Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Telecommunications Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Arroyo Grande council introduces updated telecom rules, removes public notice requirement for some director-level approvals
Summary
Council introduced an ordinance updating Title 16 to add standards and permit processes for wireless telecommunications facilities and directed staff to remove a proposed mailing notice for director-level non‑appealable minor use permits. The ordinance updates respond to federal and state timelines and FCC rules.
Get email alerts on the Telecommunications Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Arroyo Grande City Council introduced an ordinance Jan. 28 to update Title 16 of the municipal code with new standards and permit processes for wireless telecommunications facilities and voted to direct staff to remove a proposed public‑mailing notice requirement for certain director‑level approvals.
Community Development Director Brian Pedratti presented the proposed revisions, saying they were drafted to reflect legal developments since the city last updated its telecommunications rules in 2017. “The proposed ordinance will establish a new section of the code with standards for applicants proposing these facilities and regulations for staff to evaluate those proposals,” Pedratti said. He described the objective as minimizing impacts to the public “within the confines of state and federal law pertaining to these facilities.”
Key changes in the draft ordinance include tiered location preferences (residential and village mixed‑use zones are least compatible), clarified preferred structures for mounting equipment (existing rooftops and buildings preferred over new freestanding poles) and explicit rules for installations in the public right‑of‑way. The draft also aligns processing steps with federally required “shot‑clock” timelines — 60, 90 and 150 days depending on application type — and would allow certain eligible and small wireless facility applications to be processed as minor use permits, with the community development director authorized to approve some permits without a public hearing. The draft initially required a mailed notice of application to property owners within 500 feet for those director‑level approvals.
Consultant Bennett Givens and staff also highlighted federal and state constraints that limit local discretion, including FCC radio‑frequency standards and court rulings that prevent blanket moratoria and set time limits for local action. Givens noted that carriers that place equipment in the right of way are generally required, under state utility franchise rules, to relocate facilities when necessary to accommodate city projects.
Several council members expressed concerns about notice, community input and criteria for carriers to demonstrate coverage gaps. Mayor Pro Tem Seacrest asked whether the ordinance would effectively bar installations directly in front of residences; staff said those locations are permitted only in limited circumstances and require verifiable evidence the carrier cannot locate on a more compatible site. Council member Maravilla urged clearer public language and preferred ordering in the code to make policymakers’ priorities easier to find.
After discussion the council voted to introduce the ordinance and asked staff to remove the proposed mailed notice requirement for minor use permits where that approval is not appealable, citing consistency with other administrative decisions and to avoid creating what some council members described as a misleading community expectation of a remedy where none exists. The motion passed on a roll call vote with all five council members voting yes.
Next steps: the ordinance will return for a second reading once staff prepares a revised draft that reflects the council’s direction; future applications will be processed under the updated ordinance’s timelines and standards once adopted.
What the ordinance would require if adopted: it sets permit categories tied to federal shot clocks; requires applicants to show a tier‑3 (most compatible) site is technically infeasible before siting in less compatible areas; defines preferred structures and stealth design standards; limits installations that would impair drainage, interfere with pedestrian or vehicular circulation or damage trees; requires compliance with FCC radio‑frequency limits; and allows limited height increases (the draft permits up to a 25‑foot increase over zone height for private property installations and up to 10 feet for installations in the right of way).

