Residents challenge proposed loosening of wireless siting rules; council vote fails to advance code changes

Council members and residents sparred over proposed revisions to Rancho Palos Verdes’ wireless‑facility rules during a public hearing that ran into late evening, and the council rejected staff’s motion to move the ordinances forward.

Brandon Mezer, associate engineer in public works, told the council staff had negotiated with carriers and accepted most of their proposed edits to Chapters 12.18 (right‑of‑way) and 17.73 (private property) of the municipal code, but that federal law limits what the city may regulate. "There are many aspects the city cannot regulate, such as requiring a public hearing for wireless facilities or radio‑frequency emissions," Mezer said, adding staff retained authority over design, maintenance and aesthetics.

Residents filled the council chambers to urge keeping stronger local review. Charles Nixst, a lifelong resident and realtor, said the city’s existing mockup requirement had produced a pragmatic compromise in a prior case: "The mockup served as a proactive collaborative tool. It allowed all parties to identify a solution that minimized visual impact and directly addressed resident concerns before any permanent construction began." Others described the potential for repeated, closely spaced pole‑mounted equipment and said photo simulations would not substitute for seeing a physical mockup.

Several speakers raised health and property‑value concerns. Dr. Irene Tang, an emergency physician, said she worried about RF exposure and urged underground vaults rather than above‑ground cabinets. Brad Kaufman, who said a small cell facility already sits in front of his house, described ongoing noise and constant mechanical hums and urged the council not to approve broader siting allowances.

Industry representatives said the city must balance lawful review with federal and state timelines. Mackenzie Neely Wright, external legislative affairs for AT&T, told the council the ordinance should align with federal definitions for eligible facility requests to avoid deem‑approval under federal shot‑clock rules and recommended removing requirements that conflict with federal law. "We remain committed to assisting the city in developing regulations that fully comply with applicable laws," she said.

During deliberations councilmembers pressed staff about enforcement for abandoned or decommissioned sites and about whether the ordinance changes would actually accelerate deployments. Staff said decommissioned equipment must be removed under the code and that the city may pursue permit revocation and abatement when necessary, but that enforcement can be costly.

When Councilmember Lewis moved to accept staff’s recommendations and place the ordinances on a future adoption schedule, the motion failed on roll call: Lewis and Mayor Seale voted yes; Councilmembers Bradley and Ferraro and Mayor Prom Perisam voted no. The council therefore did not advance the proposed code changes at this meeting.

Next steps: staff will continue outreach and return with revised language and more data on compliance and enforcement measures. No ordinance was adopted at the hearing.