Transcript Planning for Wireless Telecommunications Facilities

Planning for Wireless
Telecommunications Facilities
Ready or Not, Here they Come!
Jack Butler, Comprehensive Planner, Chatham CountySavannah MPC
Anthony Lepore, Director Regulatory Affairs
Susan Rabold, Project/Planning Manager
Pre-Ordinance Facilities
Prior to 2007, facilities were installed purely to
need and economic necessity.
Design elements were rarely, if ever, considered.
Post-Ordinance Facilities
After 2007, with our “hierarchy of design”
criteria, towers became far less obtrusive.
What We Don’t Want
Sometimes, even the best
designs can fail. As
reviewers, our job is to help
ensure that the impact of
towers is reduced and the
risks are minimized.
CityScape Consultants, Inc.
• Company started in Florida in 1997
• Offices in Florida, North Carolina and Washington DC
• Exclusive government clientele
• Company goals & objectives consistent with the
Telecommunications Act of 1996
• Unbiased information to local governments
• Assists local government with
o
o
o
o
Wireless Master Planning
Site Application Engineering review
Ordinance review
Leasing and Development of Public Land
www.CityScapeGov.com
Legal Background for
Wireless Planning
Considerations
Anthony Lepore, Director Regulatory Affairs
Federal Legislation Section 704
• 47 USC §332(c)(7) (a/k/a Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act
of 1996)
• “Preserves” local zoning authority BUT;
• Requires local government to regulate in a manner that does not:
o“unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent
services; and;
oprohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal
wireless services.”
• Requires you to make written decisions on siting applications that
are based on “substantial evidence” and not on speculation or
because of federally preempted reasons (such as concerns about RF
Radiation.)
What Cannot Be Regulated
•
Requirements for tower
lighting and markings are
exclusively regulated by
the FAA/FCC
• Local government may be
able to require dual lighting
systems and can require
support structures to be
lighted as long as they
comply with FAA codes.
What Cannot Be Regulated
Radio Frequency Emissions are exclusively
regulated by federal standards.
• Ionizing radiation
• Non-ionizing radiation
• World Health Organization and American Cancer
Society Findings
• RF exposure is so low that human and animal health is not
affected
FCC “Shot Clock”
• 2009 Declaratory Ruling by FCC
• Requires local government to make decisions on wireless
applications within a specific time frame
• 90 days for co-location applications
• 150 days for new structures/towers
NOTE: Some states have shorter timelines in state
legislation that may take precedence
“Shot Clock” Challenge
• San Antonio and Arlington TX challenged FCC’s authority to impose
shot clock timelines on local government
• US Supreme Court decided in June 2013 that the FCC had the
authority to impose shot clock timelines on local governments
(applicable where states have not imposed their own timelines).
Section 6409
• Congress included a small paragraph in the Middle Class Tax Relief
and Job Creation Act of 2012:
•
(1) IN GENERAL. Notwithstanding section 704 of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 (Public Law 104–104) or any other
provision of law, a State or local government may not deny, and
shall approve, any eligible facilities request for a modification of
an existing wireless tower or base station that does not
substantially change the physical dimensions of such tower or
base station.
• (2) ELIGIBLE FACILITIES REQUEST. For purposes of this
subsection, the term ‘‘eligible facilities request’’ means any
request for modification of an existing wireless tower or base station
that involves —
(A) collocation of new transmission equipment;
(B) removal of transmission equipment; or
(C) replacement of transmission equipment.
Section 6409
• (3) APPLICABILITY OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS. Nothing in
paragraph (1) shall be construed to relieve the Commission from the
requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act or the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
• Congress said it only applied to co-location, removal or replacement
of existing facilities that did not “substantially change” the physical
dimensions of existing structure;
• Congress did not define “substantially change.”
FCC “Guidance”
• FCC’s Wireless Telecommunications Bureau issued “informal
guidance” on Section 6409 on January 25, 2013
• Adopts a prior FCC definition of “substantial change” as what it
thinks Congress intended to define
• Acknowledges that local government can still require applications,
but must approve requests that meet criteria of Section 6409
FCC “Guidance” Substantial Change
Defines “Substantial Change” as:
1)
Addition of antenna on a tower that
would increase its height by more than
10% or 20 vertical feet; or
2)
Addition of antenna that required
installation of more than standard
number of equipment cabinets (not to
exceed 4), or more than 1 new equipment
shelter; or
3)
Addition of antenna that would increase
the girth (width) of the tower by more
than 20 feet; or
4)
Addition of the antenna would involve
excavating around the tower site beyond
the existing boundaries of the property
associated with the facility.
FCC “Guidance” Shot Clock
• Reaffirms time limit to act on application invoking Section 6409 to
be 90 days, consistent with “Shot Clock” Declaratory Ruling for
collocation applications.
Existing Georgia Law
GA §36-66B provides for “streamlined” processing of collocation
applications that meet defined standards:
(1) The proposed collocation shall not increase the overall height or width
of the wireless support structure to which the wireless facilities are to be
attached;
(2) The proposed collocation shall not increase the dimensions of the
equipment compound approved by the local governing authority;
(3) The proposed collocation shall comply with applicable conditions of
approval, if any, applied to the initial wireless facilities and wireless
support structure, as well as any subsequently adopted amendments to
such conditions of approval; and
(4) The proposed collocation shall not exceed the applicable weight limits
for the wireless support structure, as demonstrated by a letter from a
structural engineer licensed to practice in this state.
Existing Georgia Law
• Applications eligible under this section that are
submitted must be reviewed within 30 days and local
government must notify applicant if incomplete.
• Applications eligible under this section must be
adjudicated within 90 days after complete and a written
decision rendered to applicant.
• You cannot require applicant to provide RF analyses or
other documents to demonstrate proposed service
characteristics.
• You can require applicant to certify proposal will not
interfere with public safety communications.
Proposed BILD Act
• Introduced into 2013 Legislative Session, but did not
advance to a vote, will be re-introduced in 2014 session
of Legislature.
• Proposed amendments to Section 36-66B:
• Changes to definition of facilities eligible for streamlined
processing under 36-66B to “modifications” of existing
facilities and new collocations.
• Restricts local governments to requesting only the
information and fees provided for in its existing
regulations, rules and forms.
Proposed BILD Act
• Prohibits local government, in connection with applications for new
facilities, from:
• Placing conditions on approval of application inconsistent with state
law;
• Evaluating applications based solely on the availability of alternate
sites;
• Require the removal of existing facilities as a condition of approval
of new facility;
• Impose restrictions regarding airspace that are in excess of FAA
regulations;
• Impose bond or surety requirements for potential future
abandonment of structures, unless similar requirements exist for
other types of development.
Proposed BILD Act
• Prohibits local government from requiring applicant for a new
facility to collocate on existing structure as an alternative;
• Requires a decision to be rendered within 150 days of a
complete application, or deemed approved.
• Restricts local government from charging applicant any fee
that is “greater than the reasonably approximate cost
incurred…”or in excess of fees for similar activities involving
other land uses.
• Restricts local government from recovering consultant fees
that are “in excess of reasonably approximate costs
incurred…” or that are based on a “contingency or similar
fee.”
September 2013 FCC Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking
• FCC released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on September 26,
2013 – captioned as “Removing Barriers to Wireless Infrastructure.”
• Proposes virtually no regulation of DAS and microcell facilities by
federal and local government;
• Proposes streamlining permitting approvals for temporary towers;
• Proposes adopting the “informal guidance” definitions as law for
defining collocations that are not a “substantial change”
• Proposes various scenarios for what happens if local government
fails to act within “shot clock” timeline, including a “deemed
permitted” conclusion.
**LOCAL GOVERNMENTS SHOULD REVIEW AND FILE
COMMENTS.
Updating and Integrating
Ordinance with Master Plan
Because of complexity and fluidity of federal regulation, updating your
existing regulations in conjunction with Master Plan ensures
• You are best prepared for wireless siting applications going forward
• You have defensible positions if challenged by an applicant over a
siting decision
What is a Wireless Master Plan
The pro-active approach to manage your communities long range goals
and objectives for wireless telecommunications. CityScape will develop
this Master Plan detailing all current infrastructure while developing a
realistic future evolution blueprint that will allow communities to control
the growth while maintaining the aesthetics of the community.
It will:
• Reduce future wireless siting controversies
• Address public concerns over towers on every corner
• Simplify the wireless providers network deployment enabling
technology of wireless services to citizens in your community in an
expedient and efficient manner
• Ensure compliance with State and Federal legislation required of
local government
• Create a new method for new community revenues
How to do a Wireless Master Plan
• Thorough preliminary research of existing antenna
locations for assessments
• Background research with a community kick off meeting
• Inventory catalog and propagation mapping of all sites
• Public hearings/workshop(s)
• Ordinance review and amendment recommendations
• Final Wireless Master Plan
**Each Master Plan is done in stages and customized for each
community
Included in a Wireless Master Plan
Engineering Working with Variables
• Antenna Location
• Topography & Climate
• Population Trends
• Transportation Networks
• Location of Subscriber Base
• Land Use Policies
• Future Network Requirements
Tower Location & Population Analysis
Propagation High
Frequency MHz
No Coverage
Outside Coverage
In-building Coverage
(all variables)
Town-owned
Properties
• 18 Town-owned lands identified as
potential fill-in sites
• Criteria for study: Location relative
to projected gaps in coverage
• Size of property
Summary and
10-Year Projections
Existing Antenna Locations
• 8 within the Town
• 14 within 1-mile of Town
10-Year Projection
• 18 Potential Town-owned land
locations
• 14 Potential Utility Easement
options
• 8 Other projected locations
Manage the aesthetics of your
Community
Light
Stanchion
Bell Tower *
*StealthConcealment.com
Clock Tower
Flag Pole
Manage the aesthetics of your
Community
Antenna
Attachments
in Utility
Easement/R-O-W
Concealed Attached
Antenna
Faux Tree
Many more options to fit your needs
Inventory
Questions?