Letter of Support to OPPOSE SB 649
STOP Senate Bill 649 (SB 649):
The Permitting of Wireless and Small Cell Telecommunications Facilities Requiring Local Governments to Lease Out the Public’s Property and MORE!
WHAT IS SB 649?
Under existing law, a wireless telecommunications collocation facility, as specified, is subject to a city or county discretionary permit and is required to comply with specified criteria, but a collocation facility, which is the placement or installation of wireless facilities, including antennas and related equipment, on or immediately adjacent to that wireless telecommunications collocation facility, is a permitted use not subject to a city or county discretionary permit. This bill would provide that a small cell is a permitted use, subject only to a specified permitting process adopted by a city or county, if the small cell meets specified requirements. By imposing new duties on local agencies, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would authorize a city or county to require an encroachment permit or a building permit, and any additional ministerial permits, for a small cell, as specified. The bill would authorize a city or county to charge 3 types of fees: an annual administrative permit fee, an annual attachment rate, or a on-time reimbursement fee. The bill would require the city or county to comply with notice and hearing requirements before imposing the annual attachment rate. The bill would require an action or proceeding to challenge a fee imposed under the provisions of this bill to be commenced within 120 days of the effective date of the ordinance or resolution. The bill would define the term “small cell” for these purposes. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws. Click here to view more information on SB 649.
WHY WE ARE OPPOSED TO SB 649:
- The “small cells” are not actually that small as they can be as large as six cubic feet for the antennas and 21 cubic feet for its “associated equipment” on the pole structures.
- Cities would have no recourse to take down a small cell even if every single city resident filed a complaint against one.
- The bill removes public input and meaningful design review for highly visible “small cell” installations.
- Cities would need to adopt a resolution for each of their own street or traffic lights for uses such as police cameras or solar panels, giving “small cells” priority access to the public’s infrastructure.
- There are no size or quantity limitations for the “ancillary equipment” which includes electric meters, pedestals, concealment elements, telecommunications demarcation boxes, grounding equipment, power transfer switches, cutoff switches, and vertical cable runs for every small cell installed in your jurisdictions
- In order for these “small cells” to be reliable, they would need to be installed in close proximity (likely within 1,000 feet) to one another and each pole/city property subject to the bill would need to be made available to every provider because of the non-discrimination clause in this bill.
- The bill preserves full discretionary authority only in coastal zones and historic districts, every other community will lose their full discretion.
- Deals like the one the City of Sacramento was able to enter into with Verizon will be unavailable for our city to make if SB 649 gets chaptered.
HOW YOU CAN HELP:
- Sign the Resident Letter of Opposition for Senate Bill 649 which will be collected by the City of Eastvale and submitted to Senator Ben Hueso. Please complete the fields above and fax, e-mail or return this letter to the following address:
City of Eastvale, City Clerk’s Office
12363 Limonite Avenue, Suite 910
Eastvale, CA 91752
Phone: (951) 361-0900
Fax: (951) 361-0888
- Call and meet with your Assembly Member now! Urge them to oppose this giveaway of community control and resources. The wireless industry lobbyists are already working them.
- Schedule this issue for discussion at a community meeting or your next council meeting and invite your Assembly Member to attend to discuss this measure and its impacts.
- Encourage your local community and business leaders to join in your opposition to the bill and help them understand why this can hurt their communities.
- With your fellow city council members and mayors, make plans to come to Sacramento when this bill gets assigned to a policy committee in the Assembly.
- City of Eastvale Letter of Opposition (June 28, 2017)
- City of Eastvale Letter of Opposition (April 9, 2017)
- List of cities, counties and organizations who are opposed to SB 649
- Collaborative Opposition Letter
- SB 649 Fact Sheet (Promise vs. Reality)
- No On SB 649: League of California Cities
IN THE NEWS:
- League Executive Director Carolyn Coleman, CSAC Executive Director and RCRC Executive Director Greg Norton op-ed, Why wireless industry bill is a triple rip-off for Californians, Sacramento Bee, June 27, 2017
- San Francisco Chronicle Editorial Board, California lawmakers must reject telecoms' cell phone power grab, June 27, 2017
- San Diego Union Tribune, Proposed state law would shrink control cities have over cell tower installations, David Garrick, June 27, 2017
- Sacramento Bee op-ed, Why wireless industry is a triple rip-off for Californians, League of California Cities Executive Director Carolyn Coleman, California State Association of Counties Executive Director Matt Cate and Rural County Representatives of California Executive Director Greg Norton, June 27, 2017
- San Francisco Chronicle op-ed, Bill seeks to bypass city controls on where telecom equipment goes, San Francisco Supervisor Mark Farrell and San Francisco Public Utilities Commission General Manager Harlan L. Kelly Jr., June 26, 2017