CORRESPONDENCE - 50A - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Santa Ana City Council August 20, 2018 Page 3 of 5 The Draft Ordinance requires submittal of network plans for additional or anticipated facilities for up to five years, but this is not relevant to an individual application for a right-of-way facility which must be considered on its own merits. Draft Ordinance § 33-236(a)(10). Again, there is no related finding. Projections of future network needs would be entirely speculative due to changing voice and data demand, varying use patterns and new technology. They rarely shed light on the actual deployments of a dynamic wireless network. Instead, the City should consider requiring applicants to provide a list of existing facilities and pending applications. Two submittal requirements appear to involve descriptions of wireline backhaul connections irrelevant to individual wireless facility applications. Draft Ordinance §§ 33- 236(a)(15),33 -236(b)(2). Backhaul lines are typically provided by a different company, not the wireless facility permittee, and they are beyond the scope of a single wireless facility permit. Vague references to "deployment outside current site" (a term unique to eligible facilities requests) and "wireline interconnections to other locations" must be stricken. At most, the City can require descriptions of on-site telecommunications interconnect boxes to be installed and owned by the wireless facility permittee, as referenced in Draft Ordinance § 33-236(a)(13)(B)(iii). The FCC limits the information the City can require for eligible facilities requests to that "reasonably related to determining whether the request" qualifies, meaning no substantial change to an existing facility. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.40001(c)(1). The requirements to describe "any deployment outside the public -right-of-way necessary to complete the project" and to provide any prior denied applications are irrelevant to the substantial change criteria for a right-of-way facility. Draft Ordinance §§ 33- 236(b)(1)(F), 33-236(b)(3). These requirements exceed the City's authority under FCC rules and must be stricken. Permit Requirements Must Alien with State and Federal Law. For right-of-way facilities, the City should avoid subjective findings and aesthetic standards such as visual compatibility. Draft Ordinance §§ 33-240(c)(2), 33-245(a). In the recent T -Mobile West LLC ruling, a state appeals court upheld standards of San Francisco's right-of-way code that are entirely based on specific objective aesthetic criteria. Review under objective standards is appropriate for the administrative Director approval granted under the Draft Ordinance, whereas this subjective finding may be used to deny facilities that otherwise meet objective standards. We note that, according to staff, design guidelines referenced in the Draft Ordinance have not been drafted. We encourage the Director to develop guidelines that accommodate small cells that provide needed network capacity with minimal impact, typically involving a single cylindrical antenna up to four feet tall plus associated pole -mounted equipment up to nine cubic feet. For new poles and areas with underground utilities, the Draft Ordinance requires applicants to demonstrate that a facility is necessary to avoid a prohibition of service.