S.F. scores win — cell antenna measure vetoed
San Francisco and dozens of other California cities won a victory when Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed a bill that would have shifted the power to regulate placement of wireless communications equipment from municipalities to the state.
The cities were strongly opposed to the legislation, saying they needed to keep control over their own rights of way and infrastructure. But experts who had been tracking the bill since its inception in February said they expect state lawmakers to resurrect it, perhaps as soon as next year, and pointed to a similar measure that’s gaining traction at the Federal Communications Commission.
The bill that Brown vetoed Sunday, SB649 by Sen. Ben Hueso, D-San Diego, sought to standardize the rules that cities must abide by when considering a telecommunication company’s request to install small-cell devices — antennas typically mounted on streetlights or telephone poles.
Companies such as AT&T and Verizon say they must install more small-cell antennas to meet the demand for mobile bandwidth, especially in urban centers located far from large cellular towers. Smallcell devices are also critical to deploying new wireless technologies, including the pending rollout of 5G networks.
Hueso said the bill would simplify the permitting process for companies. Creating a single, statewide framework for handling small-cell permits would be more efficient than forcing telecommunications firms to conform to laws that vary from city to city, he said.
“California needs to enact laws that streamline the permitting process and grant greater access to public rights of way, or its residents will be left behind,” said Jonathan Adelstein, president and CEO of the Wireless Infrastructure Association, a trade group that advocates for telecommunications companies. He said his group was “disappointed that Gov. Brown decided to veto this important piece of legislation.”
In a veto statement, Brown said, “There is something of real value in having a process that results in extending this innovative technology rapidly and efficiently. Nevertheless, I believe that the interest which localities have in managing rights of way requires a more balanced solution than the one achieved in this bill.”
In addition to worries about losing control over where small-cell antennas can be placed, San Francisco and other cities feared the bill would cost them millions in lost revenue. The measure would have capped the annual amount that cities could charge telecommunications companies at $250 per antenna. San Francisco’s Public Utilities Commission said the city would lose out on $33 million over 10 years if the bill was signed into law.
“I’m thankful that Gov. Brown vetoed this legislation,” said San Francisco Supervisor Mark Farrell, who sponsored a board-passed resolution opposing the bill. “This was a power play by lobbyists up in Sacramento to take away local control.”
David Witkowski, executive director of the wireless communications initiative at Joint Venture Silicon Valley, a nonprofit policy think tank, said Brown’s expressed desire to find a “more balanced” way of streamlining placement regulations was a strong signal that the bill could resurface next year.
He also pointed to a similar initiative unfolding at the Federal Communications Commission to regulate small-cell permitting at the national level. The agency is taking public comment on a measure to “promote the rapid deployment of advanced wireless broadband service to all Americans.”
“By early 2018, it’s an open question right now as to whether we’ll get another SB649 in California,” Witkowski said, “or if we’ll have to live within the federal paradigm that comes down from Washington.” Dominic Fracassa is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. Email: dfracassa@ sfchronicle.com Twitter: @dominicfracassa