Council Regular Meeting

MINUTES CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING CITY OF MONTEREY Tuesday, September 1, 2020 4:00 PM 7:00 PM 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, Parks and Recreation Director, City Clerk, Human Resources Director, Deputy Human Resources Manager, Associate Planner Pursuant to Section 3 of Executive Order N-29-20, issued by Governor Newsom on March 17, 2020, this meeting was conducted with telephonic/video participation only by all parties. ***Afternoon Session Agenda *** CALL TO ORDER Mayor Roberson called the meeting to order at 4:01 p.m. Assistant City Manager Rojanasathira provided details on how to phone into the meeting to participate and provide public comment. Councilmember Williamson joined the meeting at 4:02 p.m. PUBLIC COMMENTS Mayor Roberson opened public comments on non-agendized matters, received none, and closed public comments. CONSENT ITEMS Mayor Roberson said that Items 10 and 14 had been requested to be pulled from Consent, by staff and by the public, respectively. The Council commented on Items 12 and 13, and received answers from City staff. Mayor Roberson opened public comments on the Consent Items, received none, and closed public comments. On a motion by Councilmember Albert, seconded by Councilmember Smith, and carried by the following vote, which was conducted by roll call, the City Council approved the CONSENT ITEMS, except Items 10 and 14: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Albert, Haffa, Smith, Williamson, Roberson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None) ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None) ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None) RECUSED: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None) Approval of Minutes  City Council Minutes September 1, 2020 1. August 4, 2020 (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Approved 2. August 19, 2020 (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Approved Award of Construction Contracts 3. Award a Construction Contract in the Amount of $464,822.50 to McKim Corporation for Citywide Curb Ramp Project, Phase 3 (Exempt from CEQA Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1) ***CIP/Measure S*** Action: Adopted Resolution No. 20-126 C.S. 4. Award a Construction Contract in the Amount of $497,555.02 to McKim Corporation for Citywide Sidewalk Repair Project, Phase 5 (Exempt from CEQA Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1) ***CIP/Measure S*** Action: Adopted Resolution No. 20-127 C.S. Ordinances 5. 2nd Reading of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 28, Article 1 of the Monterey City Code Relating to the City’s Purchasing System to Update Bidding Thresholds, Allow the City Manager to Delegate to Department Heads Signature Authority for Small Procurement Contracts, Add Separate Purchasing Procedures for Confidential Legal Services and IT Contracts, and Eliminate Redundant Language Action: Adopted Ordinance No. 3624 C.S. 6. 2nd Reading by Title Only of an Ordinance to Amend Zoning Code to Allow Medical Offices with Extended Care in the Industrial, Administration and Research District Subject to Review and Regulation; Approval of Use Permit UP 20-169, a New Medical Office Building with Extended Care for Adolescent Behavioral Health, 6 Lower Ragsdale Drive, to be Effective Concurrently with the Zoning Code Amendments, to Allow Extended Care and Development on 25% Slope; and Approve Variance for Building Height (VAR 20-0168) (35’ Allowed; 50’6” Proposed); Applicant William Camille for Montage Health; Owner Montage Health; Industrial General Plan Land Use Designation; Industrial, Administration, and Research District, Design and Development Control Overlay and Emergency Shelter Overlay (I-R-150-D2-ES) Zoning District; CEQA Addendum Proposed Action: Adopted Ordinance No. 3625 C.S. Resolutions 7. Adopt a Resolution Ratifying the City Manager’s Proclamation of a Local Emergency Related to the River, Carmel, and Dolan Fires, Ratify the City Manager's Allocation of Additional Leave Time to City Employees for Evacuation Purposes, and Terminate Local Emergency (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378(b)(5)) Action: Adopted Resolution No. 20-128 C.S. 8. Adopt a Resolution Ratifying the Order of the Director of Emergency Services (Monterey City Manager) Issuing Temporary and Limited Closure of McAbee and San Carlos Beaches on August 15 and 16, 2020 to Prevent the Spread of COVID-19 (Exempt from CEQA Per Article 18, Section 15269.c) 2  City Council Minutes September 1, 2020 Action: Adopted Resolution No. 20-129 C.S. 9. Adopt a Resolution Ratifying the Order of the Director of Emergency Services (Monterey City Manager) Issuing Temporary and Limited Closure of McAbee and San Carlos Beaches from August 21, 2020 through September 22, 2020 and All Beaches on Labor Day Weekend to Prevent the Spread of COVID-19 (Exempt from CEQA Per Article 18, Section 15269.c) Action: Adopted Resolution No. 20-130 C.S. 10. Ratify Order of Director of Emergency Services (Monterey City Manager) Suspending Portions of Monterey City Code 25-10 During Local Emergency Action: Pulled from Consent; Tabled Human Resources Director Hauck said that a bargaining group had requested to meet and confer on the matter, and that staff wouldl bring the item back before Council soon after the meet and confer process was complete. Mayor Roberson opened public comments, received none, and closed public comments. On a motion by Mayor Roberson, seconded by Councilmember Williamson, and carried by the following vote, which was conducted by roll call, the City Council tabled the matter entitled"Ratify Order of Director of Emergency Services (Monterey City Manager) Suspending Portions of Monterey City Code 25-10 During Local Emergency": 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. Authorize the City Manager to Enter into a Fire Equipment Maintenance Services Agreement with the City of Pacific Grove (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Adopted Resolution No. 20-132 C.S. 12. Authorize the Continuation of the Paramedic Program in the Fire Department and Appropriate $75,852 from the General Fund Balance to Salaries and Benefits in the Fire Department Budget (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Adopted Resolution No. 20-133 C.S. 13. Accept and Authorize the Appropriation of Funds in the Presidio of Monterey Public Works Fund in the Amount of $1,255,000 for an Army Firehouse Remodel Project and 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))) Action: Adopted Resolution No. 20-134 C.S. 14. Utilizing Grant Funds from the U.S. Department of Defense, Award a Professional Services Contract in the Amount of $539,188 to Tetra Tech, Inc. for the Development of a Compatible Use Plan for Military Installations in Monterey and South County and Authorize the City Manager to Execute the Agreement (CEQA Not a Project) Action: Pulled from Consent; Continued to September 15, 2020 3  City Council Minutes September 1, 2020 City Manager Uslar said that the item was recommended to be continued. Mayor Roberson opened public comments. Nina Beety requested to incorporate by reference comments emailed by the president of the Monterey Vista Neighborhood Association, and citing concerns relating to lawsuits involving Tetra Tech, accuracy of agenda materials, and transparency, uged the Council to hold an open discussion with the community with full disclosure about the scope of the project and the City's goals, and with reconsideration of the firm based on information about lawsuits that she said are in the news media. With no further requests to comment, Mayor Roberson closed public comments. On a motion by Mayor Roberson, seconded by Councilmember Albert, and carried by the following vote, which was conducted by roll call, the City Council continued the matter to September 15, 2020: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Albert, Haffa, Smith, Williamson, Roberson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None) ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None) ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None) RECUSED: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None) 15. Re-authorize the Transfer and Appropriation of $22,511 in Museum Trust Funds for a PTS Artifact Specialist through June 30, 2021; Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061 Action: Adopted Resolution No. 20-135 C.S. 16. Authorize the City Manager to Enter into a Contract of Acquisition Accept an Easement Deed over Portion of the Land at 243 and 245 Montecito Avenue for Pedestrian Access and to Sign the Certificate Accepting the Easement (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Adopted Resolution No. 20-136 C.S. Other 17. Designate Voting Delegate for 2020 League of California Cities Annual Conference - October 7- 9, 2020 (Not a project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Designated Councilmember Smith as the Voting Delegate for 2020 18. Approve the City of Monterey’s Response Letter to the 2019-2020 Monterey County Civil Grand Jury Report on Sexual Harassment Prevention – “Sexual Harassment Prevention #TrainingCompliance” and authorize the Mayor and City Manager to sign related documents (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Approved the City of Monterey’s response letter 19. Receive Informational Report on the City Staff's Current Work Program (Not a project under CEQA per Article 20 Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5 Section 15061) Action: Received report *** End of Consent Agenda *** *** Adjourn to Closed Session (See additional agenda) *** 4  City Council Minutes September 1, 2020 Mayor Roberson opened public comments on the closed session, received none, and closed public comments. The Council adjourned to closed session at 4:21 p.m. RECESS RECONVENE The Council reconvened at 7:03 p.m. *** Evening Session Agenda *** PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Roberson led the Pledge. Assistant City Manager Rojanasathira provided details on how to phone into the meeting to participate and provide public comment. CONTINUED PUBLIC COMMENTS Mayor Roberson opened continued public comments on non-agendized matters. Robby Fabry said that he made a video to bring awareness to a trash problem at the beach that he said is not being solved, and asked for more trash cans and patrols. Zoe Carter echoed Mr. Fabry's remarks and suggested solutions such as community beach cleanups and increased signage. Kala Fossum, Villa Del Monte Neighborhood Association, echoed the need for greater beach cleanup, and asked for focus and planning on homelessness. With no further requests to speak, Mayor Roberson closed public comments. ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM CLOSED SESSION City Clerk Klein announced the following: cs1. Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation - Initiation of Litigation pursuant to paragraph (4) of subdivision (d) of Government Code section 54956.9 (One Case) (Not a Project Under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: On a unanimous roll call vote, the City Council authorized the initiation of litigation. The action, the respondents, and other particulars shall, once formally commenced, be disclosed to any person upon inquiry. PRESENTATIONS (EVE) 20. Presentation by Monterey One Water on the One Year Prop 218 Rate Increase (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Received presentation Paul Sciuto, General Manager for Monterey One Water (M1W), gave a presentation explaining the recently approved one year rate increase. Councilmember Williamson, the City Council representative on the M1W board, shared his perspective as a board member on the rate increase. Mr. Sciuto answered Councilmembers' questions. Mayor Roberson opened public comments, received none, and closed public comments. 5  City Council Minutes September 1, 2020 PUBLIC HEARING (EVE) 21. Deny Appeal of Planning Commission's Decision to Approve a First- and Second-Story Addition and Second-Story Deck at 415 Spencer Street (AP 20-0154); Appellants John J Willsen and Gywn De Amaral; Owner Robert Gularte; R-3-5 Zoning District; Medium Density Residential General Plan Land Use Designation (Exempt from CEQA Requirements Per Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1) Action: Adopted Resolution No. 20-137 C.S. Mayor Roberson introduced the item and asked if any members of the Council had had any ex parte communications relating to the matter, and stated that he had not. The City Councilmembers confirmed that they had also had no ex parte communications on the matter. Community Development Director Cole stated that she owns property within 500 feet of the project site, and was recusing herself from the matter. She left the meeting. Senior Associate Planner Schmidt gave the staff presentation laying out the City staff's perspective and recommendation on the appeal, and answered Councilmembers' questions. On question, he said that the standard for privacy is that a project "does not unreasonably impair privacy," and said that projects must not create new views into bedrooms or bathrooms. On question, he said that the appellant never provided guidance on a height that would he would consider reasonable. On question, he said that there is not a garage present at the site or planned as part of the project, and that the site is limited to the one existing parking space, and he acknowledged that the site has the ability to add a driveway. On question, he confirmed that the oak tree visible in photos of the site will remain. On question, he said that a side setback in the neighborhood for a second story could be seven feet. On question, he said that the site's zoning means that converting the site to apartments would be an option, though he said that there are not currently enough water credits for this use. Robert Gularte, project applicant, addressed the Council via the teleconference. He said that the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) approved the first design in 2019, and when the decision was appealed by Mr. DeAmaral, the Planning Commission upon receiving a letter from the New Monterey Neighborhood Asosciation and other neighbors, reversed the ARC decision. When they reversed the decision, the PC carefully considered the letters and made specific design demands. Letter in packet - they gave clear instructions to reduce ceiling height and overall height. He said that he preferred the original design and its ceiling heights, and said that sacrificing these was a compromise but said that it was clear that the Planning Commission was trying to find middle ground for all stakeholders, which he acknowledged was a difficult job. He said that before proceeding with the current design, he said that he assessed its possibility and determined that the changes required were feasible. He said that if he was required to submit to recently revealed design demands made by the appellant, he would have had to abandon the project. He said that the Planning Commission did exactly as it is called to do: it made recommendations where everyone got some of what they wanted. He said that the owner of 416 Archer, the appellant, has gone to great lengths to stop the project but has never responded to the applicant's requests for conversation regarding the design. He said that he has honored the imitations set forth by the Planning Commission and the New Monterey Neighborhood Association. He said that at the first Planning Commission meeting, the appellants had the opportunity to tell the applicants that the the design limitations set forth by the Planning Commission and the neighborhood association were unacceptable and that they wanted something more, but they did not. He said that he continued to reach out to the appellants about placement of solar panels and other privacy remediations. He said that after $10,000 in design, engineering and additional application costs, he submitted new plan that met all the new height parameters and is 3.5 feet lower than requested by the Planning Commission 6 City Council Minutes September 1, 2020 and the New Monterey Neighborhood Association, and he said that the Planning Commission unanimously approved the new design. He stated that 416 Archer is the appellant's investment property, and asserted that there is something to be said for due diligence and knowing that the buyer of the property could choose to construct an apartment building or a two story house. He said that the appellant could have done what he said that he has done with a duplex down the hill from his building, and reach out to the owner to offer to buy the property if they ever want to add on, because it would impact views. He said that he has done everything asked by the Planning Commission and the neighborhood association, and stated that he has indeed made additional modifications beyond what was asked of the project. City Attorney Davi noted that about 15 minutes prior, City Manager Uslar disconnected from the meeting due to owning a property within 500 feet of the project site. A video by appellant Gwyn De Amaral, on behalf of appellants John J. Willsen and Gwyn De Amaral, was played for the Council and the public. He said that he and many of the Council's consituents were disappointed to see the Planning Commission's lack of application of the New Monterey General Plan when reviewing the project. He asked that the Council exercise their position so that the project is equitable for more than only the applicant. He stated that he did not oppose the improvement of 415 Spencer Street but rather objected to the construction on the setting and the mass that it would create. He said that the purpose and the New Monterey Area Plan guidelines were developed by the City Council in 1991 but were being ignored. He said that the findings for the decisions noted in the Council agenda report show four requirements for the ARC. He said that the first requirements were not in compliance with the area plan and ignored supportive evidence expressed by neighbors who dispute this project. He said that the Planning Commission denied the project on December 10, 2019, there were many areas of concern. He said that the Planning Commission had a limited purview and making recommendations for the project was outside their scope of authoirty. He said that many neighbors have brought their concerns to Planning and the issues are not being addressed, which led to filing the appeal. At the recent ARC meeting, he said that member Justin Pauly stated that he did not see in the project revisions any gains to the surrounding neighbors. He said that the mass and view concerns are still an issue. He said that Planning's limited scope has moved the project forward by using only two points, dismissing countless other issues that he said surround the project. He said that the Planning Commission board received several letters and comments from neighbors against the project, expressing concerns about the project's mass, water availability, privacy views, and better integration. He said that the Planning Commission deferred these matters and only requested that the planner work with the applicant on only two areas. He said that the issues ignored included the project creating privacy issues, taking away existing City, shore, and bay views, altering historical environment districts, the setting, mass, and CEQA concerns. He said that Planning ignores that this project is being proposed on the highest point of its parcel's hillside, creating reasonable negative impacts to the surrounding neighbors by taking away views of the City, sky, and bay. He said that the planner continues to ignore the significance and feels that the issues have been adequately satsified. He said that the applicant has stated that his property is zoned for a four- unit apartment and that his single-family dwelling project has less of an impact, but he said that the applicant excludes the fact that he does not have sufficient water credits for a four-unit apartment. He said that the applicant has used this formula to justify this project. Mr. DeAmaral's video continued, stating that City staff has noted that no cumulative impacts were anticipated, which he said minimizes what is known of the various adverse effects that he said are inevitable. He said that staff states that no application for a garage had been received at this point, however he said that previous conversations with the applicant and the applicant's recent presentations to the ARC and the Planning Commission expressed that the project was being designed to meet setbacks in order to have a garage added later. He said that while the 7 City Council Minutes September 1, 2020 garage would be one story due to the parcel's topography, it would also be on the highest point of the property and create more significant impacts to surrounding neighbors' views and create more privacy encroachments. He said that another project impact on the environment was the taking of additional water credits that he said the applicant currently did not have. He said that the City of Monterey should not allocate future water that they do not have. He asked how the project can be submitted to the ARC and the Planning Commission when it depicts the number of fixtures, which he said was not consistent with the number of water credits that he said both the City and the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District have confirmed that the single family home has only one legal bathroom. He said that no agency has red tagged this violation. He said that the additional bathroom added by a previous owner located in an outbuilding is illegial and non-compliant and that to approve this project in its current design would be taking unavailable water from the environment. He said that allowing extra water credits for an illegal bathroom affects future conservation and water resource efforts. He said that contrary to what was reported in the agenda report, he did not suggest that the removal of the illegal restroom would constitute a hazardous waste issue; rather he said that he had objected to staff's earlier recommendation in their ARC report where he indicated that the location was not a known hazardous waste site based on the water resource geo tracker. He said that the geo tracker would not have a record of a non-compliant bathroom when no recent work has been performed to generate a soil impact. He said that with an illegal sewer connection, there is the potential of sewage discharge, which he asserted that City staff is ignoring. He said that the presence of sewage discharge in the immediate soil or runoff water would be a hazardous waste. Mr. DeAmaral's video continued, stating that the planner also stated in his report to the Planning Commission that no cumulative impact was anticipated because this is only a single family home addition. He said that this comment marginalized the fact that the existing single family home of 850 square feet was expanding to two stories and adding 1087 square feet of additional floor area and deck to the project mass. He said that the planner's position was that this project is balanced and reasonable, and he said he did not see how it can be considered balanced and meeting the objective of the New Monterey Area Plan for urban design, as he said the new construction project would capture a 100% unobstructed bay view while maintaining its existing view from the first floor and creating privacy issues. He said that the planner's recommendations were not that of balance but of taking, and said it was not a shared approach. He said that the surrounding neighbors who had historically enjoyed their City and bay views would be forced to give up more, which he described as not in balance, and as inequitable. He said that he did not accept the planner's position dismissing the recommendation to build down for this project. He said that the reasoning given b Planning not to support this, such as the cost of a retaining wall, drainage, or inconsistency with single family guidelines, was absurd. He said that throughout the process both the applicant and the planner had expressed that the project's execution was because of its zoning within a multi-family area. He said that this position that he said had been upheld by Planning Commission was in direct contradiction of what he said CEQA clearly states is the applicant's responsibilty, not that of the public. He said that millions of dollars from taxes for ongoing improvements to the City and to New Monterey infrastructure would ensure that building down at the site could be feasibly done and ensure that the project's negative impacts would be mitigated. He said that he supports building sustainable projects that contribute to affordable housing in their single family zoned neighborhood. He said that they just do not understand why Planning Commission recommends a project that ignores the issues brought to its attention by several neighbors and instead take a position that he said went against goals and guidelines set forth by the Monterey Area Land Plan. He said that the project was located within a mapped part of the New Monterey Historical Reconnaissance Survey showing most homes in the neighborhood are part of a historical registry. He said that the applicant has paid to have his home removed from this registry. He said that while the applicant has the right to have their home removed, they still must consider that their project is within a historical resource area boundary and that their 8 City Council Minutes September 1, 2020 project would dramatically impact surrounding historical homes which are still the majority of the New Monterey area. He said that the project would have a cumulative impact on the historical resource environment and character of the neighborhood. He said that the project proposed a mass that was more in keeping with a multi-family structure, which he said was historically the characteristic of the New Monterey Nieghborhood which is presdominantly residential with single-family homes. He said that while new development is necessary and inevitable, the City must look at the vision of its predecessors for land use and take to heart and practice what is in the 1991 New Monterey Land Area Plan. He showed examples of some of the nearby homes that he said illustrated the importance and need for balance in development in order to maintain the neighborhood's characteristics. He showed photos that he said would illustrate the project's impact to his own view as well as that of several neighbors. While showing images of mass blocked out from story poles, he said that the planner felt that such views were shared and that along with the privacy issues were reasonable and integrated in the New Monterey neighborhood. Mr. DeAmaral's video continued, stating that the staff agendas report cites that the appellants' home was 100 feet away from the story poles, which he said contradicts the previous ARC agenda report from November 2019, in which he stated that the poles were 90 feet away from the appellants' home. He said that no level of landscaping would eliminate the privacy concerns that would be created by the additional upstairs windows that he said would face into their bedroom, bathroom, and kitchen. He said that this privacy issue would be further intensified due to the topography of the project's setting. He said that the mass design also contradicted the guidelines referred to under Program 2E of the Area Plan: to build down to minimize building height. Continuing to show photographs of proposed view impacts, Mr. DeAmaral in the appellant video asked the Council to consider if they were in his position, would they interpret the project as in balance, or as a reasonable impairment? He said that while the homeowner has the right to have a second floor, their project should follow the guidelines of the New Monterey Area Plan's urban design program summary. He said that this project, with its known topographical challenge, will create a massive home, which he said was unacceptable. He said that as a homeowner in New Monterey, he relies on the protection and preservation outlined in the New Monterey Area Plan which addresses the concerns that the Council was hearing in this meeting. He said that the 1991 adopted plan provides fundamental guidelines and critical elements for Council's direction this evening. He showed another story poles photograph which he said depicted why the project's integration was essential and must be improved. He asked the council to note the mass of the single family home and the project height compared with the apartment next to it. He said that the New Monterey Area Plan recommends stepping down the hillside to lower the profile of the building on a slope, and said that this project ignores this recommendation. He shared an excerpt from the New Monterey Area Plan stressing the importance of balance between preservation and development, and said that this project falls short of this standard and ignores it. He said that the project fails to meet the balance or sharing of views in its development. In summary, he asked the Council to uphold the goals and visions of the New Monterey Area Plan by approving the appeal. He said that approving the appeal would ensure that the community's future development, part of Monterey's rich historical history, would truly be that of a balanced and shared community approach. The Council asked questions of staff. On question, Senior Associate Planner Schmidt said that the water credit issue is not a factor in this stage of City approval, but it will be a requirement at the building approval stage. 9 City Council Minutes September 1, 2020 Mayor Roberson opened public comments. Tammy Jennings referred to the slope and asked if it would be possible to level the slope and then build up. With no further requests to speak, Mayor Roberson closed public comments. Addressing the question posed by by Ms. Jennings, Senior Associate Planner Schmidt said that significant grading has been suggested by many neighbors. He said that the applicant had considered these questions and had indicated that there were drainage issues that could be a concern, and he said that it was a good question. Mayor Roberson allowed applicant Gularte to provide a rebuttal to the appellant's video. Regarding grading, Mr. Gularte said that he would be needing to put in a two- to three-foot retaining wall to accommodate the project. He said that there are no current garage plans, but if there were a garage planned in the future, it would be set back in a way so as not to impede views. Regarding water credits, he stated that he will comply with whatever the water district decides, including eliminating a bathroom if required. He disputed that the project would have a 100% unobstructed view. He referred to an enormous Monterey pine tree that obstructed much of a view for a long time. He said he would like to work with the appellant on view issues. Regarding photographs of view impacts, he stated that the staff's photographs were more accurate. He said that the black forms in the appellant's presentation showed the original profile and even exaggerated it a bit, and asked that the Council refer to the Planning staff's presentation with the new design. Regarding the New Monterey Plan, he said that the New Monterey Neighborhood Association, in its letter included in the packet, recommended lowering the height by a few feet, and that the redesign lowers it even further. He said that the nearby apartment building creates more of a privacy issue than his project. Regarding excavating, he said that retaining walls are expensive. The Council recessed at 8:44 p.m. and reconvened at 8:59 p.m. On question, Senior Associate Planner Schmidt said that any story pole photos shown by the appllant that included a gabled roof showed the mass proposed in the original design. Appellant De Amaral said that the "black box" images that he shared in his presentation reflected both the original design and the newer design. The Council discussed the matter. It was stated that the matter has been through the ARC and Planning Commission twice, and that the applicant has changed the design to lower the roof to reduce the view loss, and it was stated that the home was in an apartment zone and the impact of building an apartment would be huge. It was stated that the applicant made a good faith impact to reduce the impact to neighbors, and the fact that the neighborhood association didn't object to the redesign was telling and significant. It was stated that losing part of one's view is emotional but is part of living on a hill, that views cannot be promised forever, and that owners have the right to add a second story. It was stated that it feels unsettling to lose part of one's view, but there are development rights that are inherent. It was stated that the standard at hand involved "an unreasonable impact," and that the design changes had included pretty significant accommodations, to the benefit of the neighborhood. It was stated that the view that was preserved with the redesign was nearly 100% of the ocean and the beach. It was stated that the original design's mass and style were not very consistent with the neighborhood and the ARC maybe should not have approved it, but the new design was uniform and aesthetically adequate. It was stated that the setbacks not only met but exceeded the minimum setbacks. It was stated that there were no grounds to support appeal, and no evidence to indicate that the ARC or Planning Commission had erred in their decisions. It was stated that a theoretical garage was not part of the question before Council, and would have to go through its own process in the future if it is proposed. It was stated that removing the property from its historic status had been appropriate. It was stated that the redesign has already cost the owner a 10  City Council Minutes September 1, 2020 substantial amount. It was stated that grading costs a substantial amount of money. It was stated that Policy 3 of the New Monterey Area Plan stated that construction of new structures should not fully block views, and that this project would not fully block the view. On a motion by Councilmember Smith, seconded by Mayor Roberson, and carried by the following vote, which was conducted by roll call, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 20- 137 C.S. to Deny Appeal of Planning Commission’s Decision to Deny a First- and Second-Story Addition and Second-Story Deck at 415 Spencer Street (AP 20-0154); Appellants John J Willsen and Gywn De Amaral; Owner Robert Gularte; R-3-5 Zoning District; Medium Density: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Albert, Haffa, Smith, Williamson, Roberson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None) ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None) ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None) RECUSED: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None) Community Development Director Cole and City Manager Uslar rejoined the meeting at 9:19 p.m. PUBLIC APPEARANCE (EVE) 22. Reject the Development Proposals Received for the City’s Properties on the Former Fort Ord: 031-191-003-000, 031-191-006-000, 031-191-015-000, 031-191-016-000, 031-191-018-000, and 031-191-019-000 (125 Acres) (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Adopted Resolution No. 20-138 C.S. Community Development Director Cole gave the staff presentation recommending that the City Council reject the proposals received, due to a 2020 amendment to the Surplus Land Act. She explained that staff will need to come back to Council with specifics of the amendments, and answered Councilmembers' questions. It was requested by Council to know the munitions and endangered species status of the various portions of the City's property, It was stated that Council would like to see in one full report a thorough overview of the City's responsibilities relating to its Former Fort Ord properties now that the Fort Ord Reuse Authority (FORA) has ended. Mayor Roberson opened public comments. Tom Rowley, Fishermans Flats Neighborhood Association, said that the lack of water is an overreaching problem and trying to determine the value of the property without adequate water is shortsighted. With no further requests to speak, Mayor Roberson closed public comment. The Council discussed the matter. It was requested to learn what the changes to the Surplus Land Act will allow the City to do. It was requested to learn about the City's various options, potential vulnerabilities regarding endangered species, and with whom the City can partner on mitigation after the sunset of FORA. It was requested to see a timeline from staff of when the Council will look at this matter again. It was stated that it would be interesting to look at changing the RFP in the future to potentially encourage more projects to be submitted. On a motion by Councilmember Williamson, seconded by Councilmember Smith, and carried by the following vote, which was conducted by roll call, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 20-138 C.S. to Reject the Development Proposals Received for the City’s Properties on the Former Fort Ord: 031-191-003-000, 031-191-006-000, 031-191-015-000, 031-191-016-000, 031-191-018-000, and 031-191-019-000 (125 Acres): 11  City Council Minutes September 1, 2020 AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Albert, Haffa, Smith, Williamson, Roberson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None) ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None) ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None) RECUSED: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None) 23. City Manager’s Update on Covid-19 Response Efforts and Outdoor Seating Enforcement (Not a project under CEQA per Article 20 Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5 Section 15061) Action: Received update City Manager Uslar gave the staff presentation and answered Councilmembers' questions. Mayor Roberson opened public comments, received none, and closed public comments. The Council discussed the matter. It was stated that lack of adequate availability of COVID-19 testing on the Monterey Peninsula is a problem and that better testing would allow a quicker return to normalcy. On question, City Manager Uslar said that it is a failure of the County not to have a testing site on the Peninsula, and shared that the City has been working toward solutions. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Haffa thanked staff for the work they are doing to address the COVID-19 crisis. Councilmember Albert praised City staff, including fire and police personnel who assisted with the local fires. He highlighted the street work enabled by Measures P and S and thanked the voters. He said that Monterey-Salinas Transit (MST), in partnership with CalTrans and Visa, has rolled out a pilot program for contactless payment using prepaid cards instead of cash. Councilmember Williamson said that Monterey One Water (M1W), at the request of the City of Salinas, has voted to to increase the number of votes that Salinas has on the board by two votes to a total of eight weighted votes, which he said is close to 50% of the weighted vote for the entire region. He expressed some concern and said that more discussion will continue. He shared ways in which the COVID-19 pandemic has amplified some inequalities that affect women, and stressed the importance of acknowledging the struggle that women are going through, especially mothers and women of color. He asked that the Council advocate for fair working policies. Councilmember Smith praised the City Manager's performance during the COVID-19 pandemic. He reported from a recent Monterey County Hospitality Association meeting and said that hotel occupancy in Monterey is at about 60%, which he said is a significant economic loss and indicates that the industry is devastated. He thanked public safety staff for their work on the recent fires. He asked to close the meeting in memory of Jim Anderson, a former City employee whom he said is missed. Mayor Roberson thanked the Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) for their work during COVID-19 testing at the Presidio and during the recent local fires, and encouraged volunteers to join. He gave a "shout out" to all of the teachers, parents, and others who are navigating the challenges of distance learning. 12 City Council Minutes September 1, 2020 CITY MANAGER REPORTS City Manager Uslar reported on Fire Department staff who were working at fires elsewhere in the state. He said that hotel occupancy went up during the local fire evacuations, and said the hospitality industry lowered their rates to help the evacuees. He announced the dates of upcoming regular meeting and special meetings on September 15 and 16. ADJOURNMENT The Council adjourned at 10:46 p.m. in memory of Jim Anderson. Respectfully Submitted, Approved, Clementine Bonner Klein Clyde Roberson City Clerk Mayor 13