Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wireless Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Temple City council introduces ordinance updating wireless communications rules, schedules second reading Nov. 6
Summary
Council introduced for first reading Ordinance No. 24-177 to revise Temple City's standards for wireless communication facilities, adding aesthetics requirements, abandonment and transfer rules, administrative-collocation procedures to comply with federal law, and a 200-foot limit for certain facilities on public properties; the vote to introduce passed unanimously.
The Temple City Council voted unanimously to introduce for first reading Ordinance No. 24-177, a proposed set of amendments to the city's municipal code governing wireless communication facilities and telecommunication installations.
Tony, a city staff presenter, told the council the draft ordinance aims to "protect the city's aesthetic character while also adhering to the FCC and state law requirements." The amendments would clarify application procedures, add requirements for visual-impact analyses and screening, and include new provisions for abandoned facilities and transfers of ownership.
Staff said the ordinance corrects a zoning abbreviation used in the code (changing the "M Zone" reference to the correct "I Zone") and adds footnotes and a clearer exhibit table listing facility types and applicable zones. The presentation included examples of camouflaged installations and a description of a so-called "lollipop" antenna (an antenna array placed at the top of a pole).
A notable addition in the draft would permit certain facilities on publicly owned or used property such as schools and parks only when they are placed on an existing structure, include removal of a pre-existing facility, and are located at least 200 feet from street property lines and residential properties. Staff explained the 200-foot limitation applies specifically to publicly owned or used properties and is intended where the public site already contains adequate space for placement.
On federal compliance, staff noted the ordinance incorporates procedures consistent with administrative collocation requirements (referencing Section 649(a) of federal law) and explained that routine collocations that do not defeat concealment elements or produce a "substantial change" in physical dimensions would be eligible for staff-level review rather than a public hearing. Staff identified a "substantial change" as generally a 10% height increase (or a 10-foot increase, whichever is greater) and said camouflage measures (for example additional branching on a tree-shaped installation) can be used to avoid a substantial-change determination.
Staff also told the council that, under the California Environmental Quality Act, the measure is exempt under the common-sense exemption and that they recommend scheduling a second reading for Nov. 6, 2024.
Council opened the public hearing and heard no public comment. Councilmember Chen moved to introduce Ordinance No. 24-177 as presented and set the second reading for Nov. 6; the motion passed on a unanimous roll-call vote.
The council did not adopt the ordinance at the meeting; the next formal action will be the second reading and possible adoption on the Nov. 6 agenda.
The presentation and vote were framed as a code-clarification and procedural alignment with federal and state law; councilors asked staff several clarifying questions about the 200-foot requirement and the administrative-review thresholds. Staff committed to the stated definitions and to applying the clarified standards in subsequent permit reviews.
