HomeMy WebLinkAboutSB 649_LtrToHueso_20170711From:On behalf of kwhite@slocity.org
To:White, Kelly
Subject:Notice of Opposition: SB 649 (Hueso) Wireless and Small Cell Telecommunications Facilities (as
amended 7/3/17)
Date:Wednesday, July 12, 2017 9:49:16 AM
Senator Ben Hueso
State Capitol Building, Room 4035
Sacramento, CA, 95814
July 11, 2017
RE: Notice of Opposition: SB 649 (Hueso) Wireless and Small Cell
Telecommunications Facilities (as amended 7/3/17)
Dear Senator Hueso,
The City of San Luis Obispo is strongly opposed to your SB 649, which would
represent a major shift in telecommunications policy and law by requiring local
governments to lease out the public's property, capping the amount for which cities
can lease public space, and eliminating the ability of cities to negotiate public
benefits. All of these adverse impacts resulting from the bill's elimination of public
input and any level of discretionary review of the installation of "small cell"
wireless equipment in all communities of the state, except for areas in coastal
zones and historic districts.
The bill limits the ability of cities to protect and promote public health, safety, and
welfare, as well as to preserve view corridors and avoid adverse visual and
environmental impacts. An abundance of small cells will result in increased
potential negative impacts to biological resources; potential for interference with
airport operations; potential increase in human exposure to radio frequency
radiation in excess of FCC standards; and potential nuisance resulting from
incompatible land uses. The bill would also unduly limit the ability of cities to
impose restrictions on small cells that may interfere with Public Safety
communications equipment. With the push to move forward with the nationwide
FirstNet interoperability standards, many public safety agencies are beginning to
move public safety personnel to communications equipment in the 700Mhz
spectrum, the same spectrum in which small cells operate. An abundance of small
cells will raise radio noise in municipalities and could directly impede public
safety communications.
Despite the wireless industry's claim that the equipment would be "small" in their
attempt to justify this special permitting and price arrangement solely for their
industry, the bill would allow for antennas as large as six cubic feet, equipment
boxes totaling 35 cubic feet (larger than previous bill version of 21 cubic feet),
with no size or quantity limitations for the following equipment: electric meters,
pedestals, concealment elements, demarcation boxes, grounding equipment, power
transfer switches, and cutoff switches.
The industry claims that SB 649 retains local discretion, but by moving the bill
into the ministerial process, also known as over-the-counter or check-the-box
permitting, their lip service to local discretion falls flat. Cities would have no
discretion or ability to negotiate with industry as to size parameters established by
the bill for "small cells." Furthermore, cities would be unable to impose any
meaningful maintenance requirements for the industry's small cells and are limited
to requiring building and encroachment permits constrained by the bill's
parameters, written by the industry and for the industry. True local discretion exists
only through the use of discretionary permits, not through building or
encroachment permits, especially since the public has no say in the issuance of the
latter.
Furthermore, the ability for cities to negotiate any public benefits of these
ministerial installations would be eliminated by this bill. Benefits, such as network
access for police, fire, libraries, and parks, negotiated lease agreements for the city
general fund to pay for such services, or the ability to use pole space for public
safety and/or energy efficiency measures are effectively stripped down to the point
of ineffectiveness or taken away entirely. Even if every single city resident
complained about a particular "small cell" and its visual blight, cities and their
councils would have no recourse to take them down, move them, or improve their
appearance or any other community impacts under SB 649.
In addition to the permitting issues raised by this bill, it would also cap how much
cities can negotiate leases for use of public property to an artificially low $250
annually per attachment rates for each "small cell" ($850 under a prior version of
the bill). Some cities have been able to negotiate leases for "small cells" upwards
of $3,000, while others have offered "free" access to public property in exchange
for a host of tangible public benefits, such as free Wi-Fi in public places, or
network build-out to underserved parts of their cities, agreements usually
applauded by both cities and industry.
What is truly concerning about SB 649 is that it would actually fail to deliver on
stated promises and make it especially tough for cities that always seem to be last
in line for new technology to see deployment, while also completely cutting out
these communities from the existing process. For example, SB 649 fails to require
that "small cells" deliver 5G, 4G, or any standard level of technology in exchange
for their occupation of increasingly constrained public property. The truth is that
standards for 5G are still being developed, which is why the bill can't require it to
meet that standard, which begs the question as to why this bill is necessary at all.
The bill also fails to impose any requirement for the wireless industry to deploy
their networks to unserved or underserved parts of the state, which would seem a
facially obvious consolation for the removal of local power to negotiate such
benefits.
While California has been a leader in wireless deployment, many rural and
suburban parts of the state still don't have adequate network access. The lease cap
in the bill guarantees prices for the wireless industry to locate in the state's
"population hubs," leaving other parts of the state stranded. If and when the
technology finally does deploy, the most affected communities will have no say in
the time, place, manner, or design of the equipment, creating two different
standards depending on where one lives in the state, one for coastal and historic
areas, and a lower standard for everyone else. The bill's exemptions are a
transparent ploy to assuage the concerns of the wealthy coastal and historic district
residents, while imposing their unilateral will on the rest of the state.
While the above standards are highly objectionable, the June 20, 2017 amendments
go further to completely deregulate and eliminate all oversight for "micro-
wireless" facilities. Such facilities can include equipment nearly three feet long
dangling between utility poles, raising significant public safety issues such as
obstructing traffic sight distance without any oversight. In addition, the arbitrary
"lease cap" of $850 in the prior version of the bill has now been lowered to $250
for each small cell, not just as applied to leases but also to the permitting of "small
cells." Also, the bill now applies a utility pole "attachment rate" formula which is
inappropriate for equipment being placed on city buildings, street and traffic lights.
As amended, the bill is no longer limited to just "small cells." It now applies
broadly to all telecommunications providers and the equipment they use from
"micro-wireless" to "small cell" to "macro-towers." It's clear from the direction of
this bill, that this is not about 5G wireless deployment, but more about deregulation
of the entire telecommunications industry from oversight by the local communities
that are most impacted by these facilities. This latest version places a new ban on
city/county regulation of placement or operation of "communication facilities" far
beyond "small cells" within and outside the public right of way. This new language
would extend preemption of local regulation to any "provider authorized by state
law to operate in the rights of way," which can include communications facilities
installed for services such as gas, electric, and water, leaving cities and counties
with limited oversight only over "small cells."
Cities and local governments recognize that the wireless industry offers many
benefits in our growing economy, but a balance with community impacts must also
be preserved in order to encourage collaborative solutions to wireless facilities
needs that respect both industry and community needs. SB 649 is the wrong
approach and benefits corporate bottom lines rather than communities. The bill
undermines our ability to ensure our residents have a voice and get a fair return for
any use of their public infrastructure. Residents that don't happen to live in a
coastal zone or in a historic district will have to wonder why their communities
deserve such second-class status. Furthermore, this bill is no longer about small
cells; instead it's about all telecommunications regulation. Such a massive shift in
law and policy is unprecedented and would warrant statewide stakeholder meetings
before even considering such a shift.
For these reasons, the City of San Luis Obispo opposes your SB 649.
Sincerely,
Heidi Harmon
Mayor
City of San Luis Obispo
CC: Senator Bill Monning, Assembly Member Jordan Cunningham