Planning Commission Meeting

MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, March 11, 2014 4:00 pm - 5:30 pm 7:00 pm - 11:00 pm 580 PACIFIC STREET, COUNCIL CHAMBERS MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA Commissioners Present: McCrone, Osorio, Davis, Garden, Stocker, Reed, Widmar Commissioners Absent: None Staff Members Present: Principal Planner Cole, Senior Associate Planner Bennett, Recording Secretary Nelson CALL TO ORDER Chair McCrone called the meeting to order at 4:02 pm. CONSENT ITEMS Vice Chair Osorio abstained from voting on item #1 of the Consent Agenda due to his absence from the February 25, 2014 meeting. On a motion by Commissioner Garden, seconded by Commissioner Widmar, and carried by the following vote, the Planning Commission approved the CONSENT ITEMS: AYES: 6 COMMISSIONERS: McCrone, Davis, Garden, Stocker, Reed, Widmar NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Osorio RECUSED: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None Approval of Minutes 1. February 25, 2014 ACTION: Approved as submitted. ***End of Consent Agenda*** PUBLIC COMMENTS None. PUBLIC HEARING 2. Recommend that the City Council Amend Monterey City Code Section 38-112.4 (Personal Wireless Facilities Ordinance) to Comply with Changes to Federal Law (CEQA - Not a Project) ACTION: Adopted a Resolution recommending to the City Council the adoption of revisions to Monterey City Code section 38-112.4, the Personal Wireless Service Facilities (“PWS”)Ordinance, to reflect changes in federal law intended to facilitate approval of “minor” modifications of existing wireless towers or base stations, and to clarify that the City has no jurisdiction to deny PWS facilities based on alleged health effects as long as the facility complies with Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) emissions standards, with amended recommendations. Planning Commission Draft Minutes Tuesday, March 11, 2014 Staff Presentation/Commissioner Questions Christine Davi, Kimberly Cole, and Todd Bennett presented the Agenda Report and answered Commissioners’ questions. Public Comments Laurie Putnam, 618 Jesse Street, said she recognizes that the Commissioner’s hands are tied but it is false to assume all existing cell towers have been thoroughly reviewed and that minor PWS changes will not impact neighboring properties. She said she and her husband live directly across from a cellular tower approved in 2001 when there were no clear City guidelines for choosing locations, and asked the Planning Commission to examine Use Permits for existing towers in unfavorable residential areas to see if there are more appropriate locations. Kerry Conbow, 618 Jesse Street, said that communications technology is constantly in a flux and cellular companies are under pressure to make improvements, so project creep is unavoidable. He also said a residential neighborhood is not a great location for a cell phone site due to installation and maintenance impacts on neighbors, and asked what tools the City has to re-evaluate location of cell towers if the FCC does not allow denial. In response to Commissioner Garden’s question, Mr. Conbow said he is one of at least five residents within 100 feet of the cellular tower and he receives mail notifications from the City. Nina Beety said that there are live proceedings under way at the FCC regarding co- location and the definition of minor modifications, so it would be premature for the Planning Commission to adopt anything. She also said there are cell phone towers across the nation that are out of compliance and the FCC is taking no action. Ms. Beety said 100 foot public noticing is inadequate, hearings must be held for modifications, and that the City must tell its residents about the effects of cell towers. Commissioner Comments In response to Chair McCrone’s request for clarification regarding locations, Ms. Davi said specifically disfavored locations for PWS facilities include open space districts, residential districts, historic sites and overlay zones, and preferred locations are co- location sites, industrial sites, and commercial sites. In response to Commissioner Stocker’s question regarding re-examining old sites, Ms. Davi said the City is limited on what they can do that if a tower was legal at the time of installation. In response to his question regarding requesting an EIR, Ms. Davi said CEQA applies to discretionary projects and the Planning Commission has no discretion on this matter. In response to Commissioner Garden’s question, Ms. Davi said the issue of placing antennas on utility poles without City review may be allowed under a utility arrangement, but that the Ordinance encourages co-location on existing structures. Commissioner Widmar asked if the matter being discussed only applies to licensed facilities, as Comcast is now providing its customers with wifi routers and public bandwidth that is not a licensed service. Ms. Davi said she is not familiar with the issue, but the City tries to remain informed of new and existing technologies. Commissioner Davis said the Planning Commission heard testimony that the definition of Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Tuesday, March 11, 2014 2 Planning Commission Draft Minutes Tuesday, March 11, 2014 modifications is being debated and asked if the City is out of compliance by not amending the ordinance. Ms. Davi said the City has been out of compliance with federal law since 2012 and does not recommend delaying the amendment. Chair McCrone summarized that the recommendation to the City Council is preempted by federal law and the Planning Commission has no liability, the purpose in amending the ordinance is compliance with the law, modifications will have a noticed public hearing before the Zoning Administrator, and only the applicant can certify compliance with FCC laws. Ms. Davi clarified that although an opportunity is afforded for a posted and agendized meeting with the Zoning Administrator, it is distinct from a formalized public hearing. Commissioner Garden made a motion to adopt a Resolution recommending to the City Council the adoption of revisions to Monterey City Code section 38-112.4, the Personal Wireless Service Facilities (“PWS”) Ordinance, to reflect changes in federal law intended to facilitate approval of “minor” modifications of existing wireless towers or base stations, and to clarify that the City has no jurisdiction to deny PWS facilities based on alleged health effects as long as the facility complies with Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) emissions standards. Commissioner Widmar said he would second the motion if the public notice radius is changed from 100 feet to 300 feet. Commissioner Garden agreed to the amendment and modified his motion to include the amended recommendation as follows: 1. Written notices will be sent by U.S. Mail, at least 10 days prior to the administrative decision, to all owners of property located within 100 feet of the perimeter of the project site. 1. Written notices will be sent by U.S. Mail, at least 10 days prior to the administrative decision, to all owners of property located within 300 feet of the perimeter of the project site. Commissioner Widmar seconded the motion. In response to Vice Chair Osorio’s question, Ms. Davi said 47 USC §1455 limits review by the Planning Commission to whether or not a project is eligible for administrative review. In response to Commissioner Reed’s question, Ms. Davi said an application would go first to the Zoning Administrator and then be referred to the Planning Commission if concern is expressed regarding eligibility for minor modification review. On a motion by Commissioner Garden, seconded by Commissioner Widmar, and carried by the following vote, the Planning Commission adopted a Resolution recommending to the City Council the adoption of revisions to Monterey City Code section 38-112.4, the Personal Wireless Service Facilities (“PWS”)Ordinance, to reflect changes in federal law intended to facilitate approval of “minor” modifications of existing wireless towers or base stations, and to clarify that the City has no jurisdiction to deny PWS facilities based on alleged health effects as long as the facility complies with Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) emissions standards, with amended recommendations: Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Tuesday, March 11, 2014 3  Planning Commission Draft Minutes Tuesday, March 11, 2014 AYES: 7 COMMISSIONERS: McCrone, Osorio, Davis, Garden, Stocker, Reed, Widmar NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None RECUSED: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None *RECESS* Commissioners Present: McCrone, Osorio, Davis, Garden, Stocker, Reed, Widmar Commissioners Absent: None Staff Members Present: Principal Planner Cole, Senior Associate Planner Hopper, Recording Secretary Nelson EVENING SESSION Chair McCrone called the evening session to order at 7:02 pm. CONTINUED PUBLIC COMMENTS None. PUBLIC HEARING 3. Consider 598 Laine Street (Jabberwock Inn); Application 14-049 to Amend Use Permit 81-25 to Allow a Reclassification from a Limited-Occupancy Visitor Accommodation Facility to a Hotel and Motel Use and Eliminating the Condition that the Owner Reside Onsite and to Permit the Addition of One Room to the Existing Facility with No Increase in Floor Area or Parking Requirements; Applicant: Rudolph Weichert; Owner: John Hickey and Dawn Perez; VAF Zoning District; Exempt from CEQA Requirements ACTION: Adopted a Resolution amending Use Permit 81-25 to allow a reclassification from a Limited-Occupancy Visitor Accommodation Facility to a Hotel and Motel Use and allow the owner/manager unit to be used as an eighth rental room with amended Special Conditions of Approval. Staff Presentation/Commissioner Questions Christine Hopper presented the Agenda Report and answered the Commissioners’ questions. Applicant Rudolph Weichert, applicant, said he has been the general manager of Embassy Suites for five years, but would like to operate a bed and breakfast. He also said he owns a home on Laurel Avenue a few blocks from the Jabberwock Inn, and that he could monitor the property by surveillance or phone and be on site quickly. Mr. Weichart requested that the Planning Commission modify Resolution Condition #4 as it would cost an additional $60,000 a year and Condition #5 to give the owners 90 days to remove the unpermitted sheds. Mr. Rudolph also said while Monterey Code requires a care-taker to Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Tuesday, March 11, 2014 4 Planning Commission Draft Minutes Tuesday, March 11, 2014 reside on the premises, Pacific Grove Code allows a representative to be on-call full time and available within 30 minutes. In response to Commissioner Garden’s questions, Mr. Rudolph said he would maintain the cooking facility in the proposed 8th unit without adding additional cooking facilities, and that he would only allow guests longer than 14 days during the off season. In response to Chair McCrone’s question, Dawn Perez, property owner, said the Inn serves a full breakfast and wine with hors d'oeuvres in the common area. Public Comments Lawrence Havlick, owner of the Old Monterey Inn on Martin Street, said he supports the applicant’s request because it is reasonable and would not impact the City. He also said most bed and breakfast guests do not cause trouble. In response to Chair McCrone’s question, Mr. Havlick said he and his wife reside on the property in an apartment. Yin Wang said she moved to Monterey in 2005 currently enjoys residing on Laine Street but is having difficulties paying her mortgage and asked for permission to rent out part of her property. Ms. Cole offered to assist Ms. Wang at the Planning Office public counter. Ms. Perez said she and husband have owned the Jabberwock Inn for the past seven years but would like to move to Vacaville. She said she hopes the Planning Commission will support the proposal as the proposed owners do not want to make any structural changes. Ms. Perez said the police have never been called and the Jabberwock does not attract rowdy guests. Commissioner Comments In response to Commissioner Garden’s question, Ms. Hopper said it would require a charter amendment to allow the owner to live off site and keep the bed and breakfast designation. Chair McCrone said the problem he has with the application is the increasing non- conformity to the variance of 1982 and current codes. In response to Commissioner Osiorio’s question, Ms. Hopper said the VAF zoning was applied to the property in 1986 and staff recommendation is that the hotel/motel use is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Commissioner Stocker said he understands the concern of a bed and breakfast with no one on site to supervise visitors, but supports the project, and said a Condition should be added for future review to ensure that everything is working. Chair McCrone said the Neighborhood Association would likely view the change from limited visitor accommodation to a hotel/motel use as a significant increase of use due to the opportunities it provides and that he is concerned a hotel/motel designation would allow a full service hotel in the future. Commissioner Reed said the change in designation to hotel/motel would not change the use and that future use of the property would be limited by water and other factors. Commissioner Davis said he supports the proposed project and does not see any problems with the request since the use of the property will not change. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Tuesday, March 11, 2014 5  Planning Commission Draft Minutes Tuesday, March 11, 2014 Vice Chair Osorio said that he does not have any issues with the proposed project and that the only difference between the proposed hotel/motel use and the bed and breakfast is the definition in the Code. Commissioner Widmar said the property will look and operate like a bed and breakfast regardless of the designation and will be constrained with regards to site, historical, and water issues. Commissioner Garden said the Use Permit will stay with the property and a two year review would not allow for the status to be returned to a bed and breakfast. Commissioner Stocker said he agrees with Conditions #1 and #2 and Special Condition #3 as long as the room total is limited to eight. He said Special Condition #4 should be changed to allow an employee to be available at all times to address the needs of the guests and the community with availability to be onsite within 30 minutes. Commissioner Stocker said Special Condition #5 should remain because 30 days is sufficient. Commissioner Stoker made a motion to adopt a Resolution amending Use Permit 81-25 to allow a reclassification from a Limited-Occupancy Visitor Accommodation Facility to a Hotel and Motel Use and allow the owner/manager unit to be used as an eighth rental room with amended Special Conditions of Approval as follows: 4. That an employee be onsite at all times to address the needs of the guests and the community. 4. That an employee shall be available at all times to address the needs of the guests and the community. Such employees shall be available to be onsite within 30 minutes of a call. Commissioner Davis seconded the motion. On a motion by Commissioner Stocker, seconded by Commissioner Davis, and carried by the following vote, the Planning Commission adopted a Resolution amending Use Permit 81-25 to allow a reclassification from a Limited-Occupancy Visitor Accommodation Facility to a Hotel and Motel Use and allow the owner/manager unit to be used as an eighth rental room with amended Special Conditions of Approval: AYES: 6 COMMISSIONERS: Osorio, Davis, Garden, Stocker, Reed, Widmar NOES: 1 COMMISSIONERS: McCrone ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None RECUSED: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None 4. Consider 1430 Mark Thomas Drive/1 Old Golf Course Road; Use Permit 13-501 to Allow for a New Personal Wireless Service (PWS) Facility; Applicant John Pappas of the Eukon Group on behalf of AT&T Mobility; Owner Pebble Beach Company; VAF Zoning District; Exempt from CEQA Requirements ACTION: Continued application to the March 25, 2014 Planning Commission meeting at applicant’s request. Commissioner Garden made a motion to continue the application to the March 25, 2014 Planning Commission meeting at the applicant’s request. Commissioner Davis Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Tuesday, March 11, 2014 6  Planning Commission Draft Minutes Tuesday, March 11, 2014 seconded the motion. On a motion by Commissioner Garden, seconded by Commissioner Davis, and carried by the following vote, the Planning Commission Continued application to the March 25, 2014 Planning Commission meeting at applicant’s request: AYES: 7 COMMISSIONERS: McCrone, Osorio, Davis, Garden, Stocker, Reed, Widmar NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None RECUSED: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS Commissioner Stocker said he will not be in attendance at the April 22, 2014 Planning Commission meeting. Chair McCrone said the first reading of a City Code amendment regarding borders and lodgers was heard March 4, 2014 by the City Council and confirmed with Ms. Cole that the matter was previously heard by the Planning Commission on February 11, 2014. Commissioner Garden said the last meeting of the Waterfront Master Plan Subcommittee will be held the evening of March 25, 2014 and that the draft Plan and agenda are available on the Planning Department website. He said guidance and suggestions are welcome until the evening of the meeting. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS & STAFF COMMENTS 5. Planning Office Update  Received update  In response to Commissioner Garden’s question, Ms. Cole said the in-house review of the Climate Action Plan draft is almost complete and that a copy will be available for the subcommittee before the meeting.  Ms. Cole also said there will not be a field trip to review the March 25, 2014 Planning Commission Agenda. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:26 pm. Respectfully Submitted, Approved, Kimberly Cole, AICP Chair Principal Planner Planning Commission Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Tuesday, March 11, 2014 7