HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 139-2018 (18-752)City of South San Francisco P.O. Box 711 (City Hall,
400 Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
City Council
Resolution: RES 139 -2018
File Number: 18 -752 Enactment Number: RES 139 -2018
RESOLUTION OPPOSING FEDERAL LEGISLATION TITLED THE
STREAMLINING THE RAPID EVOLUTION AND
MODERNIZATION OF LEADING -EDGE INFRASTRUCTURE
NECESSARY TO ENHANCE SMALL CELL DEPLOYMENT ACT (S.
3157) AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO SIGN A
LETTER IN OPPOSITION TO U.S. SENATORS FEINSTEIN AND
HARRIS.
WHEREAS, the Streamlining the Rapid Evolution and Modernization of Leading -edge Infrastructure
Necessary to Enhance Small Cell Deployment Act (S. 3157), or the Streamline Small Cell Deployment
Act ( "Act ") for short, was introduced on June 28, 2018 by U.S. Senate Commerce Committee Chairman
Sen. John Thune (R -S.D.) and Sen. Brian Schatz (D- Hawaii);
WHEREAS, the intent of the Act is to help speed the deployment of next - generation, or 5Q wireless
services and reduce barriers to broadband infrastructure in rural areas; and
WHEREAS, Governor Jerry Brown vetoed similar legislation introduced to the California State
Legislature, Senate Bill 649, in 2017, which would have scaled back the municipal permitting process
for antennas and other equipment in an effort to meet demand for wireless service, because it took away
significant local control; and
WHEREAS, The County of San Mateo ( "County ") has expressed concerns about S. 3157 and has stated
its opposition, the letter is attached herein as Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, The County expressed several points of opposition to the federal legislation, including that
the legislation imposes arbitrary deadlines on local agency responses to telecom requests; it limits local
government ability to recoup costs associated with telecom requests; it unnecessarily restricts local
authority but does not actually encourage small cell deployment; and that allowing local governments to
collaborate with carriers would be the better solution; and
WHEREAS, The erection of cell towers, without local permission, poses a threat to sensitive ecological
habitats as well as historic sites and buildings which could negatively impact sensitive environments and
create neighborhood eyesores; and
WHEREAS, the City of South San Francisco currently enforces its Small Cell Ordinance while
collaborates with small cell carriers through a Small Cell Master License Agreement, and the opposition
points identified by the County are relevant and concerning for the City and its residents.
City of South San Francisco Page 1
File Number: 18 -752
Enactment Number: RES 139 -2018
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of South San Francisco
expresses its opposition to the Streamlining the Rapid Evolution and Modernization of Leading -edge
Infrastructure Necessary to Enhance Small Cell Deployment Act (S. 3157).
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council authorizes the City Manager to sign a letter on
behalf of the City of South San Francisco in opposition of the Streamlining the Rapid Evolution and
Modernization of Leading -edge Infrastructure Necessary to Enhance Small Cell Deployment Act (S.
3157), to be delivered to U.S. Senators Dianne Feinstein and Kamala Harris.
At a meeting of the City Council on 8/22/2018, a motion was made by Richard Garbarino, seconded by
Pradeep Gupta, that this Resolution be approved. The motion passed.
Yes: 5 Mayor Normandy, Mayor Pro Tem Matsumoto, Councilmember Garbarino,
Councilmember Gupta, and Councilmember Addiego
Attest by
Krista Martinelli
City of South San Francisco Page 2
CIO/Director
Jon Walton
County Government Center
455 County Center
Redwood City, CA 94063
650-363-4548
isd.smcgov.org 7/19/2018
County of San Mateo Statement on the S. 3157 STREAMLINE Small Cell Deployment Act
On June 28, 2018, U.S. Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) and Sen. Brian
Schatz (D-Hawaii) introduced new legislation titled the Streamlining the Rapid Evolution and Modernization
of Leading-edge Infrastructure Necessary to Enhance Small Cell Deployment Act (S. 3157), or the
STREAMLINE Small Cell Deployment Act for short. This bill is intended to help speed the deployment of
next-generation, or 5G, wireless services and reduce barriers to broadband infrastructure in rural areas.
However, the County of San Mateo has several serious concerns about imposing a federal one-size-fits-all
solution for small cell deployments:
The legislation does not specifically encourage rural small cell deployment: While the stated
goals of the bill include increasing wireless coverage in rural areas, it contains no language to
encourage or incentivize small cell providers to build in rural areas specifically. In fact, the legislation
puts undue pressure on small local governments with humble resources in terms of staffing and
cashflow.
The legislation imposes arbitrary deadlines on local governments’ response time to telecom
requests: The bill gives local governments only 60 days to respond to requests to build co-located
technology on existing buildings, light poles, and public rights-of-way, and gives only 90 days for
local governments to respond to requests for the construction of new wireless facilities. While
allowances are made to give smaller local governments additional time, these requirements fail to
account for all the competing demands on a government’s time and attention, potentially putting the
needs of telecommunication companies before other critical services, such as public safety, health and
human services, elections, and housing.
The legislation punishes local governments who fail to meet the arbitrary deadlines: If a local
government is unable to respond to a request in time, this bill contains a “deemed granted” clause,
which gives telecom companies the authority to build on locally-owned land without the consent of
local officials. This potentially creates a dangerous and chaotic free-for-all of unlicensed construction
that local governments lack the ability to stop or control—an especially troubling fact since it could
put sites such as historic downtowns and environmentally-sensitive areas at risk. Many local
governments have spent a great deal of time and money preserving and protecting such areas. These
efforts should not be lost due to missing an arbitrary deadline.
The legislation limits local governments’ ability to recoup costs associated with telecom
requests: The bill restricts local governments to collecting only “actual costs” from wealthy
telecommunications companies, capping what local governments can charge for use of locally-owned
rights-of-way. The legislation also reduces or eliminates the application fees local governments assess
for the processing of these requests. This creates a Catch-22 situation in which local
governments are expected to do even more (process requests faster) without the
ability to collect the additional resources (staff, money, etc.) required to meet the
demand. The bill effectively deprives local governments from negotiating market rate fees for their
assets, thereby putting the interests of corporate shareholders above the interests of the general public.
The legislation is unnecessary: The wireless industry’s trade association CTIA has stated that S.
3157 will allow the U.S. to win “the global 5G race.” However, the County believes the timely rollout
of 5G technology will happen regardless of federal action. Many cities throughout the U.S. have
already announced partnerships with carriers to deploy 5G. Furthermore, the County is concerned that
legislation has a poor record of removing barriers effectively and without unintended consequences.
Better solutions are possible with collaboration: Carriers, local governments, and organizations
like the National League of Cities and the International City/County Management Association should
be granted authority to work together on true process improvements that benefit all. The County of
San Mateo has many of the same desires as telecom companies, such as faster and consistent
permitting and sharing the costs of infrastructure maintenance and development. However, local
governments must balance these desires with other concerns, such as the management of streetscapes
and providing for digital inclusion. Only through collaboration and negotiation, not unilateral
legislation, can everyone’s needs be met.
o Example: The County of San Mateo might suggest that the shot clock deadlines are granted
only to carriers that provide 80% coverage in a local government’s jurisdiction each year.
Solutions like this encourage investments from both parties, rather than unduly burdening
local government only.
The County of San Mateo strongly opposes the STREAMLINE Small Cell Deployment Act and believes such
legislation is best left to individual locales, who are most familiar with their regional priorities, their citizens’
expectations, and their geography. The County would like to echo California governor Jerry Brown’s veto
statement of SB. 649 on October 15, 2017: “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.”
To benefit both the interests of business and the public good, local governments should be empowered, not
throttled.