01 - Laserfiche WebLink

City of Pleasanton City Council February 20, 2019 Page 3 of 6 services, so long as it does not"incommode" the public use of the public right-of-way. And under Section 7901.1, AT&T's right is subject only to the city's reasonable and equivalent time, place, and manner regulations as to how AT&T constructs in the public rights-of-way. Specific Comments on the Proposed Policy 1. Other Permits and Approvals. Section 2.1(d) requires additional permits and approvals. Under the Infrastructure Order, all associated permits and approvals are subject to the applicable federally-mandated shot clock." Thus, the city must take final action within 60 days on all necessary permits and approvals, inclusive of appeals, with respect to requests to collocate small wireless facilities, and within 90 days for non-collocation small wireless facility requests.'2 2. Site Survey. AT&T objects to Section 2.2(a)(4) of the Proposed Policy, which requires applicants to submit a survey identifying and depicting all existing boundaries, encroachments and other structures within 500 feet from the proposed project site. AT&T respectfully requests that the site survey radius be reduced to or below 200 feet, as small wireless facilities are by definition small and are not out-of-character given existing infrastructure in the right-of-way. 3. Applications Deemed Withdrawn. Section 2.3(b) provides that an application is deemed withdrawn when an applicant does not respond to an incomplete notice within 60 calendar days. The city should eliminate this procedure. This is inconsistent with the mechanics of the FCC shot clocks. And it is not uncommon for a delayed response by an applicant to be the result of the applicant and city staff working together to resolve issues, which should be encouraged. 4. Batched Applications. AT&T objects to Section 2.3(c), which limits batched applications to five small wireless facilities and deems the entire batch incomplete/withdrawn/or denied if any application in the batch is incomplete/withdrawn/or denied. This is inconsistent with the Infrastructure Order and the corresponding rule, which do not authorize batching limitations.'3 5. Location Preferences. The Proposed Policy requires the applicant to demonstrate that a proposed project would be in the most preferred location(Section 2.4(c)(2)) and on the most preferred support structure (Section 2.4(c)(4))that are technically feasible within 750' of the proposed location under Sections 2.6's location requirements. The city can articulate appropriate location preferences, but AT&T has a legal right to place its facilities in the public rights-of-way, and the city is limited to reasonable and nondiscriminatory regulations. Further, state and federal laws preclude the city from requiring this type of analysis for wireless applications when the city does not require it from other infrastructure deployments. Moreover, minimum spacing requirements may result in an unlawful effective prohibition of service because the spacing will undercut the ability to densify wireless networks. As a practical matter, the city should reconsider its preferences and prohibitions against siting wireless facilities near residential areas and along Main Street in Section 2.6. Small cells 11 See id. at¶¶ 132-137, 144. 12 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.6003. 13 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.6003(c)(2)and Infrastructure Order at¶114.