HomeMy WebLinkAbout1. Wireless Regulation PresentationSTAFF REPORT
PLANNING DIVISION
DATE: NOVEMBER 7, 2018
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBMITTED BY: ALDO E. SCHINDLER, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
SUBJECT: PRESENTATION – UPDATE ON WIRELESS COMMUNICATION
REGULATIONS
DISCUSSION
A presentation to the Planning Commission regarding wireless communication regulations.
EXHIBITS
A. PowerPoint Presentation – Wireless Communication Regulations
11/1/2018
1
2017 Best Best & Krieger LLP
Gail A. Karish
November 7, 2018
twitter.com/BBKlaw
1
Wireless Regulation Primer
Planning Commission Meeting
City of Downey
2
Topics
• Basics of Technology & Terminology
• Federal Laws Impacting Local Authority
• State Laws Impacting Local Authority
• Recent FCC Orders
• Future Trends
11/1/2018
2
3
Types of Wireless Facilities
•Macrocell
• a high-powered antenna in a mobile phone network that is designed to serve
a large area from a single site. Macrocells are often associated with
monopoles, or guyed or lattice towers. Towers may be owned by one entity
and shared by many providers
•Small Cell
• low-powered antennas that have a shorter range. Nodes may or may not be
connected by fiber. Small refers to area covered, not size of facility; typically
don’t require tall structures. Small cells today typically serve one provider.
Term includes a number of different devices – e.g. picocells, femtocells and
microcells
•Distributed Antenna System (DAS)
• A network of spatially separated antennas (nodes) connected to a common
source (a hub) via a transport medium (often fiber optics) that provide
wireless service within a specific geographic area or building. DAS systems
can be owned by one entity and shared by a limited number of providers.
Antennas do not need to be as high as traditional macrocells
• Note: small cells and DAS typically installed in buildings, stadiums, etc. and
increasingly in the public rights-of-way.
Macro Site Basic
Components
• Antenna(s)
• Equipment
• Connecting
Cable(s)
• Support
Structure
• Power Source
(Meter/Battery)
• Backhaul (wired
or wireless)
The State Bar of California 85th Annual Meeting,
October 11-14, 2012, Monterey
11/1/2018
3
5
Small Cells & Distributed
Antenna Systems
The State Bar of California 85th Annual
Meeting, October 11-14, 2012, Monterey
NextG DAS Diagram
6
Federal Laws Impacting Local
Authority
•47 U.S.C. § 253 (1996)
• Preempts local regs that prohibit or have effect of prohibiting ability of any entity to provide telecommunications services
• But does not reach nondiscriminatory PROW management or compensation requirements
•47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7) (1996)
• Generally preserves local zoning authority to control placement of personal wireless service facilities, subject to certain substantive and procedural limits
•47 U.S.C. § 1455(a) (2012) (Sec. 6409)
• Applies to all “wireless” applications
• Preempts local discretion over certain collocations and modifications to existing wireless sites; i.e., must approve
11/1/2018
4
7
47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)
o Limitations on local zoning authority:
• Shall not “unreasonably discriminate” among providers of
functionally equivalent services
• Shall not prohibit or effectively prohibit the provision of
personal wireless services
• Must act on request within “reasonable period of time”
• Must make final decision to deny “in writing” and supported
by “substantial evidence” in written record
• May not regulate facilities based on concerns about the
environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the
extent that such facilities comply with the FCC’s regulations
concerning such emissions
8
FCC Wireless Rules and Orders
FCC Shot Clocks & Deemed Grant
(2009, 2014)
• Sec. 332 (c)(7): 90 and 150 day shot clocks apply to local review of collocations and new sites whether macro or small cells/DAS. No federal deemed grant.
• Sec. 6409(a): “eligible facilities requests” 60 day shot clock and deemed granted remedy apply to local review; specific parameters for EFR affecting structures within and outside PROW. Federal deemed grant.
11/1/2018
5
9
FCC Shot Clocks
• Sec. 332(c)(7) shot clocks are “presumptively reasonable period within which to act” i.e., rebuttable.
• Automatic tolling for incompleteness if NOI complies with FCC “shot clocks within the shot clocks”
• Incomplete notice not effective to the extent it asks for information not publicly stated as a requirement prior to the submittal.
• Must send initial written incomplete notice within the first 30 days.
• Must send subsequent notices within 10 days after a response to an incomplete notice.
• Subsequent incomplete notice not effective to extent it asks for information not requested in first notice.
• Parties can always agree in writing to toll any FCC shot clock.
10
Key Cases
•Effective Prohibition:
•T-Mobile v. Anacortes, 572 F.3d 987 (9th Cir. 2009); MetroPCS Inc. v. San Francisco, 400 F.3d 715 (9th Cir. 2005). Applicant must show:
• that a significant gap in its own service exists; and
• it proposed the least intrusive means to close that gap considering alternatives
•Unreasonable Discrimination:
•Am. Tower Corp. v. San Diego, 763 F.3d 1035, 1053 (9th Cir. 2014) “[P]roviders alleging unreasonable discrimination must show that they have been treated differently from other providers whose facilities are similarly situated in terms of the structure, placement or cumulative impact as the facilities in question.”
•RF Emissions and Property Values
•AT&T Wireless Services of California LLC v. City of Carlsbad, 308 F. Supp. 2d 1148, 1159 (S.D. Cal. 2003): Public concerns about property values may be found to serve as a proxy for impermissible concerns about RF emissions.
11/1/2018
6
11
Key Cases
•Decision in Writing:
•T-Mobile South LLC v. Roswell, 135 S.Ct. 808, 818 (2015) The Telecom Act “does not require localities to provide [its] reasons in written denial letters . . . [so long as the locality] states its reasons with sufficient clarity in some other written record issued essentially contemporaneously with the denial.”
•Substantial Evidence:
•Am. Tower Corp. v. San Diego, 763 F.3d 1035, 1053 (9th Cir. 2014) “The substantial evidence inquiry is deferential: [we] may not overturn the [City’s] decision on ‘substantial evidence’ grounds if that decision is authorized by applicable local regulations and [is] supported by a reasonable amount of evidence (i.e., more than a ‘scintilla’ but not necessarily a preponderance).”
12
State Laws Impacting Local
Authority (Zoning)
• Limitations on zoning authority:
•Gov. Code § 65850.6 (2006):
• Discretionary permit to approve base facilities that may later add collocation facilities.
• No discretionary review of facilities collocated on base facility.
• With respect to the consideration of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions, the review by the city or county shall be limited to that authorized by Section 332(c)(7) of Title 47 of the United States Code, or as that section may be hereafter amended
•Gov. Code § 65964 (2006) prohibits:
• Escrow deposit for removal of a facility. (bonds ok)
• Permit of less than 10 years (unless “public safety” or “land use” reasons).
• Requirement that all facilities to be located on sites owned by particular parties.
•Gov. Code 65964.1 (AB 57 adopted in 2015)
• Established “deemed granted” remedy to the 90 and 150 day FCC shot clocks
•SB 649 small cell bill (2017-vetoed by Governor)
The State Bar of California 85th Annual
Meeting, October 11-14, 2012, Monterey
11/1/2018
7
13
State Laws Impacting Local
Authority (PROW)
• No local franchising authority:
• Pub. Util. Code § 7901 state franchise to telephone companies to use PROW, subject to limitations• Includes wireless
• Locals do have siting authority in ROW:
• shall not “incommode the public use”
• Discretionary review considering aesthetics ok (T-Mobile v. San Francisco – pending Cal. Sup. Ct)
• Pub. Util. Code § 7901.1 - reasonable control as to the time, place, and manner in which roads…are accessed
• Pub. Util. Code § 2902 – regulate use and repair of public streets, location of the poles, wires, mains, or conduits of any public utility, on, under, or above any public streets
The State Bar of California 85th Annual
Meeting, October 11-14, 2012, Monterey
14
Recent FCC Orders (2018)
• 2 major orders released in August and
September
• Main focus is on small cells in PROW
• Some aspects of the orders also affect
non-ROW applications
• Both have been appealed in federal
court
The State Bar of California 85th Annual
Meeting, October 11-14, 2012, Monterey
11/1/2018
8
15
FCC’s Moratoria Order
• August 3: In the Matter of Accelerating Wireless Broadband
Deployment By Removing Barriers to Infrastructure
Investment,FCC 18-111, Third Report and Order and
Declaratory Ruling, WT Docket No. 17-79
•Holding: de jure and de facto moratoria on deployment
generally “prohibit or effectively prohibit” provision of telecom
services in violation of federal law, and are not saved from
preemption as a form of PROW management
•de facto moratoria are “…state or local actions that are not
express moratoria, but that effectively halt or suspend the
acceptance, processing, or approval of applications or permits
for telecommunications services or facilities in a manner akin
to an express moratorium.”
• Effective immediately
The State Bar of California 85th Annual
Meeting, October 11-14, 2012, Monterey
16
FCC’s Small Cell Order
• September 26: Accelerating Wireless
Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to
Infrastructure Investment, Declaratory Ruling and
Third Report and Order, FCC WT Docket No. 17-
79
• Effective 90 days after Fed. Reg. publication –
January 13, 2019
• Order has been challenged in federal court by
local governments and by industry
11/1/2018
9
17
FCC’s Small Cell Order
• Adopts rules for small cells:
• New deadlines for actions on small cell applications
• Limits on fees and rents that can be charged for small
cells
• New standards governing when a locality can say “no”
• New standards for permissible
aesthetic/undergrounding/spacing requirements
• Also “clarifies” issues related to all Sec. 332 Shot Clocks
18
FCC Clarification: Sec. 332
Shot Clocks
• Apply to all permits required for deployment, not just zoning permits
• Pre Application Meetings
• “We conclude that if an applicant proffers an application, but a…locality refuses to accept it until a pre-application review has been completed, the shot clock begins to run when the application is proffered…” Para 145
• Locality must accept “batched” applications and time frame is same for one as for many. Para 114, 115
• “…[I]n extraordinary cases, a siting authority …can rebut the presumption of reasonableness of the applicable shot clock period where a batch application causes legitimate overload on the siting authority’s resources.” Para. 115
• Failure to meet shot clocks deemed an “effective prohibition” NOT DEEMED GRANTED REMEDY.
11/1/2018
10
19
FCC Clarification: Collocation
• Two meanings:
• Non-6409 context – there is a structure present, but
not a wireless device.
• 6409 context – there is a structure and the structure
has a permitted wireless device.
20
Major Elements of Small Cell
Order
• Establishes “materially inhibit” as the standard under Section 253 and 332 effective prohibition.
• Creates tests to see if local government action exceeds “materially inhibit” standard:
• Tests for when fees, aesthetics, undergrounding & spacing, “act in a timely manner,” and other requirements materially inhibit service.
• Creates 2 new shorter shot clocks for “small cells” (60 and 90 days) with presumptive “cost caps” for regulatory fees and rent.
• “Enhanced” remedy for failing to meet new shot clocks
• Finds Congress did not include a blanket proprietary exception to Section 253 (a) and therefore rents for government property in ROW must be “fair and reasonable.”
11/1/2018
11
21
FCC Definition of a Small Cell
(1) The facilities—
(i) are mounted on structures 50 feet or less in height including their antennas …, or
(ii) are mounted on structures no more than 10 percent taller than other adjacent structures, or
(iii) do not extend existing structures on which they are located to a height of more than 50 feet or by more than 10 percent, whichever is greater;
(2) Each antenna associated with the deployment, excluding associated antenna equipment … is no more than three cubic feet in volume; (Note: no limit)
(3) All other wireless equipment associated with the structure, including the wireless equipment associated with the antenna and any pre-existing associated equipment on the structure, is no more than 28 cubic feet in volume...
(4)… (5) … and
(6) The facilities do not result in human exposure to radiofrequency radiation in excess of the applicable safety standards specified in section 1.1307(b).
22
Redefinition of Effective
Prohibition
• “[P]rior approaches erred by requiring coverage gaps…”
• “Significant gap” (9
th Cir.) and “least intrusive alternative” (2nd, 3rd and 9th Cir.) appear abandoned –See n.94
• A state or local legal requirement constitutes an effective prohibition if it “materially limits or inhibits the ability of any competitor or potential competitor to compete in a fair and balanced legal and regulatory environment.” (Para. 35 quoting California Payphone.)
• “We clarify that an effective prohibition occurs where a state or local legal requirement materially inhibits a provider’s ability to engage in any of a variety of activities related to its provision of a covered service. This test is met not only when filling a coverage gap but also when densifying a wireless network, introducing new services or otherwise improving service capabilities…also by materially inhibiting the introduction of new services or the improvement of existing services.” (Paragraph 37)
11/1/2018
12
23
According to FCC A Fee Is
Permitted If…
(1) The fees are a reasonable approximation of the state or local government’s costs,
(2) Only objectively reasonable costs are factored into those fees, and
(3) Fees are no higher than the fees charged to similarly-situated competitors in similar situations.
(4) Presumptively reasonable:
Non-recurring fees =
• $500 for first 5/$100 for each additional
• $1,000 for new pole
Recurring fees = $270 per facility including ROW fee and fee for attachment to municipal infrastructure
(5) Specifically rejects claim that localities are exempt from 253(c)’s fair and reasonable standard in setting rates for ROW infrastructure (See paras. 92-97.)
24
Aesthetics
• Aesthetics requirements (including undergrounding) not preempted if:
(1) reasonable,
(2) no more burdensome than those applied to other types of infrastructure deployments, and
(3) objective and published in advance.
• “…aesthetic requirements that are reasonable in that they are technically feasible and reasonably directed to avoiding or remedying the intangible public harm of unsightly or out-of-character deployments are also permissible.”
11/1/2018
13
25
Spacing Requirements
•“…a minimum spacing requirement that has the effect of materially inhibiting wireless service would be considered an effective prohibition of service.” Para 87
• “Some parties complain of municipal requirements regarding the spacing of wireless installations… ostensibly to avoid excessive overhead “clutter” that would be visible from public areas. We acknowledge that while some such requirements may violate 253(a), others may be reasonable aesthetic requirements.” Para. 91
• “For example, under the principle that any such requirements be reasonable and publicly available in advance, it is difficult to envision any circumstances in which a municipality could reasonably promulgate a new minimum spacing requirement that, in effect, prevents a provider from replacing its preexisting facilities or collocating new equipment on a structure already in use.” Para. 91
26
Small Cell Shot Clock Reset
• Siting authority must:
• Notify the applicant on or before the 10th day after
submission that the application is materially incomplete.
• Clearly and specifically identify the missing documents
or information and the specific rule or regulation creating
the obligation to submit such documents or information,
• Shot clock date calculation “shall restart at zero
on the date on which the applicant submits all
the documents and information required…”
11/1/2018
14
27
Future Trends
• More wireless in public rights-of-way
• 5G and millimeter wave spectrum
• Internet of Things
• Smart Cities
28
Questions?
28
Gail A. Karish
Partner
Best Best & Krieger LLP
Los Angeles, CA
213-617-7491
Gail.Karish@bbklaw.com