We need your help in opposing SB 649!
Say No on SB 649
Local Government Associations Release #NoOnSB649 Video Showing How SB 649 is Telecom Power Grab at Expense of Californians
The League of California Cities, the California State Association of Counties and the Rural County Representatives of California today released a short animated video strongly hitting home the message that SB 649 is a telecom power grab that gives them profits at the expense of California communities. The video is available at: https://youtu.be/ur8J1IvCijc
City and county leaders and others are urging the Legislature to reject legislation that would severely limit local input on where telecommunications companies could install wireless equipment on public infrastructure. It also puts an arbitrary cap on reimbursement for the use of public property. Over 215 cities and dozens of counties oppose SB 649.
SB 649 would give the wireless giants virtually limitless ability to install antennas, wireless boosters, and other equipment wherever they want — on any publicly owned street light, traffic-signal pole, or any wood poles with electricity, cable, or telephone lines attached. The bill would shortchange taxpayers, and disproportionately hurt those living in rural and inland communities by increasing the Digital Divide, while stripping power from inland and rural local leaders. Meanwhile, Californians would still pay the same high prices for their wireless services.
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 the District Office of Assembly Member Sabrina Cervantes at (951) 371-6860 or by email at Assemblymember.Cervantes@assembly.ca.gov.
- 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.
- 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