CORRESPONDENCE - 50A - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Santa Ana City Council August 20, 2018 Page 4 of 5 Draft Ordinance §§ 33-236(a)(18), 33-244(a). The referenced provision of the Telecommunications Act protects wireless carriers from unlawful denials but does not require carriers to prove a prohibition of service to obtain local approval. 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(Il). That determination is left to federal courts, not local jurisdictions. 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(v). Section 7901 grants telephone corporations the right to erect new poles in the right-of-way where aesthetically preferable (which slender new poles may be). Under this state law, there is no requirement to demonstrate a prohibition of service to secure approval of a right-of-way facility. This requirement exceeds the City's authority. The Draft Ordinance should be revised allow new poles where applicants demonstrate there are no available options that are aesthetically preferred. Permit terms must be renewed for 10 years, not five years. Draft Ordinance § 33- 241. Government Code Section 65964(b) presumes that wireless permits terms of less than 10 years are unreasonable absent safety or substantial land use reasons. Compliant facilities pose no safety or land use issues. We note that the Draft Ordinance includes a notice radius of 150 feet for Tier 2 facilities and 300 feet for Tier 3, but these tiers will be defined in the Director's guidelines not yet drafted. Draft Ordinance § 33-239(b). The Council staff report suggests that small cells will be subject to the smaller notice area. This is appropriate because small cells pose less impact. We encourage the Director to define small cells (Tier 2) to accommodate typical wireless carrier designs for small facilities. As stated by each of the carriers in prior comments, 300 foot notice is excessive for a right-of-way facility, and we reiterate our recommendation that notice be limited to 150 linear feet along the subject right-of-way. Radius noticing is inappropriate because it captures properties fronting other streets that are not impacted by a proposed right-of-way facility. Standards Should Be Revised to be PracticaL While the Draft Ordinance allows a waiver of height requirements if necessary to comply with Public Utilities Commission General Order 95, we suggest incorporating this state regulation into the provision allowing a.height increase of seven feet above a pole. Draft Ordinance § 33-245(b). This can be accomplished by adding to the first sentence the phrase `plus any additional height required to elevate antennas and associated elements above electrical supply conductors in compliance with General Order 95." Of course, this will apply only to utility poles carrying electricity. Verizon Wireless appreciates the additional seven feet which will accommodate the single four -foot antenna typically deployed above utility poles, plus a required antenna mount or "shroud" underneath the antenna that conceals cables and improves appearance. A benefit of additional height is that well -elevated antennas cover larger areas, and fewer facilities are required to meet service objectives. Conversely, the limit of facilities to 35 feet near residential property may lead to the unintended consequence of more facilities, and this limitation should be stricken.