Planning Commission Meeting

MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, October 27, 2015 4:00 pm - 5:30 pm 7:00 pm - 11:00 pm 580 PACIFIC STREET, COUNCIL CHAMBERS MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA Commissioners Present: Monterey: Reed, Fletcher, Davis, Garden, Millich Pacific Grove: Murphy, Aeschliman, Chakwin Commissioners Absent: Monterey: Widmar, Dawson Pacific Grove: Fredrickson, Smith, Bluhm, Byrne Staff Members Present: Principal Planner Cole, Principal Planner Caraker, Recording Secretary Leinen CALL TO ORDER Chair Reed Called to order the joint session of the City of Monterey and City of Pacific Grove Planning Commissions at 4:00 pm. PRESENTATIONS 1. California Coastal Commission Presentation on Adopted Sea Level Rise Policy Guidance Staff Presentation/Commissioner Questions Ms. Cole gave a brief summary of Coastal Commission grants received by the Cities of Pacific Grove and Monterey for the Local Coastal Plan (LCP) Update and introduced Madeline Cavalieri, Kevin Kahn, Brian O’Neill, and Kelsey Ducklow of the Coastal Commission. Commissioner Chakwin thanked the Monterey Planning Commission for hosting the joint session. Ms. Ducklow gave a presentation on Sea Level Rise Policy Guidance and answered Commissioners’ questions. In response to Commissioner Garden’s question, Ms. Ducklow said sea level rise impacts are shown on the map with zones reflecting areas of low to high impacts. Ms. Cole added that the City of Monterey will work with EMC Planning Group and a coastal scientist to prepare the LCP update. In response to Commissioner Garden’s second question, Ms. Ducklow said that flooding on land from storms is factored into sea level rise. In response to Commissioner Garden’s third question, Ms. Cavalieri said Coastal Zone lines are set by the legislature and adjusting the lines is not part of the LCP process. Commissioner Chawkin thanked Ms. Ducklow and asked if the document she presented is a continuation of the State Hazard Mitigation Measures of 2013. He also asked if the Coastal Commission will provide higher fidelity coastal sea rise data to Pacific Grove and if the data will be in smaller year increments. In response, Ms. Ducklow said the Hazard Mitigation Measures are a separate process but are very similar and can sometimes overlap. She also said a determination was made that the projections for sea level rise may be very similar between Pacific Grove and Monterey. She also said there are many effective policies that can be implemented without the fine scale detail. In response to Commissioner Murphy’s question, Ms. Ducklow said she was unable to gather information from the Monterey Bay sea level gauge due to website difficulties, but she believes  Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday, October 27, 2015 the information would be very similar to the San Francisco sea level gauge. Public Comments Jason Retterer, land use attorney, asked in terms of analyzing the impacts of sea level rise on individual projects, which projection of sea level rise (low, intermediate, or high) the mitigation standard is based on. Ms. Ducklow said the guidance does not have any new regulations and the standard of review is still the Coastal Act and coastal development permits are reviewed on a case by case basis. She also said the guidance recommends looking at a range of scenarios and understanding worst case scenario impacts, although there may be opportunity to design for a lower level impact with adaptation steps in place. Mr. Kahn added that when seawalls are approved, conditions that require mitigation over 20 year increments are usually placed to address the uncertainties and differences in the sea level. Bill Peake, Pacific Grove resident, said in Pacific Grove there are a number of small seawalls and riprap protecting the recreation trail and road along the edge of the water, and he asked for examples of where the Coastal Commission would agree to augmenting or repairing small seawalls or adding riprap. Ms. Duckow said in general, a priority use in the Coastal Act is to protect public access as opposed to protecting a private development at the detriment of public uses. Mr. Kahn added that in regards to shoreline armoring the main impacts that the Coastal Commission would look at are the physical encroachment of the project and how the project would prevent natural erosion. ***Adjourn to Regular Planning Commission Meeting*** Chair Reed called for a brief recess at 4:51 pm. Chair Reed reconvened the regular Planning Commission Meeting at 4:58 p.m. CONSENT ITEMS Commissioner Garden made a motion to approve the Consent Items with amendments to the Minutes of September 22, 2015. Commissioner Davis seconded the motion. On a motion by Commissioner Garden, seconded by Commissioner Davis, and carried by the following vote, the Planning Commission approved the CONSENT ITEMS with amendments to the Minutes of September 22, 2015: AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Reed, Fletcher, Davis, Garden, Millich (abstained from item #3) NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Widmar, Dawson ABSTAIN: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None RECUSED: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None Approval of Minutes 2. September 8, 2015 ACTION: Approved as submitted. 3. September 22, 2015 ACTION: Approved as amended. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Tuesday, October 27, 2015 2  Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday, October 27, 2015 Commissioner Millich abstained from voting on the Minutes of September 22, 2015 due to absence from the meeting. Commissioner Davis requested that the underlined motion on page 5 of the Minutes of September 22, 2015 be corrected to reflect that he was the motion-maker and Vice Chair Fletcher seconded the motion. ***End of Consent Agenda*** PUBLIC COMMENTS None. PUBLIC APPEARANCE 4. Recommendation to Approve the FY 2014/15 Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER) for Housing and Community Development Programs and Authorize Submission to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) (Exempt from CEQA) - CONTINUE TO NOVEMBER 10, 2015 ACTION: Continued to November 10, 2015. Commissioner Garden made a motion to continue the item to November 10, 2015. Commissioner Millich seconded the motion. On a motion by Commissioner Garden, seconded by Commissioner Millich, and carried by the following vote, the Planning Commission continued the item to November 10, 2015: AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Reed, Fletcher, Davis, Garden, Millich NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Widmar, Dawson ABSTAIN: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None RECUSED: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None The afternoon session adjourned at 5:02 pm. RECONVENE ***Evening Session Agenda*** 7:00 – 11:00 pm Chair Reed reconvened to the evening session at 7:00 pm. CONTINUED PUBLIC COMMENTS None. PUBLIC HEARING Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Tuesday, October 27, 2015 3  Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday, October 27, 2015 5. Consider 1 Ryan Ranch Road; Use Permit Amendment 15-278 and Environmental Negative Declaration 15-391, for the Expansion of the Monterey Salinas Transit Operations and Maintenance Facility; and Zoning Text Amendment 15-392 to Allow Above Ground Fuel Storage Tanks; Owner/Applicant Monterey Salinas Transit LLC; General Plan Industrial; Zoning Planned Community ACTION: Adopted Resolutions adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration; Recommending that the City Council amend the zoning ordinance to allow above ground storage thanks; and Approving Use Permit Amendment 15-278 adopting a Planned Community Plan for the Monterey Salinas Transit Operations and Maintenance Facility. Staff Presentation/Commissioner Questions Elizabeth Caraker presented the Agenda Report and answered Commissioners’ questions. Applicant Hunter Harvath, Assistant General Manager of MST, thanked staff for their assistance and said the proposal is a great project that will benefit Monterey Peninsula. He said the proposed facility would allow mini-buses used on the Monterey Peninsula to be stored in Monterey, as opposed to Salinas, reducing costs and becoming more eco-friendly. Mr. Harvath said the proposed above-ground tank is needed to store unleaded fuel for buses that would be stored at the Monterey facility. He also said MST hopes to purchase electric buses in the future and an underground tank would be less cost-effective to remove when all-electric busses are obtained. In response to Commissioner Garden’s question, Mr. Harvath said MST is not looking to increase service with the project, but rather to get busses based on the peninsula and to expand services where needed. Mr. Harvath also said MST has not found reliable all-electric bus at this time, but hopes to over the next five years with technology evolving. In response to Commissioner Garden’s question regarding the Cap and Trade Program, Mr. Horvath said that MST pays higher rates for their gas and electricity as a commercial agency which funds affordable housing near transit and public transit services and zero emission busses. In response to Commissioner Millich’s question, Mr. Harvath said the project is expected to save between a quarter million and half a million dollars per year, which will be rolled into other programs. Public Comments Carl Outzen asked what the slope of the land proposed for construction is and also what the benefit to the City is of having above ground fuel tanks. He also asked why the City is allowing a text amendment for a government entity when they would not necessarily allow one for a regular contractor. Mr. Outzen said he is surprised the Airport Land Use Commission approved the above-ground tanks since they are in the flight path and accidents happen. In response, Ms. Caraker said the slope is approximately 25-35% and cannot be avoided due. Regarding the zoning text amendment, Ms. Caraker said that the applicant and staff worked together to find ways to reduce costs while remaining in the community, and that determinations made in the 1970’s about above ground and underground storage tanks may no longer apply. Regarding the airport land use restrictions, Ms. Caraker said this is an appropriate use near the airport, according to the Airport Land Use Commission. Commissioner Comments Commissioner Garden said he is happy to see an MST proposal that can potentially improve the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Tuesday, October 27, 2015 4  Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday, October 27, 2015 service on the Monterey Peninsula. He said while he was concerned with additional gasoline storage, it appears to be a temporary solution that will help provide residential service with mini- buses in more neighborhoods. Commissioner Garden also said anyone can ask the City Council for a zoning amendment and that the Zoning Ordinance is dated and ready for updates. Commissioner Garden made a motion to adopt Resolutions adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration; Recommending that the City Council amend the zoning ordinance to allow above ground storage thanks; and Approving Use Permit Amendment 15-278 adopting a Planned Community Plan for the Monterey Salinas Transit Operations and Maintenance Facility. Commissioner Fletcher seconded the motion. Commissioner Davis said he is impressed with the service that the Navy and the Defense Language Institute are requesting, and was previously unaware it existed, but it is a very important service that the Federal Government is funding. On a motion by Commissioner Garden, seconded by Commissioner Fletcher, and carried by the following vote, the Planning Commission adopt Resolutions adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration; Recommending that the City Council amend the zoning ordinance to allow above ground storage thanks; and Approving Use Permit Amendment 15-278 adopting a Planned Community Plan for the Monterey Salinas Transit Operations and Maintenance Facility: AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Reed, Fletcher, Davis, Garden, Millich NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Widmar, Dawson ABSTAIN: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None RECUSED: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None Commissioner Millich recused himself from item #6 due to residing within one block of the project site. 6. Consider 1 Soledad Drive; Use Permit 15-371 for a Safe Parking Program to Allow Homeless Individuals to Park Overnight; Property Owner Monterey Methodist Church; Applicant James Nelson, Pass the Word Ministry (One Starfish Safe Parking); R-1-20 Zoning District; Exempt from CEQA ACTION: Continued to November 10, 2015. Staff Presentation/Commissioner Questions Ms. Cole presented the Agenda Report and answered Commissioners’ questions. Applicant Pastor Jim Nelson, Pass the Word Ministry and One Starfish, applicant, said four program sites in total have been running since September of 2014 in Carmel Valley, Seaside, and Pacific Grove. He said the program has passed its pilot stage, refined details, worked through the intake and background check process, and that a participant would be the site manager and a lot manager would also be available for inspections. Pastor Nelson also said the program is well-supervised, has requirements for participation, and is plugged into employment and transitional housing assistance. He said the program is very successful and the average amount of time participants are in the program is three months. Pastor Nelson said there is a different mentality for those living in their vehicle and those living on the street, and that the program participants want a regular housing situation. He also thanked the Planning Commission and City for working with the program and said he hopes it is an ongoing service. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Tuesday, October 27, 2015 5 Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday, October 27, 2015 In response to Commissioner Davis’s question, Pastor Nelson confirmed that one person is identified as a site manager who can identify and call appropriate persons if necessary. In response to Chair Reed’s question, Pastor Nelson said the biggest issue the program has faced at one of its existing sites was a broken-down, unauthorized vehicle, but the issue has been resolved. Tia Sukin, former Executive Director of One Starfish, said the incident in Pacific Grove that Pastor Nelson mentioned was complaint based and that the program worked with the community and police department to address the issue and come to a mutual understanding to prevent referrals without the intake process. Ms. Sukin also said when this occurs the program has been successful in calling the site manager to do intake and decide whether or not the program is a good fit. In response to Vice Chair Fletcher’s question, Pastor Nelson said a caseworker balances the cars between the different sites and he does not anticipate having six cars at the proposed site more than one or two months out of the year. Public Comments Kris and Tim Stejskal said they are residents at 17 Mar Vista Drive. Ms. Stejskal said she wants to make sure the situation is a win-win situation for both the organization and the residents. She said she is thankful there are people willing to run such a program, but she asked the Planning Commission to consider the neighbors. Ms. Stejskal said there is a clear view from her living room to the parking lot and vice versa. Mr. Stejskal said he and his wife are very involved with humanitarian causes but have many concerns regarding the proposed project, including the adjacency of their residence to the parking lot, the inadequate buffer zone between the site adjacent residences, criminal background checks, adequate trash cans and cleaning of the site, safety of residents and animals in the area, location and cleanliness of the porta-potty, lack of oversight on who can use the porta-potty, lack of supervision by church staff when participants are on site, whether the program is focused on women or is for men and women, and insufficient or differing details in the Agenda Report and Resolution. Mr. Stejskal recommended that the Planning Commission does not approve the project due to the concerns, and said if the Planning Commission does approve the project they should strongly consider the other church parking lot because it sits lower, has easy access to Soledad, and is in more of a commercial area than residential. He also asked that the porta-potty be moved to that parking lot so it is not visible from his home. Mr. Stejskal said he is an employee with Dole and proposed that part of Dole’s parking lot be used for the safe parking if One Starfish is interested, and said the only issue would be airport noise. Michael Fetcher said he has been a volunteer and lot monitor for the One Starfish Safe Parking Program for the past couple years. Mr. Fetcher said when participants arrive to the program they go right to sleep, and that decorative fencing to screen the porta-potty will be installed at the expense of the program. He also said that so far there have been no complaints regarding noise and that the participants have been good neighbors and are protective of the neighborhoods. In response to Chair Reed’s question, Mr. Fetcher said the Pacific Grove location is closer to residential housing than the proposed location in Monterey, and said that the neighbors in Pacific Grove have actually become close with the program participants. In responss to Vice Chair Fletcher’s question, Mr. Fetcher said the Pacific Grove location is on Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Tuesday, October 27, 2015 6 Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday, October 27, 2015 Sunset Avenue at the butterfly church and the only incident that has occurred is an RV breaking down in the lot. Greg Gessaman, resident of 26 Soledad Drive, said none of the nearby residents want the proposed program whether they are speaking out or not, and that plans and promises made now will not hold up over time. Mr. Gessaman expressed concern regarding many stores in the area that sell alcohol and the proximity of Union Bank’s ATM to the proposed parking lot. He also said the parking lot is very close to the significant homeless population at Munras Avenue and Soledad Drive, and he does not feel comfortable having the population move across to the residential side of the street. Mr. Gessaman said if the western parking lot was used for parking it would be visible from his gate and that he would not feel comfortable walking his dogs at night anymore. Eric Johnson and Stacy Johnson said they live nearby on Pacific Street. Mr. Johnson said it concerns him a great deal to have a porta-potty that is not monitored and that his main concern is that the proposed site will attract more people and cause the homeless population in the area to grow. He also expressed concern regarding the vagueness of how to contact the site manager if necessary and with the number of cars allowed growing. Mr. Johnson asked if more space is available at the other church location in Carmel Valley since it is not a residential area, and asked the Planning Commission to not approve the permit due to the proposed location. Ms. Johnson said she spoke with the police chief and he thought the program was for women, and even if this is the case, it is hard to guarantee that the program will not attract others outside of the program, or that others will not be fraternizing on site for the 12 hours each day that the program is running. She also said the location will be very visible and this could also attract non- participants. Ms. Johnson said she does not think the proposed location is ideal and asked if the safe parking program will need to be a disclosure since it will affect value and marketability of area houses. She also said noise in the area at night is amplified and travels well. Cindy Storrs, pastor of the Monterey United Methodist Church, said she is grateful to live and work in a community where people are willing to come and express concerns and work together. Regarding the porta-potty, Ms. Storrs said it is serviced once per week, but she is willing have it serviced more frequently, and that it will remain unlocked and available to community to serve a need, as long as it is not abused. She also said she is more than happy to decorate the porta- potty to make it more attractive and that she would like to be invited up to the residences on the hill to see what else could be done to soften the visual effects of the program. Ms. Storrs said her congregation will not allow the church to have a bad reputation and that participants are very protective of the program. She said the people who are homeless near Whole Foods are not the people that the program serves, and that she lives very close and could be on site in less than five minutes. Ms. Storrs said participants sign a contract saying they will not drink and that drinking is not allowed on the site. She also said many times people come to park when they are ready to sleep and are not there for a full 12 hours. Ms. Storrs said the proposed site is desirable for those with children in school and also that she has spoken with Union Bank who has not expressed concern. Ms. Storrs also said the program will report back to the Planning Commission every six months over the next 18 months. In response to Vice Chair Fletcher’s question, Ms. Storrs said if the Planning Commission approved the program she would be willing to tell other non-program participants that they cannot come onto the property during the time the program runs. In response to Vice Chair Fletcher’s second question, Ms. Storrs said she is willing to consider locking the porta-potty during the day, however, at another site where the porta-potty was locked the lock was Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Tuesday, October 27, 2015 7 Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday, October 27, 2015 repeatedly broken by non-program participants. She also said she will lock up the porta-potty if required, but she is reluctant because it serves a need for many people, preventing them from using neighbor’s yards. Rowan Wolnick, resident of 1251 Pacific Street, said she became involved with the program when witnessed someone urinating on the sidewalk and contacted Community Services Director Kim Bui Burton to request that a porta-potty be placed in the area and was delighted that the issue was attended to with the porta-potty. She also commented on the large amount of trash in the neighborhood. Ms. Wolnick said the porta-potty has been in place since February and this is the first time there has been a complaint. She also said that everything she has heard about One Starfish is positive and that she supports anything that can be done to help people living in their cars so she hopes that the project is approved. In response to Vice Chair Fletcher’s question, Pastor Nelson said grants are the program’s main source of funding. In response to Vice Chair Fletcher’s question regarding the site selection process, Pastor Nelson said the program tries to look at location, proximity to neighborhoods, proximity job services, and the church’s attitudes towards the guests. Ms. Sukin added that in the beginning the program had to look for potential sites, but now churches mostly volunteer. She also said that other churches in Monterey were interested in financial support but not in hosting the program. Ms. Sukin said the particular location is desirable because of Ms. Storrs congregation and commitment to the program. She also said many people coming into the program have jobs but do not have the financial means to rent within the community, and she offered to contact a resident in the City of Pacific Grove who lives near the other program site. In response to Commissioner Davis’s question, Pastor Nelson said the program is not made up completely of women participants, although it primarily serves women. Pastor Nelson also clarified that there are seven spaces in the lot, but only six spaces will be used for the program. In response to Commissioner Davis’s second question, Pastor Nelson said it is possible that families and children would participate in the program. Pastor Nelson also said that normally participants arrive in their vehicles and then lock up to sleep. Also in response to Commissioner Davis’s question, Pastor Nelson said participants have to comply with the program requirements or else they run the risk of being kicked out of the program. In response to Vice Chair Fletcher’s question, Pastor Nelson said it was the host site who chose six cars and, if needed, the number could be reduced to five cars. Commissioner Comments Commissioner Davis said everyone agrees that the program is a great one, but he has heard a lot from the neighbors and he understand their feelings. He also said he feels that in order for the program to be successful, it needs to meet with the neighbors to try to solve some of the issues. Commissioner Davis said he feels uncomfortable making a decision if this is the first time the neighbors have heard about the issue. Commissioner Garden said many groups have been working on this important program that needs to be implemented. He also said the Planning Commission forwarded a Resolution to the City Council and they agreed that the program is something the City needs to implement now. Commissioner Garden said the Planning Commission regularly looks at use permits that are not perfect solutions, and the Planning Commission will look at complaints lodged with the Police Department when it reviews the use permit if complaints are filed. He also said the use permit will be evaluated by not only the sponsoring agencies, but by the neighbors who have made complaints. Commissioner Garden said having participated in inception of the program and all Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Tuesday, October 27, 2015 8 Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday, October 27, 2015 the adjustments that the Planning Commission directed to be made, he thinks the program is ready to proceed as a trial. Vice Chair Fletcher said the program is a great program, and while there may be other possible sites, it is not what the Planning Commission is looking at today. He also said due to concerns raised, everything should be done to ensure impacts are minimized. Vice Chair Fletcher said a review should happen sooner than six months and that the parking lot that is most ideal is the one off Soledad Drive, not the one off Mar Vista Drive, because it sits lower and is not adjacent to residential property. He also said the porta-porty needs to be screened and with these Conditions he would be in support of the application. Chair Reed said knowing what he does about the One Starfish Program, he would vote for the application if he lived near the proposed site. He also said the people who are in program are not people you see living on the street. Chair Reed said the problem he has with the application is the location due to the traveling population nearby and how to deal with their proximity to the program. He also said he supports program but wants a very short leash on it with review no longer than four months after the program begins. Chair Reed said his other concern is the porta-potty and whether it will draw more people to the location, so he would like to hear more about the issue. Commissioner Garden made a motion to adopt a Resolution approving a use permit for a safe parking program to allow homeless individuals to park overnight at 1 Soledad Drive with amended Special Conditions of Approval as follows: 10. The applicant shall provide a status report to the Planning Commission within 3 months of the initiation of the program. Vice Chair Fletcher asked if Commissioner Garden prefers one parking lot over the other. Commissioner Garden said he does not support one lot over the other. Vice Chair Fletcher said he will not support the motion without a switch in the lots, and he thinks clarification is needed on how the porta-potty will be screened. Commissioner Garden said he does not have any justification to choose one lot over the other and would suggest a continuance of the application. Vice Chair Fletcher said the other parking lot location is less impactful than the proposed lot. Chair Reed asked the applicant if they would be willing to consider the other lot. Ms. Storrs said the larger parking lot has motion activated lights, is well-lit, and is flat, while the other lot is very steep, is dark, and only has one available space for parking. Vice Chair Reed seconded the previously stated motion. Commissioner Davis said the program is very important and he would like to have the first run be as successful as possible. He said he would like the neighbors and program to try to work together before voting on the issue. Commissioner Reed withdrew his second to the motion, agreeing with Commissioner Davis that a win-win situation for the organization and the neighbors is needed before voting on the application. The motion died for a lack of a second. Ms. Cole said one option would be to continue the application to November 10th to allow for One Starfish and neighbors to meet and discuss. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Tuesday, October 27, 2015 9  Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday, October 27, 2015 Chair Reed made a motion to continue the application to November 10, 2015. Commissioner Davis seconded the motion. On a motion by Commissioner Reed, seconded by Commissioner Davis, and carried by the following vote, the Planning Commission continue the application to November 10, 2015: AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Reed, Fletcher, Davis, Garden NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Widmar, Dawson ABSTAIN: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None RECUSED: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Millich PUBLIC APPEARANCE 7. Receive Report on Lighthouse Specific Plan and Consider Directing Staff to Prepare Environmental Analysis ACTION: Continued to November 10, 2015. Staff Presentation/Commissioner Questions Ms. Cole presented the Agenda Report and answered Commissioners’ questions. Public Comments Carl Outzen said he owns a few developments sites on Lighthouse Avenue. He gave the following suggestions for the Lighthouse Specific Plan: Create a parking plan similar to downtown Monterey with bulbouts and smaller sidewalks to create more space for people to get out of their cars and increase safety; prevent windows that are further back from the street because they are unattractive; require overhangs in the design of buildings to preserve design; include on-site parking to alleviate on-street parking issues; and create a curb and sidewalk at the Lighthouse Avenue curve. Mr. Outzen also said Lighthouse Avenue and Cannery Row are part of the New Monterey Neighborhood Improvement Program (NIP) funding area, so the funding should be equally distributed, which could help implement the landscaping plan. Jolinda Thompson, Laine Street resident and member of the advisory board, thanked Ms. Cole and staff for their patience and professionalism through the Lighthouse Specific Plan process. Ms. Thompson said she got involved in the process because the traffic on her street is changing the neighborhood and that the Planning Commission will hear a lot more about the traffic issue. Ms. Thompson also said she does not like the tattoo, massage and vape businesses, but that the neighborhood is still a great neighborhood. Commissioner Comments Commissioner Garden said the Lighthouse Subcommittee worked with staff to interpret community input over the years to create a draft Plan, and there are two goals that the draft Plan does not address. These two goals, he said, are Goal 1C to improve driving safety conditions on Lighthouse Avenue and Goal 2C to improve safety of parking on Lighthouse Avenue. Commissioner Garden said the subcommittee discussed an alternative with two lanes going into the tunnel and one lane coming out of the tunnel and two lanes coming out on Foam Avenue, which would give 10 to 11 feet of space to widen parking and travel lanes. He said this is not one of the recommendations so it would require another traffic study. He also said the majority of the subcommittee wanted to try this alternative and that the Plan is not ready until the two goals are addressed. Commissioner Garden said his other concern with the draft Plan is that Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Tuesday, October 27, 2015 10 Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday, October 27, 2015 there is nothing new that does not already exist on Lighthouse Avenue. He said there is no reason to rush the Lighthouse Specific Plan. Commissioner Garden suggested tabling review until staff has had the year or year and a half to get tested and tried mechanisms for the flow of traffic along Lighthouse Avenue. Commissioner Davis questioned whether one option or the other would skew or create a different environmental outcome in terms of its analysis, since there would be the same amount of cars either way. He said he does not see why the Planning Commission should wait on their decision and that he does not see any one or the other being environmentally superior. Commissioner Davis said once there is money to solve circulation, the whole process will happen again. In response to Commissioner Millich’s question, Ms. Cole said there are traffic studies that give peak times of travel towards Pacific Grove and towards Monterey that can be obtained. Commissioner Millich said the Golden Gate bridge has movable dividers to go with the flow of traffic. In regards to Commissioner Davis’s question, Commissioner Garden said Ms. Cole has stated that she does not have the environmental information for the 2-1 circulation option. Commissioner Garden also said the plan should not move forward because in the future, environmental analysis will not be used to evaluate projects, but rather the reduction or increase in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) will be used. Ms. Cole said the Office of Planning and Research has issued draft guidelines on how to measure VMT, but currently both methods are being used. Commissioner Davis asked if the circulation section needs to be in the Plan and if it needs to be defined. Ms. Cole confirmed that it is required by law and said she sees a benefit of the document being adopted and going forward. In response to Commissioner Garden’s concerns, Vice Chair Reed said there was not overwhelming consensus by the subcommittee on objectives for the goals, and said the subcommittee punted the issue to the Planning Commission for a decision. Vice Chair Reed said the preferred alternative does not necessarily address Commissioner Garden’s two concerns. He also said getting the document complete and approved is important, and waiting three years to implement the Plan is a little too long. Commissioner Garden said if the Plan goes forward without addressing driving and parking safety there will not be any incentive for developers to come to the area. Commissioner Davis said a deterrent today is the current height requirements. Commissioner Garden requested that Carl Outzen address the Commission with his concerns regarding traffic circulation. Mr. Outzen said that the roundabout will not improve the traffic situation on Lighthouse Avenue, and his concern is the safety and success of businesses on Lighthouse Avenue. Mr. Outzen said the only way to make the street more safe is to narrow the sidewalks and widen the lanes. He also said he plans to come in with a design for his building at 230 Lighthouse with a sidewalk that is two feet narrower to show the design. Mr. Outzen agreed with Commissioner Garden that it is too soon to pass the Plan. Vice Chair Reed suggested an addition to the Plan to narrow the sidewalks by two feet. Commissioner Garden said this is not what the traffic engineer wants. Vice Chair Reed said you could achieve the preferred alternative with two feet extra on the sidewalk, which would increase safety. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Tuesday, October 27, 2015 11  Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday, October 27, 2015 Commissioner Garden said he would like to see a staff proposal to address the two goals that have been clearly stated because he fears without them being resolved there will not be significant incentive for businesses to come to the area. Vice Chair Reed requested that there be clarification if the 2-1 traffic design requires another traffic study. Commissioner Garden clarified that he wants the best staff solution to improve safety while keeping two-way circulation on Lighthouse Avenue. Ms. Cole said she will speak to Rich Deal to obtain an answer. Commissioner Millich made a motion to continue the item to November 10, 2015. Commissioner Davis seconded the motion. On a motion by Commissioner Millich, seconded by Commissioner Davis, and carried by the following vote, the Planning Commission continued the item to November 10, 2015: AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Reed, Fletcher, Davis, Garden, Millich NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Widmar, Dawson ABSTAIN: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None RECUSED: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None 8. Appointments to Subcommittees ACTION: Confirmed Subcommittee appointments for Fiscal Year 2015-2016. Staff Presentation/Commissioner Questions Ms. Cole presented the Agenda Report and answered Commissioners’ questions. Public Comments None. Commissioner Comments Chair Reed and Commissioner Garden agreed that Lighthouse Specific Plan Subcommittee is no longer needed. Commissioner Garden requested that the Climate Action Plan Subcommittee remain. Commissioner Garden requested that Ms. Cole find out if the Planning Commission or the City Council appoints members to the Old Monterey Business Association. Vice Chair Fletcher volunteered for the Zoning Ordinance Subcommittee and Chair Reed volunteered to leave that subcommittee. Commissioner Millich volunteered for the North Fremont Business Association Subcommittee, and Commissioner Davis volunteered to leave that subcommittee. Commissioner Dawson was assigned to the Climate Action Plan Subcommittee. The remaining subcommittee appointments remained the same and the Planning Commission discussed and decided on eliminating the Water Subcommittee, the Waterfront Master Plan Subcommittee, the North Fremont Specific Plan Subcommittee, the Lighthouse Specific Plan Subcommittee, the Downtown Specific Plan Subcommittee, and the Outdoor Seating Subcommittee. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Tuesday, October 27, 2015 12  Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday, October 27, 2015 Commissioner Garden made a motion to confirm the Subcommittee appointments for Fiscal Year 2015-2016. Commissioner Fletcher seconded the motion. On a motion by Commissioner Garden, seconded by Commissioner Fletcher, and carried by the following vote, the Planning Commission confirmed the Subcommittee appointments for Fiscal Year 2015-2016: AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Reed, Fletcher, Davis, Garden, Millich NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Widmar, Dawson ABSTAIN: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None RECUSED: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS None. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS & STAFF COMMENTS 9. Planning Office Update  Update received.  Ms. Cole said a Local Coastal Plan update community informational session will be held on December 9, 2015 from 6:00 p.m. – 7:00 p.m. at the Monterey Bay Aquarium.  Commissioner Garden proposed that the Planning Commission meeting of December 22, 2015 be canceled and the Commission agreed by consensus. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:08 pm. Respectfully Submitted, Approved, Kimberly Cole, AICP Chair Principal Planner Planning Commission Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Tuesday, October 27, 2015 13