Laserfiche WebLink
attachment 6 <br /> MACKENZIE& ALBRITTON LLP <br /> 155 SANSOME STREET,SUITE 800 <br /> SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA 94104 <br /> TELEPHONE 415/288-4000 <br /> FACSIMILE 415/288-4010 <br /> February 19, 2019 <br /> VIA EMAIL <br /> Planning Commission <br /> City of Pleasanton <br /> 200 Old Bernal Avenue <br /> Pleasanton, California 94566 <br /> Re: Draft Small Wireless Facilities Policy <br /> Commission Agenda Item 6(A), February 20. 2019 <br /> Dear Commissioners: <br /> We write on behalf of Verizon Wireless to provide comment on the draft policy <br /> regulating small cell wireless facilities (the "Draft Policy"). Verizon Wireless is <br /> concerned that numerous Draft Policy requirements contradict a recent Federal <br /> Communications Commission ("FCC") order addressing appropriate approval criteria for <br /> small cells. For example, requiring relocation of proposed facilities up to 750 feet distant <br /> could leave target coverage areas unserved in contradiction of the FCC's order. Certain <br /> proposed standards are unreasonable, such as requirements to underground small <br /> equipment components. Other provisions contradict state law granting telephone <br /> corporations the right to place their equipment in any right-of-way. The Commission <br /> should decline recommendation of the Draft Policy and related ordinance, and direct staff <br /> to work with industry on needed revisions. <br /> To expedite deployment of small cells and new wireless technology, the FCC <br /> adopted its September order to provide guidance on appropriate approval criteria for <br /> small cells. See Accelerating Wireless Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to <br /> Infrastructure Investment, Declaratory Ruling and Third Report and Order, FCC 18-133 <br /> (September 27, 2018) (the"Small Cells Order"). Among other topics, the FCC addressed <br /> appropriate aesthetic criteria for approval of qualifying small cells, concluding that they <br /> must be: "(1)reasonable, (2) no more burdensome than those applied to other types of <br /> infrastructure deployments, and (3) objective and published in advance." Id., ¶ 86. <br /> "Reasonable" standards are "technically feasible"and meant to avoid"out-of-character <br /> deployments." Id,¶ 87. Objective standards must"incorporate clearly-defined and <br /> ascertainable standards, applied in a principled manner." Id., ¶ 88. <br />