Locals fear losing control
California Senate Bill 649 sponsored by Sen. Ben Hueso (D-40th) could allow cellular phone tower construction on public land that proponents maintain is needed to keep up with demand.
“We need a statewide plan for the adaption on new wireless communication rather than having to go city to city,” said Hueso. “This bill is absolutely needed. Cities are saying they’ll lose local control but it’s not the case. This is about making telephone bills affordable.”
Still local skepticism remains. Imperial County District 1 Supervisor John Renison has read an account of the proposal and noted it needs more thorough vetting. “It seems to me it’s evading local authority … that’s my impression at first glance,” he said. “We need to take a deep breath, pause and think if state officials are passing too many regulations that are not making much sense.”
The proposal shuts out local discretion by eliminating consideration of environmental impacts of small cells (towers) according to www.cacities.org the League of California Cities website. Small cells are antennas as large as six cubit feet, with equipment boxes of 35 cubic feet. It also eliminates cities’ ability to leverage public property to achieve the greatest public benefit such as generating flexible general fund revenues to pay for services such as police, fire and libraries. Fees for leasing public property are set at a range of $100 to $850 per year with an additional $250 for the time to set up the fee structure, according to the American Planning Association California Chapter.
The telecommunication companies are supporting the bill to sidestep local jurisdiction, which has the authority as to where cell towers go, noted Wally Leimgruber, Holtville resident and a land use consultant.
“Sen. Hueso is entitled to his opinion, but I do oppose this bill,” said Leimgruber. “The public process must be followed and the public needs to have a voice.”
Leimgruber added, he sees problems when the local jurisdiction is not at the table affecting public policy. “Counties and cities already have ordinances regarding cell towers. But I wonder how this bill addresses questions of public safety. I have read the website of the League of California Cities and I agree with their objections.”
The Imperial Irrigation District owns the utility poles where many of the cell towers are likely to be targeted. Marion Champion is IID media communications officer. She remarked IID is watching the bill closely, but at this time they have not taken a formal position on it.
The state senate passed the bill on May 31. It now needs to pass the state assembly and be signed by Gov. Jerry Brown preceding the end of the legislative session in September before it becomes law. Yet 110 cities oppose the law according to website www.presstribune.com including Roseville where the paper is published.
Roseville Mayor Susan Rohan sent a letter to Hueso this spring. “This legislation unnecessarily strips local authority over public property and shuts out public input,” said Rohan.
But proponents stress the law is needed to allow cell phone carriers to upgrade from 4G to 5G coverage. Proponents estimate a need to deploy 30,000 to 50,000 small cells statewide over the next five to seven years.
They also argue that lease charges, cities and counties demand with wireless service providers are barriers to meet demand.
The League of California Cities legislative representative, Rony Berdugo cautioned the bill has: no requirement for small cells to be equipped with 5G or even 4G technology, no requirement for small cells to be deployed to unserved or underserved communities and complete discretion of small cell installation limited to coastal zones or historic districts.
Lack of discretionary review also prevents cities: from requiring small cells to blend into their environment, stop small cell installation that obstructs homeowners’ view and inhibits cities’ ability to improve the character of communities to attract business.