The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutEmail from Brian Ring - Letter of Opposition - Small Cell Deployment Menchaca, Clarissa From: Ring, Brian Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2018 5:27 PM To: Lambert, Steve; Kirk, Maureen; Connelly, Bill;Teeter, Doug; Wahl, Larry Cc: McCracken, Shari; Snyder,Ashley; Menchaca, Clarissa; Ring, Brian Subject: Letter of Opposition - Small Cell Deployment Attachments: Docket 17-84 and 17-79.pdf Good afternoon all— We've submitted the attached letter on your behalf in opposition of the proposed changes by the FCC to streamline and expedite small cell deployment.The letter is very consistent with what you submitted a year ago regarding a state bill (SB 649). These actions would limit the authority to manage public right-of-way and significantly change the application process for wireless infrastructure. Specifically,the changes would do the following: • Create two new categories of shot clocks for small cell wireless facility review. Local governments would have 60 days to complete review of applications for collocated small cells, and 90 days for small cells on new structures. • Limit recurring fees and application fees for small cells in the rights-of-way, such as rights-of-way access fees or lease fees, to a "reasonable approximation" of the locality's "objectively reasonable costs"for maintaining the rights-of-way or a structure within the rights-of-way. The FCC finds a presumptively reasonable recurring fee to be$270 per site, per year. It also limits application fees for all small wireless facilities to $500 for up to five sites and $100 per site thereafter. • Limit allowable local aesthetic requirements, including minimum spacing requirements, to those that are "(1) reasonable, (2) no more burdensome than those applied to other types of infrastructure deployments, and (3) published in advance." Please let me know if you have any questions... Thanks! Brian Ring Assistant Chief Administrative Officer ' Administration 25 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95965 T: 530.552.3311 I M: 530.570.7688 1 F: 530.538.7120 1 i �BCJA�4�i e ~"y �a BOARD OF SUPERVISORS BILL CONNELLY Ira First District f c°y ADMINISTRATION CENTER '•b,,"LiLARRY WAHL � �.+► 25 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE,SUITE 200 OROVILLE,CALIFORNIA 95965 Second District TELEPHONE:(530)538-7631 MAUREEN KIRK Third District STEVE LAMBERT Fourth District DOUG TEETER September 19, 2018 Fifth District VIA ELECTRONIC FILING Ms. Marlene H.Dortch,Secretary Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street,SW Washington, District of Columbia 20554 RE:Accelerating Wireline Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment, WC Docket No. 17-84;Accelerating Wireless Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment, WT Docket No. 17-79 Dear Ms. Dortch, On behalf of the Butte County Board of Supervisors, l am writing to express our concerns over the Federal Communications Commission's proposed Declaratory Ruling and Third Report and Order regarding state and local governance of small cell wireless infrastructure deployment. While we share the Commission's objective of finding new ways to effectively deploy broadband technologies, especially in underserved communities,we are concerned that the proposed language would significantly impede local governments'ability to serve as trustees of public property,safety and welfare.Counties own substantial amounts of public rights-of-way,which many communication providers use to construct their own communications networks.The proposed order would significantly narrow the amount of time for local governments to evaluate 5G deployment applications from communication providers—effectively hindering our ability to fulfill public health and safety responsibilities during the construction and modification of broadcasting facilities. • The FCC's proposed new collocation shot clock category is too extreme.The proposal designates any preexisting structure, regardless of its design or suitability for attaching wireless equipment,as eligible for this new expedited 60-day shot clock.When paired with the FCC's previous decision exempting small wireless facilities from federal historic and environmental review,this places an unreasonable burden on local governments to prevent historic preservation,environmental, or safety harms to the community.The addition of up to three cubic feet of antenna and 28 cubic feet of additional equipment to a structure not originally designed to carry that equipment is substantial and may necessitate more review than the FCC has allowed in its proposal. • The FCC's proposed definition of"effective prohibition" is overly broad.The draft report and order proposes a definition of"effective prohibition"that invites challenges to long-standing local rights of way requirements unless they meet a subjective and unclear set of guidelines. While the Commission may have intended to preserve local review,this framing and definition of effective prohibition opens local governments to the likelihood of more, not less,conflict and litigation over requirements for aesthetics,spacing, and undergrounding. • The FCC's proposed recurring fee structure is an unreasonable overreach that will harm local policy innovation.We disagree with the FCC's interpretation of"fair and reasonable compensation"as meaning approximately$270 per small cell site. Local governments share the federal government's goal of ensuring affordable broadband access for every American, regardless of their income level or address.That is why many have worked to negotiate fair deals with wireless providers,which may exceed that number or provide additional benefits to the community.Additionally,the Commission has moved away from rate regulation in recent years.Why does it see fit to so narrowly dictate the rates charged by municipalities? While the County of Butte supports the deployment of wireless facilities to ensure that Californians have access to telecommunications services,this goal is not inherently in conflict with appropriate local planning and appropriate fee negotiations on publically owned infrastructure.We oppose this effort to restrict local authority and stymie local innovation,while limiting the obligations providers have to our community. We urge you to oppose this declaratory ruling and report and order Respectfully submitted, ,�.,, / i br,t4. Steve Lambert, air Butte County Board of Supervisors cc: Members, Butte County Board of Supervisors The Honorable Jim Nielsen, Member, California State Senate The Honorable Jim Gallagher, Member, California State Assembly The Honorable Brian Dahle, Member, California State Assembly The Honorable Dianne Feinstein, Member, United States Senate The Honorable Kamala Harris, Member, United States Senate The Honorable Doug LaMalfa, Member of Congress The Honorable John Garamendi, Member of Congress Kristi More,The Ferguson Group Paul Yoder,Shaw,Yoder,Antwih, Inc. California State Association of Counties Rural County Representatives of California 2