Planning Commission Meeting

MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, August 14, 2018 4:00 PM AFTERNOON SESSION ONLY FEW MEMORIAL HALL OF RECORDS COUNCIL CHAMBERS 580 PACIFIC STREET MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA Commissioners Present: Dawson, Latasa, Brassfield, Fletcher, Millich, Reed Commissioners Absent: None Staff Members Present: Community Development Director Cole, Housing and Community Development Manager Caraker, Recording Secretary Leinen CALL TO ORDER Chair Dawson called the meeting to order at 4:02 p.m. CONSENT ITEMS Commissioner Reed made a motion to approve the Consent Items with amendments to the minutes. Vice Chair Latasa seconded the motion. On a motion by Commissioner Reed, seconded by Commissioner Latasa, and carried by the following vote, the Planning Commission approved the CONSENT ITEMS with amendments to the minutes: AYES: 6 COMMISSIONERS: Dawson, Latasa, Brassfield, Fletcher, Millich, Reed NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None RECUSED: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None Approval of Minutes 1. July 24, 2018 ACTION: Approved as amended. Commissioner Millich requested that the words “among others” be added to the end of the motion on page 8. Chair Dawson abstained from voting on the motion due to his absence from the July 24, 2018 meeting. ***End of Consent Agenda*** PUBLIC COMMENTS Jana Sessions, Public Water Now, said there is an initiative on the November ballot for a feasibility study for publicly owned water and that for-profit water is not good for citizens. She said residents are currently paying the highest cost in the U.S. for water. Tom Lawson said he is a local musician and a dangerous trend is being set towards limiting  Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday, August 14, 2018 live music in the Downtown instead of encouraging it. He said it is unreasonable to only focus on sound created by music and that he would like to see a compromise. Anthony Buich, Bull and Bear Whiskey Bar and Taphouse, said he was found guilty of criminal contempt of court charges due to discrepancies in the City’s Noise Ordinance. He also said it is not the music exceeding the decibel (dB) level, but ambient noise that is created when approximately 50 people are on the patio. Mr. Buich said he has closed the patio on Friday and Saturday, causing a loss of revenue, and asked that a temporary exception be given for the upcoming Concours d’Elegance event or weekends. John Prock, Monterey Music Store, said equal treatment should be given to all businesses and events in town and gave examples of local events exceeding the allowed dB limit. Michael Royster said the Bull and Bear is being discriminated against and the Noise Ordinance is outdated, unclear and should be amended. Gary Guerra, Wave Street resident, expressed concern regarding the Ocean View Plaza project and the traffic studies having been completed in 2004. He said development has occurred since then and he is concerned regarding access for emergency vehicles. Mr. Guerra said he lives next to the property and the owner is not maintaining the site. James Crumb, CSU Monterey Bay student, said there are three ways to measure dB and the way being used to measure the sound at the Bull and Bear is based on distance from a given sound source. He said the Noise Ordinance is too vague and given that 65dB is average conversation level, allowing 90-100dB is more than fair. Russell McMentry said he lives in the Downtown and was unable to find the Noise Ordinance on the City’s website and staff member Kim Cole offered to provide him with the Ordinance. He also said the Bull and Bear has hosted music groups since before the neighboring building was built and that the Planning Commission should have required sound attenuation on the new building. A member of the public not identifying herself asked when City Council Meetings are held and staff member Elizabeth Caraker said the first and third Tuesday of each month. A member of the public not identifying herself submitted copies of a noise dB chart to the Planning Commission and spoke about it. She said the noise ordinance should apply to the whole City, not just the Bull and Bear. PUBLIC HEARING 2. Approve 457 Wave Street; Application PE-18-0240 for a Two-year Time Extension for Minor Subdivision Permit 13-467 (Resolution No. P16-027) for New Residential Condominiums at 457 Wave Street and Permit 16-410 (Resolution No. P16-034) for Two Three-story Residential Condominium Buildings (35’ Height Each) Totaling Four Dwelling Units and 96% Lot Coverage at 457 Wave Street and to Allow Four Parking Spaces to Be Shared between 457 Wave Street and 471 Wave Street; Applicant Paul E. Davis; Owner Monterey Wave Street Partners; C-2 Zoning District; Commercial General Plan Designation; CEQA Initial Study with Mitigated Negative Declaration Previously Circulated and Certified ACTION: Adopted a resolution approving a one-year time extension for Minor Subdivision Permit 13-467 (Resolution No. P16-027) and Permit 16-410 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Tuesday, August 14, 2018 2  Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday, August 14, 2018 (Resolution No. P16-034). Staff Presentation/Commissioner Questions Fernanda Roveri presented the Agenda Report and answered Commissioners’ questions. Applicant Paul Davis, applicant, said the project took longer than expected between Conditions of Approval, water and exiting issues, sewer permits, and Water District approval, but that everything is in line now and the project is currently in plan check review. Public Comments Frank Sollecito, representing the property at 471 Wave Street, asked for clarification that the project extension is only for the property at 457 Wave Street (with the exception of the parking spaces at 471 Wave Street), as both addresses are mentioned in negative declaration included with the Agenda Report. Ms. Roveri confirmed that the extension is only for 457 Wave Street. Commissioner Comments Commissioner Reed made a motion to adopt a resolution approving a one-year time extension for Minor Subdivision Permit 13-467 (Resolution No. P16-027) and Permit 16-410 (Resolution No. P16-034). Commissioner Fletcher seconded the motion. On a motion by Commissioner Reed, seconded by Commissioner Fletcher, and carried by the following vote, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution approving a one-year time extension for Minor Subdivision Permit 13-467 (Resolution No. P16-027) and Permit 16-410 (Resolution No. P16-034): AYES: 6 COMMISSIONERS: Dawson, Latasa, Brassfield, Fletcher, Millich, Reed NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None RECUSED: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None 3. Approve 300 Cannery Row and 258/270 Foam Street Use Permit Amendment 18-0241 Amending Resolution P18-003 Approving Use Permits 09-142 and 17-0128 for a Mixed Use Project that Spans Two Sites to Eliminate Condition of Approval #2 Requiring a Cannery Row Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment and Finding the Project Consistent with the Cannery Row Coastal Land Use Plan; Applicant and Owner: 300 LLC; Zoning: Cannery Row Commercial and Planned Community - Lighthouse; General Plan: Commercial; CEQA: Mitigated Negative Declaration Adopted (CONTINUED FROM JULY 24, 2018) ACTION: Continued to August 28, 2018. Staff Presentation/Commissioner Questions Ms. Caraker presented the Agenda Report and answered Commissioners’ questions. Ms. Cole also answered questions. Applicant Pat Kelly, attorney for applicant, said the project has unique challenges and amending the Land Use Plan (LUP) initially seemed like a reasonable way to proceed, but it was concluded that the project as it exists is consistent with the LUP. He also said that pedestrians would enter the building at street level and by necessity go down to meet the coastal walkway. Mr. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Tuesday, August 14, 2018 3 Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday, August 14, 2018 Kelly asked that the permit condition be removed and that the Planning Commission confirm their interpretation of the two issues. Paul Davis, applicant, said the project has two first floors based on topography and he compared the project to buildings on Pacific Street and Calle Principal that have two first floors at different levels. In response to Chair Dawson’s question, Mr. Davis said on the street level there is a door into the retail space with the first floor at Cannery Row street level and to the west of the retail space is an elevator and stairs that go down to the first floor level at the ocean, and where you can tie in with the access at the Plaza hotel. In response to Commissioner Brassfield’s question regarding whether the first floor would be a sublevel, Mr. Davis said it does not meet the building code definition of a basement and that the ocean side of the project is not underground. In response to Commissioner Reed’s question, Mr. Davis said the grade difference between the coastal first floor and Cannery Row first floor is eight feet. In response to Commissioner Millich’s question, Mr. Davis said 10 residential units are proposed for the Cannery Row site and five for the Foam Street site. In response to Commissioner Millich’s question, Mr. Kelly said the applicant is agreeable to a requirement that the two sites combined do not exceed density and also said they are not asking for a double calculation of density. Public Comments Patricia Domingo, speaking on behalf of the New Monterey Neighborhood Association, read a previously submitted letter in opposition to the use permit amendment. John Narigi, speaking on behalf of himself and the owners of Monterey Plaza Hotel, said the building has sat as a vacant eyesore for many years and he is very supportive of the project. He also said the Cannery Row Business District is supportive of developing the site. Mr. Narigi said he would like to see the project move forward. Commissioner Comments Commissioner Reed said the project is a great project with a very difficult set of circumstances. He said his biggest concern is ensuring that if the Foam Street property is included, the development has to be limited to whatever the density is without limiting what it can be developed as in the future. He also said the project is preserving a part of history and is too good of a project to let go. Commissioner Reed said he does not have an issue with the density but is struggling with the issue of the floors. Commissioner Brassfield said he has similar concerns and that it is difficult for him to combine two properties in different commercial zones into one density calculation. He also said he does not agree that a sublevel can be considered the first floor. Vice Chair Latasa said he agrees that the project is a great use of a historic building but he shares Mr. Brassfield’s concern with combining two parcels with separate zoning for density purposes and is concerned with the precedent that could be set. He also said the LUP addresses pedestrian street level and he struggles with street level being down a flight of stairs. Commissioner Millich said it is a great project but he has an issue with determining what is considered street level and ensuring that there is no double counting of the density of both parcels. He also said the approving the project may have been infeasible if it was not such an unusual piece of property and that the project should go forward. Commissioner Fletcher said it is a great project but he as issues with combining lots for Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Tuesday, August 14, 2018 4  Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday, August 14, 2018 density and the definition of levels. He said the Building Official should determine the floors as opposed to an interpretation by the Planning Commission. Chair Dawson said he does not agree with the method proposed to calculate density and that some of the issues faced could be resolved if five or six units were proposed instead of 10. He also said the justification given in the findings is not reasonable and it is not a good precedent to set. Commissioner Reed said it is a unique set of circumstances with two pieces of property both under the Cannery Row LUP and with the same owner. Commissioner Fletcher said the Building Code and Planning Code should be tied together with something of substance. Ms. Caraker said there is a clear definition for a basement in the Zoning Code and the floor does not meet this definition. Commissioner Millich said the project does not set a precedent and each project is considered separately. In response to Commissioner Reed’s question, Ms. Caraker said the Cannery Row LUP references street level, first floor and pedestrian. In response to Chair Dawson’s question, Ms. Caraker said the Lighthouse Specific Plan prohibits residential on Lighthouse Avenue. In response to Commissioner Brassfield’s question, Ms. Caraker said she received a letter from Coastal Commission staff expressing concerns regarding the amendments. Commissioner Brassfield made a motion to not advance the discussion on sublevel first floor until a ruling by the Building Official or a City Engineer is made. Commissioner Fletcher seconded the motion. Commissioner Fletcher said there is a lot of conflict in our Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Caraker said she would encourage the Planning Commission to make an interpretation on what the intent of the LUP was because it is not clear in the policy document. Commissioner Fletcher said it would be necessary to go back and read these policy documents to make that kind of assumption or recommendation. Vice Chair Latasa said it is hard for him to construe the first floor as street level. Commissioner Reed suggested asking the applicant if they would like a continuance of both issues. Mr. Kelly said he understands that this is a tough decision and they would support a continuance. Commissioner Brassfield amended his motion and moved to continue the item to the August 28, 2018 Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Fletcher seconded the amended motion. On a motion by Commissioner Brassfield, seconded by Commissioner Fletcher, and carried by the following vote, the Planning Commission continued the item to August 28, 2018: AYES: 6 COMMISSIONERS: Dawson, Latasa, Brassfield, Fletcher, Millich, Reed NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None RECUSED: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None PUBLIC APPEARANCE 4. Hold a Discussion on Requesting Items to be Placed on Future Agendas ACTION: Held a discussion on requesting items to be placed on future agendas. Commissioner Brassfield said he is concerned that many times the Commissioners are told Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Tuesday, August 14, 2018 5  Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday, August 14, 2018 they cannot ask questions about upcoming issues because they are not agendized. Commissioner Millich asked for clarification on how items are agendized. Ms. Cole said any Planning Commissioner can request that an item under the Planning Commission’s purview be placed on the agenda and that Commissioners can make comments before City Council for items they are concerned with that are not within the purview of the Planning Commission. The Commissioners discussed what is under the purview of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Reed said he learned in recent ethics training that the government is slow moving in order to ensure that things accomplished are for the people, by the people. Commissioner Brassfield asked if the other Commissioners are satisfied with current procedures. Commissioner Fletcher said he is satisfied that each one of the Commissioners has the ability to easily ask for something to be placed on the agenda. Ms. Caraker said that the language under the “Commissioner Comments” section of the agenda is pretty clear and covers this issue. COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS None. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS & STAFF COMMENTS 5. Planning Office Update  Report received.  Ms. Caraker said the Wireless Subcommittee members were chosen and the first meeting will be scheduled for Thursday, August 23, 2018. She also said there is no update on filling the vacant seat on the Planning Commission.  Ms. Caraker said Ocean View Plaza and 300 Cannery Row will be reviewed at the next Planning Commission meeting and that she will determine which staff support is needed for the 300 Cannery Row project. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chair Dawson adjourned the meeting at 6:02 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Approved, Elizabeth Caraker Chair Housing and Community Development Manager Planning Commission Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Tuesday, August 14, 2018 6