Council Regular Meeting

MINUTES CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING CITY OF MONTEREY Tuesday, December 17, 2019 4:00 PM 7:00 PM COUNCIL CHAMBER MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA Councilmembers Present: Albert, Haffa, Smith, Williamson, Roberson Absent: None City Staff City Manager, Assistant City Manager, City Attorney, Community Present: Development Director, Public Works Director, Police Chief, Finance Director, Fire Chief, Human Resources Director, Parks and Recreation Director, Dir. of Information Resources/City Clerk, Acting City Clerk, Property Manager, Administrative Analyst (Housing), Traffic Engineer, Library Director, Housing and Community Development Manager, Associate Planner (2), Senior Engineer, Police Lieutenant (2), Police Records and Detention Supervisor, Police Services Assistant, Senior Administrative Analyst (Fire), Assistant Fire Chief, Division Chief (2), Fire Captain (2), Firefighter (4), Executive Assistant (Fire) ***Afternoon Session Agenda *** CALL TO ORDER Mayor Roberson called the meeting to order at 4:03 p.m. and stated that Councilmember Williamson was teleconferencing from Jalisco, Mexico. Acting City Clerk Klein called the roll. Councilmember Williamson, present by telephone, confirmed that due process was followed with regard to the Brown Act. PRESENTATIONS 1. Recognize the Retirements of Longtime City of Monterey Employees: Police Officer Adam Costa for 31 years of service, Fire Captain Roger Reed for 39 years of service, and Fire Captain Arthur Webb for 32 years of service (Not a project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Presented proclamations Police Chief Hober introduced Police Officer Costa, and Fire Chief Panholzer introduced Fire Captain Reed and Fire Captain Webb. The honorees made brief remarks, and were honored by the Mayor and Council with proclamations in recognition of their service. The Council recessed at 4:25 p.m. and reconvened at 4:30 p.m. 2. Measures P and S (Special Sales Tax) Annual Report on Conformity with Requirement that Expenditures be Used Exclusively for the Rehabilitation, Repair, and Improvement of City Streets, Sidewalks, and Storm Drains (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Received presentation Public Works Director Wittry directed all to the City's "fixing streets" webpage for information on Measure P and S funds and projects. Carol Chorbajian, Measure P and S Oversight  City Council Minutes December 17, 2019 Committee Chair, made brief remarks and stated that the funds are being spent in complete compliance with the requirements of the ballot measure. Mayor Roberson opened public comments, and received none. 3. Transportation Agency for Monterey County (TAMC) Presentation on Fort Ord Regional Trail and Greenway (FORTAG) Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Received presentation Stefania Castillo, Transportation Agency for Monterey County (TAMC), gave the presentation on the subject of the FORTAG Draft EIR, and requested participation and comment from the public. Mayor Roberson opened public comment. Nina Beety and Ed Thornton, citing concerns about wildlife and the impacts of bicycles, urged TAMC to consider a route that would completely avoid the Frog Pond and preserve that space for walking only. The Council discussed the matter. It was commented that the FORTAG will increase safety for bicyclists and lead to more people choosing alternative transportation. Concerns were raised about bicyclist safety in specific sections of General Jim Boulevard and Canyon Del Rey. Comments were made urging the public to reach out to TAMC with thoughts during the Draft EIR comment period. The voting public was applauded for their support of TAMC's Measure X. It was stated that the public is excited about trail improvements. PUBLIC COMMENTS Mayor Roberson opened public comments on non-agendized matters. David Ridley spoke about a recent encounter with a police officer and spoke about the need for safe places for homeless people to sleep. Jeannie Ferrara stated that she opposes dissolving the Wireless Subcommittee, saying they did not have a chance to review the encroachment ordinance and that an upcoming decision by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia may change the rules dramatically on 5G wireless telecommunications and the subcommittee may still be needed. Frank Geisler and Kevin Dayton, Monterey Peninsula Chamber of Commerce, spoke in favor of the proposed lease agendized as closed session item #cs3. CONSENT ITEMS Mayor Roberson opened public comments on the Consent Items. Nina Beety requested to pull items 16 and 17 from the Consent Items. On a motion by Mayor Roberson, seconded by Councilmember Haffa, and carried by the following roll call vote, the City Council approved the CONSENT ITEMS except Items 16 and 17: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Albert, Haffa, Smith, Williamson, Roberson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None) ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None) ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None) RECUSED: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None) 2  City Council Minutes December 17, 2019 Approval of Minutes 4. December 3, 2019 (Not a project under CEQA per Article 20 Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Approved Award of Construction Contracts 5. Award Construction Contract in the Amount of $388,502.00 to Precision Grade, Inc. for Citywide Curb Ramp Project, Phase 1 (Exempt from CEQA Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1) ***CIP/Measure S*** Action: Adopted Resolution No. 19-200 C.S. 6. Authorize On-Call Contracts for Housing Rehabilitation Services as part of the Housing Programs Office’s Community Development Block Grant Funded Housing Rehabilitation Grant Program to Frederick M. Duke dba Duke Contracting and Painting, James Robert Fastle dba Cypress Development Company, and William Alan Westphal dba Under Construction Co. for a Maximum of $99,999 Annually (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Adopted Resolution Nos. 19-201, 19-202, and 19-203 C.S. Ordinances 7. Second Reading of an Ordinance to Amend the Multifamily Overlay District to Clarify Density Requirements, Remove the Requirement for a Use Permit, Remove Covered Parking Requirements, and Add Site Design Standard for Tree Protection (Exempt from CEQA per Article 19, Section 15305, Class 5) Action: Adopted Ordinance No. 3608 C.S. Resolutions 8. Approve Mills Act Contract MA-19-0358 for 1078 W Franklin Street; Applicant and Owner Sylvette Baird; R-1-6-H2 Zoning District (Exempt from CEQA per Article 19, Section 15331, Class 31) Action: Adopted Resolution No. 19-204 C.S. 9. Approve Mills Act Contract MA 19-0359 for 1111 W Franklin Street; Applicant and Owner Sylvette Baird; R-1-6-H2 Zoning District (Exempt from CEQA per Article 19, Section 15331, Class 31) Action: Adopted Resolution No. 19-205 C.S. 10. Approve Mills Act Contract MA-19-0357 for 1176 Harrison Street; Applicant and Owner Sylvette Baird; R-1-6-H2 Zoning District (Exempt from CEQA per Article 19, Section 15331, Class 31) Action: Adopted Resolution No. 19-206 C.S. 11. Amend Resolution 19-115 Changing the Position Control List in the Parks and Recreation Department for the Following Full Time Positions by: Deleting (1) Facility Coordinator, Reclassifying (3) Control Cashiers to Guest Services Specialists, Reclassifying (1) Administrative Assistant II to Accounting Specialist, Reclassifying (1) Park Maintenance Worker to Senior Park Maintenance Worker, Adding (1) Park Maintenance Worker, and Increase FY 19/20 Appropriations by $25,023 in the Parking Fund, and Adjust the Salary Schedule for the Regular Part-time Tot Activity Leader (Not a project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378, and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Adopted Resolution No. 19-207 C.S. 3  City Council Minutes December 17, 2019 12. Authorize Participation in a State of California, Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control Grant Assistance Program (GAP) for Fiscal Year 2019/20 for Education and Enforcement Operations of Alcohol-related Activities and Increase Appropriations by $11,400 (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Adopted Resolution No. 19-208 C.S. 13. Authorize the Purchase of Cisco Networking Equipment and SmartNet Maintenance in the Amount of $58,340.70 (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Adopted Resolution No. 19-209 C.S. 14. Appropriate $11,800 in Donated Funds to the 2019-2020 Library Trust Fund Budget (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Adopted Resolution No. 19-210 C.S. Other 15. Appoint Agency Negotiators for Conference with Real Property Negotiators Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8; Property: 353 Camino El Estero; Agency Negotiators: Kimberly Cole and Janna Aldrete; Negotiating Parties: Frank Geisler, Monterey Peninsula Chamber of Commerce; Under Negotiation: Terms and Conditions for New Lease (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Appointed negotiators Kimberly Cole and Janna Aldrete 16. Dissolve the Wireless Telecommunication Subcommittee and Provide Direction to the Planning Commission (Not a project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Pulled from Consent; Dissolved the Wireless Telecommunications Subcommittee and directed the Planning Commission to conduct public outreach and consider policy options Community Development Director Cole gave a brief report on the history and work of the Wireless Telecommunications Subcommittee. She said that the subcommittee had agreed to refer the encroachment ordinance to the Planning Commission for further work and debate. Mayor Roberson opened public comments. Nina Beety urged the Council to thoroughly vet the encroachment ordinance, stating that subcommittee had not had sufficient time and did not formally approve it. The Council thanked the subcommittee members for all of their effort and hours of their time. On question, City Attorney Davi said that it will be acceptable not to have the subcommittee approve the last meeting's minutes, and that the minutes just need to be accurately reflected by the recording secretary. She confirmed that all agendized items of the subcommittee were reviewed. She and Community Development Director Cole clarified the subcommittee's recent discussion and referral of the encroachment ordinance. On a motion by Councilmember Haffa, seconded by Councilmember Smith, and carried by the following roll call vote, the City Council dissolved the Wireless Telecommunication Subcommittee and provided direction to the Planning Commission to conduct public outreach and consider policy options: 4  City Council Minutes December 17, 2019 AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Albert, Haffa, Smith, Williamson, Roberson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None) ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None) ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None) RECUSED: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None) 17. Receive Preliminary FY18-19 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) Data (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Pulled from Consent; Received preliminary FY 2018-19 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) Finance Director Lai gave a brief report on the CAFR data for fiscal year 2018-2019. She said that while revenues were higher than expected, future projections don't change as a result of the CAFR data. Mayor Roberson opened public comments and received none. The Council discussed the matter. Comments were made in favor of using the additional revenues to increase reserves to protect against an oncoming recession. It was commented that it could be beneficial to update the Council's policy on City reserves. On a motion by Councilmember Haffa, seconded by Councilmember Albert, and carried by the following roll call vote, the City Council approved receipt of the Preliminary FY18-19 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) Data (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061): AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Albert, Haffa, Smith, Williamson, Roberson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None) ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None) ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None) RECUSED: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None) *** End of Consent Agenda *** PUBLIC APPEARANCE 18. Receive Report on Affordable Housing Site Analysis and Adopt Resolution 1) Requesting that the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District Allocate Water for Development of Affordable Housing; and, 2) Authorizing Staff to Solicit Developer Proposals to Partner with the City to Develop City Sites and Pursue State Funding for the Development of the Sites for Affordable Housing. (Exempt from CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378) Action: Tabled until 2020 (4-1, Councilmember Williamson voting no) Mayor Roberson opened public comments. Vanessa Diffenbaugh, MidPen Housing, urged Council to look hard at the issue of affordable housing, and said that while smaller projects are harder to finance, sites in the 50-60 unit range tend to be the most feasible. Nina Beety said affordability should be the priority for all new housing units in Monterey and stated that the subject is premature without water. The Council discussed the matter. It was stated that the Council should determine which projects are doable and which are high priorities, and then go to the water district with specifics. It was commented that the City should get its place in line for water. It was requested, if the 5  City Council Minutes December 17, 2019 matter is tabled, for the Council to hear the matter again at the first meeting in January of 2020. It was stated that the City may want to leave the amount of water requested open-ended or specific. On a motion by Mayor Roberson, seconded by Councilmember Albert, and carried by the following roll call vote, the City Council tabled until 2020 the matter entitled “Report on Affordable Housing Site Analysis and Adopt Resolution 1) Requesting that the MPWMD Allocate Water for Development of Affordable Housing; and, 2) Directing Staff to Solicit Developer Proposals and Pursue State Funding”: AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Albert, Haffa, Smith, Roberson NOES: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Williamson ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None) ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None) RECUSED: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None) *** Adjourn to Closed Session (See additional agenda) *** The Council adjourned to closed session at 5:38 p.m. RECONVENE The Council reconvened at 7:06 p.m. Mayor Roberson reminded the audience that Councilmember Williamson was participating in the meeting by telephone from Mexico. *** Evening Session Agenda *** PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Roberson led the Pledge. CONTINUED PUBLIC COMMENTS Mayor Roberson opened continued public comments on non-agendized matters. Lorna Moffat shared environmental concerns regarding cruise ships and said that the City of Savannah, Georgia was able to stop cruise ship visits. Nina Beety requested that the Council allow the City Attorney to answer questions regarding her disability accommodations appeal. Mayor Roberson noted that Item 18 in the afternoon session had been tabled and would be heard again in a future meeting. PUBLIC HEARING (EVE) 19. Amend Downtown Specific Plan to Create a Density Cap Overlay for a 7.4-Acre Area Bounded by Anthony, Figueroa, Del Monte, and Camino El Estero to: 1) Allow Density to be Calculated Collectively Among Certain Parcels to Not Exceed 30 Dwelling Units Per Acre; and, 2) Increase Allowable Height to Four Stories (Exempt from CEQA per Section 65457 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15182) - Continued from December 3, 2019 Action: Received public testimony; Adopted Resolution No. 19-211 C.S. as amended Housing and Community Development Manager Caraker gave the staff presentation and answered Councilmembers' questions. 6 City Council Minutes December 17, 2019 Mayor Roberson opened public comments. Heather Johnston, architect, citing sprawl and environmental impact associated with cars, proposed rethinking parking policies and requirements. Nina Beety said that four story structures are out of character and inappropriate for the North Pearl District area of Monterey and are sought after for cellular installations, and cited concerns about sea level rise and the effectiveness of mixed-use zoning. Curt Tipton, Downtown Neighborhood Association, echoed concerns about sea level rise and shared concerns about parking, traffic, privacy, and loss of viewshed that he said were related to the proposal. Nelson Vega suggested expanding the footprint so that impacts are decreased and cars are spread over a larger footprint. Jean Rasch, Monterey Vista resident, said that developing buildings up to four stories is antithetical to the City's General Plan. Dan Silverie, Silverie Properties, suggested keeping the bulk of buildings less impactful by having flat rooves with low-profile solar systems, and said that four stories are needed to have enough units to qualify for tax credits for affordability. Luis Osorio, Monterey resident, quoted from the Downtown Specific Plan adopted in 2013 and asked when the Council will start leading the City to implement the General Plan. Cheri Miller spoke in favor of low-income housing and expressed concern about parking overcrowding affecting other areas. Sharon Dwight said that changing density calculation methods is a concern, and stated that the General Plan never planned for an entire area to have high density and that four stories is a departure from being a "small town by the Bay." She spoke in favor of developing a defined vision and plan, amending the General Plan if need be, and of following proper process. Kevin Dayton, Monterey Peninsula Chamber of Commerce, spoke in favor of more affordable housing in Monterey and thanked Council for considering the matter. Pat McNeil, Pearl District resident, said he likes the proposal from a housing standpoint but is concerned about traffic and parking impacts, and proposed that residents in the overlay should not be eligible for a residential parking permit. Bob Faulis, Monterey resident, said that the future will not involve as many cars, and urged moving in a walkable direction for Monterey. Mayor Roberson closed public comments. Housing and Community Development Manager Caraker, Community Development Director Cole, Public Works Director Wittry and City Attorney Davi answered Councilmembers' questions. The Council discussed the matter. It was commented that with the cap, there could be a series of four story towers sprinkled in the area. It was commented that water credits for 591 East Franklin Street could be extended by Council if necessary to allow for more time for the public process. It was stated that four story buildings aren't absolutely ruled out but should be planned so that placement is compatible, makes sense, and reduces impacts. It was stated that more information about parking would be appreciated. Councilmember Haffa introduced a motion, which was seconded by Councilmember Smith, to approve the staff recommendation to adopt a resolution amending the Downtown Specific Plan to Create a Density Cap Overlay for a 7.4-Acre Area Bounded by Anthony, Figueroa, Del Monte, and Camino El Estero to: 1) Allow Density to be Calculated Collectively Among Certain Parcels to Not Exceed 30 Dwelling Units Per Acre; and, 2) Increase Allowable Height to Four Stories. In support of the motion on the table, it was questioned what more information further planning would produce. It was stated that other solutions can address parking, such as using parking 7 City Council Minutes December 17, 2019 meters on the street and lowering garage prices to encourage parking in the garage. It was stated that housing is a real crisis for people who live here. It was noted that the total density would not change with the proposed action. It was stated that there are existing large buildings that aren't very attractive, and that additional four-story buildings will not be offensive given the existing aesthetics. In opposition to the motion on the table, it was stated that small lots would not make sense at four stories high. It was stated that more guarantees are needed to ensure that the buildings won't negatively impact the neighborhood. It was proposed, as an allternative, to apply the overlay in phases, starting with the block of Del Monte to Franklin Street. Housing and Community Development Manager Caraker concurred that this would be possible and that the density could be recalculated. She said that the properties facing Franklin Street could also be added to the zone. Comments were made in favor of the compromise. It was stated that the City has done a great job of trying to meet housing needs, but there is still so much work to do and that the City should be bold and consider the State's demands. Regarding parking, it was observed that the General Plan focuses on a community that is walkable and bikeable. It was stated that maintaining a small town feel can be done with a large population, and Victoria, BC was given as an example. It was stated that sea level rise shouldn't stop the City from moving forward with increasing density. Regarding quality of life increases, it was stated that the City should consider eliminating the density requirement and allow the developer to conform with standards to create smaller, more affordable units. It was stated that concerns shared by the public were more about traffic and parking impacts, not density itself. It was stated that aesthetics of the buildings matter. Councilmember Haffa withdrew the existing motion on the table. The Council discussed potential new boundaries for the density cap overlay and drew a new map showing the area to be affected by the amendment. A motion was introduced by Councilmember Haffa, and seconded by Councilmember Albert, for the Council to adopt Resolution No. 19-211 C.S., as amended at the dais, to amend the Downtown Specific Plan to establish a density cap overlay and apply to a 6.2-acre area bounded by Figueroa, Del Monte, and Camino El Estero and parcels on both sides of East Franklin Street to 1) allow density to be calculated collectively among certain parcels to not exceed 30 dwelling units per acre, and 2) increase allowable height to four stories: Housing and Community Development Manager Caraker confirmed that the overlay can be expanded contiguously in the future. It was stated by Council that if the South side of Franklin is limited to three stories, the remainder could be four stories. It was emphasized that the parking questions should be studied and outreach should be conducted with the neighborhood. It was stated that protection of historical sites is a goal which the proposed action seems it would accomplish. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Albert, Haffa, Smith, Williamson, Roberson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None) ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None) ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None) RECUSED: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None) 8  City Council Minutes December 17, 2019 The Council recessed at 8:58 p.m. and reconvened at 9:14 p.m. 20. Deny Appeal Application AP-19-0307 and Affirm Planning Commission Decision to Approve Use Permit 19-0105 for Mixed-Use to Adaptively Occupy A Building At 300 Cannery Row; Maximum Allowable Building Height of 45 Feet; Density in Excess of 30 Units Per Acre to Provide Eight Condominium Units Through Approval of A Tentative Map (Permit TM-19-0243) and to Include A Residential Parking Plan At 258/270 Foam Street; Appellant: Laurie Hambaro; Applicant and Owner: 300 LLC; Zoning: Cannery Row Commercial and Planned Community - Lighthouse; General Plan: Commercial (CEQA: Mitigated Negative Declaration Adopted) -- Continued from December 3, 2019 Action: Received public testimony; Adopted Resolution No. 19-212 C.S. Housing and Community Development Manager Caraker gave the staff presentation explaining the application and the appealed use permit, and answered Councilmembers' questions. She said that the City's Disabled Access Appeals Board reviewed the pathway and found it to be consistent with ADA requirements. On question, Community Development Director Cole said that the ADA lift would be available to the public. Pat Kelly, Attorney for Applicant 300 LLC, verbally waived his opportunity for the applicant's initial presentation. Appellant Laurie Hambaro, for the New Monterey Neighborhood Association, shared photos of the property in question and neighboring buildings. She said that the neighborhood is concerned is that the Cannery Row Land Use Plan is not being followed. She asked that 300 Cannery Row conform to the rules in place and that special exemptions not be granted, citing concerns about creating precedents. She stated that the reference to 204 Cannery Row's 2004 approval was a new concept brought up in the current staff report. She asked for the City's existing plans to be followed. She gave her remaining time to Ms. Dwight. Sharon Dwight, New Monterey Neighborhood Association, stated that the addition will be visible to anyone driving down Dickman and turning onto Lighthouse. She said that the neighborhood's primary concern is density and that policies be followed. She listed three ways that she said staff calculated density: 300 Cannery Row itself, 300 Cannery Row plus the square footage of the building extending over the Tidelands that is owned by the State, and 300 Cannery Row plus the portion of the building extending over the Tidelands plus the parking lot. She said that State-owned land should not be used in the calculation of density. She said that the third method was including in the Planning Commission's resolution as one of the findings, and that the Planning Commissioners spoke against that finding but their motion didn't remove the finding, so the resolution still includes that method of calculating density. She asked the Council how density should be calculated. She cited the General Plan's height and density incentives for projects providing over 20% affordable housing. She said that because the proposed project only provides the minimum 20% affordable housing, it should not be eligible for the incentives offered in the General Plan. She cited the Cannery Row Coastal Land Use Plan's density limits of "30 units per acre and a total of 183 units throughout the Cannery coastal zone area." She referred to traffic and parking impacts and said there is no provision for exceptions to the Cannery Row Coastal Land Use Plan. Ms. Dwight continued, stating that staff and the Planning Commission opted to follow the General Plan instead of the Cannery Row Coastal Land Use Plan. She quoted the General Plan Land Use Element: "Area Plan policies and programs that are more precise but consistent with the General Plan have the same standing as General Plan policies." She said that the Planning Commission was told by staff at their meeting that the Zoning Ordinance trumps the Coastal Land Use Plan and that they could disregard the Coastal Land Use Plan. She said that 9 City Council Minutes December 17, 2019 staff misquoted the Cannery Row Land Use Plan in the agenda report (citing a minimum of 30 units per acre rather than a maximum of 30) and called it a typo. She stated that the error was not a typo, and said that wordsmithing new policy language without due process isn't legal and misleads both the Planning Commission and the public. She said that the Planning Commission justified 60% density bonus by relying totally upon the Zoning Ordinance but the project doesn't qualify for any incentives. She said that the existing building is taller than the beach, which is a full right-of-way access, and taller than the building to the right. She said that the policy allows for increases in height as "compatible with adjoining buildings." She said that members of Planning Commission left it to Council or Coastal Commission to decide density, but the Land Use Plan and General Plan policies are clear: density is calculated at 30 units per acre. She said that the public wants projects to follow policy. She stated that this project does not follow the rules and it sets precedent. Pat Kelly, attorney for the applicant, stated that the applicant has not tried to break the rules or request special treatment. He said that admittedly density has been a big issue, which the Planning Commission and staff have wrestled with. He said that the statutes deal with it somewhat obliquely, so this time everyone took a very hard look. He said that Principal Planner Flower said that the 30 units per acre density requirement is applied across the entire Cannery Row Coastal Land Use Plan district, and that she did calculations on the district as a whole and cited the Land Use Plan where he said there are numerous references to "across the distrct." He addressed the density question from the perspective of the Monterey City Code on mixed- use projects, citing Section 38.33(G)(4): "Density may exceed 30 units per acre if the Planning Commission determines that additional units will make the mixed use building size and height compatible with adjoining buildings." He said that the Local Coastal Plan refers to the General Plan, and cited a section of the General Plan that reads: "Commercial areas are also a primary resource for new housing in mixed use or apartment developments. The maximum allowed residential density in the commercial designations is 30 dwelling units per acre. However, higher density projects may be allowed under certain circumstances as defined in the zoning ordinance, specific plans, or area plans." He said that the Zoning Ordinance allows for density to exceed 30 units per acre. He said that the Local Coastal Plan itself calls for density no greater than 30 units per acre, but careful analysis by staff shows that the density calculation is to be applied across the entire Cannery Row coastal zone to ensure that the total number of units allowable are not exceeded. Mr. Kelly continued, saying that the project will still have to go to the Coastal Commission for approval. He said that the Coastal Commission approved a project at 201 Cannery Row in 2004 with a finding that the density calculation in the Land Use Plan was applied across the entire coastal zone, and stated that the approved project had something more like 40 to 50 units per acre if density had been calculated on a parcel by parcel basis. He said that the Coastal Commission's review of the 201 Cannery Row project followed City of Monterey review, so the City had also previously analyzed and interpreted the density as 30 units per acre across the whole zone. Regarding the height of the structure, he again referred to Monterey City Code Section 38.33(G)(4) and said that staff had looked at the height of the adjoining buildings and the proposed project and agreed that it is consistent with the local neighborhood. He said that Monterey City Code Section 38.32 defers to the Cannery Row Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan, which he quoted: "the location and configuration of the additional permitted building height is designed to assure that the architectural character and resulting pedestrian oriented scale and perspective of the Cannery Row buildings (as defined by...[findings]) is respected." He stated that the Planning Commission did look at that language and photos and many other considerations, and made their determination. He said that the peak of the small extension on the top of the roof is 43 feet and 3 inches, and that there are 45 feet allowable within the scope of discretion allowed to the Planning Commission. Further, he said that it is 6 feet from the existing parapet. He said that the top floor is set back 6 from each side, 30 feet from the ocean 10 City Council Minutes December 17, 2019 side, and 60 feet from the street, and that the project's architect toured the streets above and found only one place that it might be visible but otherwise it wouldn't affect but otherwise doesn't affect anybody's view of the bay. He said that the applicant had worked to comply with all of the rules. He thanked the Planning staff. Mayor Roberson opened public comments. Bob Faulis said that the developer has gone out of his way to try to make this project work, and asked for the spirit of Cannery Row to be honored with vibrancy and revitalization. Dan Silverie spoke in favor of the project, saying that the building has been sitting vacant and deteriorating and it will be good to see the project go forward and will be an advantage to the neighborhood. Mayor Roberson closed public comments. The Council discussed the matter. In support of denying the appeal, it was stated that previous concerns had been addressed, including questions of density and of residences at street level. It was stated that now the developer has a timeline and an approved project with two units of affordable housing, and a concern was shared that if this project isn't approved now, it will never be approved, and the building will deteriorate further. A question regarding density was posed: If eight is too high, what density is desired? It was stated by Council, in support of the project, that it is desired for something positive to happen at the site, and that it will be a good thing for Cannery Row. It was stated that off-site parking is a bit worrisome but must be off site and is not far away. It was stated that it makes sense for density to be calculated across the district instead of by lot, since unit caps are by district. Regarding height, it was stated that the six-foot higher area is set back and that it is hard to imagine that anyone will see it and is therefore not a practical concern. It was stated that in size and height the proposed project will be compatible with other buildings. Benefits of approving the proposal were cited to be restoration of a historic building and increased public access. It was stated that the project owners have answered the concerns. The ARC, PC, HPC and New Monterey Neighborhood Association were praised for their work on and attention to the matter. It was stated by Council that questioning interpretations is valid. On question, Housing and Community Development Manager Caraker addressed the claims raised by the appellant that rules were not followed. She acknowledged that there is a discrepancy between plans about the 30 unit density calculation, but she said that throughout, the density is described as "across the district" and that this is how it was interpreted in the past. She said that the Cannery Row zoning district in the City Code has been applied and allows density in excess of 30 units per acre. Between these factors, she said there was enough evidence, past interpretation, and precedence upon which to base the staff's recommendation. She said that the height factor was more discretionary. The Council and Community Development Director Cole briefly discussed the history of parking at a nearby City- owned vacant lot. On a motion by Councilmember Smith, seconded by Councilmember Haffa, and carried by the following roll call vote, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 19-202 C.S., denying the appeal of Application AP-19-0307 and affirming the Planning Commission's decision to approve Use Permit 19-0105: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Albert, Haffa, Smith, Williamson, Roberson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None) ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None) ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None) RECUSED: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None) 11  City Council Minutes December 17, 2019 PUBLIC APPEARANCE (EVE) 21. Adopt a Resolution Approving Off-Site Affordable Housing for a Mixed-Use Development located at 300 Cannery Row (Negative Declaration Previously Adopted) -- Continued from December 3, 2019 Adopted Resolution No. 19-213 C.S. Housing and Community Development Manager Caraker gave a brief staff presentation and confirmed that the proposal follows regulations for off-site affordable housing. She answered the Councilmembers' questions. Mayor Roberson opened public comments. Pat Kelly on behalf of the developer said that if a stall happens to take place during the process, flexibility will be requested and appreciated. On a motion by Councilmember Albert, seconded by Councilmember Smith, and carried by the following roll call vote, the City Council adopted resolution No. 19-213 C.S. approving off-site affordable housing for a mixed-use development located at 300 Cannery Row: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Albert, Haffa, Smith, Williamson, Roberson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None) ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None) ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None) RECUSED: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None) 22. Introduce by Title Only and Waive Further Reading of an Ordinance to Add Chapter 32, Article 8 Encroachments by Communication Facilities (Exempt from CEQA Article 19, Section 15305, Class 5) Action: Passed ordinance to print Joseph Van Eaton, Best Best & Krieger LLP, presented the item and spoke about the process of working on wireless ordinances for the City. He said that the draft ordinance has two parts: requiring that any telecommunications company must get an encroachment permit and meet certain encroachment standards, and addressing undergrounding issues. He said that the ordinance fills a gap in the current code. He answered Councilmembers' questions. City Attorney Davi said that this ordinance will put the City on par with protections that some other cities have. Mayor Roberson opened public comments. Nina Beety expressed concerns about provisions in the wireless ordinance that she said were removed and put into the encroachment ordinance, about the need for a requirement for an annual update of contact information for the utilities, and about physical load impacts of wireless devices that she said are being placed on the strand without permits and a public process. She spoke in favor of the inclusion of performance bonds in the ordinance. City Attorney Davi agreed that the City hasn't been regulating encroachments in the right-of- way and this ordinance will resolve that concern moving forward. Mr. Van Eaton said that instead of components of the documents being repeated between the wireless ordinance and the encroachment ordinance as proposed by Ms. Beety, he suggested that the City could use a website with links to the exact sections of various codes. He commented that the contact updating burden is on the carrier with this draft ordinance. He said that the strand section applies when a utility must be undergrounded, and doesn't allow devices over a certain size on the strand. He said that the limitations are subject to federal regulations. 12  City Council Minutes December 17, 2019 On a motion by Councilmember Smith, seconded by Councilmember Haffa, and carried by the following roll call vote, the City Council Introduced by Title Only and Waived Further Reading of an Ordinance To Add Chapter 32, Article 8 Encroachments by Communication Facilities (Exempt from CEQA Article 19, Section 15305, Class 5): The Council thanked the Wireless Subcommittee for their work. City Attorney Davi said that further discussion of undergrounding utilities will come forward to the Council in the near future. AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Albert, Haffa, Smith, Williamson, Roberson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None) ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None) ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None) RECUSED: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None) COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Albert said that the two-step process for agendizing is cumbersome, and asked to discuss it at a future meeting. Members of Council concurred. Councilmember Haffa said that at the recent Fort Ord Reuse Authority (FORA) meeting, the board moved forward with pursuing a bond that would fund removal of blighted buildings, and there are some stumbling blocks relating to putting together a Joint Powers Authority (JPA) to address the habitat. He asked that the executive committee consisting of city managers give the JPA subcommittee some clear options. Councilmember Smith appointed to League of California Cities Public Safety Committee. He wished everyone a merry Christmas. Mayor Roberson quoted from a song that included the refrain: "Peace, peace to all," 23. Councilmember Williamson's Request to Agendize a Discussion about Current Process for Closed Sessions in the Context of Property Negotiations (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378, and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Agreed by consensus to agendize the discussion Councilmember Williamson expressed an interest in reporting more information with the public to allow more involvement in the process, so they can better understand context and motivation. The Council discussed the request. It was stated that the current system works. It was suggested to keep an eye on it and identify problems. It was suggested to discuss at an upcoming Council workshop what can and cannot be heard, discussed, and shared out of closed session. It was stated that items being agendized on the closed session agenda does put the public on notice, and that agendizing the items for closed session is done in accordance with law. It was stated that after Council has made a determination in closed session, the City is not doing a transparent job of communicating that to the public. It was suggested that agreed-upon principal terms should be announced at the next regular meeting. Councilmember Williamson said that his goal was to see the Council hear his concern as a stand-alone agenda item. He gave an example of the Fort Ord property negotiations as a closed session topic that he said could be more transparent, and expressed a desire to hear public input that could influence his decisions. 13 City Council Minutes December 17, 2019 It was stated that there was plentiful public input in open session before the Council put out its RFP for Fort Ord. The Council agreed by consensus to agendize the matter on a future agenda. CITY MANAGER REPORTS None were made. ADJOURNMENT The Council adjourned to closed session at 11:19 p.m. ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM CLOSED SESSION cs1. Conference with Labor Negotiators Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6; Agency Negotiators: Allyson Hauck, Nat Rojanasathira, Gina Russo; Employee Organizations: General Employees of Monterey (GEM), Monterey Police Association (MPA) (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Not heard cs2. Conference with Labor Negotiators Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6; Agency Negotiators: Allyson Hauck, Nat Rojanasathira, Gina Russo, Jeff Sloan; Employee Organization: Monterey Fire Fighters' Association (MFFA) (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Not heard cs3. Closed Session Conference with Real Property Negotiators Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 Property: 353 Camino El Estero Agency Negotiators: Kimberly Cole and Janna Aldrete Negotiating Parties: Frank Geisler, Monterey Peninsula Chamber of Commerce Under Negotiation: Terms and Conditions for New Lease (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: On a unanimous roll call vote, the Council gave confidential direction to their property negotiators cs4. Conference with Legal Counsel Pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(d)(2) - Anticipated Litigation, Significant Exposure to Litigation (One Potential Case) (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Received report Respectfully Submitted, Approved, Clementine Bonner Klein Clyde Roberson Acting City Clerk Mayor 14