Planning Commission Meeting

MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, September 25, 2018 4:00 PM - 5:30 PM 7:00 PM - 11:00 PM 580 PACIFIC STREET, COUNCIL CHAMBERS MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA Commissioners Present: Dawson, Latasa, Fletcher, Millich, Reed Commissioners Absent: Brassfield Staff Members Present: Community Development Director Cole, Housing and Community Development Manager Caraker, City Attorney Davi, Principal Planner Flower, Recording Secretary Leinen CALL TO ORDER Chair Dawson called the meeting to order at 4:01 p.m. CONSENT ITEMS Approval of Minutes 1. September 11, 2018 ACTION: Approved as submitted. Commissioner Reed made a motion to approve the minutes. Commissioner Millich seconded the motion. On a motion by Commissioner Reed, seconded by Commissioner Millich, and carried by the following vote, the Planning Commission approved the minutes: AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Dawson, Latasa, Fletcher, Millich, Reed NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Brassfield ABSTAIN: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None RECUSED: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ***End of Consent Agenda*** PUBLIC COMMENTS None. PUBLIC HEARING 2. Approve 103 Flagg Hill Drive; Use Permit Application UP-18-0307 to Allow New Single- Family Development On Slopes Over 25% Grade; Applicant Nashwan Hamza; Owners John and Vanessa Mazzei; R-E Zoning District; Very Low Density Residential General Plan Land Use Designation; Exempt from CEQA Requirements per Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1 ACTION: Adopted a resolution approving a use permit to allow for a new single-family development where slopes in excess of 25% exist. Staff Presentation/Commissioner Questions Ande Flower presented the Agenda Report and answered Commissioners’ questions. Applicant Nashwan Hamza, designer on behalf of owner, offered to answer questions of the Commission  Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday, September 25, 2018 and asked for clarification as to whether grading would be allowed prior to building permit issuance. Chair Dawson deferred the question to staff and Ms. Flower said the City Code is clear that it cannot happen prior to building permit issuance. Public Comments None. Commissioner Comments Vice Chair Latasa said he and Chair Dawson went on the site field trip and it is obvious that the site is steep and would be difficult to develop without a 25% grade encroachment. Vice Chair Latasa made a motion to adopt a resolution approving a use permit to allow for a new single-family development where slopes in excess of 25% exist. Commissioner Fletcher seconded the motion. On a motion by Commissioner Latasa, seconded by Commissioner Fletcher, and carried by the following vote, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution approving a use permit to allow for a new single-family development where slopes in excess of 25% exist: AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Dawson, Latasa, Fletcher, Millich, Reed NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Brassfield ABSTAIN: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None RECUSED: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None 3. Reconsider 300 Cannery Row and 258/270 Foam Street, Use Permit Amendment 18-0241 Amending Resolution P18-003 Approving Use Permits 09-142 and 17-0128 for a Mixed Use Project That Spans Two Sites to Eliminate Condition of Approval #2 Requiring a Cannery Row Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment and Finding the Project Consistent with the Cannery Row Coastal Land Use Plan; Applicant and Owner: 300 LLC; Zoning: Cannery Row Commercial and Planned Community - Lighthouse; General Plan: Commercial; CEQA: Mitigated Negative Declaration Adopted ACTION: Adopted a resolution approving Use Permit Amendment 18-0241 amending resolution P18-003 approving Use Permits 09-142 and 17-0128 for a mixed use project that spans two sites: 300 Cannery Row and 258/270 Foam Street to eliminate a condition of approval requiring a Coastal Land Use plan amendment and finding the project consistent with the Coastal Land Use Plan. Staff Presentation/Commissioner Questions Elizabeth Caraker presented the Agenda Report and answered Commissioners’ questions. Applicant Anthony Lombardo, on behalf of the applicant, referenced his September 5, 2018 letter and spoke about his meeting with Coastal Commission staff. He said after this meeting the goal was to find a favorable solution and they were advised by the New Monterey Neighborhood Association (NMNA) that it would be best to not amend the entire Land Use Plan (LUP) as originally proposed. Mr. Lombardo noted that off-site parking is not determinative as other buildings in the area also have off-site parking. He also said the two properties would be legally linked. Regarding the NMNA’s letter dated September 25, 2018, Mr. Lombardo said height is not measured from basement level, that height is not an issue, and that the density calculation is unique to the specific building as there are no other properties in the Cannery Row area with these challenges. Mr. Lombardo requested reconsideration in the manner Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Tuesday, September 25, 2018 2 Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday, September 25, 2018 recommended by staff with the conditions of approval and asked for time to provide a rebuttal. In response to Commissioner Fletcher’s question, Ms. Caraker confirmed that when the new Aquarium building was reviewed the area of all Aquarium buildings was considered together. In response to Vice Chair Latasa’s question, Mr. Lombardo said when a residential unit is purchased, the buyer will also be buying interest in the parcel on Foam and that they are inexorably linked. Public Comments Nicole Capps, NMNA, referenced the September 25, 2018 letter sent by NMNA and said the NMNA does not agree with the way density is proposed to be calculated, that it is precedent setting throughout Cannery Row, and the same calculation should be used in all areas of the City. Regarding height, Ms. Capps said to be consistent with the LUP and its intent, the street level would be the first floor. Chair Dawson gave Mr. Lombardo and opportunity for rebuttal. Mr. Lombardo said the overall density will be reduced slightly through the combination of the two sites. He also said the project would not be precedent setting as each project is evaluated on its own merits and the findings for this project are very explicit to the uniqueness of the situation. Mr. Lombardo said the first floor is not based on height, but is based on the use and the public access to the building and that the proposal will reuse the building to benefit the public and property owners without amending the LUP. Commissioner Comments Commissioner Reed said the proposal is a great project and he voted in favor of it previously. He said the project being proposed is identical to the project that was initially approved by the Planning Commission. He also said the property is unique and developing it will make Cannery Row more vibrant. Commissioner Reed also said he is not concerned with density and it is clear that commercial will be on the street level and residential is higher up in the back. He urged the Planning Commission to do the right thing for the City and approve the project. Vice Chair Latasa said he voted for the project approval initially, but did not support the application at the previous meeting. He said he found Mr. Lombardo’s letter very convincing and that he has a very clear explanation of how the project meets the LUP. Vice Chair Latasa said he was never concerned with the floor levels, just density, and that he is satisfied that the findings support the project so he supports the reconsideration. Commissioner Fletcher said the Building Official’s definition of floors is a good finding and is one of the reasons he voted in favor of the project at the previous meeting. Commissioner Millich said he has a problem with the determination of floors for the project and that the first floor should to satisfy both street level and pedestrian level. He also said he is not concerned with the density issue but he has a problem with having condominiums only 18 inches above street level. Commissioner Millich said the arguments made are superb but he does not support the proposal. Chair Dawson said he is still against the path from the building to ADA parking, but he agrees that a person walking by the front of the building will recognize the first level as commercial, regardless of the two condominiums in back. Regarding density, Chair Dawson said calculating the two sites together is a stretch, however he has been convinced by other Commissioners and can vote in favor of the project. Commissioner Reed made a motion to adopt a resolution approving Use Permit Amendment Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Tuesday, September 25, 2018 3  Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday, September 25, 2018 18-0241 amending resolution P18-003 approving Use Permits 09-142 and 17-0128 for a mixed use project that spans two sites: 300 Cannery Row and 258/270 Foam Street to eliminate a condition of approval requiring a Coastal Land Use plan amendment and finding the project consistent with the Coastal Land Use Plan. Commissioner Fletcher seconded the motion. On a motion by Commissioner Reed, seconded by Commissioner Fletcher, and carried by the following vote, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution approving Use Permit Amendment 18-0241 amending resolution P18-003 approving Use Permits 09-142 and 17- 0128 for a mixed use project that spans two sites: 300 Cannery Row and 258/270 Foam Street to eliminate a condition of approval requiring a Coastal Land Use plan amendment and finding the project consistent with the Coastal Land Use Plan: AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Dawson, Latasa, Fletcher, Reed NOES: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Millich ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Brassfield ABSTAIN: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None RECUSED: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None Chair Dawson adjourned the afternoon session at 4:49 p.m. RECONVENE ***Evening Session Agenda*** 7:00 – 11:00 p.m. Chair Dawson called the evening session to order at 7:01 p.m. CONTINUED PUBLIC COMMENTS Pat Venza said she is a CalAm rate payer and resident and she spoke about endorsements Measure J and public water have received. She also said water cannot be lived without and should not be provided at a profit. Ms. Venza said of 400 cities who have taken back their water, only two have not succeeded and she asked Monterey to do the right thing as these other cities have done. Lois Hansen, Monte Vista resident, said she supports Measure J and as a rate payer her rates have doubled in the last year. She also said the feasibility study, if approved, will cost each rate payer $12.00, which is a small amount for a very important study. Ms. Hansen said she hopes Monterey will approve the feasibility study, followed by a transition to public water. PUBLIC HEARING 4. Approve 620 Devisadero Street; Permit Amendment PA-18-0312 to Amend UP-01-046 to Allow Modifications to an Existing Personal Wireless Service Facility; Applicant Natalia Jepsen; Owner California American Water; R-1-5 Zoning District; Exempt from CEQA per Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1 ACTION: Adopted a resolution approving PA-18-0312 to amend UP-01-046 with added Findings and Conditions of Approval. Staff Presentation/Commissioner Questions Ms. Flower presented the Agenda Report and answered Commissioners’ questions. City Attorney Christine Davi was present and answered Commissioners’ questions along with Elizabeth Barket of Best Best and Krieger, via telephone. Ms. Barket answered questions regarding the RF emission study and said it appears to comply with FCC rules. Chair Dawson Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Tuesday, September 25, 2018 4 Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday, September 25, 2018 asked for staff to follow up on the accuracy of the “Effective Radiated Power” table displayed on page 4 of Exhibit A to the resolution. Applicant Elliott Froissart, MD7 on behalf of applicant, described NEMO antennas and said they were selected due to their ability to incorporate new technology. He said he does not see any concern with RF emissions as the RF Report shows emissions at only 13% of FCC Guidelines and the FCC standards include a safety threshold that is 50x lower for common exposure. He also said the RF report includes a 2x reflection factor due to concerns from closely located water towers. Mr. Froissart said the applicant is willing to add socks, additional branches and plant 12 trees to mitigate the visual impacts. He also said if an RF coverage map was not submitted already he is happy to make one publicly availability. In response to Vice Chair Latasa’s question, Mr. Froissart said the applicant is agreeable to all the Conditions of Approval currently proposed and the additional suggestions brought forward at the meeting. In response to Chair Dawson and Commissioner Millich’s questions, Mr. Froissant said the applicant will absolutely keep up the landscaping and that the conditions of approval from the original permit will be fulfilled. Public Comments Debby Weiss, owner of 635 and 649 Jessie Street, said the existing monopine includes panels that extend past the tree and that the tree, as it has aged, has taken on a blue tint. She also said property values have declined due to the cell tower and she asked whether the proposed modifications are necessary as there is no existing issue with coverage and half the monopine faces a parking lot. Ms. Weiss said she is very concerned with increased fire risks, asking if there is any type of alarm system, and she said if there is a fire it will move quickly. Ray Meyers, Monterey Vista resident, said the Planning Commission should understand the science behind the application materials submitted before making any decisions. Mr. Meyers said the three arguments of the telecom industry are that FCC limits are safe, cell transmission broadcasts microwaves, and exponential power decrease with distance. In response to these arguments Mr. Meyers said that reputable studies have shown a clear link to cancer, that the biological effects of the radiation cause problems, and that per the inverse square law, the closer you are to a facility the more powerful it is. Mr. Meyers said cell towers are not appropriate in any residential area and he asked the Commission to demand more information to make better decisions. Susan Nine, Monterey Vista resident, said she is concerned with previous conditions of approval not being complied with, a lack of revocation procedures for non-compliance, and the matter of the “Effective Radiated Power” table previously brought up by Chair Dawson. Ms. Nine said if there is any ambiguity, the application should be deemed incomplete. She also said it should be considered whether there is a cumulative effect and how close or far the assertion of safety is from FCC standards. Ms. Nine asked the Commission to take the appropriate time necessary to examine the issues. Laurie Putnam said she lives on Jessie Street directly across from the cell tower and has had a number of concerns about the tower since its installation in 2001. Ms. Putnam asked that everything possible be done to ensure the tower meets concealment requirements, that landscaping, including what was previously required in 2014, take place as it is very important for the neighborhood and to make the tower less obvious and more aesthetically pleasing, and that maintenance and construction access occurs from the Devisadero entrance as previously required, as the street is wider and allows for two-way traffic. Ms. Putnam asked that the City do everything possible to ensure that the neighborhood is a safe and beautiful place to live. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Tuesday, September 25, 2018 5 Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday, September 25, 2018 Jean Rasch, Monterey Vista resident, said the number of cell towers in the City are increasing and she hopes the City will move to undergrounding utilities to decrease cell towers, protect views and decrease fires. Ms. Rasch said the towers should be concealed to prevent visual blight, however she believes that service providers will be cutting back all foliage on trees due to the large amount of fires recently. She also said that the FCC restrictions are based on outdated studies from 30 years ago. Nina Beety said the issue of compliance is critical and FCC limits have been exceeded, at times putting residents in the way of waves while on their own property. She also said it is important for neighbors to know what unsafe conditions the new expansions are creating for them and she questioned how many of the trees near the site died as a result of the tower. Ms. Beety said the tower will not be ADA compliant and will prevent her from visiting that area due to her electromagnetic sensitivity. She also said there are enough unanswered questions to put the decision off to a future meeting. Commissioner Comments Commissioner Reed said he has to rely upon the professionals to tell him whether the project is within the Planning Commission’s realm, whether the project is compliant with requirements, and whether the application is effectively ministerial. Ms. Barket said upon reviewing the application and materials submitted, it appears extremely likely to be an eligible facility requests per Section 6409 and detailed the reasons why. She also described what would happen if the Commission denied, continued or approved the project. In response to Commissioner Reed’s question regarding whether the City could deem the current application incomplete due to non-compliance with the prior conditions of approval, Ms. Barket said the Spectrum Act does not allow for this and that the matter before the Commission at this time is separate. In response to Commissioner Reed’s question regarding the City’s remedy if the conditions of approval are not met, Ms. Barket said it would be handled like any other code enforcement proceeding within the City. Chair Dawson asked if it would be possible for the City to monitor the area to ensure there are no fire hazards. Ms. Barket said the City is free to enforce general maintenance, including safety code, under Section 6401a. Commissioner Fletcher asked if an inspection six months into the future could be attached to an approval to ensure compliance with conditions of approval. Ms. Caraker said that conditions of approval, including socks and screening, would have to be checked before the Building Permit is made final. Ms. Flower also said that irrigation is included in the proposed plan. In response to Vice Chair Latasa’s question, Ms. Barket and Ms. Davi confirmed that a building permit is required for the project. Vice Chair Latasa said the building permit is usually the chance to ensure all conditions of approval have been met. Commissioner Reed said as a Planning Commissioner he has to rely on the experts and he believes the best experts in the country have been hired and he has to believe and trust them. Commissioner Reed made a motion to adopt a resolution approving PA-18-0312 to amend UP-01-046 with the added Findings and Conditions of Approval as follows: Findings: 9. No Permit Term Extension. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Tuesday, September 25, 2018 6 Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday, September 25, 2018 10. Accelerated Permit Term Due to Invalidation. In the event that any court of competent jurisdiction invalidates any portion of Section 6409(a) or any FCC rule that interprets Section 6409(a) such that Federal law would not mandate approval for any Section 6409(a) approval, the permit or permits issued in connection with such Section 6409(a) approval shall automatically expire one year from the effective date of the judicial order. 11. No Waiver of Standing. A permittee shall not be required to remove its improvements approved under the invalidated Section 6409(a) approval when it has submitted an application for either a conditional use permit or land use permit for those improvements before the one-year period ends. 12. Code Compliance. The permittee shall at all times maintain compliance with all applicable Federal, State and local laws, regulations and other rules. 13. Inspections--Emergencies. The City or its designee may enter onto the facility area to inspect the facility upon reasonable notice to the permittee. 14. Contact Information for Responsible Parties. 15. Indemnities. 16. Adverse Impacts on Adjacent Properties. Permittee shall undertake all reasonable efforts to avoid undue adverse impacts to adjacent properties and/or uses that may arise from the construction, operation, maintenance, modification and removal of the facility. 17. General Maintenance. The site and the facility, including but not limited to all landscaping, fencing and related transmission equipment, must be maintained in a neat and clean manner and in accordance with all approved plans and conditions of approval. 18. Graffiti Removal. All graffiti on facilities must be removed at the sole expense of the permittee within 48 hours after notification from the City. 19. RF Exposure Compliance. All facilities must comply with all standards and regulations of the FCC and any other State or Federal government agency with the authority to regulate RF exposure standards. 20. Build-Out Period. No specific build-out period has been established by approval of this Use Permit. 21. Record Retention. The permittee shall retain full and complete copies of all permits and other regulatory approvals issued in connection with the facility. 22. That a copy of these Conditions of Approval be added to the first page of the plans to be submitted in conjunction with the necessary building permits. 23. That the project be constructed and maintained as illustrated on the submitted plan sets and accompanying text documents attached hereto as Exhibit A and dated January 22, 2018. 24. Architectural Review is not required for this project. 25. That all construction shall be subject to the allowable Construction Hours as detailed in Municipal Code Section 38-112.2. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Tuesday, September 25, 2018 7 Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday, September 25, 2018 26. That the applicant shall meet all requirements of the City of Monterey’s Permits and Inspection Services Department. 27. Consistent with existing concealment requirements, the permittee shall paint, color or finish all visible equipment including, without limitation, the antennas, antenna supports, brackets, cables, wires, connectors and/or jumpers to match the color of the existing antennas and at all times maintain the equipment in good condition. 28. All prior Conditions of Approval associated with this site will continue to apply, and are hereby incorporated Conditions of Approval: 22. The two-phase Landscape Plan, dated April 3, 2014, shall be incorporated into the subject site as illustrated and as described in the March 31, 2014 letter. The applicant shall be responsible for the maintenance and care of all new trees until the trees have become established. Any trees that fail to become established shall be removed and replaced with the same tree species, container size and planting location within 45 days of notification by the City. 23. The applicant shall be required to remove and replace any and all Oak trees planted by CalAm associated with the screening of the PWS facility that have died or have been damaged to the extent that they will not serve as effective screening, and shall be responsible for their maintenance until the trees become established and no longer need care. All replacement trees shall be of the same tree species, container size and planting location as the trees they replace. 24. All new or replacement equipment installed on the faux tree shall be painted out to match, to the greatest extent possible, the colors of the new faux tree branches and foliage. 25. The applicant shall either reduce the length of the panel antenna support arms at the upper level of the faux pine tree so that the panel antennas and RRU’s that they support do not extend beyond the reach of the faux branches, or extend the length of the faux branches, or both, as illustrated on the submitted plans and depicted on the photo simulations. 26. The applicant shall install a maximum three foot tall faux tree crown on the top of the monopole to provide a more natural appearance for the faux tree. 27. The applicant shall, in consultation with the City’s Urban Forester, plant more Pine trees along the lower fence line and along the Jessie Street frontage to better screen the PWS facility, regardless of future tank removals. 28. The applicant shall submit for Planning office review an RF Coverage Map for the site that illustrates the radio frequency coverage for all existing and active cellular panel antennas. 29. Access to the subject site shall be from the Devisadero Street access gates exclusively, including but not limited to material and equipment deliveries, site maintenance activities, and the staging of vehicles, materials and workers. Any requests for an exception to this restriction shall require review and approval by the Zoning Administrator or their designee, and shall include a written description of the proposed activities and shall list the reasons why access from the Devisadero Street side of the site is infeasible. 30. The applicant shall install socks and additional foliage for screening purposes. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Tuesday, September 25, 2018 8  Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday, September 25, 2018 Commissioner Fletcher seconded the motion. Ms. Davi asked Ms. Barket to confirm that the Planning Commission can condition the addition of socks and screening foliage in addition to the landscape plan, as per the statement made by the applicant. Ms. Barket said she believes this to be fine. Commissioner Millich said he wants to condition that maintenance includes pine needles and combustible material. Ms. Davi said that sometimes broader language is better and that maintenance of the area in a fire safe condition is included in the requirement of maintenance. On a motion by Commissioner Reed, seconded by Commissioner Fletcher, and carried by the following vote, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution approving PA-18-0312 to amend UP-01-046 with added Findings and Conditions of Approval: AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Dawson, Latasa, Fletcher, Millich, Reed NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Brassfield ABSTAIN: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None RECUSED: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None 5. Consider Recommending City Council Amend Monterey City Code Chapter 38, Article 17, Section 112.4 Personal Wireless Service Facilities, Monterey City Code Chapter 38, Article 27, Appeal, and Monterey City Code Chapter 38, Article 22, Section 38-159, Notice and Public Hearing (Exempt from CEQA Article 19, Section 15305, Class 5) ACTION: Adopted a resolution recommending City Council amend Monterey City Code Chapter 38, Article 17, Section 112.4 Personal Wireless Service Facilities, Monterey City Code Chapter 38, Article 27, Appeal, and Monterey City Code Chapter 38, Article 22, Section 38-159, Notice and Public Hearing taking into consideration public comment made by Ms. Beety. Staff Presentation/Commissioner Questions Kimberly Cole presented the Agenda Report. Ms. Cole, Mr. Joseph Van Eaton of Best Best and Krieger (via teleconference) and Ms. Davi answered Commissioners’ questions regarding recouping the costs of wireless applications, creating a mechanism to determine fees, the method of paying contracted employees, allowance by the current ordinance for payment through a deposit, the inclusion of a requirement for mock-ups in the amended ordinance, the possibility of waivers for required mock-ups, and shot clock deadlines. Public Comments Betty Saxton, AT&T External Affairs for the Central Coast, said the City should hold off on making a decision until after the FCC’s ruling as it may effect aspects of the proposed amendment. Ms. Saxton asked the Commission to work with wireless providers through an open dialog to create a win-win situation. She also said AT&T has no applications planned in Monterey for 2018 and approximately 26 planned for 2019. Ms. Saxton said that San Jose can be looked to as a good example of what AT&T is willing to do. Ms. Saxton provided staff with a copy of comments from AT&T’s attorney and said a formal letter will be coming from AT&T staff. Nina Beety said the FCC is proposing a 60 day shot clock for all permits. She also said AT&T has an agreement to convert all 4000 of the City of San Jose’s light standards into small cell facilities. Ms. Beety said it is important for all residents to receive meeting notices, not just property owners, and that models are preferable to falsified photo simulations. She also said the cost of wireless applications to the City mounts up to excessive numbers. Ms. Beety said Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Tuesday, September 25, 2018 9 Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday, September 25, 2018 the following changes suggested at the Wireless Subcommittee meeting are not reflected in the proposed ordinance amendment:  There are several nouns missing from the Purpose Statement, including maintenance, operation, colocation and removal;  The word “reasons” should be changed to “Findings” on page 19;  Liability insurance is not reflected; and  The word “should” should be corrected to “shall.” Ray Meyers spoke of his experience with previous small cell applications in the Monte Vista Neighborhood. Mr. Meyers said it is crucial that information provided is independently reviewed and not just subject to staff review. He also said polarization of patters is required to show safety levels and when they are exceeded. Mr. Meyers asked for a requirement that measurements are made when approval is granted and also reviewed afterwards to ensure sites are in compliance. Lois Hansen, Monte Vista neighborhood resident, said phase one of the ordinance amendment may not be perfect but is an improvement and is a starting point to deal with the possible shortening of the FCC’s shot clock in the future. Ms. Hansen encouraged the Planning Commission to approve the changes as proposed. Susan Nine, resident, asked Mr. Van Eaton if there could be broader language giving the ability to deny applications at the administrative level if after intensive review they are found to be incomplete or containing errors. Mr. Van Eaton said a conscious choice was made to move review from staff level to the Planning Commission as quickly as possible. He said a change would have to be made to the proposed ordinance to leave administrators the chance to step in and review the application if determined incomplete. Mr. Van Eaton said this is a possibility, however he does not know if it is favorable to give more authority to staff or keep the ordinance as proposed by the subcommittee. Chair Dawson called for a recess at 9:00 p.m. Chair Dawson reconvened the meeting at 9:10 p.m. Commissioner Comments Commissioner Reed asked if there is any staff response to the public testimony provided by the AT&T representative. Ms. Davi said staff recommends the proposed amendments move forward regardless of the decision of the FCC. Chair Dawson asked staff for clarification as to whether it was clear in the proposed amendment that his proposal for mock-ups was somewhere in the City and not on every pole. Ms. Cole said presently the ordinance is written to say location as specified in the application, which provides flexibility. Commissioner Fletcher said he feels strongly that a mock-up not in its proposed location is ineffective. Commissioner Millich suggested approving the amendments as proposed with future amendments coming back before the Planning Commission. Vice Chair Latasa concurred and thanked Chair Dawson and Commissioner Brassfield for the time and service they have put into the Wireless Subcommittee. Commissioner Reed requested that Ms. Beety’s comments during public testimony be taken into consideration to see if there are any significant items mentioned that should be changed. Commissioner Reed made a motion to adopt a resolution recommending City Council amend Monterey City Code Chapter 38, Article 17, Section 112.4 Personal Wireless Service Facilities, Monterey City Code Chapter 38, Article 27, Appeal, and Monterey City Code Chapter 38, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Tuesday, September 25, 2018 10  Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday, September 25, 2018 Article 22, Section 38-159, Notice and Public Hearing taking into consideration public comment made by Ms. Beety. Commissioner Millich seconded the motion. Commissioner Latasa said he supports requirement of a mock-up and said a strong ordinance could even require both a mock-up and a photo simulation. Commissioner Fletcher said alternatively, mock-ups could be completed by a third party and that he can make an analysis based on a photo simulation if it is accurate. On a motion by Commissioner Reed, seconded by Commissioner Millich, and carried by the following vote, the Planning Commission Adopted a resolution recommending City Council amend Monterey City Code Chapter 38, Article 17, Section 112.4 Personal Wireless Service Facilities, Monterey City Code Chapter 38, Article 27, Appeal, and Monterey City Code Chapter 38, Article 22, Section 38-159, Notice and Public Hearing taking into consideration public comment made by Ms. Beety: AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Dawson, Latasa, Fletcher, Millich, Reed NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Brassfield ABSTAIN: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None RECUSED: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS Commissioner Reed requested that all correspondence received from the public, including correspondence received prior to noticing of a project, be included in the agenda packet. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS & STAFF COMMENTS 6. Planning Office Update  Report received. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chair Dawson adjourned the meeting at 9:20 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Approved, Elizabeth Caraker Chair Housing and Community Development Manager Planning Commission Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Tuesday, September 25, 2018 11