Planning Commission Meeting

MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION Thursday, March 15, 2018 6:00 p.m. SPECIAL MEETING FEW MEMORIAL HALL OF RECORDS COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 580 PACIFIC STREET MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA Commissioners Present: Millich, Dawson, Brassfield, Ezekiel, Fletcher, Latasa, Reed Commissioners Absent: None Staff Members Present: Community Development Director Cole, Housing and Community Development Manager Caraker, Senior Associate Planner Bennett, City Attorney Davi, Recording Secretary Leinen CALL TO ORDER Chair Millich called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m. PUBLIC COMMENTS Nina Beety spoke about the 13 personal wireless service (PWS) applications submitted and said the proposed facilities would point to the west, benefitting Pebble Beach. She also said Congress Bill 4986 must be opposed. Judy Karas, Monterey resident, said a meeting regarding safe agriculture and safe schools is being held and that she hopes that those concerned with PWS applications will also give attention to the safety of those who work in the fields. PUBLIC HEARING 1. Deny Use Permit UP-17-0339 for a New Personal Wireless Service (PWS) Facility Attached to an Existing Utility Pole Located in the Public Right-of-Way Immediately Adjacent to 1006 Madison Street; Applicant Lawrence Beer for ExteNet Systems, Inc.; Owner City of Monterey; Zoning Designation R-1-6; Exempt from CEQA Requirements (Article 19, Section 15303, Class 3) ACTION: Application withdrawn by applicant. 2. Deny Use Permit UP-17-0332 for a New Personal Wireless Service (PWS) Facility Attached to an Existing Utility Pole Located in the Public Right-of-Way Immediately Adjacent to 81 Via Encina; Applicant Lawrence Beer for ExteNet Systems, Inc.; Owner City of Monterey; Zoning Designation R-1-8; Exempt from CEQA Requirements (Article 19, Section 15303, Class 3) ACTION: Application withdrawn by applicant. 3. Deny Use Permit UP-17-0334 for a New Personal Wireless Service (PWS) Facility Attached to an Existing Utility Pole Located in the Public Right-of-Way Immediately Adjacent to 231 Via Del Rey; Applicant Lawrence Beer for ExteNet Systems, Inc.; Owner City of Monterey; Zoning Designation R-1-8; Exempt from CEQA Requirements (Article 19, Section 15303, Class 3) ACTION: Application withdrawn by applicant.  Planning Commission Minutes Thursday, March 15, 2018 Chair Millich said Pat Venza of the Monterey Vista Neighborhood Association (MVNA) would be allowed to speak for 10 minutes at the beginning of Public Comment. 4. Approve Use Permit UP-17-0335 for a New Personal Wireless Service (PWS) Facility Attached to an Existing Utility Pole Located in the Public Right-of-Way Immediately Adjacent to 277 Mar Vista Drive and 7 Cuesta Vista Drive; Applicant Lawrence Beer for ExteNet Systems, Inc.; Owner City of Monterey; Zoning Designation R-1-20; Exempt from CEQA Requirements (Article 19, Section 15303, Class 3) ACTION: Adopted a resolution denying Use Permit UP-17-0335 for a new PWS facility to be attached to an existing utility pole located in the City of Monterey’s public right-of-way with amendments to the findings and deletion of all Conditions of Approval. Staff Presentation/Commissioner Questions Todd Bennett presented the Agenda Report and answered Commissioners’ questions. Chair Millich called for a five minute recess at 6:19 pm. Chair Millich reconvened the meeting at 6:22 p.m. Mr. Bennett said the applicant, ExteNet, submitted a letter the day of the meeting which has been provided to the Commissioners and interested members of the public. Christine Davi introduced Lee Afflerbach of CTC Technology & Energy and Tripp May of Telecom Law Firm. Mr. Afflerbach said he was tasked with determining whether the information provided by the applicant regarding coverage gaps is correct. He said his measurements confirmed that the information provided is correct, and that there is coverage in the area but it does not meet 4G coverage or signal level to provide signal into buildings. In response to Commissioner Ezekiel’s question, Mr. Afflerbach confirmed that the applicant proposes to add 1900 and 2100 megahertz and he detailed the locations of the three 700 megahertz macro sites. He also said he did not look at the construction of these existing antennas and the possibility of them providing additional coverage as he was only tasked to measure existing performance. In response to Commissioner Ezekiel’s question regarding the target capacity for the proposed location, Mr. Afflerbach said he had no target as his job was to measure what the existing signal level is. In response to Vice Chair Dawson’s question regarding whether the proposed sites are supposed to be 5G LTE, Mr. Afflerbach said there is a general move away from the macro sites to the small sites which are going to be the backbone of 5G technology. In response to Vice Chair Dawson’s question about expected coverage, Mr. Afflerbach said this depends on what the waves have to penetrate, such as buildings and foliage, but generally speaking higher frequencies provide about half the distance of a 700 megahertz site. In response to Vice Chair Dawson’s question regarding measurement of signal from a moving vehicle, Mr. Afflerbach said the reason this was done is to be able to provide a graph of the coverage area. In response to Vice Chair’s question regarding capacity versus coverage, Mr. Afflerbach said that although an LTE site may have sufficient signal level it could still be lacking in capacity. Mr. Bennett and Mr. May answered Commissioners’ questions regarding the shot clock, capacity versus coverage, and the 9th Circuit Courts. In response to Vice Chair Dawson’s Planning Commission Special Meeting Minutes Thursday, March 15, 2018 2 Planning Commission Minutes Thursday, March 15, 2018 question regarding whether the law takes into consideration a coverage gap or a capacity gap, Mr. May said the bedrock judicial case established a significant gap test in 2005 when the issue at hand was coverage, but subsequent 9th Circuit Court decisions have not readdressed significant gap. He said lower California Courts have addressed the issue taking into consideration a lack of in building coverage or a lack of capacity in general. Mr. May also confirmed that it is the applicant’s responsibility to confirm that a coverage gap exists. He said he believes, based on the CTC report, that a Court would find that there is a gap, however there are still other factors to consider like whether the project is the least intrusive means. In response to Commissioner Ezekiel’s question, Mr. May confirmed that under City Code, co- location of facilities is preferable. In response to Commissioner Latasa’s question regarding coverage versus capacity, Mr. May said the Planning Commission’s determination about whether or not a gap exists is not dispositive in the same way their determination about conformity with the municipal code would be upon judicial review, so it does not do any harm for staff to make a determination. He also said if the Planning Commission makes contrary findings that the project does not comply with the local code, then the Limited Exception Findings would be triggered and findings about existence of a gap and whether the facility is the least intrusive would have to be made. In response to Commissioner Reed’s question, Mr. May said for this application, the issue of a gap in coverage was not mentioned because staff determined all of the basic findings could be met so limited exception findings were not needed. Mr. May also confirmed that coverage is irrelevant for this application as the application cannot be denied based on coverage. In response to Commissioner Latasa’s questions regarding undergrounding of utilities and individuals having their own wired systems, Mr. May said the Public Utilities Code allows telephone companies the right to put their services in the public right-of-way. In response to Vice Chair Dawson’s question regarding California Public Utilities Code General Order 95 (GO 95) and co-location of side-mounted antennas, Mr. May said co-location would be unlikely due to GO 95 and the poles being unable to support the additional utilities. In response to Commissioner Fletcher’s question about ownership of the utility pole, Mr. Bennett said the Northern California Joint Pole Association owns the pole and ExteNet is a member of that association. He also said prior to installation, the pole would need to be evaluated to confirm it is structurally sound. Mr. May said a Joint Pole Association member submits an application to all interested parties and if no objections are received within 45 days permission is granted. Mr. Bennett said to his knowledge this permission has not yet been granted for the proposed pole. In response to Commissioner Ezekiel’s question regarding vaulting of equipment, Mr. Bennett said staff recommends on-pole equipment over vaulting for this location due to the site’s foliage, the significant slope, and the aesthetic impacts of the three retaining walls that would be needed. In response to Commissioner Brassfield’s question regarding co-location in residential areas, Mr. Bennett said commercial and industrial zones are preferred over residential, unless the applicant indicates that there are no suitable commercially or industrially zoned properties within the area, in which case residential can be considered. In response to Commissioner Fletcher’s question regarding accuracy of the assessments of Planning Commission Special Meeting Minutes Thursday, March 15, 2018 3 Planning Commission Minutes Thursday, March 15, 2018 the proposed pole, Mr. May said the engineers make assumptions on tolerance based on calculations of known factors. In response to Commissioner Ezekiel’s question about view impacts, Mr. Bennett said the nearest residence to the proposed site is approximately 65 feet away. Mr. Bennett said the Wireless Ordinance is intended to require mitigation for these types of facilities, but does not require that facilities are not visible from adjacent residences. In response to Commissioner Reed’s question regarding a 12 foot radius from the proposed site, Mr. May said the antenna does not have the right to use the air space above adjacent private property that the owner is using and that the antenna cannot prevent development of other properties. In response to Commissioner Reed’s question regarding the Wireless Ordinance, Mr. May said the Ordinance was written with all types of facilities in mind. He said the City can deny applications in residential areas if there are findings that the facilities will incommode the public’s use of the right of way or if there are alternative locations or designs that would be more compatible with the Ordinance. In response to Commissioner Ezekiel’s question regarding macro towers, Mr. Afflerbach said macro towers have limitations in the 700 megahertz and that investigating use of macro towers was not a part of the applicant’s scope. Mr. May said the City cannot dictate technological choices or require applicants to use properties they cannot gain access to. In response to Commissioner Brassfield’s question, Mr. Afflerbach confirmed that the proposed project uses the smallest model currently available to accomplish the goal and said the proposal from an engineering standpoint is a sound approach. In response to Commissioner Brassfield’s question regarding future modifications to the project if approved, Mr. Bennett said unless upgrades or modifications reach a certain threshold the review would be ministerial. In response to Commissioner Brassfield’s question regarding review of 5G facilities in the future, Mr. May said local government has the right to review facilities to ensure they meet necessary criteria, such as size, structural soundness, and pole height. In response to Commissioner Reed’s question, Mr. May confirmed that the applicant has withdrawn the 12 other PWS applications and would therefore have to submit new applications if they desired to proceed with those 12 locations. In response to Commissioner Latasa’s question regarding the letter submitted by ExteNet, Mr. Bennett said the letter states that an extensive evaluation occurred showing that the proposed site is the preferred location and City staff concurs. Mr. May said the letter is part of the record and the Commission should weigh it with other items as part of the record. In response to Commissioner Ezekiel’s question regarding undergrounding required equipment in vaults, Mr. Bennett said this is an alternative that ExteNet has stated would require fans, an exhaust vent, and the addressing of flooding issues. In regards to Commissioner Ezekiel’s concern regarding fire risks in the area, Mr. May said the application process is what is used to vet alternatives, such as underground vaulting, and that if this is the Commission’s desire it can be considered. In response to Chair Millich’s question, Mr. Afflerbach said implementation of only one PWS site would only cover roughly 1/12 of the desired service area and would not make a material impact. Chair Millich adjourned the meeting for a recess at 8:04 p.m. Chair Millich reconvened the Planning Commission Special Meeting Minutes Thursday, March 15, 2018 4 Planning Commission Minutes Thursday, March 15, 2018 meeting at 8:15 p.m. Applicant Joe Camicia, ExteNet Systems Inc., gave a background of ExteNet Systems Inc. and said representatives are present to answer questions. Mr. Camicia described the proposed project and showed a photo simulation. He said ExteNet is agreeable to a Condition of Approval to determine whether an equipment shroud would be feasible. Mr. Camicia explained site selection and alternative analyses, describing why some locations would not work or were less desirable, along with the City’s design preferences. He also described ancillary equipment options and explained why the project is necessary. Bill Hammett, Licensed Professional Engineer of Hammett & Edison, Inc., described his firm’s expertise and said staff is correct in saying the issue of compliance with health standards is preempted by the FFC. He also said if the project were to be built as proposed it would meet FCC standards. Mr. Hammett said the proposed project would not generate any noise from fans or cooling fins, but that vaults do create noise due to air entering the vault for cooling. Mr. Camicia spoke about structural integrity and said all installations are designed by registered civil engineers and require review by the City’s engineers. He also spoke about the benefit of PWS facilities for emergencies and public safety matters, such as 911 calls, natural disasters, personal emergencies, and for use by first responders. Mr. Camicia requested that the Planning Commission approve the project as proposed. In response to Commissioner Ezekiel’s questions, Mr. Camicia said ExteNet is still evaluating vaulting factors and that ExteNet did not take any photos from the residence at 277 Mar Vista Drive since it is private property. In response to Commissioner Reed’s question about the number of households the proposed PWS facility would cover, Mr. Camicia said there is not a specific number and it is more a question of capacity, coverage, and network performance. He said the facility would offload demand from other facilities nearby and ease up the whole network. In response to Commissioner Reed’s question regarding the proposed facilities being oriented towards Pebble Beach, ExteNet Design Engineer Greg Seth said small cell facilities would not have the signal strength to reach Pebble Beach and that the small cells are pointed in that direction as to not interfere with line of sight across the bay. In response to Commissioner Ezekiel’s question regarding evidence that macrosites are at capacity, Mr. Camicia said the evidence exists but he is unsure if it has been provided to the City. In response to Commissioner Fletcher’s question, Mr. Camicia said the 12 other applications were withdrawn because ExteNet wanted to continue the projects to a date in the future and that staff’s recommendations were based on incomplete information. Mr. Camicia said ExteNet hopes to have the necessary data in the future to resubmit the projects. In response to Chair Millich’s question, Mr. Camicia said the other two projects that staff recommended for approval were withdrawn because the Mar Vista site provided a great deal of vegetation for screening and was the least likely for vaulting, which is not preferred by ExteNet or recommended by City staff. In response to Commissioner Reed’s question, Mr. Camicia said ExteNet has made the decision to go forward with the proposed project because there is an existing problem with network performance in the neighborhood and a good user experience is needed for all customers. Planning Commission Special Meeting Minutes Thursday, March 15, 2018 5 Planning Commission Minutes Thursday, March 15, 2018 In response to Commissioner Brassfield’s questions regarding lights on the proposed PWS facility, Mr. Camicia confirmed there will be no lights. In response to his question regarding the proposed meter for the project, Mr. Camicia said PG&E determines the type of meter installed. Wendy Mueller of PG&E said that power to the proposed facility can be turned off by emergency personnel or technical support staff. In response to Commissioner Brassfield’s question about vandalism, Mr. Camicia said the equipment would be locked and mounted out of reach of the general public. In response to further questions by Commissioner Brassfield, Mr. Camicia said the proposed location for the project is Verizon’s desired location and that the benefit of the proposed PWS facility would be the offloading of other cellular sites. In response to Commissioner Latasa’s question, Mr. Camicia said if the project included a vault it would still include an antenna and only the RRUs and diplexers would be housed inside the vault. In response to Commissioner Latasa’s question regarding the letter submitted by Extenet, Mr. Camicia said it contains more thorough documentation of the alternatives that have been discussed at length with staff already. In response to Commissioner Ezekiel’s question, Mr. Hammett said the pole generates about 200 watts of output from the equipment to the antenna and the only equipment generating heat are the RRUs, which each generate about 750 watts. Mr. Camicia said the site can be shut off remotely or on-site. Public Comments Pat Venza, Monterey Vista Neighborhood Association (MVNA) representative said the Association represents over 1200 residents and the proposed PWS facilities are a highly contested issue among residents. She said she does not agree with ExteNet or City staff’s report and expressed concern with inconsistencies in the report and flawed data. Ms. Venza said a PWS facility would affect everyone in the neighborhood with regards to property values, health of the forest, and views and that PWS facilities should only be allowed in commercial and industrial areas. Ms. Venza said there is an unmet legal requirement for a significant gap in coverage and asked the Planning Commission to deny the application, saying she hopes ExteNet does not return in the future. She also questioned why only one application remains when the neighborhood was previously told all 13 were necessary. Mike Pekin spoke against the proposed PWS facility and said the 700 emails received are proof that there is no coverage gap. He said he is proud of the Planning Commissioners and residents. He asked for a better proposal from ExteNet if they return to Monterey in the future. Susan Nine, Peter’s Gate resident, spoke in opposition to the proposed PWS facility and said as a Verizon customer she has never had any trouble with coverage inside or outside her home. Ms. Nine expressed concern regarding the residential location of the proposed project, staff’s conclusion that the project complies with City Code, the lack of reference to a service coverage gap in staff’s report or resolution, the CTC test data, and a denied PRA request made to Ms. Davi for the original CTC report. Jeff Galfin, El Caminito Del Norte resident, spoke in opposition to the proposed PWS facility and expressed concern with things previously found safe turning out to be unsafe, such as lead, asbestos, and Agent Orange. He asked the Commission to do the right thing and deny the project. Tony Tolner, Monterey Vista neighborhood resident, spoke in opposition to the proposed PWS facility and said the Commission’s job is to advocate for the community, which is made of homes and families. He asked the Commissioners to vote with their conscience and deny the Planning Commission Special Meeting Minutes Thursday, March 15, 2018 6 Planning Commission Minutes Thursday, March 15, 2018 application. Gina Jett, Monterey Vista Drive resident, spoke in opposition to the proposed PWS facility and said there are no coverage gaps in the neighborhood and that the PWS Ordinance is being violated due to the applicant not submitting a collocation report, not considering commercial areas, and proposing the project in a residential area. Kathy Little, Soledad Drive resident, spoke in opposition to the proposed PWS facility and said the existing utility poles are unattractive and visual aesthetics are important in a natural, beautiful space like the Monterey Vista neighborhood. Ms. Little presented a life-sized model of a utility pole to show its unattractiveness. Sandra Collingwood, Fountain Avenue resident, spoke in opposition to the proposed PWS facility and expressed concern regarding inconsistencies between what she was told at the Verizon store about coverage in the Monterey Vista neighborhood and what has been said by ExteNet at this meeting. Robert Yoha, Euclid Avenue resident, spoke in opposition to the proposed PWS facility and said due to health concerns, his doctors have told him to stay away from high voltage and cell towers. Mr. Yoha said there is no scientific basis that there is a lack of coverage. Nancy Soule, Old Town neighborhood resident, spoke in opposition to the proposed PWS facility and spoke about FCC regulations and the unreliability of using them to judge health effects due to the age of the regulations. Ms. Soule said there would be an increased risk of wildfires with installation of more facilities and that it would also delay or prevent the undergrounding of utilities. Lois Hansen, Monte Vista neighborhood resident, spoke in opposition to the proposed PWS facility and asked how there would be room for collocation on the proposed utility pole in a concealed or camouflaged manner. Ms. Hansen said there is no coverage gap and that the project should be denied as it does not comply with the PWS Ordinance and the General Plan goals. A person not identifying himself spoke in opposition to the proposed PWS facility and said approving it would go against the natural beauty of the area and impact those in the area who regularly look up at the trees. He also said approval would require maintenance of trees and branches near the facility. Nancy Selfridge, Monterey Vista neighborhood resident, spoke in opposition to the proposed PWS facility and said over 700 pages of input was received from the community regarding the project. She said undergrounding of utilities should be explored further and the Planning Commission should stand up for the residents by denying the project. Vicky Williams, Martin Street resident, said the City’s Wireless Ordinance states that a compact, top-mounted radome is preferred over arms or appendages so the City has erred in recommending approval of the project. Ms. Williams also said the project is not compatible with the neighborhood. Maureen Bianchini, Monterey Vista neighborhood resident, spoke in opposition to the proposed PWS facility saying she likes the trees, treasures the neighborhood, and has concerns with the structure of telephone poles in her front yard. She asked the Planning Commission to deny the application. Planning Commission Special Meeting Minutes Thursday, March 15, 2018 7 Planning Commission Minutes Thursday, March 15, 2018 Kristen Dotterrer spoke in opposition to the proposed PWS facility and said there is excellent service in the Monterey Vista neighborhood. Ms. Dotterrer said the Verizon store confirmed to her the quality of service and data. She said the project should be denied since there is no significant gap in coverage, shown by the postcards received by the City from residents, tests done by Verizon customers and the report. Ray Meyers, Monterey Vista neighborhood resident, spoke in opposition to the proposed PWS facility and said the engineer’s calculations were incorrect due to an error in the models used for calculations. He said omnidirectional and directional antennas are different and the error is critical, making the report invalid. Luke Martin, Monterey resident, spoke in opposition to the proposed PWS facility and said health hazards and health risks are being imposed upon residents. He said he is very opposed to the method the applicant is using of withdrawing the other 12 applications because they are not ready. John Adamo, Monterey Vista neighborhood resident, spoke in opposition to the proposed PWS facility and said Verizon currently has great coverage, and expressed concern with precedent setting. He also expressed concern with fire risks and said the City does not take wild fires seriously. Catherine Adamo, Monterey resident, spoke in opposition to the proposed PWS facility and said the Monterey Vista neighborhood has perfect coverage. Ms. Adamo expressed concern with precedent setting, wild fire risk in relation to telecom equipment, uninformed CPUC regulators and PG&E staff, dry trees, and the neighborhood being in a high fire risk zone. Danielle Gregorio, Monterey resident, spoke in opposition to the proposed PWS facility and read from news articles detailing the link between pole-mounted equipment and wildfires. Ms. Gregorio expressed concern with fire danger in the Monterey Vista Neighborhood due to deteriorated utility poles, the weight of existing equipment, additional weight of new equipment, microwave equipment intensifying fire and making it more difficult to fight, and the protruding profile of the equipment acting like a sail in the wind. She also said residents should be not forced to live with this threat. Chip Dorey, Monterey resident, spoke in opposition to the proposed PWS facility and said he has good Verizon coverage in the area. He also said small cell facilities emit high frequency radiation and that PG&E Smart Meters are high voltage, potential ignition sources. Mr. Dorey said Smart Meters should not be placed on poles near traffic as pole collisions are not uncommon. He also said if the equipment’s cooling feature malfunctions or is damaged, the utility pole could catch on fire. Mr. Dorey said PWS facility fires spread rapidly and the antenna would act as a torch once the fire reaches it. Charisse Carlile, Monterey resident, spoke in opposition to the proposed PWS facility and said she has good Verizon coverage in the area. She spoke about additional stress on utility poles increasing fire danger, massive Pine trees above the proposed antenna, the difficulty of fighting electrical fires, narrow streets making it difficult for fire trucks to maneuver, and the fact that the residents of Cuesta Vista Drive have only one way to exit through Mar Vista Drive and in the event of a fire would have no evacuation route. Whitney Willis, Monterey resident, spoke in opposition to the proposed PWS facility and explained the website mystreetmychoice.com. She also spoke of a study regarding cell towers causing brain impacts and said she has no issues with her Verizon coverage and that a safer Planning Commission Special Meeting Minutes Thursday, March 15, 2018 8 Planning Commission Minutes Thursday, March 15, 2018 option should be chosen. Javier Rodriguez spoke in opposition to the proposed PWS facility saying his neighbor has three children and one of the proposed PWS sites is in front of their house. He expressed concern with health risks. Michelle Oldman, Cuesta Vista Drive resident, spoke in opposition to the proposed PWS facility, said there is no coverage gap, and spoke of her experience with cell towers in southern California. Ms. Oldman said approval of the proposed project will affect real estate and cause devaluation of property values. Steve Wilson, Toda Vista Drive resident, spoke in opposition to the proposed PWS facility and said he does not agree with the finding that the facility will not be detrimental to public health, safety and welfare as it is proposed to be installed below the house of a person with electromagnetic frequency (EMF) sensitivity. Mr. Wilson said he is concerned about wildfires and that PWS facilities should not be allowed in residential districts. Esther McKay, Toda Vista Drive resident, spoke in opposition to the proposed PWS facility and said the proposal is not in compliance with the Wireless Ordinance and General Plan. Ms. McKay said approval of the project would have damaging effects to property owners and would have to be disclosed under State law. Hal McKay, Toda Vista Drive resident, spoke in opposition to the proposed PWS facility and said his bedroom is 42 feet away from the proposed project. Mr. McKay said he is a retired firefighter and is 90 percent disabled and does not know how the PWS facility would affect him and his quality of life. Elizabeth Murray, Peters Gate resident, spoke in opposition to the proposed PWS facility and said as an artist her life revolves around aesthetics and beauty, so she does not want the project to be approved. She said she does not want to have to worry about fire risks, health risks, and a decline in home values. Jenny Padowan, Mar Vista Drive resident, spoke in opposition to the proposed PWS facility and said it would be aimed into her window. She also said in the event of a fire, both her home and her neighbor’s home would burn. She suggested fiber optics instead of PWS facilities. Bruce Zanetta, Monterey Vista neighborhood resident, spoke in opposition to the proposed PWS facility and said additional capacity is not necessary because wired or wireless internet is available inside people’s homes. He also said the site was chosen for the screening of the trees, but Pine trees are flammable. Hebard Olsen spoke in opposition to the proposed PWS facility and suggested placing larger towers on the top of the hill instead of in the neighborhood. He said he has cancer and would be affected by PWS facilities. Mr. Olsen said the City is being run by a corporation and asked if utility poles with PWS facilities would be able to withstand 85 mph winds. James Smith, Bartolomea Way resident, spoke in opposition to the proposed PWS facility and said approval of one PWS facility will open the door for others. He said he is offended by staff’s findings that there would be no impacts to health, safety or welfare and said all the data is from the Federal Government and based on lobbyists. Jean Rasch, Monterey Vista neighborhood resident, spoke in opposition to the proposed PWS Planning Commission Special Meeting Minutes Thursday, March 15, 2018 9 Planning Commission Minutes Thursday, March 15, 2018 facility and said the proposed project is not in conformance with the height requirement as the project would total 27 feet in height. She said wireless poles with PWS facilities added to the top should not be given the exception that poles are given. Barbara Jacobowsky spoke in opposition to the proposed PWS facility and expressed concern with health issues, the environment, safety of birds and animals, and with her property being targeted since her daughter is a strong opponent of cell towers. Ms. Jacobowsky also said she has excellent coverage and has never had a problem. Nina Beety, Mar Vista Drive resident, spoke in opposition to the proposed PWS facility and expressed concern with non-compliance with standards, false photo simulations of the project, removal of vegetation required to install the PWS facility, incorrectness of staff’s report, a lack of screening for the proposed facility, staff’s CEQA determination, precedent setting, non- compliance with the City’s zoning code, the proposed PWS facility being within a 12 foot radius of her property, and eminent domain. Ms. Beety said due to her EMS disability, approval of the project would take her whole home away from her and she sees it as retaliation. Steven Lucas spoke in opposition to the proposed PWS facility and said the FCC standard about exposure refers to where the radiation is occurring, not the radiation source, and that this radiation has an effect on metal on and inside the body. Mr. Lucas said the science is clear and the Planning Commission does not have the authority to approve something that is not in compliance. Bill Clancy, Monterey Vista neighborhood resident, spoke in opposition to the proposed PWS facility said it would be ineffective in an emergency because emergency calls require electricity and it does not have a power source. Chair Millich gave the applicants an opportunity for rebuttal. Mr. Hammett said it is Congress who restricts the City to apply nothing stricter than the FCC’s requirements and that the FCC updates their standards with the continual research that occurs. Mr. Hammett spoke about wireless facilities in other countries and also IEEE standards. He also confirmed that the findings of his study were based on the correct type of antenna. Mr. Camicia said regarding concerns expressed over structural integrity, that the pole chosen will be fully evaluated by licensed structural engineers and City staff. He also said the proposal meets all City guidelines and asked the Planning Commission to approve the project. Commissioner Comments Commissioner Reed thanked the neighborhood for their participation and thanked ExteNet for their courtesy to the neighborhood. He said because the applicant now proposes one PWS site instead of 13, the analysis in staffs report is probably incorrect. He also said based on one site, as opposed to 13 sites, the commercial district is now the best location for the one proposed PWS facility, since it is no longer part of a system of several facilities. Commissioner Reed said the analysis for the one site needs to take in consideration other locations. He also said the proposed tower will ease service for other towers, so the proposed tower no longer needs to be in this location and can be on a commercial site. Commissioner Reed said if the finding is made that there are other sites that can be used for this one particular location, this means that the Commission needs to make a determination on gap coverage. Mr. May confirmed that the Planning Commission’s finding has to contradict one of the first three requirements for the general use permits or the three for the PWS permits. Planning Commission Special Meeting Minutes Thursday, March 15, 2018 10 Planning Commission Minutes Thursday, March 15, 2018 Chair Millich said there may not be sufficient evidence to make an informed decision and asked Mr. May if there is a way to deny the permit because of this. Mr. May said the Planning Commission could evaluate the evidence in the record and make a determination with findings to deny the application. In response to Commissioner Latasa’s question, Mr. May confirmed that one finding by the Planning Commission is adequate to sustain the finding of substantial evidence. Commissioner Ezekiel said the citizens of Monterey have made an admirable effort and he said he applauds the work ExteNet has done with City Staff. Commissioner Ezekiel said there are major issues with the application, including a flawed description of aesthetics, visibility of the proposed PWS facility from the residence at 277 Mar Vista Drive, a lack of evidence of a coverage gap versus a capacity gap, and a lack of data and facts. He also said all proposed applications should utilize underground vaults, which can contain fire, and should have an auto-off switch. Commissioner Ezekiel said he supports denial of the project. Commissioner Brassfield said he would have liked a representative of Verizon to be present to answer the Commissioners’ and public’s questions. He also said residents have spoke of their concerns about health, safety, and welfare, but the Planning Commission is not allowed to consider this. Commissioner Brassfield said Monterey prides itself on being an environmental city and California’s first capital, and he objects to putting the proposed apparatus on the pole. Commissioner Brassfield said he agrees with Commissioner Reed on the reasons why the Planning Commission can deny the project, referencing City Code. Commissioner Latasa said findings can be made for denial, with the most obvious finding being the aesthetic impacts and annoyance to the public, especially for residents of 277 Mar Vista Drive. Commissioner Latasa said findings could also be based on the proposal not being the least intrusive option and the lack of a coverage gap. Commissioner Fletcher said he has not been convinced of a significant coverage gap. He also said Planning Commissioners are tasked with overseeing thoughtful and orderly development in the City, and that piecing the applications together one at a time is unsettling to him. Commissioner Fletcher said he cannot support the application. Vice Chair Dawson said there is a perceived capacity gap because Verizon to wants move forward with virtual fiber and 5G. He also said if one PWS facility is allowed to be installed there would be others to come from various cellular companies. Vice Chair Dawson said multiple towers all over the City is unacceptable and the approval of a PWS facility on one pole will lead to facilities on other poles. Chair Millich called for a recess at 11:05 p.m. Chair Millich reconvened the meeting at 11:43 p.m. Mr. May said that he and staff have modified the draft resolution to make it conform to the Commissioners’ discussion. The Commission reviewed the proposed changes to the draft resolution and confirmed its accuracy. Commissioner Reed made a motion to adopt a resolution denying Use Permit UP-17-0335 for a new PWS facility to be attached to an existing utility pole located in the City of Monterey’s public right-of-way with amendments to the findings as follows and deletion of all Conditions of Approval: FINDINGS: Planning Commission Special Meeting Minutes Thursday, March 15, 2018 11 Planning Commission Minutes Thursday, March 15, 2018 1. The proposed use is in accord with the objectives of Monterey City Code Chapter 38 and the purposes of the zone. Chapter 38 generally provides that the zoning ordinance is intended to protect and promote the public health, safety and general welfare, and to implement the policies in the General Plan. An evaluation under Zoning Ordinance Section 38-112.4 is an appropriate means to evaluate compliance with Chapter 38 and the General Plan because Section 38-112.4 regulates PWS facilities in a manner consistent with the objectives and purposes in both Chapter 38 and the General Plan. As more fully discussed below, subject to conditions, the proposed PWS facility complies does not comply with all the applicable provisions in Zoning Ordinance Section 38-112.4, and therefore the proposed PWS facility is not in accord with the objectives and purposes in Chapter 38 and the General Plan. 2. The proposed use and the proposed conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will be consistent with the General Plan; will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare of persons residing or working in or adjacent to the neighborhood of such use; and will not be detrimental to properties or improvements in the vicinity or to the general welfare of the city. This finding is divided into three separate findings: whether the proposed use (1) is consistent with the General Plan; (2) will be detrimental to public health, safety or welfare; and (3) will be detrimental to properties or improvements in the vicinity or to the general welfare. First, subject to conditions, the proposed PWS facility is not consistent with the General Plan because it complies does not comply with all applicable design and development standards. The Land Use Element classifies the proposed site location as residential and the Monterey City Code provides that PWS Facilities are a major utility subject to a use permit in all residential zones. An evaluation under Zoning Ordinance Section 38-112.4 is an appropriate means to evaluate compliance with the General Plan because Section 38-112.4 regulates PWS facilities in a manner consistent with the objectives and purposes in the General Plan. As more fully discussed below, the proposed PWS facility complies does not comply with the applicable provisions in Zoning Ordinance Section 38-112.4 (subject to conditions), and therefore the proposed PWS facility is not in accord with the objectives and purposes in the General Plan. Second, the PWS facility is not detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare because it would be installed, maintained and operated in compliance with all applicable public health and safety regulations, which includes without limitation all building codes, electrical codes, pole attachment regulations and regulations for exposure to RF emissions. The design involves installations on an existing pole, which would reduce new obstructions in the public rights-of-way that could impede access or create hazards for pedestrians, persons protected under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act, bicyclists or motorists. The application included a report prepared by Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers, that determined the proposed facility will comply with the prevailing FCC standards for limiting public exposure to radio frequency energy. Signage would be installed to notify utility workers and others who might attempt to climb the pole about potential exposure to RF emissions, and would include a toll-free number connected to an operator who can power-down the transmitters. A disconnect switch would also be installed on the pole. (1) not be equipped with automatic fire detection or shutdown systems, (2) be installed on Planning Commission Special Meeting Minutes Thursday, March 15, 2018 12 Planning Commission Minutes Thursday, March 15, 2018 a pole that is potentially structurally unsound, and (3) surrounded by dry trees that pose a fire danger. Third, the proposed PWS facility will not be detrimental to properties or improvements in the vicinity or general welfare of the city because the record does not contain site and context-specific evidence to suggest that the proposed PWS facility would negatively impact the value of specific adjacent properties or improvements. Rather, the record contains evidence that opponents to the project believe that PWS facilities per se have a negative impact residential property values. Generalized grievances do not amount to substantial evidence. Moreover, the proposed PWS facility will not be detrimental to properties or improvements because the use is consistent with the underlying utility support structure given that a general function of utility poles in the public rights-of-way is to support communications network infrastructure. 3. The proposed use will comply with any specific condition required for that use. The proposed PWS facility complies does not comply with any specific condition required for the use because, subject to conditions, the facility is not compliant with the applicable provisions in the Zoning Ordinance. 4. The facility is not detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. The proposed PWS facility will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare because it would be installed, maintained and operated in compliance with all applicable public health and safety regulations, which includes without limitation all building codes, electrical codes, pole attachment regulations and regulations for exposure to RF emissions. The design involves installations on an existing pole, which would reduce new obstructions in the public rights-of-way that could impede access or create hazards for pedestrians, persons protected under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act, bicyclists or motorists. The application included a report prepared by Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers, that determined the proposed PWS facility will comply with the prevailing FCC standards for limiting public exposure to radio frequency energy. Signage would be installed to notify utility workers and others who might attempt to climb the pole about potential exposure to RF emissions, and would include a toll-free number connected to an operator who can power-down the transmitters. A disconnect switch would also be installed on the pole. PWS facility is detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare because it will (1) not be equipped with automatic fire detection or shutdown systems, (2) be installed on a pole that is potentially structurally unsound, and (3) be surrounded by dry trees that pose a fire danger. 5. The facility complies with all applicable design and development standards in the City Code. The proposed PWS facility, subject to conditions, complies does not comply with all applicable design and development standards because: a. The proposed PWS facility design is not the most-preferred under the circumstances because there are more-preferred building-mounted designs. Undergrounded equipment configurations and locations in commercial areas would appear to be technically infeasible. Given that (1) the applicant’s intended service area is in the residential neighborhood southwest of Monte Vista Elementary School, (2) feasible Planning Commission Special Meeting Minutes Thursday, March 15, 2018 13 Planning Commission Minutes Thursday, March 15, 2018 collocation opportunities do not exist and (3) building-mounted designs would not be desired or appropriate on adjacent residences, the proposed facility in the public right- of-way facility is most-preferred. Accordingly, the proposed facility qualifies as a preferred design in compliance with Section 38-112.4.F.1. b. Although the The proposed PWS facility would be located in a discouraged location, there do not appear to be other technically feasible and potentially available locations in the public rights-of-way that would be more preferred. The proposed utility pole location is heavily screened by ground vegetation and existing mature trees that line the public right-of-way along Mar Vista. Although the location is in an area zoned R-1 (single family residential), there are no industrial or commercial zoned parcels within the vicinity of the intended service area. The proposed facility would be located more than 65 feet from the nearest residence and there do not appear to be other nearby poles that would be either further from residences or that would provide greater screening opportunities with existing vegetation than the proposed location. Although alternative pole locations in the vicinity may be able to support an underground vault to conceal the radio equipment, the proposed location is more preferred because it is further from nearby residences than those alternatives and the existing vegetation around the pole would more effectively screen the pole-mounted radio equipment. In addition, as shown in a photo simulation provided by the applicant, an underground vault at the proposed location would displace the existing ground vegetation and undermine the natural screening elements. Ultimately, the proposed location is more consistent with the Zoning Ordinance’s structure and purpose to avoid the visual impacts of additional above-ground infrastructure in close proximity to residential dwellings. Accordingly, the PWS facility complies with Zoning Ordinance Sections 38- 112.4.F.2 and .3 because there do not appear to be more preferred alternatives. c. Subject to conditions, the PWS facility incorporates concealment measures sufficient to render it camouflaged, which blend with the underlying support structure, surrounding environment and adjacent uses. The antenna would not be obscured from view with a shroud that also conceals the mounting hardware. Although ExteNet does not propose to install the radio equipment in an underground vault, the existing vegetation would effectively screen the equipment from public view. In addition, a condition of approval requires the radios, fiber splice box and diplexers to be concealed within a pole- mounted equipment cage painted to match the color of the pole. This would create a more streamlined appearance that blends with the pole and reduces the number of visible components. The other pole-mounted equipment (the electric meter and disconnect switch) cannot feasibly be placed underground based on CPUC General Order 95 Rule 94, PG&E Electric and Gas Service Requirements Section 5.3.2.B and PG&E Document 027911 Rev. #10. The shrouds and other pole-mounted equipment would be painted to match the support structure’s natural wood color. These techniques would: obscure the transmission equipment from public view; reduce the visual impact from the equipment that cannot be placed underground; blend the pole- mounted equipment into the underlying guy pole; and substantially mimic (to the extent feasible) the existing above-ground utility equipment on poles along Mar Vista, Cuesta Vista and other public rights-of-way in the City. Accordingly, subject to conditions, the PWS facility complies with Zoning Ordinance Sections 38-112.4.F.4.a and .6.b. from nearby residences and the intersection of Mar Vista and Soledad Place. d. Pursuant to Zoning Ordinance Section 38-5.B, the public right-of-way is subject to the zoning regulations applicable to the nearest abutting private property parcel. However, Planning Commission Special Meeting Minutes Thursday, March 15, 2018 14 Planning Commission Minutes Thursday, March 15, 2018 Zoning Ordinance Section 38-106.a. provides an exception to the zone height limit for distribution towers, transmission towers, lines and poles. Accordingly, the proposed PWS facility complies with Zoning Code Section 38-112.4.F.4.b because the zone height limit does not apply to pole structures. e. Pursuant to Zoning Ordinance Section 38-5.B, the public right-of-way is subject to the zoning regulations applicable to the nearest abutting private property parcel. There is no setback requirement for major utility infrastructure within R-1 districts. Accordingly, the proposed PWS facility would be compliant with Zoning Ordinance Section 38- 112.4.F.4.c. f. The proposed PWS facility design does not necessarily preclude collocation by future facilities, as additional antennas could be mounted above the proposed antenna and underground vaults could be placed in the vicinity. Accordingly, the PWS facility complies with Zoning Ordinance Section 38-112.4.F.4.d because it could potentially accommodate future collocated facilities. g. The proposed PWS facility will be compliant with all applicable ambient noise limits for the R-1 zone because the noise-emitting equipment would be pole-mounted and, subject to a condition, placed in a passively-cooled equipment cage to obviate the need for noise-producing cooling mechanisms like fans. The proposed pole-mounted design would provide enough airflow to keep the noise-emitting equipment ventilated. Moreover, a condition requires continued compliance with applicable ambient noise limits in this zone. Accordingly, the PWS facility will be compliant with Zoning Ordinance Section 38-112.4.F.4.e. h. The proposed PWS facility avoids illumination impacts to adjacent properties to the maximum extent feasible because ExteNet does not propose to install any lights. Accordingly, the PWS facility complies with Zoning Ordinance Section 38-112.4.F.4.f. i. The only signage proposed is a notice for utility workers and others who might attempt the scale the utility pole that an antenna is placed within the shroud. The proposed PWS facility does not include any commercial signage or advertisements. Accordingly, the PWS facility complies with Zoning Ordinance Section 38-112.4.F.4.g. j. Subject to conditions, the The PWS facility does not unreasonably subjects the public use to inconvenience, discomfort, trouble and/or annoyance because there do not appears to be more-preferred alternatives with undergrounded equipment and/or locations in a commercial area, such as the Monte Vista Market approximately 0.6 miles from the proposed location. and the equipment would be camouflaged to the extent feasible. The visual impact of the pole-mounted equipment would be mitigated by an equipment cage and the existing vegetation around the pole provides sufficient screening to obviate the need for a new underground vault. Staff finds that an underground vault at this location would require ExteNet to remove a significant amount of the vegetation and reduce the natural concealment already provided at the proposed location. In addition, alternative poles in the vicinity would be closer to residences with less natural screening, which would be less preferred to the proposed location. Under these limited circumstances, the pole-mounted (rather than undergrounded) design at the proposed location would not unreasonably subject the public use to inconvenience, discomfort, trouble and/or annoyance. Accordingly, the Planning Commission Special Meeting Minutes Thursday, March 15, 2018 15 Planning Commission Minutes Thursday, March 15, 2018 PWS facility complies with Zoning Ordinance Section 38-112.4.F.6.a. k. Although the non-antenna equipment would be pole-mounted rather than undergrounded, undergrounding in this specific instance would be undesirable from an aesthetic perspective because existing vegetation that already provides natural screening would be removed in order to make space for an underground vault. ExteNet submitted photo simulations that illustrate a potential underground vault design. One or more of the native oak trees adjacent to the pole would likely need to be removed to accommodate an underground vault at this location. Unlike with undergrounded equipment, the pole-mounted design would preserve and utilize the natural screening, which staff is more desirable under the circumstances. Along with the conditionally required pole-mounted equipment cage, ExteNet would place the electric meter above ground based on PG&E Electric and Gas Service Requirements Section 5.3.2.B and PG&E Document 027911 Rev. #10. The disconnect switch needs to be in an accessible location for compliance with CPUC General Order 95 Rule 94 de-energizing protocols for PWS facilities installed on above-ground utility infrastructure. Accordingly, the PWS facility equipment would be undergrounded to the extent feasible in compliance with Zoning Ordinance Section 38-112.4.F.6.c because, in this case, undergrounding is not aesthetically desirable. l. The proposed PWS facility does not involve any ground-mounted equipment. Accordingly, the PWS facility complies with Zoning Ordinance Section 38-112.4.F.6.d. m. All pole-mounted equipment will be installed as close to the pole as technically and legally feasible. As discussed more fully below, the side arm bracket antenna mount is preferred to a pole-top design. The proposed antenna would be located on the utility pole on a side arm bracket that is required to be at least two feet from the pole centerline under CPUC General Order 95 Rule 94. The radios, diplexers and fiber splice box would be installed in a conditionally required equipment cage mounted as flush-to-the-pole as possible. ExteNet would install the pole-mounted disconnect switch and conditionally required pole-mounted electric meter in accordance with PG&E Document 027911, Rev. #10 and CPUC General Order 95 Rule 94. The pole-mounted equipment and radome would be painted to match the replacement pole’s color and texture. All signage would be placed to minimize visibility from adjacent sidewalks and structures because it would be located above eye-level approximately two feet below the antenna shroud and conditionally required to be oriented away from the nearby residence. Cabling conduit would be flush-mounted to the pole. Accordingly, subject to conditions, the proposed PWS facility complies with Zoning Ordinance Section 38- 112.4.F.6.e. n. Although ExteNet proposes to mount the antenna below the pole top, this is preferable to a top-mounted design under this circumstance. Given that power lines exist at the top of the 43-foot-tall pole, and that CPUC General Order 95 requires that antennas have at least six feet of vertical clearance from power conductors, a pole top design would be undesirable because the taller overall height (approximately 52 feet above ground—6 feet of required clearance plus the three-foot antenna/shroud), would be visually inconsistent with the surrounding (shorter) utility poles and structures in the neighborhood. Accordingly, the proposed PWS facility complies with Zoning Ordinance Section 38-112.4.F.6.e.i because the side arm design is more consistent with the built environment, neighborhood character and overall site appearance. Planning Commission Special Meeting Minutes Thursday, March 15, 2018 16 Planning Commission Minutes Thursday, March 15, 2018 o. Subject to conditions, the The proposed PWS facility is not consistent with the City’s pole-mounted undergrounded equipment requirements. because the equipment would be concealed in a cage to the extent feasible. A condition of approval requires the radios, fiber splice box and diplexers to be concealed within a pole-mounted equipment cage finished to match the natural wood color of the pole. In addition, the cage is conditionally required to extend no more than 10 inches beyond the pole centerline with metal flaps to conceal any PG&E required horizontal separation from the pole. Accordingly, the proposed PWS facility, subject to conditions, complies with Zoning Ordinance Section 38-112.4.F.6.e.ii. p. The proposed PWS facility is finished in non-reflective colors and materials. The antenna shroud, conduit, electric meter and disconnect switch would all be finished with non-reflective materials subject to staff approval. Accordingly, the proposed PWS facility is in compliance with Zoning Ordinance Section 38-112.4.F.6.f. 6. The facility is designed, constructed and operated in such a manner to minimize the amount of noise impacts to adjacent uses and activities and shall be in conformance with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance noise exposure standards. The facility is designed, constructed and operated in such a manner to minimize the amount of noise impacts to adjacent uses and activities and shall be in conformance with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance noise exposure standards. The PWS facility will be compliant with all applicable ambient noise limits for the R-1 zone because the equipment would not emit audible noise and would be installed within a passively-cooled equipment cage to obviate the need for noise-producing cooling mechanisms like fans. The PWS facility would be unattended, with only periodic maintenance visits that would not increase traffic or reduce parking in the vicinity. 7. The facility is designed to be resistant to and minimize opportunities for unauthorized access, climbing, vandalism, graffiti, and other conditions that would result in hazardous conditions, visual blight or attractive nuisances. Subject to conditions, the The proposed PWS facility is not designed to be resistant to and minimize opportunities for unauthorized access, climbing, vandalism, graffiti, and other conditions that would result in hazardous conditions, visual blight or attractive nuisances. The equipment would be placed in generally inaccessible locations on the pole at least seven feet above ground. Opportunities for access and hazardous conditions have been minimized as there there are at least two methods to power down the facility (the disconnect switch and network operations center phone number on the notice sign). The concealment measures such as the shrouding, non-reflective finishes and conditionally required equipment cage are affirmative steps to mitigate visual blight. Lastly, subject to conditions, ExteNet will be required to promptly remove any graffiti. automatically shut down in the event of a fire. The equipment vault must be environmentally controlled and watertight. The equipment vault would also be able to temporarily contain any fire. 8. The facility does not unreasonably impair or diminish views of and vistas from adjacent properties and designated scenic corridors. The proposed PWS facility does not unreasonably impairs and/or diminishes views of and/or from designated scenic corridors because it is not located in or near a designated scenic corridor. In addition, the proposed PWS facility does not unreasonably impair or Planning Commission Special Meeting Minutes Thursday, March 15, 2018 17 Planning Commission Minutes Thursday, March 15, 2018 diminish views of and/or from adjacent properties because there do not appear to be any more preferred locations in the vicinity that are further from residences or provide more natural vegetation for screening. The facility would be limited in size, installed on an existing above ground utility pole that is not located in a scenic corridor and the equipment would be substantially obscured from public view by shrouds and a conditionally required equipment cage. Moreover, views from adjacent residences toward the proposed facility are blocked by existing mature trees that line the public right-of-way along Mar Vista. 9. The facility is necessary or desirable for, and compatible with, the neighborhood or community. The City may consider a number of factors, which may include, but shall not be limited to, the proportionality and scale of the facility relative to the surrounding natural and/or manmade environment, the proximity of the facility to residential structures, the compatibility of the facility with uses on adjacent and nearby properties, the surrounding topography, the surrounding tree coverage and foliage, and the compatibility with the values and objectives expressed in the General Plan and any applicable specific plan. The proposed PWS facility is not necessary, desirable for, and compatible with, the neighborhood or community because it will improve mobile wireless services in the vicinity and visually blend with the underlying utility pole. Communication equipment, when properly placed and screened, is not per se incompatible with residential neighborhoods. The proposed installation will be integrated with the utility pole and, as conditioned, the radio equipment would be placed in pole-mounted equipment cage concealed from public view by the existing ground vegetation. The pole-mounted disconnect switch and electric meter would not cause any meaningful visual change to the pole because they are small pieces of equipment commonly installed on utility poles in the vicinity. As discussed above, the side arm mounted antenna is a more preferred design than a pole top antenna to avoid increasing the overall height of the pole by more than six feet. The antenna would be concealed within a radome that bears visual resemblance other types of equipment germane to above ground utility poles (such as an electric transformer). In addition, after staff and applicant investigation, the record reflects that no more preferred alternative location exists that would allow wireless services to be provided to the intended service area. Accordingly, the PWS facility complies with Zoning Ordinance Section 38-112.4.H.2.f. the record does not demonstrate a coverage gap and the proposed location and design does not comply with the Zoning Ordinance. 10. A limited exception is not warranted because the record reflects that there is no gap in Verizon Wireless’ service coverage and there are less intrusive alternatives, such as undergrounded equipment and locating in a commercial zone approximately 0.6 miles from the proposed site (Monte Vista Market). 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 denying Use Permit UP-17- 0335 for a new PWS facility to be attached to an existing utility pole located in the City of Monterey’s public right-of-way with amendments to the findings and deletion of all Conditions of Approval: AYES: 7 COMMISSIONERS: Millich, Dawson, Brassfield, Ezekiel, Fletcher, Latasa, Reed NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None Planning Commission Special Meeting Minutes Thursday, March 15, 2018 18  Planning Commission Minutes Thursday, March 15, 2018 ABSTAIN: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None RECUSED: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None 5. Approve Use Permit UP-17-0338 for a New Personal Wireless Service (PWS) Facility Attached to an Existing Utility Pole Located in the Public Right-of-Way Immediately Adjacent to 3 Toda Vista Drive; Applicant Lawrence Beer for ExteNet Systems, Inc.; Owner City of Monterey; Zoning Designation R-1-10; Exempt from CEQA Requirements (Article 19, Section 15303, Class 3) ACTION: Application withdrawn by applicant. 6. Deny Use Permit UP-17-0337 for a New Personal Wireless Service (PWS) Facility Attached to a Replacement Streetlight Pole Located in the Public Right-of-Way Immediately Adjacent to the Corner of Skyline Drive and Huckleberry Drive; Applicant Lawrence Beer for ExteNet Systems, Inc.; Owner City of Monterey; Zoning Designation "O" (Open Space); Exempt from CEQA Requirements (Article 19, Section 15303, Class 3) ACTION: Application withdrawn by applicant. 7. Deny Use Permit UP-17-0342 for a New Personal Wireless Service (PWS) Facility Attached to a Replacement Utility Pole Located in the Public Right-of-Way Immediately Adjacent to 302 Via Paraiso; Applicant Lawrence Beer for ExteNet Systems, Inc.; Owner City of Monterey; Zoning Designation R-1-10; Exempt from CEQA Requirements (Article 19, Section 15303, Class 3) ACTION: Application withdrawn by applicant. 8. Deny Use Permit UP-17-0340 for a New Personal Wireless Service (PWS) Facility Attached to an Existing Utility Pole Located in the Public Right-of-Way Immediately Adjacent to 598 Madison Street; Applicant Lawrence Beer for ExteNet Systems, Inc.; Owner City of Monterey; Zoning Designation R-3-6; Exempt from CEQA Requirements (Article 19, Section 15303, Class 3) ACTION: Application withdrawn by applicant. 9. Deny Use Permit UP-17-0344 for a New Personal Wireless Service (PWS) Facility Attached to a Replacement Utility Pole Located in the Public Right-of-Way Immediately Adjacent to 136 Herrmann Drive; Applicant Lawrence Beer for ExteNet Systems, Inc.; Owner City of Monterey; Zoning Designation R-1-10; Exempt from CEQA Requirements (Article 19, Section 15303, Class 3) ACTION: Application withdrawn by applicant. 10. Deny Use Permit UP-17-0341 for a New Personal Wireless Service (PWS) Facility Attached to an Existing Utility Pole Located in the Public Right-of-Way Immediately Adjacent to 1 Dorey Way; Applicant Lawrence Beer for ExteNet Systems, Inc.; Owner City of Monterey; Zoning Designation R-1-20; Exempt from CEQA Requirements (Article 19, Section 15303, Class 3) ACTION: Application withdrawn by applicant. Planning Commission Special Meeting Minutes Thursday, March 15, 2018 19  Planning Commission Minutes Thursday, March 15, 2018 11. Deny Use Permit UP-17-0333 for a New Personal Wireless Service (PWS) Facility Attached to an Existing Utility Pole Located in the Public Right-of-Way Immediately Adjacent to 531 Toyon Drive; Applicant Lawrence Beer for ExteNet Systems, Inc.; Owner City of Monterey; Zoning Designation R-1-8; Exempt from CEQA Requirements (Article 19, Section 15303, Class 3) ACTION: Application withdrawn by applicant. 12. Approve Use Permit UP-17-0336 for a New Personal Wireless Service (PWS) Facility Attached to a Replacement Streetlight Located in the Public Right-of-Way Adjacent to 1 Yerba Buena Court; Applicant Lawrence Beer for ExteNet Systems, Inc.; Owner City of Monterey; Zoning Designation R-1-15; Exempt from CEQA Requirements (Article 19, Section 15303, Class 3) ACTION: Application withdrawn by applicant. 13. Deny Use Permit UP-17-0343 for a New Personal Wireless Service (PWS) Facility Attached to an Existing Utility Pole Located in the Public Right-of-Way Immediately Adjacent to 901 Monterey Circle; Applicant Lawrence Beer for ExteNet Systems, Inc.; Owner City of Monterey; Zoning Designation R-1-8; Exempt from CEQA Requirements (Article 19, Section 15303, Class 3) ACTION: Application withdrawn by applicant. COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS None. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 12:04 a.m. Respectfully Submitted, Approved, Elizabeth Caraker, AICP Chair Housing and Community Development Manager Planning Commission Planning Commission Special Meeting Minutes Thursday, March 15, 2018 20