HomeMy WebLinkAboutAB162 LTR to Achadjian 20130429),��
�¢Qcity of sAntuis oBspo
OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
So990 Palm Street ■ San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 ■ 805/781-7119
April 29, 2013
VIA FACSIMILE ONLY 916-319-2135
Katcho Achadjian
Chair, Assembly Local Government Committee
California State Assembly
State Capitol
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: AB 162 (Holden). Wireless Telecommunications Facilities
(as amended 3121113)
NOTICE OF OPPOSITION
Dear Assembly Member Achadjian:
The City of San Luis Obispo opposes AB 162, which would unnecessarily and
significantly impact our authority to regulate the placement of certain wireless facilities. The
timeframes included in AB 162 would also limit our ability to notice and hold the proper public
meetings.
Unreasonable Timeframes. In 2009, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
adopted rules that require local governments to review and act on applications for the
establishment of wireless communications structures. Under that ruling, cities have 90 days to
review collocation applications, and 150 days for other siting applications. If cities do not act in
this timeframe, an applicant can bring action in court. AB 162 would cut these timeframes in
half and would deem applications granted at the end of the 45 days. We are unaware of any
evidence that the timeframes set by the FCC are not appropriate for California.
Problems with Definition of "Substantially Change_" AB 162 requires that a local
government approve any request to modify an existing wireless telecommunications facility
that does not "substantially change" the physical dimensions, as defined, of the wireless
telecommunications facility. The definitions of AB 162 go far beyond what was included in
the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012. In addition, the definition of
"substantially change" would allow significant changes in some cases.
Need to Account for More Than Size. AB 162 talks about the size of facilities, but does
not take into account other factors such as weight or location. Some existing wireless facilities
are located on the side or top of buildings, and could be expanded by 20 feet. In addition, AB
162 does not take in account that new equipment may weigh more than existing equipment and
could impact the integrity of the building. In other cases, existing facilities are mounted to
I
city of san luis oBmspo
RE: AB 162. Wireless Telecommunications Facilities
April 29, 2013
Page 2
utility poles or streetlights. Modifications to the equipment could cause sidewalks and ADA
ramps to be completely blocked.
The Public Record Should Be Complete. AB 162 prohibits local governments from
requiring proof of gap in coverage as part of the approval of an eligible facilities request. This
varies from the FCC ruling which prohibited local governments from denying an application
based solely on this information. Requesting information from an applicant is simply part of the
public process, and there is no documented need to completely exclude the information from the
public record.
Pending Supreme Court Decision. AB 162 formalizes in state law several issues that
are currently pending before the Supreme Court in City of Arlington, Texas v. Federal
Communications Commission. It is imprudent for the state to take any action on these items
before the case receives a ruling. We encourage you to hold your bill until the case is decided
and can be implemented.
For these reasons, the City of San Luis Obispo opposes AB 162.
Sincerely,
Kathy S ith
Vice Mayor
cc: City Council
City Manager
Assembly Member Chris Holden, fax 916-319-2141
Jennifer Whiting, League of CA Cities, fax 916-658-8249
David Mullinax, League of CA Cities