - 701-13) Action: Adopted Resolution No. 18-115 C.S. ***End of Consent Agenda*** 2  City Council Minutes Tuesday, July 17, 2018 PUBLIC APPEARANCE 7. Amend Resolution 17-098 Authorizing Changes to Fiscal Year 2018-19 Budget Appropriations and Changing the Position Control List (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) (Finance - 406-02) Action: Continued to August 7, 2018 On a motion by Councilmember Haffa, seconded by Councilmember Albert, and carried by the following vote, the City Council continued to August 7, 2018 the item entitled “Amend Resolution 17-098 Authorizing Changes to Fiscal Year 2018-19 Budget Appropriations and Changing the Position Control List”: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Albert, Barrett, Haffa, Smith, Roberson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None 8. Receive a Report Regarding Benefits and Risks of Adoption of a Moratorium for Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) (City Attorney - 703-05) Action: Received report; Discussed; Directed staff to:  Expedite an amendment of the current telecommunications Ordinance with the advice of a subcommittee consisting of two members of the Planning Commission, two members of the community, and one staff member;  Come back to Council at the August 7, 2018 meeting with a plan for the ordinance to be approved in November or December, and a timeline for ordinance process; and  When feasible, pursue incremental modifications to the Ordinance as outlined by Councilmember Smith. City Attorney Davi gave the staff presentation. She said that the current ordinance is very traditional, and technology and rules have changed quickly. She acknowledged the desire for City Council to have as much discretion and local control as is legally permissible, and explained the reasons why local control is a challenge under the framework of federal and state regulations. She answered Councilmembers’ questions. Community Development Director Cole said that short-term recommendations will go to the Planning Commission, and the longer-term solution will be a very public process. Mayor Roberson opened public comments. Dr. Bettye Saxon, AT&T External Affairs, read aloud a statement asserting that the City should not adopt a moratorium and that failing to timely process applications would put the City at risk. She said that the City should embrace small cell wireless facilities. Susan Nine, Monterey Vista resident, said that residents are concerned about how long the process is taking and that the courts have upheld the rights of municipalities to enforce their reasonable ordinances. She cited a lack of transparency and urgency in pursuing formation of a subcommittee. Pat Venza, Monterey Vista neighborhood, agreed that a moratorium would not help. She made suggestions changes to regulations and the General Plan, and said that the neighborhood is very happy with the City’s Best, Best & Krieger attorney and his suggestions. 3  City Council Minutes Tuesday, July 17, 2018 Nina Beety stated that City staff did not follow its own rules in handling the 13 Extenet small cell applications. She made suggestions for changes to the ordinance and said that the public needs to be involved in this important process. Hebard Olsen said that he is concerned that there will be small cell facilities all over the place, and suggested that poles be shared amongst companies. He said he is upset about PG&E hanging rolls of wire overhead. Jeff Galfin, resident on El Caminito Del Norte, said that Monterey needs a permanent ordinance saying small cell facilities can’t be placed in a residential area. He said cell phone technology was designed to spy on the public. With no further requests to speak, Mayor Roberson closed public comments. Councilmember Haffa introduced a motion to direct staff to expedite an amendment of the current telecommunications ordinance with the advice of a subcommittee consisting of two members of the Planning Commission, two members of the community, and one staff member. Councilmember Albert amended the motion to specifically direct staff to come back at the August 7, 2018 meeting with a plan for the ordinance to be approved in November or December, and a timeline for the ordinance process, and he seconded the amended motion. Councilmember Smith commented that he sees the process as multiphase: the first phase would have staff quickly make the changes that they are already aware will tighten up the ordinance; the second phase would incorporate any needed changes as a result of the upcoming August 2, 2018 court decision; and the third phase would involve the subcommittee studying and recommending comprehensive additional areas for improvement to the ordinance. Councilmember Haffa clarified that his motion includes directing staff to complete all of the steps outlined in Councilmember Smith’s suggestions when the City is ready and able to do them. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Albert, Barrett, Haffa, Smith, Roberson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None 9. 2nd Reading - Authorizing Amendment to the Contract between the City of Monterey and the Board of Administration of the California Public Employees' Retirement System (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) (Human Resources - 504-06) Action: Adopted Ordinance No. 3580 C.S. Human Resources Director Hauck gave a brief staff presentation. Mayor Roberson opened public comments and receiving none, closed public comments. On a motion by Councilmember Haffa, seconded by Councilmember Smith, and carried by the following vote, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 3580 C.S. to Authorize the Amendment to the Contract between the City of Monterey and the Board of Administration of the California Public Employees' Retirement System: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Albert, Barrett, Haffa, Smith, Roberson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None 4  City Council Minutes Tuesday, July 17, 2018 The City Council adjourned at 5:35 p.m. and reconvened at 7:04 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Roberson led the Pledge. CONTINUED PUBLIC COMMENTS Mayor Roberson opened public comments on matters not on the agenda. Jackie; Lisa; Ron Kabat; Marilyn, Monterey County resident; and an unidentified woman spoke against sanctuary city policies and State Senate Bill 54, citing safety concerns relating to violent crime and asking the City to take a position against the bill. Marcella echoed concerns about State Senate Bill 54, and she and an unidentified man spoke against vaccines and State Senate Bill 277. Tom Rowley said that Fisherman’s Flats Neighborhood Association would host a candidate forum on Monday September 17. He asked the City to help get the scenic highway poppy sign back on the Monterey-Salinas Highway. Lois Hansen spoke in favor of undergrounding utilities, citing the scenic character of the peninsula, the neighborhood charm referred to in the General Plan, and concern about overhead wires. Ray Meyers, Monterey resident, spoke in favor of undergrounding utilities, saying it is time to listen to science, and citing climate change and the accompanying increase in wildfires. Nina Beety said that wireless technology is dangerous and asked City Council where they draw the line regarding the government’s ability to impose health risks on residents. Angie Morfin spoke in opposition to State Senate Bill 54 and said that her young son Ruben was killed by a gang member who was in Salinas illegally. Tyller Williamson said that this country was founded on immigrants and Monterey previously belonged to Mexico and Spain. He spoke in favor of diversity and supporting the people of this region. Rick Johnson, Old Monterey Business Association, thanked the City for its support of the successful July 4th parade. Tyler Burrola, aide to Congressman Jimmy Panetta, said that constituents who need it can seek help from the Congressman’s office by calling 831-424-2229 or 202-225-2861. With no further requests to speak, Mayor Roberson closed public comments. Councilmember Barrett made a statement about community and said that he is happy to serve city residents by focusing on local issues. Council adjourned to a Joint Meeting with the Monterey Ballot Measure Advisory Committee. JOINT MEETING - MONTEREY CITY COUNCIL AND MONTEREY BALLOT MEASURE ADVISORY COMMITTEE 10. Receive a Report from the Ballot Measure Advisory Committee (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) (Finance - 407-01) Action: Received report Mayor Roberson introduced the Ballot Measure Advisory Committee. Chair Chorbajian presented the Committee’s recommendations, and answered Council’s questions. She said the slogan for the potential ballot measure this time is “Getting the Job Done.” She said the Committee looked at various funding sources to address transportation concerns. She said the eight year sunset was recommended because the Monterey Peninsula Taxpayers Association indicated they would not support a measure with a longer timeframe. She said that a one cent sales tax for eight to 10 years would not be sufficient to supply to fund utility undergrounding. 5  City Council Minutes Tuesday, July 17, 2018 Committee member Hans Jannasch said that the Monterey Vista Neighborhood Association (MVNA) did their own survey and 78% of respondents supported both undergrounding as well as being part of the solution to pay for it. Committee member Jean Rasch said that based on the MVNA survey, she believed that the community will not support a ballot measure that doesn’t include undergrounding, citing unwanted cell applications and fire risk. She asked the City Council to support a ballot measure that would include undergrounding and fiber-optic cable. Committee member Ken Gordon said that 32% of the road work has been completed with Measure P, but those were the easiest on the list. He said that traffic congestion should be addressed soon, citing the life and safety issue posed when first responders have to wait in stop-and-go traffic. Committee member Rick Aldinger said he supports the Committee recommendation as presented. Committee Vice Chair Richard Ruccello said that the Committee chose the exact same language for the ballot measure now that they did in 2014. He said that Public Works Director Wittry was confident that eight years would be sufficient to complete the street work. He said that there is no “Plan B.” Committtee member Mike Brassfield complimented the work of the Measure P Oversight Committee and stressed the importance of finishing the job, and echoed the lack of a “Plan B.” Committee member Joe DeRuosi complimented the Committee’s Chair and Vice Chair for running the meetings in a respectful way. Committee member David Jones said that the one cent tax is not enough to fund undergrounding. He echoed the lack of a “Plan B.” Mayor Roberson called a recess at 8:33 p.m. The Council reconvened at 8:53 p.m. and Mayor Roberson adjourned the meeting back to the City Council. PUBLIC APPEARANCE 11. Adopt a Resolution Calling an Election to Ask the Voters of the City of Monterey to Approve the Continuation of the Existing Special Transactions and Use Tax of One Cent per Dollar for Eight More Years, with the Use of the Tax Revenue to be Used Exclusively for Street Infrastructure Rehabilitation; and Requesting that the Board of Supervisors of the County of Monterey Consolidate the Election with the Established Election to be Held on Tuesday, November 6, 2018, and Direct the County Elections Department to Conduct the Election on the City's Behalf (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) (Finance - 407-01) Action: Received presentation; Discussed; Adopted Ordinance No. 3581 C.S. subject to two-thirds voter approval on November 6, 2018; Adopted Resolution No. 18-116 C.S.; Directed staff to come back to Council with information on bonding Measure X to alleviate traffic congestion, and develop a plan for undergrounding utilities when streets are restructured, using PG&E undergrounding funds. Interim Finance Director Bouchard presented the staff report. Mayor Roberson opened public comments. Pat Venza, Monterey Vista Neighborhood Association, citing fire risk, said that not undergrounding utilities would be a missed opportunity. Tom Rowley, Monterey Peninsula Taxpayers Association, urged the Council to “Finish the Job” and focus on approving a ballot measure that the community can get behind, which he said meant an eight year sunset. 6 City Council Minutes Tuesday, July 17, 2018 April Harrison, NIP Representative for Old Town, said that the City Council should make sure that residents understand exactly what they will get from the ballot measure. She asked for street improvements to the Madison canyon area, citing safety issues. Suzanne Grimes, Old Town resident, said that the whole city needs its utilities undergrounded, saying it’s a safety issue that will get only worse. Chris Chidlaw, Monterey County Hospitality Association (MCHA), read aloud from a letter asking the City to address traffic and congestion problems by bonding Measure X funding. He said that if details and a timeline are not presented to City Council by September 4, MCHA would oppose the ballot measure. Gary Cursio, MCHA, said that traffic congestion is the number one concern and needs to be addressed as part of the overall plan of Measure P. Lois Hansen, Monterey resident, said that a “dig once” approach would suggest undergrounding utilities during the restructuring of roadways and that a measure with this language would pass. Jeanie Ferrara, Monterey Vista neighborhood homeowner, urged the Council to include utility undergrounding in Measure P. Daniel Dotterrer spoke in support for Measure P in the event that it includes utility undergrounding to disincentivize cell towers and reduce fire risk. Rick Johnson, Old Monterey Business Association and New Monterey Business Association, urged City Council to include traffic mitigation in the ballot measure, citing intolerable congestion at certain times. Bruce Zanetta, Monterey Vista Neighborhood Association, asked the City Council to follow the prudent economic policy of “dig once” and follow the General Plan. DeAnn Brady, Cannery Row Business Association (CRBA), said that business owners and employees find the traffic unacceptable. She said that CRBA unanimously chose to uphold Mr. Chidlaw’s request and said if the City doesn’t follow it CRBA will not support the measure. Ken Rauh, Taste of Monterey, said that traffic has become so bad that locals don’t come wine tasting anymore due to the traffic, which impacts businesses and the labor pool, and will eventually affect property values. John Eales, business owner on Cannery Row and Wharf II, said that it can take an hour to get from Cannery Row to the tunnel and he has lost good employees over the traffic issue. He said that the Cannery Row district contributes more than any other district to the City’s finances, and it is time to prioritize fixing the traffic congestion. Christina Riddoch, business owner on Cannery Row and Lighthouse Avenue, said that the traffic situation has become a true crisis and it is important to look at Measure X funding options. Nancy Soule, Old Town Neighborhood Association, said that it would be reasonable to put the undergrounding of utilities into a major City plan, even if full implementation is delayed. Jody Hansen, Monterey Peninsula Chamber of Commerce, said that the Chamber has not taken a position on the ballot measure yet. She said that deferring maintenance of roads does not work and that traffic is a huge impact on residents, students, and visitors. She proposed bonding Measure X for 15 years to expedite traffic signaling improvements. Ray Meyers, Monte Vista, said that not pursuing undergrounding when roads are being dug up will be a waste of resources. Carol Chorbajian, Ballot Measure Advisory Committee, said that she appreciates the intention of the undergrounding of utilities, but repairing the road and trenching for conduit are two different digs. She said that this would be a good opportunity for another committee to focus on undergrounding, look at the costs, and propose a measure to get on the June ballot. Vince Daniels, The Clement, said that traffic congestion has gotten much worse and funding through Measure X should be utilized. 7 City Council Minutes Tuesday, July 17, 2018 Mike Bekker, Cannery Row Company, citing safety concerns, said that the work of Measure P must continue and asked City Council to take charge of it. John Narigi, Monterey Plaza Hotel & Spa, read aloud a letter that he presented to Council, stating his support for increasing the tax percentage to 1.25% for five years to ensure implementation of the traffic and congestion relief plan, then reducing to 1% for the balance of the eight year term. Noreen Shook said it’s better to spend money to save in the long run, and said she supports undergrounding utilities as part of Measure P. With no further requests to speak, Mayor Roberson closed public comments. On question, Public Works Director Wittry said that it would take about seven years just to fix the pavement. He said that because pavement is related to the cost of oil, factoring in inflation brought the measure sunset up to eight years. He said that if infrastructure improvements for safety at the intersections were included, that would add another two years to the measure. He said that congestion relief will not make free-flowing traffic on Lighthouse Avenue. He detailed the use of the Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) Rule 20 process to fund undergrounding work, and said that undergrounding utilities is not as simple as one would think. He said that a study would be needed before that type of work should be done, because you could put a network of conduit in the ground now but if it isn’t big enough for the needs of the future it could defeat the purpose, and some streets are easier to put a conduit into than others. Mayor Roberson observed that the 9/11 closure of DLI created the largest single impact on the traffic, and any attempt at reducing traffic has to include getting people out of their vehicles. He said he is an advocate for undergrounding utilities and said it makes sense to use an undergrounding fund to trench while Measure P is restructuring streets. On question, Principal Engineer Krebs said that undergrounding would cost between $15,000 to $20,000 per household. Interim City Manager Uslar said that undergrounding questions are difficult to answer tonight but it is clear that it’s something the City needs to tackle. He said that staff will go into fact-finding mode, and observed that funding mechanisms are in question. He said it makes sense to look at Measure P, Measure X, and bring the topic of undergrounding back to Council to give more insights. On question, he shared some details of the Measure X bonding process and timeline, and suggested not bonding for the full 30 years, in order to give more flexibility to future City Councils. He said that staff can report back in September the recommendation and results from research with respect to Measure X. On a motion by Mayor Roberson, seconded by Councilmember Haffa, and carried by the following vote, the City Council approved the continuation of Measure P as recommended, adopting Ordinance No. 3581 C.S. subject to two-thirds voter approval on November 6, 2018, and Resolution No. 18-116 C.S.; directed staff to come back to Council with information on bonding Measure X to alleviate traffic congestion; and directed staff to develop a plan for undergrounding utilities when streets are restructured, using PG&E undergrounding funds: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Albert, Barrett, Haffa, Smith, Roberson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None Mayor Roberson called a recess at 10:52 p.m. The Council reconvened at 11:03 p.m. 8  City Council Minutes Tuesday, July 17, 2018 12. Disband the Temporary Ballot Measure Advisory Committee (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) (Finance - 407-01) Action: Adopted Resolution No. 18-117 C.S. Mayor Roberson opened the floor for public comments and receiving none, closed public comments. On a motion by Councilmember Haffa, seconded by Councilmember Barrett, and carried by the following vote, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 18-117 C.S. to Disband the Temporary Ballot Measure Advisory Committee: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Albert, Barrett, Haffa, Smith, Roberson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None PUBLIC HEARING 13. Deny 878 Oak Street; Application AP-18-0210 Appealing Planning Commission Decision to Deny AP-18-0160 and AP-18-0161 Appealing Architectural Review Committee Decision to Approve Architectural Review Permit ARP-18-0083 for a Second Story Addition and Home Remodel; Appellant J.R. Williams; Owner/Applicant Jeff Tindall; R-1-5 Zoning district; Exempt from CEQA per Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1 (Plans & Public Works - 203-02) Action: Received report; Heard testimony from Appellant and Applicant and their representatives; Received public comment; Discussed; Adopted Resolution No. 18-118 C.S. to Deny the Appeal Associate Planner Schmidt gave the staff presentation with slides and answered City Council’s questions. Christine Kemp, attorney for appellant J. R. Williams, gave a presentation and said that the proposed project affects Mr. Williams’ view and would set a precedent. She said Mr. Williams has lived in the home for 21 years and this is the first second story that has gone up. She said that the neighborhood may gentrify and change greatly in years to come. She said that the tree that currently provides a privacy screen may die. She proposed a modification to the roof design that she said would reduce the impact to the appellant’s view. She said that this should be a standard so that when each homeowner wants to build a second story it will be as protective to views as possible. She said that it would be preferable if the large window could be made smaller to reduce the overall impact, and some kind of tinting or obscuring feature to protect the appellant from the glare and privacy issues. The Council received a letter dated July 16, 2018 from Ms. Kemp after the publication of the agenda, as well as an updated sketch for Exhibit C of her letter, which she emailed on July 17, 2018. Councilmember Albert asked if the appellant had asked the applicant if he would consider a change in the design. Ms. Kemp said she didn’t believe so, and said that the redesign was done the previous week. Appellant J.R. Williams said that he verbally offered the suggestion to the Planning Commission. On question, Kemp said that the two layouts would have the same floor space, just different roof layouts as it is just a matter of switching the orientation of the ridge of the roof. Applicant Jeff Tindall gave a presentation with slides and said that residents of Monterey have a right to a second story. He said it is difficult, if not impossible, not to impact others’ views. He said that the project had taken about two years and every attempt had been made to follow City 9 City Council Minutes Tuesday, July 17, 2018 guidelines. He said that the silver lining is that the Oak Street neighborhood has unified over the issue. He said that the New Monterey Neighborhood Association supports the project as presented, and said that one of his neighbors had been present for this meeting but had gone home due to the lateness of the hour. He said he circulated a petition in the neighborhood and referenced his presentation that indicated support of the project from various homeowners. He said that the “abstain” came from a new neighbor who didn’t want to take a position on the issue. He said that the project was unanimously approved by the Architectural Review Committee and Planning Commission and neighbors spoke in support of his project at the Planning Commission meeting. He played a video that showed comments of the Architectural Review Committee and Planning Commission when they approved the project and denied the appeals. He said that all of the decisions have been made based on the project as proposed, which meets all City guidelines. City Attorney Davi noted that although the appellant is proposing design changes, the question before the City Council relates to the application as presented and Council cannot require the design changes to be considered. Applicant Jeff Tindall said that City guidelines have setback corridors for second stories, and his proposed second story is set back further than the City requires. He said that Mr. Williams’ view is quite panoramic, and will naturally diminish somewhat just from future tree growth. J. Michael Wadsworth, Architect for applicant Jeff Tindall, said that Mr. Tindall had an interest in making less of an impact on the street, and having a one-story façade on the street, with the second story beginning with a setback. He said changing the roof in the way that the appellant suggested would not be easy. He described the barrel vault theme which he said would not work with the roof ridgeline in the other direction. He said that the appellant’s roof revision proposal, as sketched, would result in a roof high exceeding 25 feet, which is not allowed. He said that the roof deck would still create almost the same amount of view obscured as the roof slope. He said that the front window as proposed is not huge but because effort has been made to have the façade of the home remain small, the window may look larger in comparison. He said that being required to do something to the surface of a normal sized window doesn’t make sense, and that the window in question doesn’t offer any more potential for glare than any other window on the street. On question from Mayor Roberson, Mr. Wadsworth said that due to the hillside it’s a “shoehorn” to try to get the design in place and still under the 25 feet height limit. He said that the design is all within the City’s design guidelines. The Council received a letter from Mr. Wadsworth and a printed set of four 3D elevations of the proposed project. Applicant Jeff Tindall said that he didn’t like the design proposed by the appellant, and he had support from neighbors, so he asked the City Council to make their decision based on the design as presented. Mayor Roberson opened the floor for public comment. Patty Grimmy, Oak Street resident for forty years, said she lives across the street and kitty corner from applicant Jeff Tindall. She said that the neighborhood is very close and friendly and always supportive of neighbors making improvements to their homes and yards. She said that the neighborhood is excited and supportive of Mr. Tindall and his project. Bill Schmidt, 865 Oak Street, said that two houses down from him they added a second story about seven years ago, and next door to him they added a second story deck. He said that Mr. Tindall has been a “sweetheart” and mitigated any issues possible with his design. With no further requests to speak, Mayor Roberson closed public comments. Christine Kemp, representing appellant J.R. Williams, said that the size of the window in question is closer to 9’x7’ and will impact the appellant. She said that applicant Mr. Tindall himself offered at the Planning Commission to put in stained, beveled, or blue glass. She asked City Council to require a redesign to change the roof slope to protect as much view corridor as possible because 10 City Council Minutes Tuesday, July 17, 2018 the cumulative effect will be overwhelming for existing people in the neighborhood if view corridors aren’t maintained as much as possible. She asked the City Council to grant the appeal, but at a minimum condition she said that something needs to be done to the front window. Applicant Jeff Tindall said that the window in question has a radius of 4’10” so it is 37 sq. feet. He said that he does stained glass himself and the discussion about glass at the Planning Commission was about how to protect his own privacy. He said that he said at that meeting that he’s not worried about the privacy of appellant J.R. Williams because they are 200 feet away from each other and there is a tree in the way of the window. He said that Mr. Williams’ home presents 70 sq. feet of glowing light at night and the size of the window is less than that of a French door. Councilmember Albert mentioned Monterey City Code section 38-191, Required Findings for Approval, which reads “the proposed project will not unreasonably impair the views” of nearby homes. Associate Planner Schmidt said that only a very small portion of the view is being impacted, whereas “unreasonable” would be a significant portion of a view. Community Development Director Cole said that the City has never adopted a percentage retention of view, it’s complex, so “unreasonable” gives the opportunity for discretion. City Attorney Davi added that “reasonableness” and “unreasonableness” standards are objective, and gave an example about negligence. She said that “unreasonable” is an objective standard that Council can apply. Councilmember Smith said that in the site visit and the public hearing he didn’t find any evidence that the Architectural Review Committee or Planning Commission had unreasonably overlooked anything in their reviews of the project and appeal. He said that the project seemed appropriate and he didn’t find the view impairment unreasonable when he stood in the living room and looked out appellant J. R. Williams’ window. He said that he found the project as proposed to be not inconsistent with any plan, but is appropriate to the site and the area, and he cited the fact that the neighbors are in favor. Councilmember Smith introduced a motion, which was seconded by Councilmember Barrett, to approve the project as presented, adopting Resolution No. 18-118 C.S. to Deny 878 Oak Street; Application AP-18-0210 Appealing Planning Commission Decision to Deny AP-18-0160 and AP- 18-0161 Appealing Architectural Review Committee Decision to Approve Architectural Review Permit ARP-18-0083 for a Second Story Addition and Home Remodel; Appellant J.R. Williams; Owner/Applicant Jeff Tindall; R-1-5 Zoning district; Exempt from CEQA per Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1. Councilmember Haffa expressed to appellant J. R. Williams that he understood that it is difficult when change comes to one’s neighborhood, and that he was sympathetic to that position, but said he agreed with the findings of the others. He said that after the portion of view in question has been eliminated, the appellant will still have a great view and a beautiful house. He said he found that the proposed project would not create an unreasonable impact but he understood why the appellant might feel that it was unreasonable. Councilmember Albert said that it is tough for the appellant to lose some of his view, but it is not an amount of a view that should set a standard as “unreasonable.” The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Albert, Barrett, Haffa, Smith, Roberson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None 11  City Council Minutes Tuesday, July 17, 2018 14. Confirm Alvarado Street Maintenance District 85-1 Area and Assessment Proposed in Engineer's Report for Fiscal Year 2018/2019 (Not a project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) (Plans & Public Works - 801-06) Action: Adopted Resolution No. 18-119 C.S. Mayor Roberson opened public comments on Items 14 and 15 and receiving none, closed public comments. Staff counted the ballots for both items and announced that both maintenance districts had received majority “yes” votes. On a motion by Mayor Roberson, seconded by Councilmember Smith, and carried by the following vote, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 18-119 C.S. to Confirm Alvarado Street Maintenance District 85-1 Area and Assessment Proposed in Engineer's Report for Fiscal Year 2018/2019 (Not a project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061): AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Albert, Barrett, Haffa, Smith, Roberson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None 15. Confirm Calle Principal Maintenance District 00-1 Area and Assessment Proposed in Engineer's Report for Fiscal Year 2018/2019 (Not a project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) (Plans & Public Works - 801-06) Action: Adopted Resolution No. 18-120 C.S. On a motion by Councilmember Smith, seconded by Councilmember Barrett, and carried by the following vote, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 18-120 C.S. to Confirm Calle Principal Maintenance District 00-1 Area and Assessment Proposed in Engineer's Report for Fiscal Year 2018/2019 (Not a project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061): AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Albert, Barrett, Haffa, Smith, Roberson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None 16. Deny 457, 465, 470, 565, and 570 Cannery Row; Appeal Application AP-18-0213 of Planning Commission Approval of Use Permit Amendment PE-17-0583 Amending Use Permit 00-019 for modifications to an approved project which include removal of five traffic mitigation measures due to changes in the City’s Capital Improvement Program and completion of traffic mitigations; Appellant: Michael Brown, on Behalf of AquaLegacy Development LLC; C-R Zoning District; Commercial General Plan Designation; Environmental Impact Report Addendum Filed -- Recommended for Continuance to July 25, 2018 (Plans & Public Works - 203-02) Action: Continued to July 25, 2018 Mayor Roberson opened public comments and receiving none, closed public comments. On a motion by Mayor Roberson, seconded by Councilmember Barrett, and carried by the following vote, the City Council continued to July 25, 2018 the matter entitled "Deny 457, 465, 470, 565, and 570 Cannery Row; Appeal Application AP-18-0213 of Planning Commission Approval of Use Permit Amendment PE-17-0583 Amending Use Permit 00-019 for modifications to an approved project which include removal of five traffic mitigation measures 12 City Council Minutes Tuesday, July 17, 2018 due to changes in the City’s Capital Improvement Program and completion of traffic mitigations; Appellant: Michael Brown, on Behalf of AquaLegacy Development LLC; C-R Zoning District; Commercial General Plan Designation; Environmental Impact Report Addendum Filed": AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Albert, Barrett, Haffa, Smith, Roberson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None COUNCIL COMMENTS Council comments were not heard due to the late hour. CITY MANAGER REPORTS City Manager reports were not heard due to the late hour. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Roberson adjourned the meeting at 12:38 a.m. The Closed Session was not heard due to the late hour. Respectfully Submitted, Approved, Clementine Bonner Klein Clyde Roberson Acting City Clerk Mayor 13