Cell tower legislation passes Senate, Assembly

A proposed state law that would largely strip local governments’ ability to regulate cellphone antenna installations on public property has passed both the senate and assembly despite letters of opposition from throughout the state including from the Ramona Community Planning Group.

Senate Bill 649 passed the Assembly Sept. 13 by a 46-16 vote and the Senate the next day, 22-10. Critics are now calling on the governor to veto the bill.

The planning group on Sept. 7 agreed to submit a letter against SB 649 to the county Board of Supervisors so it could be included with other letters of opposition that were to be sent to Sacramento.

“I work on these types of projects,” said planner Casey Lynch at the meeting. “I think they still need to go in front of the community.”

SB 649 pertains to “small cells” in public rights-of-way or in any zone that includes a commercial or industrial use, and would provide that such installations are a permitted use and subject only to a specified permitting process adopted by a city or county. It would prevent the planning group and residents from the ability to weigh in on the siting of such wireless installations.

If SB 649 becomes law, planner Richard Tomlinson said a telecommunications carrier could pick a light pole that it wants to install a small cell on, and it would be by right.

The bill defines small cell as antennas on the structure no more than 6 cubic feet in volume, an individual piece of associated equipment on pole structures not exceeding 9 cubic feet, and the cumulative total of associated equipment that does not exceed 21 cubic feet. The total of any ground-mounted equipment cannot exceed 35 cubic feet, which some opponents of the bill have said is the size of a refrigerator.

SB 649 would authorize a city or county to charge an annual fee of up to $250 for each small cell attachment to vertical infrastructure, an annual attachment rate based on a specified calculations, and a one-time reimbursement fee for actual costs.

Comments in support of the bill say it will establish a reliable and standardized process for siting the physical infrastructure to meet the growing consumer demand for greater, faster access to next-generation wireless networks.

Arguments in opposition tout loss of local control and revenue.

SB 649 was authored by Sen. Ben Hueso (D-San Diego). Cities and counties throughout the state lobbied against it, including the County of San Diego.

Over the past few years the planning group has considered many proposals for wireless telecommunication facilities and in some cases there have been concerns by the public regarding the visual appearance and possible health impacts from the electromagnetic frequencies (EMF) emitted for those living nearby.

Before addressing the legislation, the planning group was presented with two different AT&T cell tower proposals that would not be impacted by SB 649 as they are not small cells and are proposed for private property.

AT&T Wireless wants to construct a 35-foot-tall mono-pine along with telecommunications equipment inside a wall enclosure on a 20-acre property at 16225 Highland Trails Drive. The project would be co-located with an existing Verizon installation and the tree would not be visible from nearby roadways, said the representative for the project.

“The purpose of this site is to fill a coverage need,” she said.

In another AT&T project, the carrier is proposing an unmanned wireless facility that would include a 65-foot-tall mono-pine at the rear of industrial-zoned property at 516 Maple St. The installation would be adjacent to Sprint and Cricket mono-poles.

There was no opposition to either cell tower at the meeting and both were unanimously approved by the planning group.