Speaker 1: Further, the ordinance delegates authority to the Public Works Director to publish and amend as necessary relevant administrative documents such as design standards for these facilities, the SUBMITTAL Guidelines for when they go to submit a permit. Accompanying the ordinance will be use of a master license agreement with each of the telecommunication carriers for use of city facilities in the public right away. The license agreement will include include, among other provisions, insurance, indemnity bonding, maintenance requirements and of course, annual license fees that are associated with use of city facilities. The terms of the master license agreement are intended to be consistent with the ordinance and implement those provisions in the ordinance before you this evening. You may be asking, why are we hearing this tonight? If you recall, in the summer of 2017, when Senate Bill 649 was making its way to the Governor's Desk, Council, awarded a professional services and master license agreement to five bars. Now communities and the services were for both telecommunication consulting as well as the marketing of city assets to wireless carriers in exchange for shared a shared revenue arrangement. Will SB 649 ultimately was vetoed by Governor Brown? But following that, the Federal Communications Commission issued a declaratory ruling. And I'm going to read you the title of that ruling, because I think the title in of itself is telling of its intent. And the title of the declaratory ruling was accelerating wireless broadband by removing barriers to infrastructure investment. So that was issued by the FCC in 2018. And among other things, it limited the compensation that local government was able to receive from wireless carriers for use of city facilities. So following that ruling, not unexpectedly, community communities terminated the master license agreement that we had entered into with them. So that same FCC ruling also promulgated expedited shot clock or timelines in which we have to turn around a permit review process. So the expedited shot clocks, timelines as well as excuse departure really puts us in a time sensitive nature to both adopt this ordinance and enter into master license agreements with each of the carriers as such . The second portion of this ordinance amends a different section of the municipal code to provide an exemption to the clause that requires contracts in excess of a five year term to be approved by council. And so what this ordinance amends is, it allows for an exemption for these specific types of master license agreements, since the term of those will likely be ten years since the state requires the term of the permit that authorizes the wireless facility in the right away to be those ten years. Lastly, the staff report is seeking that the council delegate authority to the city manager to actually negotiate and execute these master license agreements. So with that, I'm happy to answer any questions.
Speaker 0: I have a question. Good report, Miss Smith. Thank you. So I represent Alameda on the League of California Cities, and they were one of the very vocal bodies opposing SB 649. And I believe there might be a legal challenge making its way through the courts. Is that correct?
Speaker 1: Yes. And I'm sure our attorney's office can speak more to it. There's definitely legal challenge to the 2018 FCC ruling.
Speaker 0: Right. And so so could one of the folks from the fisheries office tell us about how how would that how would an eventual ruling form in favor of cities essentially impact the decision we're making tonight?
Speaker 5: Sure, Madam Mayor. So that legal challenge is still working its way through the court system. There is no current pending injunction against that particular federal legislation. And therefore, we have proposed to you the best and the most comprehensive local regulation that a local agencies are able to implement at this. Time. If we receive a judicial ruling that overturns the federal regulation, then we would certainly come back to you in cooperation with our public works colleagues to give you additional local control to the maximum extent possible.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Another good answer. All right. Any questions or comments? Councilmember de SAC.
Speaker 6: So I remember back in 2015, we dealt with an issue where cell towers were proposed for Lincoln Avenue and Saint Charles. I think the Pagano building or somewhere around there. Also, at the same time, cell towers were proposed for an apartment on a shoreline in grand or somewhere somewhere near there. Now, during the course of that discussion, what I recall and even from previous discussions, there was really a lot of involvement of the planning staff in terms of design, you know, esthetics, all that kind of stuff. Is it such that that that they are no longer involved in that? And so everything is now the public works department.
Speaker 5: So I'll give you the legal answer and I'll my colleagues might give you additional policy answers as well, which is that local regulation of cell towers essentially originated from two places. We have the ability to regulate the right of way and we have the ability to regulate private property. Cell towers are both. Both. In both instances, our local control is significantly circumscribed by federal legislation. What is before you tonight is the public right of way regulations. If the Council desires for the city to implement further review of its zoning regulations on private property, you can certainly give a very brief direction on that tonight for planning staff to undertake and review. But what is before you is essentially one half of the regulatory authority that the city is able to exercise.
Speaker 6: Okay. So this is just public, right? So the question that I have is I don't quite recall seeing references to the Parks Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission, and I raised that only because a lot of the cell towers are being placed in parks. I think when I look at the crazy tennis courts, you look up at the lights, there's cell towers. So is that what thought is there? And involving things like the Parks Commission or frankly speaking, even the school district? Well, I guess that would be a school district decision. Okay. That's separate the parks parks Commission. Yeah. So for that.
Speaker 5: I defer to my policy colleagues.
Speaker 1: Yes. So the ordinance tonight is is very strictly related to in the public right away, the city has more discretion when it's on private property or city owned property like parks, where we're acting as a as a private landowner. That's not covered in this ordinance, although just based on conversations with the parks that there that is still open for the possibility of placing wireless facilities less so I think cell towers. But like you had mentioned on the taller existing poles, those provide, I think, real estate for the wireless carriers to mount their antennas up there.
Speaker 6: Also by public. When I was reading this, I was interpreting public right away as public property. So what you mean by public right away is basically like infrastructure, like streets, sidewalks that are basically in the purview for the most part of the public. Yes.
Speaker 1: We're not talking city building facilities either. Oh, okay. Another area of.
Speaker 6: Discussion. I see. Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Any further clarifying questions before we go to our public speaker then? Okay. We have a very patient public speaker somewhere in the audience. Come on up.
Speaker 2: Because the public is.
Speaker 7: Hello, councilmembers. My name is Chris Vegas. I'm with Verizon Wireless. It's a pleasure to be here this evening. First, I wanted to begin by thanking staff for preparing the ordinance. That's before you this evening. We appreciate the direction that the city is moving in and we're excited to work with the city and are interested in entering into a partnership with the city of Alameda that will allow.
Speaker 11: Verizon Wireless to attach.
Speaker 7: To city owned assets on the public right of way. We've reviewed the ordinance that's before you and have provided comments which highlight areas of concern for Verizon. That letter was submitted earlier today. I'm not sure if you've had the opportunity to read that, but that should have been distributed. We would like the opportunity to meet to meet with staff, to discuss the issues in further detail so that we can ensure a successful deployment for Verizon as well as the other carriers. And I would request that council direct staff to continue to work with the wireless industry as they work to finalize the design and permitting guidelines that will essentially allow for the successful deployment of small cell wireless facilities. Again, my name is Chris Vargas, and I'm happy to answer any questions that you may have.
Speaker 0: I have a question. Sure. Was there a reason you didn't submit your letter until this afternoon?
Speaker 7: A part of that is due to the fact that we were waiting on documents from city staff so that we can submit them all at once. So we received the ordinance, I believe it was last week, and then we received the additional documents this week.
Speaker 0: I believe the ordinance is actually this. The draft ordinance is attached to the staff report and we do have a 12 day advance notice. So our packets are put out to the public 12 days in advance.
Speaker 7: Right. And so we specifically wanted to provide the comments on the design guidelines as well as the permitting guidelines. And those are referenced in the ordinance, but they're not specifically called out or they're not gone into the ordinance, doesn't go into detail about what that will look like. And so that specifically what we wanted to.
Speaker 11: Comment on, because that will determine what our deployments look like.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Okay, Miss Smith, why don't you come up and.
Speaker 1: Want to clarify a couple of things? So the design guidelines and the permits permit submittal the design guidelines and permits middle guidelines actually went to our planning commission in April of 2019. Those have remained relatively unchanged, except that we will obviously need to update the reference that carriers need to consult with communities for a sublicense agreement. However, the design guidelines and the report, the permit submittal guidelines have been on the city's website since April of 2019. So I just want to clarify that we are and I have amended them to now reflect this non-equity world that we're going to be living in. And that is what Chris is mentioning before you tonight is just the ordinance. And again, what this ordinance does is vests in the public works director, the authority to update those administrative documents as needed.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you. Okay. That's the of our public speakers. So I'll close public comment. Counsel, your thoughts or emotion?
Speaker 3: I can go first this time.
Speaker 0: Yes, Councilman.
Speaker 3: Thank you for the report. This SB 69 was very controversial. I remember when it when it went through. Hopefully we can work with the industry. I mean, we don't have to do everything they say, but it'd be good to bring them to the table because if we can when we do part two, if everyone's on the same page, that would be helpful. So I'm willing. I don't know if I need to add that to a motion, but I'm willing to move approval of the item.
Speaker 0: Okay. We have a motion to have a second second. It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion.
Speaker 6: Yet?
Speaker 0: Councilmember So.
Speaker 6: You know, I feel that this ordinance, it proposed ordinance has has so much moving parts in, you know, the implications of which I'm just not sure. So I was just wondering if council would consider having a sunset to this ordinance after five years because I don't know. I mean, I know we need to have, you know, mortar and cell towers and all that kind of stuff, even on public rights away, perhaps. But anyways, it's just it's a thought. It's just very complicated.
Speaker 0: I'm thank you. So I will turn to the city attorney on this. I mean, this is federal law and we're just implementing our and. Is it even possible to sunset this well?
Speaker 5: So if the council so assuming it sunsetted, let's say next month and the law does not change, we would just the city would simply lose local control because there will be no further local regulation governing the deployment of these small cells on the public right of way.
Speaker 0: So it goes to the federal government to say what the.
Speaker 5: With default rules and no further local control and no further local ability to enter into licenses to authorize them or charge fees.
Speaker 0: And it doesn't sound like a good thing.
Speaker 5: Okay. It would not be our recommendation.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Okay. Any further discussion? Hearing then? We've had a motion. It's been seconded. All in favor I. Any oppose, any abstained. The motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Okay. So then we move on to. Boy, this is so written on City Manager Communications.
Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by: (1) Adding New Section 23-9 (Personal Wireless Service Facilities in the Public Right-Of-Way); and (2) Amending Section 2-59.3 (Limitation and Power to Make Contracts) to Exempt Master License Agreements for Use of Public Assets for Personal Wireless Service Facility Installation; and 

Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager, or Designee, to Negotiate and Execute Master License Agreements for Use of Public Assets Consistent with Local Law.  (Public Works)