MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL ADJOURNED MEETING
CITY OF MONTEREY
Thursday, March 2, 2023
7:00 PM
COUNCIL CHAMBER
580 PACIFIC STREET
MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA
Councilmembers
Present: Barber, Garcia, Haffa, Smith, Williamson
Absent: None
City Staff
Present:
City Manager, Assistant City Manager, City Attorney, Community Development Director, Police Chief, City Clerk
This meeting was adjourned from the Council Regular Meeting on February 21, 2023.
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Williamson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. City Clerk Klein called the roll, with the Council present as reflected above, and explained to the public how to participate in the meeting virtually.
***Evening Session Agenda***
PUBLIC APPEARANCE (EVE)
1. Second Reading of an Ordinance to Repeal and Replace City Code Chapter 38 Article 17 Section 112.4 Related to Wireless Communication Facilities (Exempt from CEQA (Article 19, Sections 15305 and 15308, Classes 5 and 8)
Action: Passed the draft ordinance to print, as amended to require a 100 foot setback in residential R-1-zoned areas and the PC-zoned areas that cover Skyline Forest Community Development Director Cole gave the staff presentation, focusing on ways that residential neighborhoods would be protected by the draft ordinance. She explained that the Planning Commission's decision on the ordinance had been passed by a 3-2 vote, with the two dissenting votes coming from Planning Commissioners who had also sat on the Wireless Subcommittee. She showed multiple maps that demonstrated that various proposed buffers and setbacks continued to cover large portions of the City and could limit installation of facilities, which she said could introduce undue risk to the City. Together, Community Development Director Cole and Gail Karish, outside counsel with Best Best & Krieger, answered Councilmembers' questions, including detailed discussion about effective prohibition and requirements to prove prohibition exists, residential setbacks, fall zones, and the implications and circumstances that could exist if the Council did not adopt the ordinance.
Mayor Williamson opened public comments.
Displeasure with the draft ordinance recommended by staff was expressed by: John Adamo (who delivered a residents’ petition to the City Clerk), Pat Venza, Ray Meyers, Marta Kraftzeck, Tony Tollner, Barry Perkins, Luke Martin, Robert Yoha, Kristin Dotterrer, Charisse Carlyle, Catherine Adamo, Jeannie Ferrara, Rob Thompson, Daniel Dotterrer, Holly Heimer, Tony Flores, Christy Hollenbeck, Nina Beety, Carol Kuzdenyi, Tom Rowley, Tammy Jennings, Jean Rasch, all of whom urged the Council to require a minimum required setback from residences and schools, with some additionally commenting regarding the aesthetic beauty of the Monterey City Council Minutes 3/2/2023 7:00:00 PM
2 area and expressing health-related concerns; Steven Lucas, Robert Feiston, and Debra, whose comments focused specifically on health concerns; Charles Martin, who highlighted aesthetic concerns; Rafa Ramos, who urged the Council to focus on giving the citizens high-speed fiber internet; and an unidentified man who asked for clarification about setback between facilities.
Tabitha Schneider, on behalf of Crown Castle, alleged that several provisions of the draft ordinance did not conform with federal law and requested that the Council refrain from adopting the ordinance before considering the matter further and looking at ordinances from other cities.
With no further requests to speak, Mayor Williamson closed public comments.
The Council discussed the matter. It was stressed to the public that the Council only had the legal authority to control aesthetics, and that the remainder of wireless facility-related considerations, including health concerns, were outside of the Council's control. The residents were encouraged to direct their health and safety concerns to the decision-makers.
The Council recessed at 8:54 p.m. and reconvened at 9:00 p.m.
The Council continued to discuss the matter and said that the City could prioritize undergrounding electric power lines, which it was stated would help with aesthetic issues. On question, City Manager Uslar and Ms. Karish spoke regarding the spacing between facilities allowed in Monterey's draft ordinance as compared with other cities' ordinances.
The Council made remarks acknowledging the members of the public who had spoken, and what were described as their very serious, legitimate concerns.
The Council noted that a large portion of the community was not present for the meeting, and stated that equity issues resulting from the Council’s decision could affect residents through a lack of access to needed technology. It was stated that the maps presented by City staff demonstrated that if the City required a setback of any distance, it would deny implementation of wireless infrastructure and limit residents' access to technology.
On question about the residential property restrictions in the draft ordinance, City Attorney Davi stated that preferences describe the City’s priorities because an outright ban would not be possible. She said that the ordinance describes preferred and least preferred locations, which were policy choices made by the Wireless Subcommittee. She reiterated that residential setbacks were not added to the draft ordinance by the Wireless Subcommittee, but during the Planning Commission process relatively late in the timeline in late 2022. She said that the concept of a 100-foot setback was pulled from other ordinances that were very different from Monterey's draft ordinance.
On question, Ms. Karish stated that the maps presented by Community Development Director Cole showed that a 100-foot setback would expand the "preferred" zones due to locations where residences are adjacent to commercial or industrial sites. She added that as more housing is added with increased density it could increase the potential for a claim of effective prohibition. City Attorney Davi said that the Council would need to very carefully consider and clearly describe any aesthetic factors that would lead them to adding a setback. Ms. Karish said that the cumulative impact of numerous restrictions could allow the introduction of a facial challenge.
The Council considered requiring a 100-foot setback for R-1 and historic zones, stating that there was a noticeable aesthetic difference between those portions of the City and the rest of the City. City Attorney Davi stated that a map would need to be prepared but that those City Council Minutes 3/2/2023 7:00:00 PM
3 setbacks would cover less of the City map than the blanket residential and school setback concept would.
The Council stated that equity regarding access to technology would not be a significant issue in the City of Monterey. It was stated that the Planning Commission had the authority and expertise required to review the matter and that it made sense for the Council to keep the 100- foot setback that the Planning Commission added. The Council discussed language in the draft ordinance relating to R-1 residential zoning.
City Attorney Davi reiterated that City staff did not write the draft ordinance. She said that it was the Wireless Subcommittee's ordinance that had been edited as minimally as possible and that every edit had been documented.
The Council expressed interest in affirmatively protecting R-1-zoned residences.
A motion was introduced by Mayor Williamson, and seconded by Councilmember Haffa, to pass the ordinance to print, as amended to require a 100 foot setback in residential R-1-zoned areas and the PC-zoned areas that cover Skyline Forest.
The Council reminded the public that they had the strongest legally defensible wireless ordinance, and that the community had been greatly involved in developing the ordinance. It was stated by Council that it could be seen as an equity issue to focus on some zones over others, but that the aesthetics issue was a greater concern in R-1-zoned areas as opposed to other residential zones. It was stressed that the Council's goal was to protect residents' quality of life.
The motion carried by the following roll-call vote:
AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Garcia, Haffa, Smith, Williamson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
RECUSED: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
It was stated that public comment on the second reading, if the matter is pulled from Consent, will likely be limited in the time allotted to each speaker.
COUNCIL COMMENTS
None made.
CITY MANAGER REPORTS
None made.
OTHER BUSINESS
ADJOURNMENT
The Council adjourned at 9:56 p.m.
City Council Minutes 3/2/2023 7:00:00 PM
4 Respectfully Submitted, Approved,
Clementine Bonner Klein Tyller Williamson
City Clerk Mayor