CC SR 20170418 F - SB 649 Wireless Telecommunications FacilitiesRANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
MEETING DATE: 04/18/2017
AGENDA HEADING: Consent Calendar
Consideration and possible action to oppose Senate Bill No. 649 regarding wireless
telecommunications facilities
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
(1) Authorize the Mayor to sign a letter to Senator Hueso in opposition to Senate Bill
No. 649 (SB 649) regarding wireless telecommunications facilities.
FISCAL IMPACT: None
Amount Budgeted: N/A
Additional Appropriation: N/A
Account Number(s): N/A
ORIGINATED BY: Kit Fox, AICP, Senior Administrative Analyst"
REVIEWED BY: Gabriella Yap, Deputy City Manager
APPROVED BY: Doug Willmore, City Manager'/ -",,.,11-117
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
A. Draft letter in opposition to SB 649 (page A-1)
B. League of California Cities "Action Alert" and letter in opposition to SB 649
(page B-1)
C. SB 649 (page C-1)
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION:
On March 15, 2017, the League of California Cities (League) advised Staff that Senate
Bill No. 649 (SB 649) had been introduced on February 17, 2017, by Senator Ben
Hueso from San Diego. SB 649 was amended by Senator Hueso and heard in the
Senate Energy, Utilities and Communications Committee on March 28, 2017
(Attachment C). As currently proposed, SB 649 would dictate that "small cell" sites are
permitted "by right" without local discretionary review in all zoning districts, including
residential districts. The League is opposed to SB 649 (Attachment B) and has asked
cities to express their opposition to the bill as well.
SB 649 appears to pose a significant threat to the City's ability to enforce its recently -
adopted Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Ordinance. The bill effectively
provides a de facto exemption to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for
the installation of such facilities and precludes consideration by the public of the
1
aesthetic, nuisance, and environmental impacts of these facilities, all of which are of
particular importance when the proposed location of facilities is within a residential
zone. Although SB 649 sets limits on the size of antennae and equipment at a given
site, it completely ignores the cumulative effects of multiple installations within a given
neighborhood or area of a city. Furthermore, SB 649 unconstitutionally preempts local
authority by requiring local governments to make available sites they own for the
installation of "small cell" sites, thereby giving control of public property to private
telecommunications companies, while also precluding local governments from leasing
or licensing publicly -owned property.
The City is currently processing more than two dozen permit applications under the
provisions of its Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Ordinance, with several
applications expected to be presented to the Planning Commission in the near future.
At this point, it is not clear what impact the enactment of SB 649 would have upon
permit applications that are already under review by the City.
In light of the serious adverse impacts that the enactment of SB 649 would likely have
upon the City, Staff has prepared a letter in opposition to the bill for the Mayor's
signature (Attachment A). If approved, Staff will immediately transmit this letter to
Senator Hueso and the League.
ALTERNATIVES:
In addition to the Staff recommendation, the following alternative action is available for
the City Council's consideration:
Do not authorize the Mayor to sign the letter in opposition to SB 649.
2
April 18, 2017
Via Facsimile: (916) 651-4940
The Honorable Ben Hueso
California State Senate, District 40
State Capitol Building, Room 4035
Sacramento, CA 95814
SUBJECT: SB 649 as Proposed to be Amended by RN 17 08941 (Hueso). Wireless
and Small Cell Telecommunications Facilities.
Notice of Opposition
Dear Senator Hueso:
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes respectfully opposes your SB 649 and proposed
amendments related to the permitting of wireless and small cell telecommunications
facilities. This proposal unnecessarily and unconstitutionally strips local authority over
public property and shuts out public input and local discretion by eliminating consideration
of the aesthetic and environmental impacts of "small cells."
This proposal would prohibit local discretionary review of "small cell" wireless antennas ,
including equipment collocated on existing structures or located on new "poles,
structures, or non -pole structures," including those within the public right-of-way and
buildings. The proposal preempts adopted local land use plans by mandating that "small
cells" be allowed in all zones as a use by -right, including all residential zones.
As such, the proposal provides a de facto exemption to the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) for the installation of such facilities and precludes consideration by
the public of the aesthetic, nuisance, and environmental impacts of these facilities, all of
which are of particular importance when the proposed location of facilities is within a
residential zone.
SB 649's use of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) definition of a "small
cell" includes other "small cell" equipment such as electric meters, concealments, telecom
demarcation boxes, ground-based enclosures, battery backup power systems, grounding
equipment, power transfer switches, cutoff switches, cables, or conduits. The proposal
allows for an unlimited number of antennas of less than three cubic feet each or six cubic
feet for all antennas, while placing no height restrictions on the pole. While proponents
argue that an individual "small cell" has very little impact, the cumulative size
specifications of all the small cells and associated equipment far exceed the perceived
impacts from a single small cell.
The proposal also unconstitutionally preempts local authority by requiring local
governments to make available sites they own for the installation of a "small cell." While
A-1
Senator Hueso
April 18, 2017
Page 2
a city may place "fair and reasonable terms and conditions" on the use of city property,
the proposal does not provide a city with any discretion to deny a "small cell" to be located
on city property, except for fire department sites. In effect, this measure unconstitutionally
gives control of public property to private telecommunications companies, while also
precluding local governments from leasing or licensing publicly -owned property.
This bill strips local government of the authority to protect the quality of life of our
residents, and to protect public property and the public right-of-way from relatively
unconstrained access by small cells. In 2015, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes undertook
a comprehensive initiative to develop a new wireless telecommunications permitting
process for small cells and other installations in the City's public rights-of-way, particularly
in residential neighborhoods. This initiative, which undertaken as a result of increasing
resident concerns about the proliferation of cell sites in the City's public rights-of-way,
involved the participation of City leaders, residents and telecommunications service
providers, culminating in the adoption of the City's Wireless Telecommunications
Facilities Ordinance in March 2016. The City is currently processing more than two dozen
permit applications under this ordinance.
Local governments typically encourage new technology into their boundaries because of
its potential to dramatically improve the quality of life for their residents. However,
SB 649 goes too far by requiring local governments to approve "small cells" in all
land use zones, including residential zones, through a ministerial permit, thereby
shutting the public out of decisions that could affect the aesthetics of their
community and the quality of their environment. For these reasons, the City of
Rancho Palos Verdes opposes your SB 649.
Sincerely,
Brian Campbell
Mayor 16,166,1
cc: Rancho Palos Verdes City Council
Senator Ben Allen, 26th State Senate District
Al Muratsuchi, 66th State Assembly District
Nidia Bautista, Consultant, Senate Energy, Utilities and Commerce Committee
Kerry Yoshida, Principal Consultant, Senate Republican Caucus
Jeff Kiernan, League Regional Public Affairs Manager
Meg Desmond, League of California Cities
Doug Willmore, City Manager
Gabriella Yap, Deputy City Manager
Ara Mihranian, Director of Community Development
Terry Rodrigue, Interim Director of Public Works
A-2
From:
Jeff Kiernan
To:
Jeff Kiernan
Subject:
ACTION ALERT: Small Cell By Right (Hueso) Proposal
Date:
Wednesday, April 05, 2017 11:27:12 AM
Attachments:
SB 649 (Hueso) - Oppose.pdf
SB 649 (Hueso) - City SAMPLE LETTER.docx
City Managers,
It has come to my attention that I likely forgot to blind copy anyone on the Action Alert for SB 649
which I thought I had distributed nearly three weeks ago, so I am resending to you now. SB 649
passed out of Senate Energy, Utilities & Commerce yesterday, but the committee members voiced
many of the League's concerns and largely said they were passing it out only as a courtesy.
Jeff
ACTION ALERT!!
OPPOSE SB 649 (Hueso) Wireless Telecommunications Facilities
& Proposed Amendments to Install Small Cells By Right
The League is opposing SB 649 (Hueso) and proposed amendments in RN 17 08941 (proposal)
related to the permitting of wireless and small cell telecommunications facilities. This proposal will
unnecessarily and unconstitutionally strip local authority over public property and shuts out public
input and local discretion by eliminating consideration of the aesthetic and environmental impacts
of "small cells."
The proposal includes language that would:
• Prohibit local discretionary review of "small cell" wireless antennas, including equipment
collocated on existing structures or located on new "poles, structures, or non -pole
structures," including those within the public right-of-way;
• Preempt adopted local land use plans by mandating that "small cells" be allowed in all zones,
including residential zones, as a use by -right;
• Provide a de facto exemption to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the
installation of such facilities and precludes consideration by the public of the aesthetic,
nuisance impacts, and other environmental impacts of these facilities;
• Includes equipment such as electric meters, concealments, telecom demarcation boxes,
ground-based enclosures, battery backup power systems, grounding equipment, power
transfer switches, cutoff switches, cables, or conduits in the definition of a "small cell."
• Preempt local authority over public property by requiring local governments to make available
sites they own for the installation of a "small cell." This measure would unconstitutionally
give control of city property to private telecommunications companies; and
Talking Points:
As
• This proposal shifts local land use authority away from local governments and puts it squarely
into the hands of private interests with complete disregard for any public input.
• Local governments have a responsibility to protect the quality of life for our residents and to
protect public property in the public right-of-way.
• Local governments typically encourage new technology into their communities, but this
proposal goes too far, shutting the public out of decisions that can affect their daily quality of
life.
Apologies for the error. Please let me know if you have any questions.
Jeff
From: Jeff Kiernan
Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 4:09 PM
To: Jeff Kiernan
Subject: ACTION ALERT: Small Cell By Right (Hueso) Proposal
Good Afternoon City Managers,
Hot off the presses! The League has just issued the action alert below for your attention to oppose
SB 649 (Hueso) the proposal that would allow small cellular installations by -right. For those of you in
Senator Bradford's district please note that he is on the Senate Energy, Utilities & Commerce
Committee which will hear this bill on April 4th, communications to him are the most critical before
that date.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Jeff
ACTION ALERT!!
OPPOSE SB 649 (Hueso) Wireless Telecommunications Facilities
& Proposed Amendments to Install Small Cells By Right
The League is opposing SB 649 (Hueso) and proposed amendments in RN 17 08941 (proposal)
related to the permitting of wireless and small cell telecommunications facilities. The proposal is up
for a hearing on Tuesday, April 4, 2017 at 9am in Senate Energy. Utilities, and Commerce
Committee. This proposal will unnecessarily and unconstitutionally strip local authority over public
Folow
Lmlin
property and shuts out public input and local discretion by eliminating consideration of the
aesthetic and environmental impacts of "small cells."
The proposal includes language that would:
• Prohibit local discretionary review of "small cell" wireless antennas, including equipment
collocated on existing structures or located on new "poles, structures, or non -pole
structures," including those within the public right-of-way;
• Preempt adopted local land use plans by mandating that "small cells" be allowed in all zones,
including residential zones, as a use by -right;
• Provide a de facto exemption to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the
installation of such facilities and precludes consideration by the public of the aesthetic,
nuisance impacts, and other environmental impacts of these facilities;
• Includes equipment such as electric meters, concealments, telecom demarcation boxes,
ground-based enclosures, battery backup power systems, grounding equipment, power
transfer switches, cutoff switches, cables, or conduits in the definition of a "small cell."
• Preempt local authority over public property by requiring local governments to make available
sites they own for the installation of a "small cell." This measure would unconstitutionally
give control of city property to private telecommunications companies; and
ACTION: Please call your Senator as soon as possible to oppose SB 649 and its proposed
amendments to prohibit local discretionary review of "small cell" wireless antennas, including
equipment collocated on existing structures or located on new poles, structures, or non -pole
structures. Tuesday, April 4, 2017 at 9am in Senate Energy, Utilities, and Commerce
Committee. Here is the committee makeup:
Member
District
Party
Room
Phone
Fax
Bradford, Steven
35
D�
2062
9166514
9166514
Cannella, Anthonv
12
R�
5082
9166514
916 6514912
Hertzberg, Bob
18
D�
4038
916 651 4018
916 6514918
Hill err
13
D�
5035
916 6514013
916 6514913
Hueso. Ben (Chair)
40
D�
4035
916 6514040
916 6514940
McGuire, Mike
2
1 D�
5061
916651
916 6514902
Morrell. Mike (Vice -Chair)
23
R�
3056
916 6514023
916 6514923
Skinner; Nanck
9�
D�
2059
916 6514009
916 6514909
Stern,Henry
27
D�
3070
916 6514027
916 6514927
Vidak, Andv
14
R�
3082
916 6514014 1916
6514914
Wiener. Scott
11
=]
4070
916 651407171]1
916651
You can find your Legislator's contact information here:
Talking Points:
• This proposal shifts local land use authority away from local governments and puts it squarely
into the hands of private interests with complete disregard for any public input.
Local governments have a responsibility to protect the quality of life for our residents and to
protect public property in the public right-of-way.
• Local governments typically encourage new technology into their communities, but this
proposal goes too far, shutting the public out of decisions that can affect their daily quality of
life.
Jeffrey Kiernan
Regional Public Affairs Manager
League of California Cities®
8581 Santa Monica Blvd. #325
West Hollywood, CA 9oo69
Cell: (31o) 630-7505
L�OFLEAIGUE"
CITIES
The Honorable Ben Hueso
California State Senate, District 40
State Capitol Building, Room 4035
Sacramento, CA 95814
1400 K Street, Suite 400 Sacramento, California 95814
Phone: 916.658.8200 Fax: 916.658.8240
www.cacities.org
RE: SB 649 as Proposed to be Amended by RN 17 08941 (Hueso). Wireless and Small Cell
Telecommunications Facilities.
Oppose
Dear Senator Hueso:
The League of California Cities respectfully opposes your SB 649 and proposed amendments in
RN 17 08941 (proposal) related to the permitting of wireless and small cell telecommunications facilities.
This proposal unnecessarily and unconstitutionally strips local authority over public property and shuts
out public input and local discretion by eliminating consideration of the aesthetic and environmental
impacts of "small cells."
This proposal would prohibit local discretionary review of "small cell" wireless antennas , including
equipment collocated on existing structures or located on new "poles, structures, or non -pole structures,"
including those within the public right-of-way and buildings. The proposal preempts adopted local land
use plans by mandating that "small cells" be allowed in all zones as a use by -right, including all
residential zones.
As such, the proposal provides a de facto exemption to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
for the installation of such facilities and precludes consideration by the public of the aesthetic, nuisance,
and environmental impacts of these facilities, all of which are of particular importance when the proposed
location of facilities is within a residential zone.
The proposal's use of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) definition of a "small cell"
include other "small cell" equipment such as electric meters, concealments, telecom demarcation boxes,
ground-based enclosures, battery backup power systems, grounding equipment, power transfer switches,
cutoff switches, cables, or conduits. The proposal allows for an unlimited number of antennas of less than
three cubic feet each or six cubic feet for all antennas, while placing no height restrictions on the pole.
While proponents argue that an individual "small cell" has very little impact, the cumulative size
specifications of all the small cells and associated equipment far exceed the perceived impacts from a
single cell.
The "associated equipment" as defined in this proposal includes up to 28 cubic feet for collocations on all
non -pole structures such as on building and water tanks and 21 cubic feet for collocations on all pole
structures such as light poles/traffic signal poles/and utility poles when the structures can support less
than three providers. For structures that can support at least three providers, the definitions would allow
for up to 35 cubic feet for non -pole collocations and 28 cubic feet for pole collocations.
The proposal also unconstitutionally preempts local authority by requiring local governments to make
available sites they own for the installation of a "small cell." While the city may place "fair and
reasonable terms and conditions" on the use of city property, the proposal does not provide the city with
any discretion to deny a "small cell" to be located on city property except for fire department sites. In
effect, this measure unconstitutionally gives control of public property to private telecommunications
companies, while also precluding local governments from leasing or licensing publicly owned property.
Further, the requirement that a city allow the installation of a small cell on city -owned property not within
the right-of-way to the extent that it allows access to the property for other commercial projects or uses
has the potential to lead to absurd and illogical results. For example, if a city -owned Little League field
allows commercial signage on its outfield wall, the city would be precluded from denying a demand to
allow a small cell on the property no matter how inappropriate such a use would be.
Under this proposal, local governments would be required to give preferential treatment to one industry
that has received "most favored nation" status under state law. No justification is provided for why this is
necessary. This bill strips local government of the authority to protect the quality of life of our residents,
and to protect public property and the public right-of-way from relatively unconstrained access by small
cells.
Local governments typically encourage new technology into their boundaries because of its potential to
dramatically improve the quality of life for their residents. However, this proposal goes too far by
requiring local governments to approve "small cells" in all land use zones, including residential zones,
through a ministerial permit, thereby shutting the public out of decisions that could affect the aesthetics of
their community and the quality of their environment.
For these reasons, the League respectfully Opposes this proposal. If you have any questions regarding our
position, please contact Rony Berdugo at 916-658-8283 or at rberdugogcacities.org.
Sincerely,
Rony Berdugo
Legislative Representative
cc: Members, Senate Energy, Utilities, and Commerce Committee
Nidia Bautista, Consultant, Senate Energy, Utilities and Commerce Committee
Kerry Yoshida, Principal Consultant, Senate Republican Caucus
AMENDED 1N SENATE MARCH 28, 2017
SENATE BILL
No. 649
Introduced by Senator Hueso
(Principal coauthor: Assembly Member Quirk)
(Coauthor: Senator Dodd)
February 17, 2017
An act to amend Seetions 65950.6 aw a Section 65964�f of, and to
add Section 65964.2 to, the Government Code, relating to
telecommunications.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
SB 649, as amended, Hueso. Wireless telecommunications facilities.
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. Existing law defines
va-riotts terms for these ptffposes.
This bill would provide that a small cell is a permitted use, not subject
to a city or county discretionary permit, 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 administrative permit for small cell, as
specified. The bill would define the term "small cell"
type of teleeotmmmieatiotts faeili for these purposes.
Under existing law, a city or county, as a condition of approval of an
application for a permit for construction or reconstruction of a
98
C-1
SB 649 —2—
development
2—
development project for a wireless telecommunications facility, may
not require an escrow deposit for removal of a wireless
telecommunications facility or any component thereof, unreasonably
limit the duration of any permit for a wireless telecommunications
facility, or require that all wireless telecommunications facilities be
limited to sites owned by particular parties within the jurisdiction of
the city or county, as specified.
This bill wouldapply these prohibitions to the approval of small
faeilities as defitted by this bill. require permits for these facilities to
be renewed for equivalent durations, as specified.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local
agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state.
Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that
reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act
for a specified reason.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: eyes.
State -mandated local program: eyes.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
1 SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares that, to ensure
2 that communities across the state have access to the most advanced
3 wireless communications technologies and the transformative
4 solutions that robust wireless connectivity enables, such as Smart
5 Communities and the Internet of Things, California should work
6 in coordination with federal, state, and local officials to create a
7 statewide framework for the deployment of advanced wireless
8 communications infrastructure in California that does all of the
9 following:
10 (a) Reaffirms local governments' historic role and authority
I 1 with respect to wireless communications infrastructure siting and
12 construction generally.
13 (b) Reaffirms that deployment of telecommunications facilities
14 in the rights-of-way is a matter of statewide concern, subject to a
15 statewide franchise, and that expeditious deployment of
16 telecommunications networks generally is a matter of both
17 statewide and national concern.
18 (c) Recognizes that the impact on local interests from individual
19 small wireless facilities will be sufficiently minor and that such
98
C-2
-3— SB 649
1 deployments should be a permitted use statewide and should not
2 be subject to discretionary zoning review.
3 (d) Requires expiring permits for these facilities to be renewed
4 so long as the site maintains compliance with use conditions
5 adopted at the time the site was originally approved.
6 (e) Requires providers to obtain all applicable building or
7 encroachment permits and comply with all related health, safety,
8 and objective aesthetic requirements for small wireless facility
9 deployments on a ministerial basis.
10 (f) Grants providers fair, reasonable, nondiscriminatory, and
11 nonexclusive access to locally owned utility poles, street lights,
12 and other suitable host infrastructure located within the public
13 right-of-way and in other local public places such as stadiums,
14 parks, campuses, hospitals, transit stations, and public buildings
15 consistent with all applicable health and safety requirements,
16 including Public Utilities Commission General Order 95.
17 (g) Provides for full recovery by local governments of the costs
18 of attaching small wireless facilities to utility poles, street lights,
19 and other suitable host infrastructure in a manner that is consistent
20 with existing federal and state laws governing utility pole
21 attachments generally.
22 (h) Permits local governments to charge wireless permit fees
23 that are fair, reasonable, nondiscriminatory, and cost based.
24 (i) Advances technological and competitive neutrality while not
25 adding new requirements on competing providers that do not exist
26 today.
27 SEC. 2. Seetion 65850.6 of the Govermitent Gode is ame
28 to read.2
29
30
31 following requirements:
32
33
34 .
35
36
whieh the eolloeation faeility is proposed was stibjeet to a-
37
38 , or a negative deela-ration or mitigate
39 negative deelaration was adopted for the wir
40
98
C-3
SB 649
-4-
98
C-4
...
-_
--
.. - --
• - --
.
--
.
--
....
-- -- ---
. ...
---
. .
-- -- ---
. .
--
. .
-
-:
;.
•
.
. ..
..
. .
. .
. .
INNO IVA..
:.
-;
;
�IVOLIAAAMIMKV
.:-
.-
;111111
-------------
;
4
V
All, VAN
•
-;
:.
I
•11
1-.,IIIIIILIJIW-
.
.
..
..
. . .
. .
.
• -:.
I
VA
98
C-4
— 5 — SB 649
1 ,
2
3 "Small
4 within the volume limits established by the Federal
5 Gommttnieations Gommission for small wireless antennas and
6 assoeiated equipment in the First Amendment to Nation
7
8
9 «
10 and network eomponents stieh as towers, tAility poles, transmitters,
11 base stations, and emergeney power systems that are integral to
12 providing wireless teleeommuttieat' 7
13 " means
14
15 r emss
16 (e) The I�egislature finds and deelares that both small eel! an
17 ,
18
19 that term is ttsed itt Seetion 5 -of Artilc VT of the G is f ....:
20 7
bttt are a matter of statewide eotteern.
21
22 , the review by the eity or eotmty shall
23 be limited �'-- t+1 --i M-40B.Orized by Seetion 332(e)(7) of Title 47 0
24 the United States Gode, or as that seetion may be hereafte
25
26 SECS
27 SEC. 2. Section 65964 of the Government Code is amended
28 to read:
29 65964. Asa condition of approval of an application for a permit
30 for construction or reconstruction for a development project for a
31 wireless telecommunications ,facility, as
32 defined in Section 65850.6, a city or county shall not do any of
33 the following:
34 (a) Require an escrow deposit for removal of a wireless
35 telecommunications facility or any component thereof. However,
36 a performance bond or other surety or another form of security
37 may be required, so long as the amount of the bond security is
38 rationally related to the cost of removal. In establishing the amount
39 of the security, the city or county shall take into consideration
98
C-5
SB 649 —6—
I
6-
1 information provided by the permit applicant regarding the cost
2 of removal.
3 (b) Unreasonably limit the duration of any permit for a wireless
4 telecommunications facility. Limits of less than 10 years are
5 presumed to be unreasonable absent public safety reasons or
6 substantial land use reasons. However, cities and counties may
7 establish a build -out period for a site. A permit shall be renewed
8 for an equivalent duration unless the city or county makes a finding
9 that the wireless telecommunications facility does not comply with
10 the codes and permit conditions applicable at the time the permit
11 was initially approved.
12 (c) Require that all wireless telecommunications facilities be
13 limited to sites owned by particular parties within the jurisdiction
14 of the city or county.
15 SEC. 3. Section 65964.2 is added to the Government Code, to
16 read:
17 65964.2. (a) A small cell shall be a permitted use not subject
18 to a city or county discretionary permit if it satisfies the following
19 requirements:
20 (1) The small cell is located in the public right-of-way in any
21 zone or in any zone that includes a commercial or industrial use.
22 (2) The small cell complies with all applicable state and local
23 health and safety regulations.
24 (3) The small cell is not located on afire department facility.
25 (b) (1) A city or county may require that the small cell be
26 approved pursuant to a single administrative permit provided that
27 the permit is issued within the time frames required by state and
28 federal law.
29 (2) An administrative permit may be subject to the following:
30 (A) The same administrative permit requirements as similar
31 construction projects applied in a nondiscriminatory manner.
32 (B) The submission of additional information showing that the
33 small cell complies the Federal Communications Commission's
34 regulations concerning radio frequency emissions referenced in
35 Section 332(c)(7)(B)(iv) of Title 47 of the United States Code.
36 (3) The administrative permit shall not be subject to:
37 (A) Requirements to provide additional services, directly or
38 indirectly, including, but not limited to, in-kind contributions such
39 as reserving fiber, conduit, or pole space.
98
C-6
— 7 — SB 649
1 (B) The submission of any additional information other than
2 that required of similar construction projects, except as specifically
3 provided in this section.
4 (C) Limitations on routine maintenance or the replacement of
5 small cells with small cells that are substantially similar, the same
6 size or smaller:
7 (D) The regulation of any antennas mounted on cable strands.
8 (c) A city or county shall not preclude the leasing or licensing
9 of its vertical infrastructure located in public right-of-way or public
10 utility easements under the terms set forth in this paragraph.
11 Vertical infrastructure shall be made available under fair and
12 reasonable fees, terms, and conditions and offered on a
13 nondiscriminatory basis for small cells. Fees shall be cost -based,
14 and shall not exceed the lesser of either of the following:
15 (1) The costs of ownership of the percentage of the volume of
16 the capacity of the vertical infrastructure rendered unusable by a
17 small cell.
18 (2) The rate produced by applying the formula adopted by the
19 Federal Communications Commission for telecommunications
20 pole attachments in Section 1.1409(e)(2) of Part 47 of the Code
21 of Federal Regulations.
22 (d) A city or county shall not unreasonably discriminate in the
23 leasing or licensing of property not located in the public
24 right-of-way owned or operated by the city or county for
25 installation of a small cell. A city or county shall authorize the
26 installation of a small cell on property owned or controlled by the
27 city or county not located within the public right-of-way to the
28 same extent the city or county permits access to that property for
29 commercial projects or uses. These installations shall be subject
30 to reasonable and nondiscriminatory rates, terms, and conditions.
31 (e) For purposes of this section, the following terms have the
32 following meanings:
33 (1) (A) "Small cell" means a wireless telecommunications
34 facility, as defined in Section 65850.6, using licensed or unlicensed
35 spectrum that meets the following qualifications:
36 (i) Any individual antenna, excluding the associated equipment,
37 is individually no more than three cubic feet in volume, and all
38 antennas on the structure total no more than six cubic feet in
39 volume, whether in a single array or separate.
98
C-7
SB 649
1 (ii) (I) The associated equipment on pole structures does not
2 exceed 21 cubic feet for poles that can support fewer than three
3 providers or 28 cubic feet for pole collocations that can support
4 at least three providers, or the associated equipment on nonpole
5 structures does not exceed 28 cubic feet for collocations that can
6 support fewer than three providers or 35 cubic feet for collocations
7 that can support at least three providers.
8 (II) The following types of associated ancillary equipment are
9 not included in the calculation of equipment volume:
10 (ia) Electric meters and any required pedestal.
11 (ib) Concealment elements.
12 (ic) Any telecommunications demarcation box.
13 (id) Grounding equipment.
14 (ie) Power transfer switch.
15 (ifi Cut-off switch.
16 (ig) Vertical cable runs for the connection of power and other
17 services.
18 (B) "Small cell " does not include communications infrastructure
19 extending beyond the telecommunications demarcation box.
20 (2) "Vertical infrastructure" means all poles or similar facilities
21 owned or controlled by a city or county that are in the public
22 right-of-way or public utility easements and meant for or used in
23 whole or in part for, communications service, electric service,
24 lighting, traffic control, signage, or similar functions.
25 ( The Legislature finds and declares that small cells, as defined
26 in this section, have a significant economic impact in California
27 and are not a municipal affair as that term is used in Section 5 of
28 Article XI of the California Constitution, but are a matter of
29 statewide concern.
30 SEC. 4. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to
31 Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution because
32 a local agency or school district has the authority to levy service
33 charges, fees, or assessments sufficient to pay for the program or
34 level of service mandated by this act, within the meaning of Section
35 17556 of the Government Code.
31
98
•