Arroyo Grande decided it’s time to update its 7-year-old city ordinance on wireless telecommunication facilities a few months after protests from Sunset Terrace residents over a proposed 55-foot-tall cell tower 100 feet from the mobile home park.
Since the city’s last ordinance was adopted in 2017, staff said Arroyo Grande’s policies and procedures related to wireless telecommunication facilities are outdated, and during ensuing years, numerous federal and state laws and regulations have taken effect that “significantly restricts local control.”
The most important regulations that the city has to abide by come from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)—that facilities need to be approved within a specific timeline, also called a shot clock, and making sure a wireless facility follows certain design and development standards.
“Such as aesthetics, landscaping, setbacks and lighting among other topics,” the staff report states.
The FCC has two shot clocks: 60 days for existing wireless structures and 150 days for new facility applications.
Failing to act within the time period can result in the application being deemed approved under federal law, according to the staff report.
“So, the proposed ordinance will establish permit processes for various categories of facilities, establish standards for location, design, and performance of the facilities and institute,” Community Development Director Brian Pedrotti said during the Jan. 28 City Council meeting. “The permit process proposed by the ordinance was designed with the shot clocks in mind because the last thing the city wants is a deemed-approved project.”
Thanks to the recent backlash from community members over the 55-foot-tall 5G Verizon cellphone tower proposed to look like a fake water tower, the city updated the new ordinance to require approved facilities to be the “least intrusive to community character and values.”
The city identified that the least compatible places—residential zones and the Village mixed-use area, followed by mixed-use zoning designations—and the most compatible areas for wireless facilities, which are industrial mixed-used, Traffic Way mixed-use, regional commercial, public facilities, and agricultural districts.
But if an applicant doesn’t want their facility placed in compatible areas, Pedrotti said the applicant has to provide staff with “factual and verifiable evidence” that shows why the area isn’t feasible.
“This could include coverage maps, technical coverage gaps, correspondence with property owners that have engaged in negotiations,” he said. “In addition to identifying the preferred location within the city, the ordinance establishes the most appropriate structure for this type of equipment.”
Pedrotti said these structures can include rooftops of existing buildings and non-replacement structures.
While there will be no public hearing for wireless facilities placed within the city’s public right of way and the final decision will be up to the community development director, the new ordinance initially outlined notifying residents who lived within 500 feet of new structures, but Mayor Caren Russom spoke against the idea.
“It’s not because I don’t want the public to know, but I don’t want to give the public a false sense of impression that they have control when they don’t,” she said. “We don’t even have control.”
The council unanimously passed the ordinance—but voted against including the public notification. It will take effect 30 days from Jan. 28. Δ
This article appears in Feb 6-16, 2025.