October 3, 2017 Redwood City, CA Regular Meeting Ph: :00 p.m. Accessible to Disabled

Transcription

1 MINUTES City Council Chambers* PLANNING COMMISSION 1017 Middlefield Rd October 3, 2017 Redwood City, CA Regular Meeting Ph: :00 p.m. Accessible to Disabled APPROVED COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Commissioner Guerrero, Commissioner Safdari, Commissioner Schmidt, Commissioner White, Vice Chair Bondonno and Chair Radcliffe COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioner Hale STAFF PRESENT: Planning Manager Turner, Assistant City Attorney Rasiah, Assistant City Attorney Ignacio, Assistant City Manager Aknin, Associate Planner Rogers, Principal Planner Vaughn GUESTS: None PROCEEDINGS RECORDED: For further information not contained in this draft of the written minutes, a DVD recording and audio recording of the entire meeting is available at the Planning office, located in City Hall, Redwood City. AGENDA POSTED: Copies of the Agenda for this meeting are posted at City Hall on the Friday prior to the Planning Commission meeting. 1. ROLL CALL 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: A. DRAFT August 15, 2017 M/S (Bondonno/Schmidt) to approve the Draft minutes of August 15, 2017 as submitted Motion Passed ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None 5. CONSENT CALENDAR: No items 6. PUBLIC HEARING: A. Cannabis Zoning Ordinance Amendment Assistant City Attorney Ignacio gave a presentation on the topic. She provided a background on the current cannabis law. She stated they will obtain the Commission s recommendation that Council adopt a Zoning Ordinance amendment. She stated that Redwood City currently Page 1 of 11

2 expressly prohibits medical cannabis distribution facilities in all zoning districts. Assistant City Manager Aknin discussed local regulatory options:. personal cultivation and commercial activity. He also discussed local smoking regulations. He provided an overview of the Council s direction. He discussed the Zoning Amendment scope that would allow for personal indoor cultivation of up to six plants, ban all outdoor cultivation, and ban all commercial cannabis activity except for deliveries. He discussed the phased approach to implementation. COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS Commissioner Schmidt asked if there was a timeline for the phased implementation. Mr. Aknin stated that the phased implementation approach would occur in 2018, with a sales tax option to the voters in November Commissioner Schmidt asked if they are planning to have storefronts in Redwood City. Mr. Aknin stated that if retail is considered, storefronts would be limited. Commissioner Schmidt asked how they would define and register deliveries. Mr. Aknin stated they don t have these defined yet, but the process would ensure they know who and what companies are delivering in Redwood City. Commissioner Safdari asked if they have a good sense of how adjacent cities in the area have approached this issue. Mr. Aknin stated that other city s approaches are coming together fairly quickly. He stated that in San Mateo county, most cities are not allowing storefronts, but are allowing deliveries. He stated that it doesn t seem many cities are allowing storefronts in the next year. Commissioner Safdari asked if they would be tracking the recipients of the registration. Mr. Aknin stated that they would not. Commissioner Guerrero asked about the outreach with the community to get their feedback on the plan. Mr. Aknin stated the City has already conducted a lot of outreach so far to get to this stage. The City conducted a survey, spoke with a stakeholder group, and they are going to do even more going forward. The reason they are doing the phased approach is to give them more time to discuss and reach out to the committee. Commissioner Schmidt asked about the results to the survey, Page 2 of 11

3 Mr. Aknin stated he does not have the numbers, but in general it was overwhelming supportive of allowing cannabis activity in Redwood City and having a tax on the product. Chair Radcliffe asked how a retail store would be classified and where it would be located. Mr. Aknin stated that there are existing regulations that control where retail stores could be located; this would apply to cannabis retail. PUBLIC HEARING M/S (White/Guerrero) to open the public hearing Mr. Smith (17:55) spoke on behalf of Meristematic, a cannabis tissue culture research and development laboratory. He advocated for the inclusion of non-retail, bioscience cannabis research and the development of companies in non-retail zoned spaces in Redwood City. M/S (Bondonno/White) to close the public hearing COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Commissioner White thanked Staff for its presentation. He asked about a rule that plants grown indoors should not be viewable by the public from the outside. He asked that if cannabis is being grown inside a home and a neighbor sees it, that s not classified as a public view. Mr. Aknin stated that is correct. Commissioner White stated that there is language that defines where you can grow cannabis. He asked whether a greenhouse would meet the definition, even if it is grown in a translucent or see-through structure. Assistant City Attorney Ignacio stated the fully enclosed structure language is from the state legislation itself. She stated that a neighbor seeing it would not be captured by the statute, but viewable from the street would violate the ordinance. Commissioner White asked if the proposed ordinance would allow for a membership-only location allow for the recreational use of cannabis. Mr. Aknin stated that would fall under commercial activity so it would be prohibited. Commissioner Schmidt stated that as they go through the phases, he wants to ensure they are being flexible. He wants Redwood City to maintain the ability to move away from retail storefronts if they find it doesn t work f. Mr. Aknin stated that he agrees and that is the idea behind the phased approach so they can think through things as they go along. Page 3 of 11

4 Vice Chair Bondonno thanked Mr. Smith for testifying in front of the Commission. He stated it s clear there is still a lot to learn about this industry. He thanked Staff for putting together the four phases and he s pleased they are not adhering to a strict timeline. He asked what will be driving this. Mr. Aknin stated that the City Manager will be leading much of the pacing moving forward. Commissioner Safdari stated that he appreciates the phased approach. He stated that he appreciates Commissioner Schmidt s comments about being able to stop at any time, however, he believes they should be explicit about what the success criteria is. He stated that it s a good idea to keep in touch with other cities to see how their programs and plans succeed. Commissioner White thanked Mr. Smith for participating because it is a compelling use case that he had not yet considered. Chair Radcliffe agreed with what Commissioner White just said and it s something that could easily be phased in. Mr. Aknin stated that they could add a separate recommendation into the motion as it moves forward to the City Council. Chair Radcliffe stated she would like to see that happen. Vice Chair Bondonno stated that the phased approach as listed does not necessarily include some of the additional elements that the Planning Commission may want to include. He stated that they need more data and research in order to make more informed decisions. He stated the resolution in front of them this evening is the correct one, but he doesn t think they know enough to make decisions on other elements. Commissioner Safdari stated that it may be helpful to have a discussion with the Police Department on what permitted uses are so they can minimize the impact on the community. Motion to adopt resolution recommending the City Council adopt the ordinance amending Article 59 of the Redwood City Zoning Ordinance. M/S (Bondonno/Safdari) Motion Passed 6-0 Mr. Aknin asked if they wanted to include part of the discussion that mentioned other uses earlier in the phases. Vice Chair Bondonno asked if they have to include it in the motion or if there is another way. Page 4 of 11

5 Assistant City Attorney Rasiah stated they could do it in a number of ways. He stated they could give informal direction to the staff, they could make it a part of this motion or make a separate motion. Vice Chair Bondonno stated that if Staff is clear on what the Commission is looking for, he would prefer to leave the motion as is. B. Request by Viren Patel for Use Permit (UP ) for the development of a 52,011 square-foot four-story hotel, Planned Development Permit (PD ) to reduce the amount of required parking for a hotel, and Sign Permit (SP ) for the proposed hotel signage at 1690 Broadway Street Presentation by Associate Planner Rogers discussing the location, proposed project and entitlements, and the CEQA analysis of the proposed project. He discussed the parking design and traffic study. He discussed the Planned Development Permit, Use Permit, and Signage. He also discussed the Architectural Advisory Committee s review. He provided Staff s recommendation on the project. Presentation by applicant Sheryl Brady, Redwood City Hospitality, provided an overview of project. She discussed the amenities (including a subscription to Uber), hotel design, and room design. She stated they are in agreement with the conditions of approval. COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS Commissioner Safdari asked for context about what a subscription to Uber means. Ms. Brady stated that the owner would have a contract with Uber service, so someone staying at the hotel could use it at no charge. Commissioner Bondonno asked for an explanation of the proposal for valet parking. Ms. Brady stated that when the hotel exceeds 90% capacity, the car will be parked via valet. Commissioner Bondonno asked if there would be sufficient staffing for that service. Ms. Brady stated that there would be. Commissioner Safdari asked if there would be an additional charge for the valet service. Ms. Brady stated that it would be complimentary. Chair Radcliffe stated for clarification that when they reach 90% capacity, the valet service would be double parking vehicles. Page 5 of 11

6 Ms. Brady stated that is correct. She stated there would be an area within the parking structure with valet parking. Commissioner Guerrero thanked Ms. Brady for the clarification regarding the valet parking. She asked for clarification as to the location of the parking structure. They looked at a map of the location that showed the location to the parking structure. Mr. Rogers stated that access to the parking structure would be on Beech Street. Commissioner Guerrero asked if the garage would be secure. Ms. Brady stated that there will not be a gate. Commissioner Guerrero stated that she thinks it looks great and it will be an improvement for that area. Commissioner White stated for clarification that the on-site parking would be available for guests and staff. Ms. Brady stated that is correct. Commissioner White asked if they have any idea how many employees would be on site at a time. Ms. Brady stated they estimate approximately 20 staff at a time. Commissioner White asked does if the hotel intends to charge for parking. Ms. Brady stated they did not plan to charge for parking. Commissioner White stated if they had considered charging for parking as a way of encouraging guests to take a taxi instead of renting a car to help reduce parking. Ms. Brady stated that they expect most guests in the area to use rideshare services and trains. Mr. Aknin stated that they have seen other projects of this kind and location that don t see high parking demands. Commissioner Safdari asked what they would do to ensure that only hotel guests are parking in that structure. Ms. Brady stated that guests will register their vehicle to help ensure that only guests park in the structure. Chair Radcliffe asked if there was parking available at the front of the building while they check in. Page 6 of 11

7 Ms. Brady stated that there would not be. Mr. Rogers stated there is a loading zone on Broadway. Michelle Hunt from Hexagon stated that the loading zone will be helpful for guests using Uber or Lyft. PUBLIC HEARING M/S (Schmidt/White) to open the public hearing M/S (Schmidt/Guerrero) to close the public hearing COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Commissioner Schmidt stated he appreciates this project and what it will do to the area; he also stated he likes the design. He stated he has concerns about an article he read that said the doors would be locked at all times. Ms. Brady stated that it will be an open and welcoming building. She stated that there will be security around. Commissioner Schmidt asked about the parking design. He stated he would be amazed if they ever filled up the parking garage. He stated he appreciates the loading zone, but he does not what it to be used for deliveries. He stated that he would like the hotel to make a commitment to hire locally. Chair Radcliffe stated that this will be the start of refurbishing this neighborhood. Commissioner Safdari stated he likes the impact this will have on the area. He stated that it can be dangerous to cross the street in that area. Mr. Rogers stated the traffic engineer worked to redesign this area to help reduce the speed of traffic. Mr. Aknin stated the ultimate goal is to redesign the entire corridor to make it more pedestrian friendly. Commissioner Safdari asked if they have plans to put a traffic light or stop sign here. Mr. Aknin stated they may do that eventually, but there are no plans yet. Commissioner Safdari asked about the access to the parking lot. He asked about the plan for lane structure at this area. Mr. Rogers stated he is not aware of what the plan is for the lane structure. Ms. Hunt stated the traffic volumes on Beech Street are quite low so it would not require a left turn lane because the volume of conflicting traffic is so low. Page 7 of 11

8 Commissioner Schmidt asked about landscaping. He emphasized that maintaining that landscaping over time is very important. Vice Chair Bondonno stated he is excited about this project. Motion to adopt resolution 17-13, resolution of the Planning Commission granting approval of the Use Permit, Planned Development Permit, Sign Permit pursuant to Redwood City s municipal code and zoning ordinance and finding that the said entitlements are exempt from the requirements of CEQA. M/S (Bondonno/Safdari) TO APPROVE Motion Passed 6-0 C. Request by Hayes Group Architecture c/o Ken Hayes for a Downtown Planned Community Permit DPC including two (2) Guideline Deviations, Downtown Parking In-lieu Fee Application, and Lot Line Adjustment LL for a 4,177 gross/3,281 net square foot addition to an existing historic building located at 929 Main Street Commissioner Schmidt recused himself from this item for conflict of interest due to his employer Presentation by Associate Planner Rogers. Mr. Rogers provided an overview of the project s proposed location and design. He discussed the parking design for the project. He presented an overview of the Downtown Precise Plan Project Compliance as well as the project s relationship with historic resources in the area. He presented the findings of the HRAC review and their recommendation for approval. He presented the findings of the AAC and their recommendation for approval. He discussed the proposed Lot Line Adjustment. He presented the Staff s recommendation and the proposed project entitlements. He also presented the proposed conditions of approval. Presentation by Ken Hayes, Hayes Group, gave an overview of the project and the history of the location. He discussed the standards for the project. He presented the site plan, project design, and proposed elevations. COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS PUBLIC HEARING M/S (Guerrero/White) to open the public hearing M/S (White Guerrero) to close the public hearing COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Chair Radcliffe stated that it doesn t look like the bottom of the building looks original, so she was wondering what the research on this had yielded. Page 8 of 11

9 Mr. Hayes stated there was a debate and discussion on that. They came to the conclusion that most of it is not original except for the door on the left side which will be maintained. Chair Radcliffe asked about the painted signage on the back of the building. She asked if it would stay. Mr. Hayes stated that the signage on the concrete would be removed, but he didn t remember it being on the brick. Chair Radcliffe asked if they anticipate having more than one tenant or if they will have multiple. Mr. Hayes stated that they would like to have one tenant, but the market will decide how that plays out. He stated the building is designed to accommodate two tenants downstairs and one upstairs. Commissioner Guerrero thanked Mr. Hayes for his presentation. She stated that there is a lot of change proposed in the design. Mr. Hayes stated that none of the brick will change, but it will be repointed and cleaned. He discussed the other changes that they are making, but explained how they will maintain the look of the building. Commissioner Guerrero asked what their vision for retail is in this space. Mr. Hayes stated that the space could operate as both office and restaurant space. Commissioner Guerrero stated that she sees Main Street as an important location for active retail. Mr. Hayes explained how the location could have display space. Chair Radcliffe stated that the changes they are making are keeping with the design of the storefronts on the building. Commissioner Safdari stated he is excited about the redesign. He stated that he could see a restaurant working really well in this location. Mr. Hayes stated they are seismic upgrade to the building. Commissioner White stated that this is exactly in line with the vision of the Downtown Precise Plan. Vice Chair Bondonno stated that he is happy with the thoughtful steps that the applicant has taken to maintaining the historic nature and design of the building. Commissioner Guerrero asked what kind of feedback they received during the community outreach. Page 9 of 11

10 Mr. Hayes stated they did not do any outreach to neighboring buildings, but they did hold hearings and only one party attended. Commissioner Guerrero asked if they are required to do any outreach. Mr. Hayes stated they are required to do a standard notification, which they did. Chair Radcliffe asked if there would be trees in the back parking lot. Mr. Hayes displayed the site plan. He stated they are not able to expand the nonconforming use. He stated that due to policies on the lot, they are not able to accommodate that kind of landscaping. Commissioner Safdari asked if there was a policy they could amend to allow the applicant to include that kind of landscaping. Principal Planner Vaughn explained the standard in the DTPP. She stated that surface parking lots are discouraged in the DTPP and are required to be phased out over time. Chair Radcliffe suggested how they could include some landscaping into the back lot to help soften the façade. Motion to adopt resolution to approve the Downtown Plan Community Permit with two guideline deviations, the Downtown Parking In-lieu fee application, and Lot Line Adjustment based on the findings and subject to the conditions of approval found herein and upon determination that the proposed project is exempt from CEQA and the amended conditions of approval that were presented in Staff s presentation. Commissioner Guerrero stated that she has heard a discussion in the community about the topic and that s why she had asked about that topic. M/S (Bondonno/White) TO APPROVE Motion Passed 5-0 Chair Radcliffe asked what the timeline for construction is. Mr. Hayes stated they plan to begin construction in April and it will take approximately six months. 7. MATTERS OF COMMISSION INTEREST Planning Manager Turner stated that the City Council approved an affordable housing and development agreement with MidPen Housing. Planning Manager Turner stated that the El Camino Real Working Group will be meeting on October 4, 2017 to review the draft El Camino Realer Plan. Page 10 of 11

11 Planning Manager Turner stated the next Planning Commission meeting is on October 17. Vice Chair Bondonno reiterated Mr. Turner s reminder about the El Camino Realer Citizen s Advisory Committee. 8. MOTION TO ADJOURN M/S (Guerrero/Safdari) to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission Motion Passed 5-0 The meeting adjourned at 9:18PM to reconvene at the next Planning Commission Meeting scheduled for October 17, 2017 at 7:00PM in the Redwood City, City Hall Council Chambers, 1017 Middlefield Road, Redwood City, California. Page 11 of 11