Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wireless Siting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press for a "residential fix" as Malibu council debates wireless moratorium
Summary
At a prolonged June 22 session, residents urged the council to bar or restrict new wireless equipment in residential neighborhoods until the city can verify fire and safety risks; staff warned a blanket moratorium could conflict with federal FCC rules, and council asked staff to return with a proposed code amendment.
The Malibu City Council heard hours of testimony on June 22 from residents urging tighter local limits on wireless facilities in neighborhoods, and from legal staff cautioning that a blanket moratorium could expose the city to federal preemption and consequences under FCC shot‑clock rules.
Members of the public described installations on utility poles near houses and appealed for a "residential fix" that would treat residences as disallowed locations unless a carrier could show there were no technically feasible alternatives. One advocate said the change would not block wireless service but would keep residential streets from becoming default sites for new cellular infrastructure.
"This is not about perfection. It is about pause," a resident told the council, asking members to adopt a protective standard for neighborhoods while the city updates its code. Another speaker urged the council to require physical site audits, fire and electrical safety proofs and documentation that proposed work is eligible under federal carve‑outs before permits are issued.
City legal counsel reviewed federal law and an FCC moratorium order, noting that moratoria can be highly risky: the FCC has limited circumstances under which a local pause will toll federal shot clocks, and unlawful delays can result in applicants obtaining approval by operation of law. Counsel advised that amending the municipal code (the so‑called "residential fix") is a more defensible route than an absolute moratorium, but that any change must be narrowly tailored and vetted for compliance with state and federal rules.
Scott McCullough, a telecommunications attorney who has worked with local residents on wireless code language, told the council he had previously vetted language now being proposed and recommended against a blanket moratorium; instead he urged the council to pursue an ordinance amendment to make residential streets disfavored locations unless carriers prove no feasible alternatives exist.
Council members debated the legal risk and the need for speed. Some members said they were uncomfortable adopting a moratorium as drafted because of the FCC guidance; others said there is an urgent safety concern in a city that is largely in a very‑high fire‑hazard severity zone. The council directed staff to work with legal counsel and with resident representatives to return as soon as feasible with a recommended ordinance amendment; staff indicated an intention to aim for the council's July 13 meeting or an earlier special session if circumstances warranted.
No final ordinance was adopted June 22; the council instead set direction for staff and outside counsel to refine language and to report back to the council for formal consideration.
