Planning Commission Meeting

MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, June 12, 2018 4:00 PM AFTERNOON SESSION ONLY FEW MEMORIAL HALL OF RECORDS COUNCIL CHAMBERS 580 PACIFIC STREET MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA Commissioners Present: Latasa, Dawson, Millich, Brassfield Commissioners Absent: Fletcher, Reed Staff Members Present: Community Development Director Cole, Housing and Community Development Manager Caraker, Associate Planner Schmidt, City Attorney Davi, Recording Secretary Leinen CALL TO ORDER Chair Millich called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. CONSENT ITEMS Commissioner Latasa abstained from voting on items #2 and #3 of the Consent Agenda due to his absence from the April 10, 2018 and May 22, 2018 meetings. Approval of Minutes 1. March 15, 2018 (Continued from May 22, 2018) ACTION: Approved as submitted. Commissioner Brassfield made a motion to approve the minutes of March 15, 2018. Vice Chair Dawson seconded the motion. On a motion by Commissioner Brassfield, seconded by Commissioner Dawson, and carried by the following vote, the Planning Commission approved the Minutes of March 15, 2018: AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Millich, Dawson, Brassfield, Latasa NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Fletcher, Reed ABSTAIN: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None RECUSED: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None Commissioner Brassfield made a motion to approve the minutes of April 10, 2018 and May 22, 2018 meetings. Vice Chair Dawson seconded the motion. On a motion by Commissioner Brassfield, seconded by Commissioner Dawson, and carried by the following vote, the Planning Commission approved the Minutes of April 10, 2018 and May 22, 2018: AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Millich, Dawson, Brassfield NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Fletcher, Reed ABSTAIN: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None RECUSED: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Latasa  Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday, June 12, 2018 2. April 10, 2018 (Continued from May 22, 2018) ACTION: Approved as submitted. Commissioner Brassfield said he has spoken to staff since the prior Planning Commission meeting and the issue he raised regarding meeting information being withheld from the public was adequately addressed by City staff. Commissioner Brassfield suggested distributing information in a manner in addition to the links published online. 3. May 22, 2018 ACTION: Approved as submitted. ***End of Consent Agenda*** PUBLIC COMMENTS None. PUBLIC HEARING In response to Chair Millich’s question, Christine Davi said she is aware of the letter submitted by Cox, Castle, Nicholson earlier in the afternoon and that it should not prohibit the Commission from proceeding. 4. Recommend City Council Approval of a Development Agreement with Ruby Falls Fund, LLC; and, Approve Use Permit Amendment PE-17-0583 Amending Use Permit 00-019 for 457, 465, 470, 565, and 570 Cannery Row; Applicant Mike Dunham; Owner Eric Jones; Zoning Cannery Row Commercial; General Plan Commercial; CEQA: EIR Addendum Filed ACTION: Adopted a resolution recommending City Council approval of a Development Agreement with Ruby Falls Fund, LLC and approving Use Permit Amendment PE-17-0583 amending Use Permit 00-019. Staff Presentation/Commissioner Questions Elizabeth Caraker presented the Agenda Report and answered Commissioners’ questions. She said the City’s CEQA consultant, Stephanie Strelow of Dudek, is present to answer any questions about the addendum. Ms Davi provided information regarding developer agreements and Kimberly Cole answered Commissioners’ questions regarding architectural and landscape plans. Applicant Bob Faulis, Ruby Falls Fund, said the Developer Agreement (DDA) gives the City and capital sources assurance that the project will be completed and makes the process much more efficient. Regarding landscaping, Mr. Faulis said the goal is to create a plaza area that is iconic and appealing to locals. He also provided clarification regarding the traffic Condition of Approval and spoke about inclusionary housing, saying the project proposes a 20 percent higher rate of affordable units than required. Mr. Faulis requested that he be given an opportunity for rebuttal. In response to Vice Chair Dawson’s question, Mr. Faulis said Ruby Falls Fund is agreeable to the proposed schedule for the project. In response to Commissioner Latasa’s question, Mr. Faulis said the Coastal Commission permit is not Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Tuesday, June 12, 2018 2 Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday, June 12, 2018 needed until Building permits are pulled and that the permit application will be extended by the Coastal Commission. Public Comments Jim McCord, 503 Wave Street, said he spoke at a previous meeting about his traffic concerns. He noted that he had difficulty opening the online links to the agenda report materials. Mr. McCord read from a letter that he submitted to the Commission for the record. Ashley Weinstein-Carnes of Cox, Castle, Nicholson urged the Planning Commission to deny the DDA until resolution of active and on-going litigation regarding the project that is moving forward in State and Federal Courts. She also said the proposed modifications are substantive in nature and that the true owner of the property should consent to the decisions made by the City. Ms. Weinstein-Carnes read from the letter submitted by Cox, Castle, Nicholson earlier in the day and asked the Planning Commission to follow the Coastal Commission’s lead and not make any decisions until the issue of ownership is resolved. She said approval by the Planning Commission will further economic and reputational damage to AquaLegacy and that she disagrees with Ms. Davi’s analysis. In response to Chair Millich’s question, Ms. Weinstein-Carnes said that approval of the application by the Planning Commission would not bind the Coastal Commission’s decision in the future. David Armanasco, Ruby Falls Fund representative, said he served on the Coastal Commission from 1996 until 1999 and that the council for AquaLegacy is presenting assumptions to the Planning Commission. Mr. Armanasco said citizens have been waiting many years for the site to be developed and that Ruby Falls Fund would not have paid taxes on the property if they were not certain they had the title. He also said AquaLegacy is attempting to create confusion and that the proceedings are a matter of law and the Courts, not a matter with Ruby Falls Fund. Chair Millich offered Mr. Faulis an opportunity for rebuttal. Mr. Faulis said AquaLegacy is attempting to delay the project and has not gained ground or shown legal basis for their arguments. He said nothing is wrong with the title report and that First American Title sides with Ruby Falls Fund. Mr. Faulis said Ruby Falls Fund is committed to the project and the community. In response to Chair Millich’s previous question regarding the reference to arbitration in the DDA, Ms. Davi said the arbitration allows for a referee to be appointed and would be binding. Commissioner Comments Commissioner Brassfield asked if there is anything preventing the Commission from making a decision on the matter, seeing as the Commission does not get involved in legal matters between two parties. Ms. Davi said she recommends that the Planning Commission hear and act on the recommendation, which is in its full authority. She also said the City does not adjudicate ownership of property rights and that the litigation can be discussed with City Council in closed session. In response to Commissioner Latasa’s question regarding the City’s requirements for title reports, Ms. Davi said the City does not require them and that in this case the City has an indemnity agreement calling out the fact that there is an ownership dispute not involving the City. Commissioner Latasa made a motion to adopt a resolution recommending City Council Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Tuesday, June 12, 2018 3  Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday, June 12, 2018 approval of a Development Agreement with Ruby Falls Fund, LLC and approve Use Permit Amendment PE-17-0583 amending Use Permit 00-019. Vice Chair Dawson seconded the motion. Under further discussion, Commissioner Latasa said he read the proposal thoroughly and it appears to have been well thought out and meet all the requirements. On a motion by Commissioner Latasa, seconded by Commissioner Dawson, and carried by the following vote, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution recommending City Council approval of a Development Agreement with Ruby Falls Fund, LLC and approving Use Permit Amendment PE-17-0583 amending Use Permit 00-019: AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Millich, Dawson, Latasa NOES: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Brassfield ABSENT: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Fletcher, Reed ABSTAIN: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None RECUSED: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None Chair Millich said he is acquainted with the appellant and has discussed the project with him and per advice of the City of Attorney will be abstaining from item #5. Vice Chair Dawson took over as meeting Chair. 5. Deny 878 Oak Street; Applications AP-18-0160 and AP-18-0161 Appealing Architectural Review Committee Approval of Architectural Review Permit ARP-18-0083 for a Second Story Addition and Home Remodel; Appellants J.R. Williams and Flora Fletcher; Owner/Applicant Jeff Tindall; R-1-5 Zoning District; Exempt from CEQA per Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1 ACTION: Adopted a resolution denying the appeal applications and upholding the Architectural Review Committee’s decision (Resolution A18-009) to approve the second story addition and home remodel with an added Condition of Approval. Staff Presentation/Commissioner Questions Chris Schmidt presented the Agenda Report and answered Commissioners’ questions. Mr. Schmidt said staff recommends an additional Condition of Approval requiring the applicant to locate the washer and dryer outside of the required garage parking space. Appellant JR Williams, appellant and owner of 880 Newton Street, noted that Flora Fletcher who submitted a letter supporting the appeal is ill and unable to attend the meeting. Mr. Williams said the picture window proposed on the second floor is large, incompatible with the rest of the neighborhood, and not appropriate to be placed only 150 to 175 feet away from his home, which has a reverse floor plan. He also said he disagrees that trees provide adequate screening as they are not permanent structures. Mr. Williams said the loss of ocean views would create a significant loss in the value of his home. He also said he is disappointed in the Architectural Review Committee’s (ARC) decision and suggested a compromise reorienting the roofline in the opposite direction and reducing the size of the proposed window to reduce view and privacy impacts to neighbors. In response to Commissioner Brassfield’s question, Mr. Williams said he believes the ARC erred in their decision by deferring to City staff, not considering privacy impacts enough, and not considering loss to property values. In response to Vice Chair Dawson’s question, Mr. Williams said there are three appellants total. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Tuesday, June 12, 2018 4 Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday, June 12, 2018 Applicant Jeff Tindall, applicant, gave a Powerpoint presentation detailing the proposed project, examples and locations of second story houses on Newton and Oak Streets, and photo renderings of the City’s minimum requirements versus his proposal. He also noted that the New Monterey Neighborhood Association supports the project as proposed. Mr. Tindall said the second story window allows light into the house, will eventually have stained glass to protect his privacy from the street and does not pose an unreasonable privacy impact as the view through the window to the neighboring property would be approximately 210 feet away. He also said the proposed setbacks are as large as possible and the ridgeline is as low as possible to preserve views. Mr. Tindall said the issue of property values is objective and that the neighborhood value will increase due to his addition. In response to Commissioner Brassfield’s question, Mr. Tindall confirmed that adding a stained glass window in the future will preserve his privacy and the neighbors’ privacy and that there is 20 feet between the proposed window and the floor of the second story. Public Comments Gene Ardell, resident at the corner of David Avenue and Oak Street, said the privacy concerns raised are not valid and that the appellant’s upstairs bedroom window looks directly into his bedroom and the bedroom of his neighbor. Bill Schmidt, 865 Oak Street, said his surrounding neighbors are all able to look into his yard and the windows of his single story house if he has the blinds open. Mr. Schmidt said he does not see a privacy issue with the project and that the applicant has tried to mitigate any issues and has talked to the neighbors. Mike Wadsworth, project architect, said in addition to breaking up the massing of the project with three section roof, the roof deck will be hidden and shielded from the street. He also said the project is well setback to avoid imposing on the street and neighbors and that impacts on privacy have been addressed and lessened. Manny Herrada said he lives behind the applicant and does not think there will be a big privacy issue. Mr. Herrada said in New Monterey one should be able to build a second story and that he does not have any issues with the proposal. He also said the distance between his property and the applicants property is far enough and that there is a fig tree separating the properties. Commissioner Comments Commissioner Latasa said he sympathizes with the appellant because it is difficult to lose any portion of a view. He spoke of the City’s View Sharing Guidelines and said he does not feel that the Guidelines are being affected in this case because all three appellants will have views left and the property owner has the right to add a second story to his house. Commissioner Latasa said it seems the main issue is view loss and that privacy and property value issues were added for leverage. He also said 200 feet is too far to be considered a privacy issue, property values cannot be taken into consideration, and the ARC did not err in their decision so he supports denial of the appeal. Commissioner Brassfield said the issue is a neighborhood one and he appreciates the neighbors talking to each other, being good neighbors. He also said he appreciates all the work that the applicant has done on the project and the fact that he is looking into opaque glass to mitigate some of the privacy issues. Commissioner Brassfield said he does not see any privacy impacts to the neighboring back yard and he supports staff’s recommendation for denial. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Tuesday, June 12, 2018 5  Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday, June 12, 2018 Vice Chair Dawson said the issue of privacy will be eliminated if the applicant follows through with opaque or stained glass, although he does not see that privacy is an issue given that it would be difficult for someone in that house to look out into anyone else’s house. He also said the issue of views is a difficult one and he feels for the neighbors that will lose views, but it is clear cut that no one will lose their entire view. Vice Chair Dawson said the neighboring property values may increase if the house looks as good as proposed when it is completed. He said it is important that the New Monterey Neighborhood Association supports the proposal and he feels that the appeal should be denied. Commissioner Brassfield made a motion to adopt a resolution denying the appeal applications and upholding the Architectural Review Committee’s decision (Resolution A18-009) to approve the second story addition and home remodel. Commissioner Latasa seconded the motion. Ms. Cole asked for clarification regarding the Condition of Approval regarding the washer and dryer. Commissioner Brassfield amended his motion to include the additional Condition of Approval as follows:  The applicant shall locate the washer and dryer outside of the required garage parking space. Commissioner Latasa seconded the amended motion. On a motion by Commissioner Brassfield, seconded by Commissioner Latasa, and carried by the following vote, the Planning Commission adopt a resolution denying the appeal applications and upholding the Architectural Review Committee’s decision (Resolution A18- 009) to approve the second story addition and home remodel with an added condition of approval: AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Dawson, Brassfield, Latasa NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Fletcher, Reed ABSTAIN: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Millich RECUSED: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None Chair Millich reassumed the roll of meeting Chair. PUBLIC APPEARANCE 6. Discuss City Staking Policies for New Construction ACTION: Held discussion on City Staking Policies. Ms. Caraker said the discussion on City Staking Policies was carried over from the last meeting and she invited Commissioner Latasa to start the discussion on staking. Commissioner Latasa said to only send out postcard notice and provide a rendering without the orange netting is a disservice to the neighborhood and may not effectively communicate view impacts or give an opportunity for participation. He also said staff should work really hard to get the staking up as opposed to allowing renderings and that staking can be done in a secure way that will not be compromised by the wind. Commissioner Brassfield said the decision not to stake a project is driven by risk management and he agrees that by not staking an element is missing for the public. The Commissioners discussed possible alternatives to ensure that staking occurs and is done safely, and the negative effects of not staking a project. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Tuesday, June 12, 2018 6  Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday, June 12, 2018 Ms. Cole said the City’s staking policy is codified in the Municipal Code and that staking is required unless it is determined to be unsafe. She said the Code section is written with significant thought and the Building Official takes it very seriously. Ms. Caraker said when the Building Official determines that staking cannot be done for safety reasons these reasons are documented in the agenda report. Ms. Caraker also said she will speak with the Building Official to see if there are alternate materials that can be used for staking. Chair Millich requested that the matter of views and the View Sharing Guidelines be agendized for discussion by the Planning Commission. Chair Millich opened Public Comment and seeing none closed Public Comment. COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS Commissioner Brassfield said he would like to ensure that Commissioners are allowed the opportunity during the Planning Office Update portion of their meeting to request that items be agendized. Chair Millich said Commissioners are allowed to ask questions and make comments but not hold discussions. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS & STAFF COMMENTS 7. Planning Office Update  Update received.  Ms. Caraker said the Planning Office Work Program will be in the afternoon session of the June 26, 2018 meeting and the evening session will be reserved for a community workshop and study session on revision of the City’s Wireless Ordinance. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 6:16 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Approved, Elizabeth Caraker Chair Housing and Community Development Manager Planning Commission Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Tuesday, June 12, 2018 7