01 - Laserfiche WebLink

City of Pleasanton City Council February 20, 2019 Page 5 of 6 12. Prohibited Support Structures. The city should strike the proposed ban on the installation of enumerated support structures in Section 2.6(f) of the Proposed Policy, which includes, decorative poles, traffic signals and new, non-replacement wood poles. The FCC made clear in its Infrastructure Order that its interpretations apply to all government owned or controlled structures within the right-of-way.'5 Many jurisdictions favor decorative pole designs for small cells, subject to a requirement that new or replacement decorative poles housing small cells are designed to look similar to nearby decorative poles. Further, it makes sense to allow traffic signal installations, for instance, because it permits the wireless provider to cover multiple directions from one location,which a mid-block location may not support. And AT&T has the right to place wood poles. Additional Issues Specific to Proposed Design Standards 1. Overall Height. Section 2.7(b)(1) of the Proposed Policy limits the overall height of small wireless facilities above an existing support structure in the public right-of-way to four feet above the existing support structure. While AT&T appreciates the city's interest in protecting aesthetics,the limit may actually harm aesthetics by preventing AT&T's ability to deploy its most stealthy facilities. 2. Concealment. The city must take care not to require concealment, such as shrouding or other screening,to a greater extent for small cells than for other infrastructure deployments. Discriminatory concealment standards will violate state and federal laws. The city should also add"To the extent technically feasible,"to the beginning of the sections that require concealment, so that the requirement will not effectively prohibit frequencies that cannot propagate through a shroud or radome. 3. Antenna Volume. Section 2.7(b)(2)(B) says "all antennas may not exceed six cubic feet in volume,"which is inconsistent with the Infrastructure Order and 47 C.F.R. § 1.6002(1)(2) (capping individual antenna volume at three cubic feet but not placing a limit on total antenna volume). 4. Ground-Mounted Accessory Equipment. AT&T also objects to Section 2.7(b)(3)(E), which states that the Community Development Director will not approve any ground-mounted accessory equipment. That is inconsistent with AT&T's rights under Section 7901 and with the city's limited authority under Section 7901.1. AT&T will certainly work with the city on design, but the city must avoid blanket prohibitions and dictating AT&T's infrastructure choices. 5. Accessory Equipment Volume. Section 2.7(b)(3)(F) limits the volume of accessory equipment. This section must be revised to allow 28 cubic feet of equipment to be consistent with 47 C.F.R. §1.6002(1)(3). 6. Streetlights. Section 2.7(b)(6) allows the city to require that a new pole be a streetlight. The city cannot force AT&T to install streetlights. AT&T has a state law right to set a new pole is Id.at¶69.