Loading...
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.