PC-2026-07 - Laserfiche WebLink

Small Wireless Facilities Policy (City of Pleasanton) page 3 / 47 Federal Law In 1996, Congress adopted the Telecommunications Act5 to balance the national interest in advanced communications services and infrastructure with legitimate local government authority to enforce zoning and other regulations to manage infrastructure deployments on private property and in the public rights-of-way. Under Section 704, which applies to personal wireless service facilities, local governments retain all their traditional zoning authority subject to specifically enumerated limitations.6 Section 253 preempts local regulations that prohibit or effectively prohibit telecommunication services (i.e., common carrier services) except competitively neutral and nondiscriminatory regulations to manage the public rights-of-way and require fair and reasonable compensation.7 Small Wireless Facilities and Changes in Federal Law Communication technologies have significantly changed since 1996. Whereas cell sites were traditionally deployed on tall towers and rooftops over low frequency bands that travel long distances, cell sites are increasingly installed on streetlights and utility infrastructure on new frequency bands that travel shorter distances. According to the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) and the wireless industry, these so-called “small wireless facilities” or “small cells” are essential to the next technological evolution. The industry currently estimates that each national carrier will need to deploy between 30 and 60 small cells, connected by approximately 8 miles of fiber optic cable, per square mile. FCC regulations seek to promote these new technologies by preempting state and local authority the FCC views as an impediment to deployment. On September 27, 2018, the FCC adopted a Declaratory Ruling and Third Report and Order, FCC 18-133 (the “Small Cell Order”), in connection with two informal rulemaking proceedings entitled Accelerating Wireless Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment, WT Docket No. 17-79, and Accelerating Wireline Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment, WC Docket No. 17-84. In general, the Small Cell Order: (1) restricted the fees and other compensation state and local governments may receive from applicants; (2) required all aesthetic regulations to be reasonable, no more burdensome than those applied to other infrastructure deployments, objective and published in advance; (3) mandated that local officials negotiate access agreements, review permit applications and conduct any appeals within significantly shorter timeframes; and (4) created new evidentiary presumptions that make it more difficult for local governments to defend themselves if an action or failure to act is challenged in court. 5 Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56 (1996). 6 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(A); T-Mobile S., LLC v. City of Roswell, 574 U.S. 293, 300 (2015). These limitations include substantive restrictions on municipal authority to prohibit or effectively prohibit services, unreasonably discriminate among functionally equivalent service providers and regulate based on environmental effects from radiofrequency (“RF”) emissions that meet federal exposure standards. 47 U.S.C. §§ 332(c)(7)(B)(i), (iv). Section 704 also imposes procedural requirements that require local officials to act on applications within a reasonable time and issue written decisions supported by substantial evidence. Id. §§ 332(c)(7)(B)(ii)–(iii). 7 47 U.S.C. §§ 253(a), (c). Docusign Envelope ID: 51CE5BDE-55F1-4B3D-8865-17E5814CF0C5