Planning Commission Meeting

DocuSign Envelope ID: 36DDABBE-5742-4577-B1B0-0320BB1D878A MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, December 10, 2019 4:00 PM - 5:30 PM 7:00 PM- 11:00 PM 580 PACIFIC STREET, COUNCIL CHAMBERS MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA Commissioners Present: Brassfield, Dawson Fletcher, Latasa, Millich, Reed, Freeman Commissioners Absent: None Staff Members Present: Housing and Community Development Manager Caraker, Senior Associate Planner Roveri, Senior Associate Planner Schmidt, Recording Secretary Rose Meeting Procedures CALL TO ORDER Chair Latasa called the meeting to order at 4:01 p.m. CONSENT ITEMS APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. November 12, 2019 Amendments: ACTION: Approved as submitted. Commissioner Dawson wondered if Vince Balestreri’s name was spelled correctly in the minutes. Commissioner Millich wanted to note that the letter he received was from Coastal Commission staff about Cannery Row Plaza. On a motion by Commissioner Reed, seconded by Commissioner Dawson, and carried by the following vote, the Planning Commission approved the November 12, 2019 minutes as amended: AYES: 7 COMMISSIONERS: Fletcher, Freeman, Brassfield, Millich, Latasa Dawson, Reed NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None RECUSED: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None PUBLIC COMMENTS Anthony Buich, owner and operator of Bull and Bear, spoke about the situation between his business and Saucito Land Company. He said the only entity that could help in this conflict is the City of Monterey. He wanted to find a time when the parameters of his use permit could be discussed. Nina Beety voiced support for an immediate hearing for Bull and Bear and said it has been an unfair situation. DocuSign Envelope ID: 36DDABBE-5742-4577-B1B0-0320BB1D878A **End of Consent Agenda** PUBLIC HEARING 2. Approve 2200 Garden Road Use Permit Amendment PA-19-0380 to Allow Modifications to an Existing Personal Wireless Service Facility; Applicant Shane Woodruff/Verizon; Owner Sunrise Square LLC; Industrial, Administration, and Research Zoning District; Industrial General Plan Land Use Designation; Exempt from CEQA per Article 19, Section 15303, Class 3 Action: Approved 2200 Garden Road Use Permit Amendment PA-19-0380 to allow modifications to an existing personal wireless service facility. Staff Presentation/Commissioner Questions Contract Planner Jerry Hittelman presented the Agenda Report and answered Commissioners’ questions. Public Comments Shane Woodruff spoke as the applicant and elaborated on the intended purpose for the modifications. He said a warning sign could be placed on the gate for cautionary purposes. Commissioner Brassfield asked if frequencies for the site will change. Mr. Woodruff said they are not changing; just the direction for 360-degree coverage purposes. Commissioner Brassfield asked if they are omnidirectional antennas and Mr. Woodruff said that they are not omnidirectional antennas. Nina Beety claimed that required noticing on the City’s website was not done and requested that the item be tabled to a subsequent meeting. She questioned issues including the branding of this project as CEQA-exempt. Commissioner Latasa asked Housing and Community Development Manager Caraker if posting and noticing requirements were met for this project and Ms. Caraker said yes. Commissioner Comments Commissioner Brassfield asked Ms. Caraker about the proper noticing procedure. She said there was a 10-day notice that has been adequately posted. The notice was mailed out and posted on site. On a motion by Commissioner Reed seconded by Commissioner Millich and carried by the following vote, the Planning Commission approved 2200 Garden Road Use Permit Amendment PA-19-0380 to allow modifications to an existing personal wireless service facility: AYES: 6 COMMISSIONERS: Dawson, Fletcher, Freeman, Latasa, Millich, Reed NOES: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Brassfield ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None RECUSED: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None DocuSign Envelope ID: 36DDABBE-5742-4577-B1B0-0320BB1D878A 3. Deny Appeal of 31 Upper Ragsdale Application AP-19-0382 and Uphold Staff Determination that Operation of a Cannabis Testing Lab is Not an Enumerated Use Under the City's Zoning Ordinance; Applicant/Appellant: Scott Willard and Joseph Headley; Industrial, Administration, and Research (IR) Zoning District; Industrial General Plan Land Use Designation; Exempt from CEQA per CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3, Article 20, Section 15378 and Section 15061 Action: The Planning Commission approved Appeal Application AP-19-0382 and overturned staff determination that operation of a cannabis testing lab is not an enumerated use under the City's Zoning Ordinance. Staff Presentation/Commissioner Questions Housing and Community Development Manager Caraker presented the Agenda Report and answered Commissioners’ questions. Public Comments Appellant Joseph Headley gave a presentation to the Commission explaining the purpose of the lab. Maureen Wruck spoke in favor of the appeal and introduced Appellant Scott Willard. Mr. Willard also clarified the purpose of the lab. He said the lab intends to screen out pathogens and harmful substances so out-of-state testing is no longer necessary. Commissioner Brassfield asked Mr. Willard what the market mix was for the lab between cannabis and other things. Mr. Willard said it would be a 50-to-50 split between cannabis and agriculture. Commissioner Brassfield asked Mr. Willard if the lab would require state certification. Mr. Willard said yes and that they would be certified as a state laboratory with Bureau of Cannabis Control (BCC). Commissioner Latasa asked if the machines in the lab would make any sound or odor. Mr. Willard said it would sound like a pool pump and that there would be no smell emitted outside of the laboratory. Peter Shaw spoke as a representative of the building owner and was in favor of the laboratory. Commissioner Comments Commissioner Freeman said it would be to the applicant’s benefit to seek a code amendment. Commissioner Reed disagreed by saying he believes no code amendment is necessary to allow cannabis testing at this site. Commissioner Millich said the appellants are asking the Commission to amend the code to include what they want to do. Commissioner Reed disagreed and said that the use is already allowed under the current code. Commissioner Millich said there was no clarification of intent and that they should not rewrite the ordinance because they are not the body that created the ordinance. He said if anybody on the Commission wishes to rewrite the Ordinance, the Commissioner should be elected and appointed DocuSign Envelope ID: 36DDABBE-5742-4577-B1B0-0320BB1D878A to the City Council. He said this current ordinance is likely in place because Federal law makes possession of marijuana a felony. Commissioner Brassfield said that if the Department of Justice were the applicant, this application would be approved. He said that current law allows cannabis possession and brought to light the current epidemic of lung infections and deaths among vaping pen users. He said the only product the applicant wants to test that is restricted, cannabis, is still legal. Commissioner Millich said he did not disagree with what Commissioner Brassfield said, but that the Planning Commission is not the vehicle for changes that perhaps should be made. Commissioner Latasa said that since there are already testing labs in Ryan Ranch, he did not see why there could not be a cannabis testing lab as well. Ms. Caraker said that testing labs are a permitted use but if labs want to test marijuana that those labs would not be permitted. Commissioner Latasa said that because testing labs are an allowed use and ordinance does not have language that would prohibit this, it seems the Planning Commission would have tools needed to allow the lab. Commissioner Millich asked Ms. Caraker that if a use is not listed in the ordinance it is disallowed and Ms. Caraker said that is true. Commissioner Reed said that laboratory testing is allowed and that it is enumerated. Commissioner Fletcher said he agreed with Commissioner Reed and did not find anything in the ordinance language that would prohibit this use. On a motion by Commissioner Reed seconded by Commissioner Brassfield and carried by the following vote, the Planning Commission approved Appeal Application AP-19-0382 and overturned staff determination that operation of a cannabis testing lab is not an enumerated use under the City's Zoning Ordinance: AYES: 6 COMMISSIONERS: Brassfield, Dawson, Fletcher, Freeman, Latasa, Reed NOES: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Millich ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None RECUSED: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None 4. Deny Appeal of 777 Pearl Street Application AP-19-0334 and Uphold Architectural Review Committee Approval of Architectural Review Permit ARF-19-0319 for Preliminary and Final Architectural Review of Mechanical Equipment, Fencing, and Landscaping for Pump Station 11; Appellant Glenn Johnson; Owner City of Monterey; Open Space Zoning; Parks and Open Space General Plan Designation; Exempt from CEQA per Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1 Action: Approved Appeal Application AP-19-0334 and overturned Architectural Review Committee approval of Architectural Review Permit ARF-19-0319 for Preliminary and Final Architectural Review of mechanical equipment, fencing, and landscaping for Pump Station 11 at 777 Pearl Street. Staff Presentation/Commissioner Questions Senior Associate Planner Roveri presented the Agenda Report and answered Commissioners’ questions. Public Comments Andreas Baer, City of Monterey engineer, answered Commissioners’ questions about the project. DocuSign Envelope ID: 36DDABBE-5742-4577-B1B0-0320BB1D878A Commissioner Fletcher asked Mr. Baer why the pumps stood so high as compared to the existing pumps. Mr. Baer said that conversion to electric power would not be able to fit inside the existing station and that it requires additional equipment. Commissioner Fletcher asked what the depth is for landscaping in front of the fence and Mr. Baer said about 2-to-3 feet. Commissioner Brassfield asked if the intent was to keep the site open with low vegetation or screen with vegetation. Mr. Baer said he wanted to soften the visual impact of the barrier with vegetation so it is less noticeable. Commissioner Freeman asked who made decision not to underground. Mr. Baer did not indicate a sole party responsible for that decision. Commissioner Latasa said the project fence looks like the fence in front of Naval Postgraduate School and Mr. Baer confirmed it was intended to match that fencing. Commissioner Latasa asked if a study was done about undergrounding, and Mr. Baer said he did not do a full estimate on undergrounding. Appellant Glenn Johnson said he appealed the project because of its location in Window on the Bay. He wanted to slow the roll on this project and have a second set of eyes take a look at it to be sure that this is what the City wants at this location. Patrick Tregenza of the Architectural Review Committee said that because the project is in Window on the Bay he voted against it. Commissioner Comments Commissioner Fletcher said it is a significant visual impact and frightening to look at. Commissioner Freeman agreed completely because of the location of the pump station. Commissioner Brassfield wanted to see what alternative there may be to mitigate the view impact. Commissioner Reed said the pump station is 50 years old and needs to be fixed. Commissioner Reed said it is a good project in a bad location. He said more thought needs to be put into this. Commissioner Latasa said the applicant should go back to the chalkboard and that the whole site can be lowered. On a motion by Commissioner Freeman, seconded by Commissioner Fletcher and carried by the following vote, the Planning Commission approved Appeal Application AP-19-0334 and overturned Architectural Review Committee approval of Architectural Review Permit ARF-19- 0319 for Preliminary and Final Architectural Review of mechanical equipment, fencing, and landscaping for Pump Station 11 at 777 Pearl Street: AYES: 7 COMMISSIONERS: Brassfield, Dawson, Fletcher, Freeman, Latasa, Millich, Reed NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None RECUSED: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None Chair Latasa adjourned the afternoon session at 6:06 pm. DocuSign Envelope ID: 36DDABBE-5742-4577-B1B0-0320BB1D878A RECONVENE ***Evening Session Agenda*** 7:00-11:00 p.m. Chair Latasa called the evening session to order at 7:01 pm. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None received. 5. Recommend that the City Council Amend the Lighthouse Specific Plan to Apply the 12- Foot Third Story Setback to Building Frontages Facing Lighthouse Avenue and Foam Street, and Apply a Seven-Foot Corner Side Setback (Mitigated Negative Declaration Previously Certified) Action: Planning Commission recommended that the City Council amend the Lighthouse Specific Plan to apply the 12-foot third story setback to building frontages facing Lighthouse Avenue and Foam Street, and apply a seven-foot third story side yard setback. Staff Presentation/Commissioner Questions Senior Associate Planner Fernanda Roveri presented the Agenda Report and answered Commissioners’ questions. Public Comments Laurie Hambaro, New Monterey Neighborhood Association President, spoke about setbacks and the Association’s opinion on 12 foot setbacks and that they would like to see a setback of at least 7 feet Commissioner Comments Commissioner Reed said the solution would be a 7’ side street setback. He said in discussions there was no negotiation involved. In response, Commissioner Millich said he is in favor of 12’ and 7’ but wanted to know how it came about. Commissioner Reed said the 12’ setback was not decided on at the committee level. Commissioner Brassfield said he noticed that the different specific plans have different views and that it should be clear what are best practices to rely on and to discuss them. Ms. Caraker added that one size does not fit all for some of these parcels. Commissioner Latasa said he is in favor of the 12’ and 7’ setbacks. Commissioner Dawson said he is not in favor of setbacks on side streets. Commissioner Fletcher said he did not think 7’ for a side street setback was punitive. On a motion by Commissioner Fletcher seconded by Commissioner Millich and carried by the following vote, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council amend the Lighthouse Specific Plan to apply the 12-foot third story setback to building frontages facing Lighthouse Avenue and Foam Street, and apply a seven-foot third story side yard setback: DocuSign Envelope ID: 36DDABBE-5742-4577-B1B0-0320BB1D878A AYES: 6 COMMISSIONERS: Brassfield, Fletcher, Freeman, Latasa, Millich, Reed NOES: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Dawson ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None RECUSED: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None 6. Deny Appeal of 415 Spencer Street; Application AP-19-0384 and Uphold Architectural Review Committee Approval of Architectural Review Permit ARP-19-0181 for 1st and 2nd Story Additions and 2nd Story Deck; Appellant Gwyn De Amaral and John J. Willsen; Applicant Luis Vargas; Owner Robert Gularte; R-3-5 Zoning District; Medium Density Residential General Plan Designation; Exempt from CEQA Per Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1 Action: Approved Appeal Application AO-19-0384 and denied Architectural Review Committee approval without prejudice for Architectural Review Permit ARP-19-0181 for 1st and 2nd story additions and 2nd story deck at the single family dwelling at 415 Spencer Street. Staff Presentation/Commissioner Questions Senior Associate Planner Chris Schmidt presented the Agenda Report and answered Commissioners’ questions. Public Comments Robert Gularte, owner, discussed the slope of the property. He discussed the impact to scenic resources. He said that view impacts to 442 Archer and 448 Archer were unfortunate. Gwyn De Amaral, 415 Archer, spoke as the appellant and presented his side to the Commission. He wanted a continuance on this matter and refuted CEQA exemptions. Dylan Knapic, 404 Archer, opposed the 415 Spencer 2nd story addition. Commissioner Comments Commissioner Brassfield said that if this project were on street level, there would not be an issue. He said that the project would reduce the view and that it is complicated. Commissioner Freeman said she was surprised about water credits coming up because it is not something considered by the ARC. Commissioner Millich said the addition looks like a multi-family addition added to a single-family addition. Commissioner Fletcher said this should be sent back to Architectural Review Committee for revisions. Commissioner Latasa said there are many troubling things about this ARC approval and that there should have been a delay in having an ARC hearing so view impacts could have been considered. He also expressed concerns with the architectural design. DocuSign Envelope ID: 36DDABBE-5742-4577-B1B0-0320BB1D878A On a motion by Commissioner Fletcher seconded by Commissioner Millich and carried by the following vote, the Planning Commission approved Appeal Application AO-19-0384 and denied Architectural Review Committee approval without prejudice for Architectural Review Permit ARP- 19-0181 for 1st and 2nd story additions and 2nd story deck at the single family dwelling at 415 Spencer Street: AYES: 6 COMMISSIONERS: Brassfield, Dawson, Fletcher, Freeman, Latasa, Millich NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Reed RECUSED: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None 8. Receive Update on 2969 Monterey Salinas Highway Landscaping Senior Associate Planner Schmidt answered Commissioners’ questions regarding screening from the highway for an automobile storage facility. He said a lot of on-site landscaping has already been implemented. 9. Discuss Planning Commission Involvement and Educational Opportunities with the League of Cities Commissioner Brassfield suggested that the Commission look at the opportunity of League of California Cities to see what other places are doing. He mentioned that the League does presentations on a quarterly basis at Embassy Suites in Seaside. He asked staff to notify the Commissioners when meetings take place. Commissioner Latasa asked how much it costs to sign up for the Embassy Suites meetings. Ms. Caraker said about $500. Ms. Caraker mentioned that the Planning Commissioner Academy is also an opportunity for Commissioners to be a part of. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Commissioner Brassfield asked for an update on the work plan. Ms. Caraker talked about updates on the work plan, including but not limited to circulation element, sea level rise adaptation and the Alta Mesa Survey. She said that sometimes the work program does not make a lot of progress because of the workload. Commissioner Reed mentioned the need to address the noise ordinance because of the conflicts arising from mixed use. Ms. Caraker said the work program could be on the agenda and that updates could be discussed at that time. Commissioner Dawson said wireless subcommittee meetings are wrapping up and wireless- related discussions are coming to Planning Commission soon. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chair Latasa adjourned the meeting at 8:40 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Approved, Kimberly Cole Chair Community Development Director Planning Commission