5G Master License Agreement (San Francisco Department Of Technology)
| Tracking # |
22-67 |
| Multi Request | 5G Master License Agreement |
| Submitted | Jan. 3, 2022 |
MuckRock users can file, duplicate, track, and share public records requests like this one. Learn more.
Communications
From: SFResident
To Whom It May Concern:
Pursuant to the California Public Records Act, I hereby request the following records:
In 2021 Linda Gerull had 10 meetings with lobbyists from Verizon regarding "5G Master License Agreement".
https://netfile.com/lobbyistpub/#/sfo/detail/contactofpublicofficial/reportedcontacts/Gerull%2C%20Linda/Technology/2021
Please produce meeting notes, prep notes, presentations, slide decks, after-meeting reviews, agendas, transcripts, policy memos (draft or final), created, modified, sent, or received from January 1st 2021 to December 31st 2021 on any of the following topics in the constructive possession of your agency related to "5G Master License Agreement":
1. All communications with lobbyists (Christine Keener, Rudolph Reyes), employees, and subcontractors working on behalf of Verizon.
2. Inventory of CCSF assets that may be part of any 5G Master License Agreement.
3. Any non-disclosure agreement signed by CCSF staff as part of discussions regarding 5G Master License Agreement
4. Maps or drawings shared with Verizon representatives of CCSF Outdoor Public Warning System and Emergency Call Box system
5. Use of CCSF assets including public safety towers, CCSF properties, and CCSF fiber-optic network by Verizon or its subcontractors.
6. Digital City Initiatives
6. Microtrenching within San Francisco
Addendum:
Comply with each clause of the Sunshine Ordinance. Ensure each redaction is justified by a key/footnote, and each withholding is justified in writing. Comply with every consent agreement you may be subject to, including but not limited to: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/20699602-mayors-office-agreement-to-produce-email-metadata-letter-to-anonymous-and-sotf-re-sotf-file-no-20006-plus-attachments , https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/20983054-signed-mayors-office-letter-amended-letter-to-sotf-and-anonymous-re-sotf-file-no-20052 .
Provide rolling response - SFAC 67.25(d) - for all requests. If providing records via any form of website or file share, ensure that no restrictions like login, terms of service, or identity, apply.
For email and calendar, exact PDF copies of each and every distinct, individual record (including separately, each email in each thread, and meeting entry in each date) are sufficient with the body, invitees, attendees, attachments, email addresses, To/From/cc/Bcc, urls, formatting, and hyperlinks.
For Microsoft Office or office productivity (word processing, spreadsheets, and presentations) documents, produce an exact copy of the record in its original electronic format; do not convert to PDF - preserve all metadata and history and formatting. If Google Drive records are responsive, a view-only hyperlink accessible without login is acceptable, or you may download the file as Word, Excel, or PowerPoint file and provide that file *with all interactive features* - do not provide a non-PDF file as PDF.
For records of any kind with: attachments (must be produced in their original electronic format), images, audio, video, formatting, hyperlinks/URLs, date/time stamps, participant/author names, comments, or history -- be sure to preserve and produce all of those parts.
If communications of any kind are requested, they include every form or type of communication, including but not limited to email, chats, texts, iMessage, direct message, private message, MS Teams, group message, physical letters/memos, and voicemail.
You must search all records deemed in the constructive possession of the City: personal property about the conduct of public business, government property, and City contractors (for records the government has a contractual interest in). You must justify all withholding. You must provide a keyed justification for each and every redaction.
For Microsoft Teams:
I am asking for responsive records in all 4 types of MS Teams systems listed here: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/compliance/teams-workflow-in-advanced-ediscovery?view=o365-worldwide :
- Teams 1:1 chats. Chat messages, posts, and attachments shared in a Teams conversation between two people. Teams 1:1 chats are also called conversations.
- Teams group chats. Chat messages, posts, and attachments shared in a Teams conversation between three or more people. Also called 1:N chats or group conversations.
- Teams channels. Chat messages, posts, replies, and attachments shared in a Teams channel.
- Private Teams channels. Message posts, replies, and attachments shared in a private Teams channel.
The requested documents will be made available to the general public, and this request is not being made for commercial purposes.
In the event that there are fees, I would be grateful if you would inform me of the total charges in advance of fulfilling my request. I would prefer the request filled electronically, by e-mail attachment if available or CD-ROM if not.
Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation in this matter. I look forward to receiving your response to this request within 10 calendar days, as the statute requires.
Sincerely,
SFResident
From: San Francisco Department Of Technology
City and County of San Francisco
************************************************************************
Hi there
Your record request #22-67 has been submitted. You can see it anytime at the link below.
************************************************************************
<em>Questions about your request?</em> Reply to this email or sign in to contact staff at City and County of San Francisco.<br></br><em>Technical support:</em> See our <a href='https://help.nextrequest.com/knowledge/requester-resources'>help page</a>
From: San Francisco Department Of Technology
City and County of San Francisco
************************************************************************
Hi there
A message was sent to you regarding record request #22-67:
Dear Requestor,
We received your public records request, dated January 3, 2022 with timestamp of 6:39PM of , on January 4, 2022 7:00AM. Public records requests received after the close of business, or received on a weekend or holiday, are considered received on the next business day. You have requested the following records:
* meeting notes, prep notes, presentations, slide decks, after-meeting reviews, agendas, transcripts, policy memos (draft or final), created, modified, sent, or received from January 1st 2021 to December 31st 2021 on any of the following topics in the constructive possession of your agency related to "5G Master License Agreement":
Our department will identify and compile the requested information. The Sunshine Ordinance requires departments to respond as soon as possible or within 10 calendar days from receipt of any records requests. Therefore, we will contact you as soon as possible with the responsive documents are ready for you to view and will do so on or before January 14, 2022, as permitted by San Francisco Administrative Code § 67.21(b) and California Government Code § 6253(c).
Important note: It is not necessary to create a NextRequest account to view responsive records. Once they have been released, a link, valid for 30 days, will be provided to view the records. Additionally, unless privacy concerns prevent it, Public Works makes all records requests visible to the public. You may search for requests at https://sanfrancisco.nextrequest.com/.
Sincerely,
DT Public Records
************************************************************************
<em>Questions about your request?</em> Reply to this email or sign in to contact staff at City and County of San Francisco.<br></br><em>Technical support:</em> See our <a href='https://help.nextrequest.com/knowledge/requester-resources'>help page</a>
From: San Francisco Department Of Technology
City and County of San Francisco
************************************************************************
Hi there
A message was sent to you regarding record request #22-67:
Dear Requestor,
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 6253(c), we are invoking an extension of up to 14 days until January 27 because of the need to compile or extract electronic data. We will endeavor to complete our response before that date.
We thank you for your patience.
Sincerely,
DT Public Records
************************************************************************
<em>Questions about your request?</em> Reply to this email or sign in to contact staff at City and County of San Francisco.<br></br><em>Technical support:</em> See our <a href='https://help.nextrequest.com/knowledge/requester-resources'>help page</a>
From: San Francisco Department Of Technology
City and County of San Francisco
************************************************************************
Hi there
Record request #22-67 has been closed and published. The closure reason supplied was:
Dear Requestor,
You have requested:
Meeting notes, prep notes, presentations, slide decks, after-meeting reviews, agendas, transcripts, policy memos (draft or final), created, modified, sent, or received from January 1st 2021 to December 31st 2021 on any of the following topics in the constructive possession of your agency related to "5G Master License Agreement":
1. All communications with lobbyists (Christine Keener, Rudolph Reyes), employees, and subcontractors working on behalf of Verizon.
2. Inventory of CCSF assets that may be part of any 5G Master License Agreement.
3. Any non-disclosure agreement signed by CCSF staff as part of discussions regarding 5G Master License Agreement
4. Maps or drawings shared with Verizon representatives of CCSF Outdoor Public Warning System and Emergency Call Box system
5. Use of CCSF assets including public safety towers, CCSF properties, and CCSF fiber-optic network by Verizon or its subcontractors.
6. Digital City Initiatives
6. Microtrenching within San Francisco
Please know there are no records for a 5G Master License Agreement. There have been 5G meetings which are explained in the “background” below and there are Master License Agreement negotiations in progress for the lease of city poles (MTA, PUC) for telecommunications equipment.
We are providing background below so the record set that is responsive from the Department of Technology makes sense. Specifically, to your request:
1. All communications with lobbyists (Christine Keener, Rudolph Reyes), employees, and subcontractors working on behalf of Verizon.
There have been emails between Christine Keener and Linda Gerull and these are included in the responsive records. Other email regarding meeting notices were sent to many Verizon employees as well as all other carriers and these are included in the responsive records.
2. Inventory of CCSF assets that may be part of any 5G Master License Agreement.
DT is not aware of a 5G Master License Agreement. The Master License Agreement for pole lease is being negotiated. The assets would the poles owned by MTA and PUC. DT does not have responsive records.
3. Any non-disclosure agreement signed by CCSF staff as part of discussions regarding 5G Master License Agreement
DT does not have responsive records.
4. Maps or drawings shared with Verizon representatives of CCSF Outdoor Public Warning System and Emergency Call Box system.
The information shared with Verizon is in the presentations shared with all carriers during the 5G meetings. These records are provided.
5. Use of CCSF assets including public safety towers, CCSF properties, and CCSF fiber-optic network by Verizon or its subcontractors.
The information shared with Verizon is in the presentations shared with all carriers during the 5G meetings. These records are provided.
6. Digital City Initiatives
DT does not have response records.
6. Microtrenching within San Francisco
The information shared with Verizon is in the presentations shared with all carriers during the 5G meetings. Crown Castle provided information on microtrenching. These records are provided.
Background:
Please know that there have been three sets of meetings over the last 3 years regarding 5G. We are sharing the history which will explain the content of the responsive records. In 2019-2020, the City met with all Carriers to develop a standard for the 5G antenna design and shroud. In 2021, the City met with all Carriers to discuss accelerating 5G deployment. The Department of Technology led these meetings. In 2021-present, the Mayor’s Office of Economic and Workforce Development has led meetings with all Carriers to negotiate a new city pole Master License Agreement.
Your public records request refers to meetings in 2021 that Linda Gerull held with lobbyists from Verizon. The meetings Director Gerull conducted were regarding the deployment of 5G in the City and include all Telcom carriers and their partners. The responsive records are for these meetings.
In mid-2019 and 2020, the Telcom providers were having a difficult time getting permits for the 5G antenna deployments. The City required a common design standard that would be unobtrusive and similar in design to the 4G common antenna design. After 6-8 rounds of meetings with engineers and staff from the carriers, a common 5G antenna design was agreed to. It is a hexagonal design that would allow the Telcom providers space to install any type of 5G antenna form factor and would account for the differences in antenna structure between the carriers.
In 2021, Verizon, ATT and TMobile requested meetings again. With the design of the antenna shroud settled, the carriers desired to accelerate the deployment of 5G in the City. The Telcom companies and their partners were concerned about the speed of permitting, the need for additional poles in the city, pole lease costs (more poles are needed for 5G) and new construction ideas to speed deployment. In the same spirit or inclusion and cooperation that resulted in a standard for the 5G antenna shroud, the Department of Technology brought together city departments and the carriers to understand the concerns and work on solutions. The schedule was the following:
There were six meetings with the Carriers, one Internal meeting and Meeting 8 a meeting regarding the Master License Agreement. The Department of Technology’s responsive records for your request are for the meetings regarding the expansion of 5G in the City. All carriers were invited, and the meetings were well attended virtually by approximately 50-70. The City presented ideas and the Carriers also presented ideas and you will find these presentations in the responsive records. D
An undercurrent of DT’s 5G expansion meetings was the FCC Small Cell order. This order which was upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court impacts the City:
1. City Permit and License Fees: The Court upheld the Small Cell Order’s limitations on the permit and license fees local governments may charge a wireless service provider to deploy its small cells, which include one-time application fees for new small cell deployment and recurring annual fees for owning and operating small cells in the public right-of-way or on municipal property in the public right-of-way.
2. Permit and License Aesthetic Requirements: The Court rejected aspects of the Small Cell Order’s preemption of local government regulation over the design and location of small cells in the public right-of-way. In particular, the Court found that the FCC could not require state and local governments to adopt objective standards.
3. Permit and License Shot Clock Requirements: The Court approved the following changes to existing shot clocks provisions adopted by the FCC: (i) expanding the application of shot clock timing requirements from zoning applications to include all permitting decisions; and (ii) adopting new shot clocks for small wireless facilities: sixty days to decide applications for installing small cells on existing infrastructure (including utility poles), and ninety days for installing small wireless facilities on new structures (including new poles in the right-of-way).
By Meeting 7 in early April, the conversation with the Carriers converged on the new Federal law that preempts cities from establishing lease costs for city owned pole infrastructure and limits the lease payment to $270 per pole per year or the lifecycle cost of the pole on an annual basis. The carriers pressed the city to adopt a new Master License Agreement that reflected the new FCC Small Cell Order that significantly reduces the lease cost for city poles. Given the mandated reduction in lease cost, the City proposed that the Carriers partner to support and resource the City’s goals to close the digital divide.
When the carriers declined to support the City’s Digital Divide program, the Department of Technology concluded the 5G expansion meetings and the Mayor’s Office of Economic & Workforce Development began meetings focused on negotiating a new Master License Agreement for the lease of city owned poles (MTA and PUC). These contract negotiations are still in progress.
The Department of Technology has responded to records request for similar subjects to your request with a broader timeframe and these are also available to you in the NextRequest system:
https://sanfrancisco.nextrequest.com/requests/21-1748 Please provide any and all documents regarding meetings with Verizon from January 2018 to April 12th 2021.
https://sanfrancisco.nextrequest.com/requests/21-1901 Please provide all materials that the Department of Technology has regarding meetings with Linda Gerull and representatives of Crown Castle. Include emails, dates of appointments, maps, and schematics related to Crown Castle's installation of fiber within the City and County of San Francisco.
https://sanfrancisco.nextrequest.com/requests/21-1901 Please provide any and all documents regarding meetings with Crown Castle from January 2018 to April 12th 2021.
https://sanfrancisco.nextrequest.com/requests/21-1746 Please provide any and all correspondence and meeting information regarding micro trenching and the Department of Technology CIO Linda Gerull.
This concludes the DT’s response to your records request.
This concludes your public records request.
We thank you for your patience.
Sincerely,
DT Public Records
************************************************************************
<em>Questions about your request?</em> Reply to this email or sign in to contact staff at City and County of San Francisco.<br></br><em>Technical support:</em> See our <a href='https://help.nextrequest.com/knowledge/requester-resources'>help page</a>
Files
pages
