Laserfiche WebLink
CITY OF PLEASANTON <br /> CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES <br /> March 11, 2019 <br /> Vice Mayor Brown called the special meeting to order at the hour of 6:30 p.m. and led the Pledge of <br /> Allegiance. <br /> ROLL CALL <br /> Present: Councilmembers Narum, Pentin, Testa, Vice Mayor Brown <br /> Absent: Mayor Thorne <br /> PUBLIC COMMENT— None <br /> PUBLIC HEARING <br /> 1. Adopt, or Introduce, an ordinance amending Chapter 18.110 of the Pleasanton Municipal Code <br /> (Personal Wireless Service Facilities)to add a new Section 18.110.010B (Special Provisions for Small <br /> Wireless Facilities); adopt a resolution approving a new council policy (Small Wireless Facilities) for <br /> the purpose of regulating the permitting, design, and location of such facilities citywide; and approve <br /> the use of a pole license agreement <br /> Assistant City Attorney Julie Harryman introduced Tripp May, Outside Counsel with Telecom Law <br /> Firm, and deferred to him for a report. <br /> Tripp May, Attorney, Telecom Law Firm, provided a report and displayed a PowerPoint presentation <br /> addressing the types of small cells, placement, the purpose of small cells, network densification and <br /> Het-Nets, other purposes, the proposed number of nodes, legal framework overview, the FCC's 2018 <br /> Small Cell Order, definition of a small cell and small cell sizes. <br /> In reply to Vice Mayor Brown's inquiry, Mr. May addressed heights and capabilities of small cells and <br /> location of equipment enclosures, antennas, effective prohibitions, FCC and State regulations, New <br /> Shot Clock Rules, Small Cell Order and a Summary of Amendments. He discussed ROW location <br /> preferences, Planning Commission review and recommendations and staff recommended changes. <br /> Councilmember Narum asked if different carriers can be co-located on the same structures and Mr. <br /> May reported they may, depending on the size of the poles. She asked about vandalism to poles and <br /> equipment and Mr. May indicated the City has a 48-hour requirement for cleaning up graffiti and <br /> standard conditions of approval would be attached to a permit, adding further requirements which <br /> make it clear it would be the carrier's responsibility to address. Councilmember Narum referenced <br /> letters from AT&T and Verizon in opposition to limiting the number of batches to five and Mr. May <br /> explained the requirement will help the City keep track of how many applications come in and <br /> addressed the application procedure. In response to Councilmember Narum's question regarding <br /> prohibiting ground-mounted equipment, Mr. May reported the letters state it is illegal for the City to <br /> prohibit ground-mounted equipment but noted that is not the case. He added it is illegal for the City <br /> to prohibit their deployment. <br /> Councilmember Testa asked about health and safety regulations and Mr. May reported one of the <br /> requirements is for potential carriers to provide an independent compliance report showing they will <br /> comply with FCC rules in addition to other requirements. Congress determined that only the FCC can <br /> set the standards for what is and is not safe. Mr. May noted the City can set requirements in terms of <br /> staying away from particular uses, so long as there is an aesthetic basis for doing so. <br />