Community Action

On 9/29/21, the Planning Commission of Carmel voted unanimously to deny Verizon’s application for a permit to put a 51’ cell tower in a Carmel-by-the-Sea residential neighborhood. The basis for their denial was that the proposed tower would negatively impact the neighborhood, violate city codes, obstruct views and jeopardize the aesthetics of the communty. The decision followed hours of testimony from residents who opposed the idea on grounds ranging from property devaluation and noise to the possible negative health effects and safety concerns from radio waves, fall zone and fire risks. Residents also sent hundreds of emails and mailed postcards asking Commissioners to deny the application.

On 10/11/21 Verizon filed an appeal of the Planning Commission decision with the Carmel City Council. The City Council will most likely rule on the denial in the upcoming November 2nd Carmel City Council meeting. Your comments in favor of upholding the Planning Commission’s denial are desperately needed.

If the city council overturns the Planning Commission decision and allows Verizon to install this tower, we will see a proliferation of cell towers in Carmel’s residential neighborhoods. Under federal law, if this Verizon tower is allowed, the city may not deny competing carriers’ future permit applications.

Cell towers raise noise level concerns, will decrease property values, and detract from the charm of our neighborhoods. There are a number of Carmel City Ordinances and General Plan Provisions that are intended to preserve our neighborhoods and protect our residents from this type of threat:

1. CMC Section 17.12.020.H.5 states: "No part of any antenna shall be higher than 24 feet." The project is in conflict with 17.12.020.H.5 in that, no part of any antenna shall be higher than 24 feet and the proposed 38.7" antenna would be located on top of a 46'-6" utility pole, well over the 24-foot maximum height limit. 
2. CMC Section 17.46.020.A states: "Wireless communications facilities shall be allowed within all zones except the R-1 district. Such facilities shall be discouraged in open space areas, areas of extraordinary scenic quality and in the R-4 district." The project is in conflict with 17.46.020.A in that, wireless communications facilities are "discouraged" in the R-4 district and the proposed project would be located on the east side of Carmelo Street between 8th and 9th Avenues in the R-4 district. Other areas outside the R-1 and R-4 district are less than 0.5 miles from the proposed location, which appear within a technically feasible signal range and would not be discouraged by the Code, but the applicant has not evaluated alternatives in these commercial districts. Further support for the CMC's policy discouraging visibility from the front of properties is found in CMC Section 17.12.020.H.1, which prohibits antennas and supporting facilities in the front yard spaces between the property line and the portion of the main structure on the property closest to the property line.
3. CMC Section 17.46.040.A states: "Site location and development of wireless communications facilities shall prserve the visual character and asesthetic values of the community. Facilities shall be integreated to the maximum extent feasible into the existing characteristics of the site and surrounding area." The project is in conflict with 17.46.040.A in that, while the site location on the east side of Carmelo Street between 8th and 9th Avenues is technically in an R-4 district, it is an "island" surrounded by the R-1 district and single-family residences and directly across the street from single-family residences in the R-1 district. As such, the project is in a discouraged location and is inconsistent with the visual character and aesthetic values of the surrounding single-family residential community. Furthermore, the ground mounted equipment would not integrate to the maximum extent feasible into the existing characteristics of the public right-of-way or surrounding area which is primiarly single-family residences.
4. CMC Section 17.46.040.C states: "Wireless communications facilities, to every extent possible, should not be sited to create visual clutter or negatively affect important public or private views as determined by the Plannning Commission." The project is in conflict with 17 .46.040.C in that, it would create visual clutter and negatively affects both important public and private views. Based on the written record submitted by the public and first-hand observations by the Planning Commissioners at the project site, the proposed extension would encroach into scenic ocean views from spaces within the La Playa Carmel hotel and surrounding residences including those across the street. Moreover, the encroachment into these views would exceed the overall height limit permitted by the CMC.
5. CMC Section 17.46.040.C states: "Wireless communications facilities are discouraged in the public right-of-way." The project is in conflict with 17.46.040.C in that, it is proposed to be located in the public right-of-way where wireless communication facilties are discouraged.
6. CMC Section 17.46.050.E states: "Support facilities (i.e., vaults, equipment rooms, utilities, and equipment enclosures) shall be constructed out of nonflammable, nonreflective materials. Support facilities that cannot be located within existing buildings or underground shall either be located out of public view or shall be enclosed in an architecturally compatible structure on private property." The project is in conflict with 17.46.050.E in that, the ground mounted equipment would not be located out of public view, and as proposed with a redwood grape stake fence enclosure, would not be enclosed within a non-flamable, architecturally compatible structure on private property. Although some wooden structures appear in commmercial portions of the City's public rights-of-way, no such structures exist in the vicinity of the proposed facility and none are as tall or bulky as the one proposed to house the ground equipment.

It is critical that all concerned citizens let our City Council know that their constituents do not want cell towers in our residential neighborhoods operating 24/7 outside our bedroom windows. Please contact your Carmel City Council members and Mayor Potter and let them know that you oppose cell towers in Carmel Neighborhoods, and that you uphold the letter and the spirit of our existing city ordinances and codes, by denying Verizon’s appeal.

Every day, in small communities like ours, cities are successfully preserving their values, aesthetics, and municipal codes from legal challenge by wireless carriers. Towns like Mill Valley, Encinitas, Petaluma, Calabasas, Danville, Palo Alto, Sonoma, San Francisco, San Diego County, and many, many more have successfully thwarted the unbridled and unmitigated proliferation of small cell towers in their communities. Tireless city attorneys across California have creatively and successfully crafted municipal code that does not violate the FCC or state laws. Several have passed legally permissible set back requirements, aesthetic regulations, lease term limits, under-grounding requirements, and mandates that wireless carriers must absolutely define and quantify, via verifiable third party investigations, so called “substantial gaps in coverage” and other hard to understand rational for cell towers. Mill Valley and Encinitas passed emergency ordinances and those are readily available on their city websites. The other municipalities have their revised wireless ordinances on their websites for public review as well. In short, there is much information on how to successfully draft ordinances that protect the values of a community while also providing alternatives for wireless carriers. 

We are 100% certain that Carmel-by-the-Sea is even better positioned to maintain its authority in regulating wireless facilities in its community. Moreover, Carmel-by-the-Sea’s municipal code already gives it the authority to deny Verizon’s recent application, as it rightly denied it in 2019.  A majority of those reasons are still viable and legally defensible, regardless of what Verizon’s counsel has asserted. 

Learn more about Our Arguments.