Planning Commission Meeting

DocuSign Envelope ID: 839A92E6-A7D9-421B-805B-FBB2B51C1368 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION September 22, 2020 4:00 PM AFTERNOON SESSION ONLY TELECONFERENCE 580 PACIFIC STREET, COUNCIL CHAMBERS MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA Commissioners Present: Brassfield, Freeman, Dawson, Fletcher, Latasa (arrived at 3:59 p.m.), Millich, Reed Commissioners Absent: None Staff Members Present: Community Development Director Cole, Associate Planner Sabdo, Recording Secretary Cleary, Recording Secretary Ziel CALL TO ORDER Chair Brassfield called the meeting to order at 3:58 p.m. CONSENT ITEMS Approval of Minutes 2. September 08, 2020 ACTION: Approved. On a motion by Commissioner Reed, seconded by Commissioner Dawson, and carried by the following vote, the Planning Commission approved the September 08, 2020 Minutes: Commissioner Latasa arrived at 3:59 pm. AYES: 7 COMMISSIONERS: Brassfield, Freeman, Dawson, Fletcher, Latasa, Millich, Reed NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None RECUSED: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ***End of Consent Agenda*** Recording Secretary Ziel provided details to the public on how to phone into the teleconferenced meeting to provide public comment. PUBLIC COMMENTS None. PUBLIC HEARING 3. Approve 2 Portola Plaza Use Permit Amendment 20-0171 to Allow Modifications to an Existing AT&T Wireless Facility; Applicant James Phillips, MasTec Network Solutions; Owner: Custom House, LP – Portola Hotel and Spa; VAF Zoning District; Commercial General Plan Designation; Exempt from CEQA per Article 19, Section 15303, Class 3 DocuSign Envelope ID: 839A92E6-A7D9-421B-805B-FBB2B51C1368 Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday, September 22, 2020 ACTION: Continued to October 27, 2020. Staff Presentation/Commissioner Questions Wireless Consultant Jerry Hittleman presented the Agenda Report and answered Commissioner questions. Commissioner Dawson asked where the antennas would be and if they would be covered. Mr. Hittleman answered the antennas would be hidden by a screen designed to let radio frequency (RF) waves through. Commissioner Reed referenced Susan Nine’s letter asking about exposure to guests at the hotel and asked Staff for a response. Mr. Hittleman explained that the applicant’s report from Hammett and Edison states the exposure level in the hotel and the surrounding area is much lower than what the FCC considers unhealthy, and a third-party reviewer who examined the report concurred in the findings. Mr. Hittleman also stated a cumulative study was performed between this site and the wireless facility at Marriott at Calle Principal, and no cumulative impact was found at the street or at the hotel between the two facilities. Chair Brassfield asked if the proposed equipment would be capable of a 5G upgrade. Mr. Hittleman stated only 4G or below will be used at this facility. Chair Brassfield asked for clarification regarding the 6% exposure rating and asked where the highest exposure would be. Mr. Hittleman stated the highest exposure would be at the uppermost hotel units below the penthouse, outside at the railing of their balcony. Mr. Hittleman specified that this area’s exposure level is below what the FCC requires. Commissioner Latasa asked for clarification regarding the expected RF exposure radius, and asked if there are vertically sectioned views showing the radiation areas and their exposure levels. Mr. Hittleman stated there are no vertical depictions of the RF exposure range because the radiation is primarily emitted in a horizontal manner. Commissioner Latasa asked if the vertical section is addressed directly in any of the Agenda Report. Mr. Hittleman reiterated the highest exposure areas would be outside of hotel rooms at the balcony railing, and mentioned the exposure is below what the FCC allows. Commissioner Latasa asked why the vertical sections were not included in this wireless report and if it’s possible to see exposure rates in vertical segments. Chair Brassfield asked if the twelve-degree antenna slant has been resolved. Mr. Hittleman stated a post-construction report will be performed to ensure the facility is constructed as proposed. Applicant Comments James Phillips, on behalf of AT&T, presented the project proposal and answered Commissioner questions. Answering previous Commissioner questions, Mr. Phillips cross-referenced the plans on Agenda Packet page 64 with a Google Earth view of 2 Portola Plaza, stating the public exposure limit is exceeded only on the roof where the public would not have access. Commissioner Dawson asked about size and shape of the yellow higher exposure area. Mr. Phillips stated the exposure radius is 37 feet at the highest exposure point. Commissioner Dawson asked about the time limit of exposure. Mr. Phillips stated Staff would typically only work on the roof if the antenna is off. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Tuesday, September 22, 2020 2 DocuSign Envelope ID: 839A92E6-A7D9-421B-805B-FBB2B51C1368 Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday, September 22, 2020 Commissioner Dawson asked about the possibility of modifying the project to include 5G services. Mr. Phillips stated that the applicant would have to increase antenna height and examine the compatibility of the site with existing antennas, and the physical equipment would have to be modified for 5G compatibility. Mr. Phillips further explained there is no quick way to turn this into a 5G facility. Commissioner Latasa asked at what angle the wireless transmitters would be positioned on the roof. Mr. Phillips stated the vertical down tilt would be 3 degrees at most but more significant is the azimuth, the horizontal section of the antenna, which is markedly horizontal. Mr. Phillips explained that more severe down tilting antennas have less ability to push service out further, but the applicant prefers a large service umbrella rather than pinpointing a specific location. Commissioner Latasa asked how staff would be informed of the potential hazard if work is needed on the roof. Mr. Phillips stated there are different levels of signage approved by the FCC which specify the area is a wireless facility and signage with higher warning levels will be posted in higher exposure areas, including on the roof and at entrances to the roof. Commissioner Latasa asked if signs would be posted at entrances stating the building is a wireless facility. Mr. Phillips confirmed signs would be posted at building entrances to the rooftop area to indicate it is a wireless facility, and as Staff approaches the antenna signage would include warnings and exposure status. Chair Brassfield asked if there will be an emergency shutoff switch. Mr. Phillips stated this is one of the requirements at this site, and referenced Google Earth to show how AT&T can flip a switch to completely shut off the wireless service temporarily. Chair Brassfield cited the need for signage indicating methods of emergency shutoff. Mr. Phillips affirmed AT&T would work with the City to determine best practices for signage including how to shut off the wireless system in emergency situations. Mr. Hittleman included it is a requirement to post emergency contact numbers at the site. Mr. Phillips stated the majority of equipment involved uses low amounts of energy, and signage can be added if the City deems it necessary. Public Comments Monterey Vista Neighborhood Association (NA) President Susan Nine questioned aspects of the RF report, expressed concerns about the independent reviewing company not being present at the meeting, and requested that the City have AT&T provide onsite measurements of emission levels. Nina Beety claimed the applicant AT&T is labeled incorrectly on the application, requested proof of liability insurance from both property owner and applicant, and shared concerns regarding her sensitivity to electromagnetic frequencies. Based on these reasons, Ms. Beety requested the PC to table or continue this item. President Jean Rasch of Monterey Vista Neighborhood and Community Improvement Program (NCIP) suggested the duty is to document beforehand that the vendor and facility are in compliance. Ms. Rasch addressed a key importance to support residents and urged the facility to adhere to all City ordinances. Commissioner Comments Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Tuesday, September 22, 2020 3 DocuSign Envelope ID: 839A92E6-A7D9-421B-805B-FBB2B51C1368 Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday, September 22, 2020 Commissioner Reed asked about the validity of the property owners listed on the application, stating the true owner is Custom House Hotel Company LTD, and asked if that presents an issue with the original application. Ms. Cole checked the Global Information System (GIS) database and the original application and confirmed Portola Hotel Manager Janine Chicourrot signed for the Portola Hotel on behalf of Custom House LP. Chair Brassfield asked if an exposure test will be done after the equipment is installed. Mr. Hittleman confirmed there would be. Chair Brassfield asked if liability insurance would be required for the project. Ms. Cole cited the City Code for the record, which does not reference insurance but does state the property owner must indemnify and hold harmless the City and its Staff. Commissioner Millich asked if the Ordinance language was approved by the City Attorney’s Office. Ms. Cole stated the ordinance was written by an outsourced legal team. Commissioner Latasa stated he finds the discussion regarding the balconies and RF exposure review to be lacking. The Commissioner declared more information is needed prior to making approval, and requested vertical sections be shown to exhibit vertical exposure levels and how they affect the inside of the hotel. Chair Brassfield asked if this is a 6409 project. Ms. Cole stated the project is not a 6409 application and is subject to the 150-day shot clock which ends December 7, 2020. Commissioner Latasa moved to continue the topic to a later meeting, and requested the following information be added to its Agenda Report:  RF exposure diagram including balcony areas of the hotel.  Vertical sections showing exposure levels throughout the hotel and especially the top level of rooms.  Exposure radius and levels from all sides. Commissioner Millich Seconded the motion. Commissioner Dawson agreed that more information is needed to be sure the project does not radiate hotel visitors. Commissioner Reed asked if the exposure levels on the balconies would be tested once the antennas are up, and what happens if exposure levels are higher than predicted? Mr. Hittleman stated that operation clearance is necessary for the facility to operate. Mr. Phillips stated exposure reports done by the third party Hammit and Eddison were reviewed by another third party, CTC, meaning T-Mobile and the City each recruited one third-party engineer to perform and complete the reports. Mr. Phillips explained physical exposure on the field should only ever be lower than the proposed exposure prior to construction, and not ever higher. Commissioner Reed described his understanding of Wireless processes in the City. Mr. Phillips specified that field studies are done before and after installation, and Building permits cannot be approved until the antenna passes all reviews. Commissioner Reed clarified that there will be a back-up check and that someone would be there making sure the limits are at or under what they should be. Commissioner Reed mentioned that more Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Tuesday, September 22, 2020 4 DocuSign Envelope ID: 839A92E6-A7D9-421B-805B-FBB2B51C1368 Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday, September 22, 2020 information would be beneficial because this could be angled at hotel guests, though he feels protected considering multiple reviews would occur. Commissioner Dawson expressed trust for third-party inspectors and concern for what happens if an antenna unintentionally shifts or gets moved. The Commissioner affirmed more information is needed to reach a decision. Commissioner Fletcher and Vice Chair Freeman spoke in support of the motion. On a motion by Commissioner Latasa, seconded by Commissioner Millich and carried by the following vote, the Planning Commission continued this item to a date certain of October 27, 2020: AYES: 7 COMMISSIONERS: Brassfield, Freeman, Dawson, Fletcher, Latasa, Millich, Reed NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None RECUSED: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None 4. Consider 1100 Pacific Street; Approval of Use Permit 20-0146 to Allow a Change in Use from Single Family Residential to Residential Care, General for an Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility, General; Applicant Sandeep Saini; Owner Anuradha Saini; General Plan Designation Low Density Residential; R-1-15 Zoning District; Exempt from CEQA per Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1 and Section 15303, Class 3 ACTION: Approved with conditions. Staff Presentation/Commissioner Questions Associate Planner Sabdo presented the Agenda Report and answered Commissioner questions. Vice Chair Freeman asked if the drive would be maintained as-is. Ms. Sabdo stated it would be maintained and referenced the site plan. Vice Chair Freeman suggested it could be beneficial to drive through in a circular way because the street is very busy. Ms. Sabdo specified spaces one, two, and three could back out and pull forward onto Pacific, cars in space four could back in, and space five could drive straight through. Commissioner Millich asked if cars in spaces one, two, and three would be able to turn left out of the parking lot. Ms. Sabdo confirmed when she visited she was able to turn left. Vice Chair Freeman stated people affected by Alzheimer’s sometimes wander, and asked if a barrier would be installed for protection from traffic. Ms. Sabdo deferred to the applicant. Commissioner Reed provided a brief history of the building and asked if it had previously been used as a residential care facility. Ms. Sabdo confirmed it has but that was not the most recent use. Chair Brassfield asked if covered parking would be maintained. Ms. Sabdo confirmed spaces one, two, and three would be covered. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Tuesday, September 22, 2020 5 DocuSign Envelope ID: 839A92E6-A7D9-421B-805B-FBB2B51C1368 Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday, September 22, 2020 Chair Brassfield asked if a landscaping plan exists and if any of the landscaping would change. Ms. Sabdo Deferred to applicant and stated there is no requirement for that. Chair Brassfield asked if street parking would be available along Pacific. Commissioner Millich stated he did not see any red or No Parking zones on that area of Pacific Street. Commissioner Latasa asked if the building would have fire sprinklers. Ms. Sabdo specified that is a Building Department requirement, and Ms. Cole confirmed it would be required as part of the change of use permit. Commissioner Latasa asked if cars in spaces one, two, and three would have to back out of the parking lot onto Pacific. Ms. Sabdo explained those cars could back into the parking lot then out onto the street. Commissioner Latasa asked for clarification on Reasonable Accommodation. Ms. Cole explained that the City amended its ordinances to allow exceptions to zoning regulations to address accessibility issues. Ms. Cole further explained the two accessible parking spaces partially encroach in the front yard setback, and the applicant has requested an accommodation to allow for the accessible parking. Applicant Comments Sunny Saini presented the project proposal and answered Commissioner questions. Answering previous questions, Mr. Saini described the front and side entrances to the facility and explained there will be gates that can be opened by Staff with the press of a button. Mr. Saini mentioned details are being worked out to ensure 24-hour monitored security. Commissioner Millich asked if the area along Pacific would be fenced. Mr. Saini stated the entire perimeter will feature a six-foot fence with an employee-operated gate and other areas would be accessed with employee punch cards. Regarding landscape, the applicants expressed the intention that the project will be a model facility appearing to belong in Monterey, with several flowers and plants to ensure a Monterey style. Chair Brassfield asked what level of care would be provided at the facility. Mr. Saini stated care would cater to individuals suffering from mental health issues such as dementia and Alzheimer’s. The applicant explained security would not have expertise to provide care to these customers so licensed care staff would be present to offer various types of care and therapy. Chair Brassfield asked if the facility is required to be locked. Mr. Saini stated the doors would feature a time-delay egress to prevent patients from leaving unattended and explained patients could walk around inside but a care provider would need to attend them to exit. Chair Brassfield asked what age group would be treated at the facility. Mr. Saini stated this facility will be for patients age 60 and above. Public Comments None. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Tuesday, September 22, 2020 6 DocuSign Envelope ID: 839A92E6-A7D9-421B-805B-FBB2B51C1368 Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday, September 22, 2020 Commissioner Comments Commissioner Reed spoke in support of the project based on the local need for this type of care. Vice Chair Freeman agreed and reiterated the benefits of featuring a circular drive. Commissioner Fletcher expressed satisfaction with how well-thought out this project is and spoke in support of the project. Commissioner Millich spoke in support of the project. Commissioner Dawson spoke in support of the proposal, stating Pacific can be potentially dangerous but that area is a 25 mile per hour zone. Commissioner Latasa spoke in support of the project. On a motion by Commissioner Fletcher, seconded by Commissioner Reed, and carried by the following vote, the Planning Commission approved Use Permit 20-0146 to Allow a Change in Use from Single Family Residential to Residential Care, General for an Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility, General, with conditions recommended by Staff: AYES: 7 COMMISSIONERS: Brassfield, Freeman, Dawson, Fletcher, Latasa, Millich, Reed NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None RECUSED: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None 5. Consider 8 Overlook Place; Variance Application VA-20-0118 to Allow Installation of Fencing Along the Side and Rear Property Lines Exceeding the 6 Foot Height Limit; Applicant/Owner Phil and Michelle Billiet; PC Zoning Designation; Low Density Residential General Plan Designation; Exempt from CEQA Requirements per Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1 ACTION: Approved as submitted. Staff Presentation/Commissioner Questions Associate Planner Sabdo presented the Agenda Report and answered Commissioner questions. Commissioner Millich asked if the neighbors at 9 and 10 Overlook Place have the same slope and topography, and if they have fences higher than six feet. Ms. Sabdo stated she did not see fencing from the front and suggested the applicant could provide an answer. Applicant Comments Applicant Phillip Billiet stated 9 and 10 Overlook have no fencing, and suggested a neighbor at 9 Overlook requested there be no fencing for preference of open space. Mr. Billiet stated that the fence was necessary for safety and security and without a marked boundary the property could be mistaken for City property the next lot over. Commissioner Millich asked why a six-foot fence was not installed. Mr. Billiet suggested the retaining wall prevents the fence Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Tuesday, September 22, 2020 7 DocuSign Envelope ID: 839A92E6-A7D9-421B-805B-FBB2B51C1368 Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday, September 22, 2020 from being six-feet high, and claimed a six-foot fence would not block headlights from oncoming cars. Commissioner Fletcher asked how the fence was built without understanding the fence requirements and why it was built higher than what the City Code allows. Mr. Billiet stated he was unaware a permit was needed to build a fence and claimed that in other cities higher fences have been allowed and this was the first time he built a fence on a sloped lot. Mr. Billiet further explained he wanted to adjust fence height to go with the terrain. Public Comments None. Commissioner Comments Commissioner Reed stated the objection email submitted reads as if there is not an existing fence. Commissioner Fletcher stated the project does not meet the general variance requirements and spoke against approving the proposal. Commissioner Millich stated there is no justification to grant this applicant special permission. Vice Chair Freeman spoke in support of the variance from the standpoint of safety. Commissioner Reed indicated there are photos in the Agenda Packet of other properties exhibiting fences taller than the six-foot allowance. The Commissioner spoke in support or the variance considering the height fits in with the property and neighborhood. Chair Brassfield asked how many variances have been given by the City. Ms. Cole stated one variance permit was issued in 2019. Commissioner Latasa spoke in support of the proposal because there are many taller fences in the area indicating this may not be a special allowance. Chair Brassfield expressed hesitation to approve the proposal because the fence had already been built. On a motion by Vice Chair Freeman, seconded by Commissioner Reed, and carried by the following vote, the Planning Commission approved variance application VA-20-0118 to allow installation of fencing along the side and rear property lines exceeding the 6-foot height limit at 8 Overlook place based on the findings stated in the Agenda Report and subject to conditions and exhibits attached, without special conditions: AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Freeman, Dawson, Latasa, Reed NOES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Brassfield, Fletcher, Millich ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None RECUSED: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Tuesday, September 22, 2020 8 DocuSign Envelope ID: 839A92E6-A7D9-421B-805B-FBB2B51C1368 Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday, September 22, 2020 Commissioner Dawson asked if the audio could be worked on, including addressing issues involving Staff masks muffling sound. Vice Chair Freeman announced the recent passing of a previous Architectural Review Committee Member Chuck Kimsey and provided details on his service. Chair Brassfield stated that a discussion is needed regarding cell towers and expressed hope for receiving more detailed information regarding wireless antennas. The Chair requested a discussion regarding meeting processes and updates on changes necessary due to COVID. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS & STAFF COMMENTS Update received, including plans for City Council to meet on September 23, 2020 to set work priorities for Advance Planning, and an upcoming Council Study Session September 30, 2020 regarding Cannabis and its regulations. Vice Chair Freeman suggested Commissioners review the Work Program and Cannabis reports recently created by the City. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 6:34 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Approved, Kimberly Cole Chair Community Development Director Planning Commission Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Tuesday, September 22, 2020 9