30 min readSep 17, 2016

Part 3 | Tips on Crafting Ordinances, Public Outreach, & Design

>> Link Back to Main Article: 10 Key Issues for California Cities & Counties on the Challenges of Small Cells & “Not So Small Cells”

This page discusses two example City ordinances; Citywide Policy Issues to Consider; issues to consider as you write your ordinance (permitting rules), public notification/outreach recommendations, design recommendations based on pole type; and tips on lease agreements.

EXAMPLE ORDINANCES TO CONSIDER

Example Wireless Public Right-of-Way Ordinance #2 | Rancho Palos Verdes| Key Highlights

Exempts some facilities from public notification/hearings based on size and location. In other words, it encourages small sites, and on collector/arterial streets, instead of in front of homes on residential streets. Please note that the City of RPV is an example of a City with predominantly single-family homes with few tall structures or dense neighborhoods. Many homes feature sweeping views of the Pacific Ocean.
Places a ten year time limit on permits.
Requires coverage maps, discussion of alternate sites up-front, and proof of a coverage/capacity gap.
Link to Ordinance and Application Forms

Example Wireless Public Right-of-Way Ordinance #1 | San Francisco | 16 Key Highlights

Does not require an automatic public hearing.
Does not require Planning Commission review (right-of-way sites only).
Does require notification to property owners and residential tenants (not commercial tenants) within 150 feet, and neighborhood groups registered with the Planning Department.
Once notification is mailed and posted on the pole, folks have 20 days to protest the tentative approval. If no protest is filed, then the permit is issued by Public Works.
Permits are submitted through Public Works, but referred to: a) Parks Department (if near a City park/plaza); b) Public Health Department (review of the RF report and compliance with City’s noise limits for things like cooling fans, if present); c) and Planning Department (Design, Historic Preservation, Environmental Review under CEQA).
Carrier must plant (or pay in-lieu fee) a street tree for each wireless facility, if requested as a condition of approval by Planning (this was T-Mobile’s suggestion circa 2007).
Places a ten-year time limit on permits for wireless facilities.
Includes specific noise limits near residential buildings.
Does not require coverage maps or proof of a significant gap that the site is intended to fill (however, this is required for certain large/macro rooftop sites in residential and mixed-use areas as part of the Conditional Use Permit).
Does not require a Conditional Use Permit. Review is discretionary in that it is based on the specific design and whether it will “significantly detract” from the specific streetscape at a given location (context-based test taking into account street width, significant views in City General Plan, nature of historic structures nearby).
Does require historic preservation review, but does not automatically prohibit wireless facilities in/near historic buildings/districts. Context-based test.
Explicitly requires a separate permit for any surface-mounted facilities (equipment boxes on the sidewalk/dirt). This is highly discouraged, given the very narrow public rights-of-way (narrow sidewalks with few parkways or greenbelts to place boxes).
Creates a dual protest opportunity. Residents may request a free hearing before a hearing officer assigned by Public Works Director, if requested within 20 days of tentative approval. In addition, if a final permit is issued, residents have 15 days from issuance, to file an appeal (approximately $300 filing fee) before the Board of Appeals (public hearing).
Does not include conditions of approval that would automatically apply if a facility was approved before the City made a decision on the application; if the (State) Shot Clock passed without a decision. Your ordinance probably should include automatic conditions of approval
Link to Implementation Order, Application Forms, and Ordinance (Article 25 of Public Works Code).
Sample Master Lease Agreements (for attachments to City-owned steel/concrete light/transit poles).
FAQ sheets for residents(link). One version focused on wooden utility poles. Second version focused on steel poles which are mostly City-owned.

CITYWIDE POLICY ISSUES TO CONSIDER:

Do you want to work with the electric utility to get wireless smart metering allowed (as PG&E is beginning to allow); using a meter that is basically a hockey puck sized antenna. This results in a much better design by avoiding the use of a bulky box with a glass bubble on the sidewalk or pole (which attracts graffiti given the low mounting height)? See Example “Bravo” below.
Do you want the carrier and the utility to have the carrier buy specific steel/concrete poles from the electric utility (if they own those poles) and then transfer the pole to the City, before Small Cells are added? This helps with ensuring the City has control over good design initially and in the future (see “6409” rules). Plus, it becomes easier to avoid adding a new electric meter and disconnect switch box, which can add more cluttered boxes to the pole or sidewalk.
Do you want to work with either the utility, or City agency that owns the poles to require that if the existing wooden utility pole only has street lighting (no other electric/cable tv/telco poles) on it now (no other wires); and a carrier proposes Small Cells; they have to replace the pole with a integrated or partially integrated (some boxes on the outside but cabling inside) steel pole? See Example Photo “Charlie” below. Thus far, it does not appear PG&E is willing to allow such replacements if the pole has overhead power lines (instead of underground power lines serving the existing pole).
As you negotiate Master Lease Agreements, with carriers, for Small Cells on City-owned poles (if you own them or plan to acquire them), do you want to identify cost recovery arrangements (up front so you don’t have to go back to City Council for each issue) if the carrier proposes to add a Small Cell to concrete light poles that needs to be replaced (some cities have complex rules on accepting assets from a private company that need to be worked out early). Most existing concrete light poles have no entry holes for the cables from the radio head computer boxes (e.g. mRRUs) and the inside of the existing concrete poles is often too narrow for fiber and power cables to serve the Small Cell. So a replacement may be needed. See example photo “Bravo” below.
Front Yard or Rear Yard Small Cells. If you have residential neighborhoods with wooden utility poles in alleys between nearly adjoining residential lots and concrete light poles along front yards; would you rather the carrier replace the concrete pole (for example) in the front yard (and add a Small Cell), or attach more exposed equipment and antennas to the wood pole in the alley? Talk to stakeholders.
Bus Shelter Contracts. Ensure that as contracts are renewed, the bus shelter/billboard operators (e.g. JC Decaux, Clear Channel, TITAN) does not add language to renewal contracts to allow wireless facilities, without an opportunity for further review (design and revenue). On the other hand, provisions in contracts banning “all other uses” may be more limiting than needed. Context: Clear Channel has an agreement with Vertical Bridge which is tied to Extenet Systems (a neutral host carrier that places antennas in the public right-of-way). It is possible they may choose to leverage that relationship to place antennas/equipment on bus shelters and billboards. However, the low height of these shelters limits the antennas reach (“propogation”) and may only be proposed in dense urban areas where other light poles are not available.
Consider reaching out to any regional agencies (e.g. light rail networks) that may own steel or concrete poles in your area. This may offer better placement closer to a lot of mobile device users (on the train, for example) and avoid placements on poles next to residences; or pressure by the carrier to add entirely new poles just for wireless.
Figure out if any existing contracts a City/County may have in place could complicate Small Cell siting on municipal poles/structures, and if those need to be highlighted early on for carriers and peer staff.
Do you want mailed/posted notification to neighbors, before a site is approved? If you do conduct notification consider including the photo simulations and plans, or a link to them online. I also recommend you create an FAQ sheet (two examples here) on your website and include a link on the notification form or permit.
Public Hearings | Do you want facilities in the public right-of-way to be reviewed administratively (Planning/Public Works Staff), or at a public hearing by the Planning Commission (i.e. Conditional Use Permits)? Also, do you want the initial concept design to be reviewed by Historic Preservation Commission (if applicable) or Design Review Boards. Consider asking for a blanket approval for a specific and appropriate design, if proposed en masse to avoid going back on multiple iterations.
— →Or do you only want to require public notification/hearings for certain sites such as only those on local two-lane residential streets (or within ~100 feet of a residential dwelling)?
— →Or do you want all sites to be reviewed, without a required public hearing/notice, by the Director of Public Works (with, or without peer design/historic/noise/environmental review by Planning Department and Parks Department staff)?
Are there right-of-way locations (poles or equipment on the ground) where special districts or unique properties (Air/Sea Port lands, tribal lands, regional transit agencies, and areas under Coastal Commission/Redevelopment Agency/National Park Service/Fish & Game/Army Corps of Engineer purview) may have an interest?
Will civic design review board purview extend to wireless on exiting utility/light poles and new poles/structures.
Do you want to adapt your existing ordinance that currently covers wireless on private property, to also cover the public right-of-way as well? Or, would you prefer to adapt existing right-of-way specific wireless ordinances similar to those from other California cities/counties?
Do you want to take steps early on to avoid, to the extent feasible, carriers building a less-intrusive (“less ugly”) site and then coming back a year later and demanding the right (under a Federal rule known as “6409”) to make the site uglier, noisier, or bulkier? If a Small Cell is proposed on an existing investor-owned utility steel or concrete pole, do you want to require the pole to be transferred to City ownership? While this may be one more “challenge” (insurance/asset management) it can offer three big advantages. a) easier to fuse the system into existing circuit and avoid the need for ugly electric meters or disconnect boxes; b) retain more control over the initial design; and c) retain control over future changes so that a carrier can’t use “6409” to make the site 10 feet taller, put ugly panel antennas or large and noisy cabinets on the site later on.
New Master Planned Communities and Small Cells. Consider requiring new subdivisions to include a wireless plan or narrative on where wireless facilities are contemplated (City of Irvine does something like this). Encourage developer to reach out to carriers in advance and build sites before residents move in. For example, can neighborhood entrance gateway structures have slightly taller columns that hide cell antennas inside? Can the developer work with integrated pole makers (e.g. STEALTH, Sabre Industries, Ericsson) to mostly hide antennas inside decorative street lights and new traffic signals?
If the developer sets up a new homeowner’s association or community management association, determine if the HOA or management association will have any discretion over fees, permitting, design.
Do you want wireless-ready street lighting and traffic signal poles as you upgrade existing streetscapes or develop new neighborhoods?
New City Light Pole Catalog. When new neighborhoods are planned or major streetscapes are proposed, consider using light standards that can accommodate a radome style antenna (baseball bat size) above the pole. While many folks like the old-time style gas lamps, with bulbs at the top of the light standard; they are not dark-sky compliant (link) and are not designed to easily accommodate cell antenna attachments. Though, there are companies like Sabre industries that make partially integrated models with a quasi-vintage design. See Section 2 for example photos.
If you have banners on your poles, make sure to check your contracts with banner installers. You may have to tell them to obtain RF safety training and/or inform them of the need to call the carrier’s network operations center (“NOC”) in advance to request a shut down of the banner. Some antennas may have such a low effective radiated power that no power shutdown is required. Check with the RF engineer and carrier.
If your City/County has unique jurisdiction overlap areas (e.g. spheres of influence, specific plan areas subject to grandfathered rules) make absolutely sure you coordinate who has review authority over wireless in the right of way with the other jurisdiction. Avoid instances where the carrier takes advantage of confusion to build sites without permits. Consider asking the other jurisdiction to note review by your jurisdiction on the forms page of their respective Public Works or Planning websites.
Do you want to talk to Public Works Director about potentially allowing “micro trenching” (various California cities, Chicago and NYC allow this) to avoid large scale excavations for underground fiber-optic backhaul or bringing underground power to poles that do not have power running to them already (e.g. some poles that hold up DC-powered wires only for buses and light rail)?
Do you want permit fees to be based on time and materials; especially for large systems or those that require special environmental clearances. Bear in mind that two FCC Commissioners have noted very isolated examples of high permit fees as reason to propose capping rates (at rates considered absurdly low of under $50 for a permit, it appears) for permits by all cities/counties. It appears Sprint/Mobilitie is also noting isolated examples in order to push for rate (leasing and permit fee) limits. No specific proposals have been promulgated at the Federal level as of September 2016. However, wireless carriers have pushed unrealistically low permit fee caps at various Statehouses.

Example Bravo: This appears to be a wooden light pole owned by Pacific Gas and Electric in Point Arena / Mendocino, with no overhead electric lines. If a Small Cell is proposed on this pole, I strongly recommend requiring the pole to be replaced with a standard tapered steel light pole. Especially since the electric cables already come to the pole from underground. This can allow for a cleaner design (no outside cabling, no large brackets hanging off the wood pole). Please note that while there is cabling currently inside the wooden pole, it is highly unlikely there would be enough room for additional cabling (electric and fiber-optic) for a Small Cell. There are integrated poles that house the computers inside the pole, but be mindful that on some narrow sidewalks, the pole width may be out of place and may also block wheelchairs.

The pole in the background on the left lies between two residential backyards (no alley between). That would probably not be a good place to install a Small Cell; especially one with noisy cooling fans. Consider noting this in your ordinance. The decorative light on the far right can’t easily be adapted to hold Small Cell antennas; though there are some taller replacements that can mimic the design intent. If an antenna is added to the wood pole on the right there are two options. Placing the antenna above electrical lines requires 8 feet of vertical clearance. This may be too tall on a neighborhood basis. However, placing the antenna on a sidearm midway up the pole (in the communications or “comm” zone next to the lower set of telephone/fiber wires may be more visible from an immediate neighbor perspective. Given the lack of bedroom windows next to the pole a side-arm attachment may be better. Or better yet, replacing the concrete light pole with one with wireless antennas hidden inside.

Example Charlie Preliminary Schematic for Wireless Smart Metering on a Small Cell on an existing steel light pole. The Smart Meter is an antenna instead of a metal box with a glass bubble style electric meter placed on the sidewalk or the pole. This allows for a much better and lighter design. Pacific Gas & Electric has been moving in the direction of allowing this type of system instead of using older electric meters.

ISSUES TO CONSIDER AS YOU WRITE YOUR ORDINANCE (actual permitting rules) AND APPLICATION FORMS

Map out potential review bodies. Create a list of all the review bodies in your City/County (e.g. design review, historic preservation commission, neighborhood councils, overlap areas in County-run spheres of influence, California Coastal Commission, joint powers agencies, ports/airports, citizens advisory bodies, successors to redevelopment agencies, Native American Tribes, Department of Fish & Game, U.S. Army Corp of Engineers) that may apply given the type of Small Cell (e.g. utility-owned wooden pole, City owned new/replacement/existing pole, bus shelter). Turn this into an appendix checklist on the application form.
Determine what exhibits you want for each application, such as: project plans, photo simulations, acknowledgment of the need for Section 106 tribal/historic preservation review, archeological/geological review for excavations of more than __ feet, historic preservation review, State/Federal environmental clearance (hint: wetlands), landscaping plans, local airport or FAA clearance (hint: aircraft lighting for sites near airports or poles over 50 feet near certain agricultural areas due to crop dusting), noise studies, radio-frequency (RF) emissions reports, engineer stamped surveys proving a site is in the public right-of-way, copy of the carriers certificate of public convenience and necessity from the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC); proof of permission from the pole-owner; copy of structural/pole-loading calculations provided to the pole owner.
Do you want public hearings for every new site or major modification? I do not recommend automatic public hearings, especially for well-designed Small Cells, that are truly small, and not located within 30 feet of a residential building wall (in suburban/exurban communities encourage wireless facilities on arterial and collector streets, and discourage local streets). Consider requiring public hearings for Small Cells that are a) either within 30 feet of specific types of properties (schools, playgrounds, residential dwellings not including sheds/barns/garages); b) feature new poles (not including replacements of existing poles with no more than a 10 foot height difference); or c) new ground-mounted equipment (other than an electric meter or disconnect switch).
If you require public hearings, consider removing additional requirements to announce hearings in the classifieds section of the newspaper, if applicable. This requirement doesn’t serve much of a public purpose and creates additional timing challenges when it comes to State/Federal Shot Clocks. If the goal is to ensure neighbors are notified, focus on notification that is understandable (e.g. including photo simulations in the packet, or a link to a website), broad-based (include relevant community groups) and accessible (foreign languages).
Do you want mailed notification to property owners only, or to also include neighborhood groups registered with the City and tenants? I do not recommend you require notification of business/commercial tenants since it is more challenge to accurately find all commercial suites. Also, do you want notification to be posted on the pole, with photo simulations? Do you want to exempt sites in commercial/downtown/industrial areas from public notification or public hearings, but still require staff design and historic preservation review?
Do you want notification mailings to be handled by the carrier or by City staff? If handled by the carrier, require that the envelopes include the phrase “notification of a nearby cell antenna proposal” (or similar) in English, Spanish, and Chinese in grey text on the front of the envelope (so neighbors are less likely to throw it away assuming it is junk mail if the return address is a carrier’s office address). Should the notification include a photo simulation (recommended)?
Alternate Site Analysis: Do you want carriers to demonstrate efforts, as part of their submittal, to site on collector or arterial streets before proposing locations on local streets (and/or within X feet of a residential dwelling with habitable space; not including garages)? Or do you only want to require this effort for sites with larger equipment cabinets on the pole, or on the ground next to the pole?
Consider prohibiting Small Cells on existing wooden poles that run between directly adjoining residential backyards (these poles are typically treated as an easement, and not part of the public right of way if there is no intervening alley). Or, at a bare minimum require that they use passive cooling (no noise) and use cabinets no wider than 12 inches and no deeper than 10 inches. It may be harder to prohibit if there are poles in a vehicular alley between the homes. Bear in mind, the carrier may try to modify the site in the future and claim 6409 rights (if the pole is not owned by the City). However, if they are proposing to modify a site to add a large and noisy cabinet next to a residence, you can request a stay on the 60 day shot clock (act fast) and a waiver from the FCC. Talk to your City/County counsel early on if you see a potential problem. If you indicate a problem early on the carrier may back off and come back with something more reasonable (and wouldn’t be embarrassed to live near to).
Consider requiring review by your Parks Department if the site is adjacent to a City street or important plaza. However, do not just ban sites in front of parks though. For example, it may be better to put the small cell along the park edge that has a lot of dense brush and lacks a nearby park entrance or nice vista; instead of on a pole across the street, and in front of a bedroom window. Context matters.
Prohibit new overhead wires in undergrounded areas.
Do you want to prohibit new wood poles for wireless (recommended), unless an appropriate replacement of a nearby wood utility pole? If so, do you want to note that new fully/partially integrated steel/concrete poles, that also provides street lighting in areas of currently deficient lighting is encouraged; if affirmed as appropriate by _______ (groups/department)?
Do you want to require a separate permit for removal, and for sites to be removed within 6 months or a year of being inactive/abandoned?
Do you want to indicate that a permit expires if the facility is not built in 18 months?
Create a separate permit type for Personal Wireless Services Facilities (addition/modification of antennas, equipment cabinets, poles/structures) specifically in the public right-of-way (as a different permit type than for wireless on private property). Otherwise, trying to track wireless facilities by looking up varying project descriptions under encroachment permits can become a headache. Consider creating a sub-category for modifications to existing Personal Wireless Services Facilities (addition of a 2nd carrier, additional ground-mounted equipment). Also put in place a ten year time limit tracker (from permit issuance).
If you track permits by street address, bear in mind that some poles near a street corner may have a nearest street address for the intersecting street instead. Consider creating a dummy address or adding a clear and consistent note (“on _______ street frontage”) on the plans, photo simulations, and permitting system. Train your front counter staff on this. Avoid instances where residents aren’t sure if two poles are proposed near the same intersection; or your field inspection staff assumes the pole was not yet built because they did not know to look around the corner.
Do you want to indicate a height limit for wireless facilities, especially for residential zones? Bear in mind, there are some tradeoffs with height limits. The carrier may seek more sites, or may move the antenna from a location at the top of the pole (“Pole-Top”) to a side-arm mount midway up the pole. This may not be an issue, unless you have buildings, especially residential windows only a few feet from the pole; where the side-arm design may impair views from adjacent residences. It’s a balancing act but consider your street context early on and discuss these preferences with carriers, or as a policy statement on your website. Bear in mind that if the City does not own the pole and the pole features unscreened antennas/equipment, the carrier can increase the pole height by 10 feet using the Federal rule referred to as “6409” after initial approval (even if the height limit increase violates City/County, or coastal commission imposed height limits).
Do you want to mandate that new poles may not be installed, if it is determined the pole would also require (blinking) aircraft lighting based on FAA/Airport Land Use Plan requirements?
Do you want a more narrow notification boundary (e.g. 150 feet) for small Small Cells, and a larger boundary (e.g. 300 feet) for facilities over 50 feet tall and/or with surface-mounted equipment (other than the meter/disconnect) on the ground/sidewalk.
Consider writing the ordinance to give the carrier an ability to challenge a denial by staff to a public hearing body (with or without neighborhood notification, depending on your City/County). Don’t require them to get neighbors signatures in order to qualify for an appeal (that would be kind of funny to imagine though).
Does your city have a “sudden death type rule: that says if your application is denied the applicant can’t come back to the hearing body with the same site for a year, for example? If so, determine if this rule also applies to wireless applications (and any related applications that may apply such as historic preservation commission or design review board) and make it clear in the ordinance.
Come up with a noise limit, or reference your existing noise ordinance (if sufficient). For example, facilities cannot generate more than 45 decibels at 3 feet from any residential (including retirement/convalescent homes) building wall; from any public library; and any child care or elementary school classroom or playground. Determine if you want a noise study for every site (not recommended), or just require noise studies for certain facilities (e.g. those that do not indicate no noise generation on the cover sheet of plans, and are located within 15 feet of a residence, school, place of worship and playgrounds). Indicate in your ordinance that the carrier has 10 business days to remedy any noise violations, from when notification is mailed, or must shut down the noise producing elements.
Update your Utilities Condition Permit. Require those wireless carriers that add antennas/boxes to existing utility owned wooden poles, to affirm, in writing, every few years that they will remove their facility, at no cost to City/County, if the City/County actually begins under grounding overhead electrical and telephone poles/wires in a given neighborhood. If you don’t have any wooden poles, this doesn’t apply.
Determine if your application/ordinance should inform carriers that the Public Works Department will only accept a certain maximum number of applications per week, per carrier. Word this carefully so the carrier doesn’t try to game the system by having multiple subcontractors submit permits in their name instead.
Prohibit Tree Topping. Talk to your City’s Arborist about the potential for some carriers to top trees (harming them and making them ugly) when installing new poles or running aerial fiber cables along existing wooden poles (“backhaul”). If you decide to also require the carrier to provide a tree, work with them on managing the review process and neighborhood engagement. Avoid a situation where the wording of notification makes the neighbor think they can defeat the wireless facility permit by refusing to host a street tree in front of their home.
If you have freight rail lines in your community, determine if new wireless facilities on poles (especially those for commercial wireless) along those rail lines will require City/County review. It is likely some railroads will install new poles and antennas for positive train control soon (to stop runaway trains remotely using radio systems). Though this may end up being accomplished by satellite instead. FCC Link.
Cable strand modems (CSMs). Cable companies often install small Wi-Fi modems as antennas mounted on the black wires between wooden utility poles. They are typically low power antennas. Some wireless carriers have inquired about using CSMs to serve “cellular” customers as well. Many cities/counties do not require permits for attaching CSMs on wires between existing poles. Orange County requires a Conditional Use Permit if a new pole is installed to hold up the CSMs. Consider exempting these systems from review/permitting as long as they: a) do not generate noise b) do not require entirely new poles or additional equipment on the nearby pole (e.g. shutdown switches/battery backup/radio heads); c) do not feature indicator lights or other illumination; d) do not feature conspicuous logos/decals; and e) are not more than two cubic feet in size (for example).
Surveys May Be Needed Remind the carrier to check on land use jurisdiction. It’s all too common for inexperienced carriers to turn in applications to the wrong agency (e.g. Port lands or other special districts). Some poles may look like they are in the right-of-way but actually be on land owned by the Parks agency or community college district.
For Investor-Owned Utility Poles and Brand New Carrier-Installed Poles. Ensure the carrier provides their certificate of convenience and public necessity (that covers their subsidiaries as well, or equivalent proof) from the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). You can waive this for attachments to City-owned poles. General Order 95 (GO 95) is the core reference to the CPUC-promulgated rules on attachments (including wireless antennas) to utility poles.
The GO 95 rules do not appear to apply to City owned light poles, as long as they do not feature telephone/electric distribution wires for other utility agencies. I mention this because some carriers may assume those rules apply and create a more obtrusive design than needed.
Trees. Consider requiring, in your ordinance, a free street tree to be provided by the carrier unless the facility is largely stealthed/screened or in an industrial area where trees may not be appropriate. Do not expect the carrier to maintain the tree. Getting them to build sites correctly is enough of a challenge.
Window distance to facility metric. If you own the pole you should articulate a metric for when you will deny a site based on private view obstruction. For instance, only if three tests are met: the nearby window is for a residence (not office or hotel), the equipment and or antenna is somewhat bulky, and is less than nine (9) feet from the direct view of a residence. If you do not own the existing pole this is harder to contend with due to State law. So, focus on whether the overall design is contextually appropriate given the view from within the public right-of-way (standing on sidewalk). If you believe the carrier should look at a nearby pole (typically within 300 feet) then say so, within the first 30 days.
Project Management for Assistant/Associate Planners/Public Works Engineers. Keep in mind the concept of critical path management. Ensure you highlight for the benefit of both the carrier and peer staff important issues that may cause delays if not fulfilled in a timely manner; even if the rest of the project is progressing. If facilities are proposed on City owned poles, make sure a mockup is requested, and the design includes conduit entry holes, and grounding rod locations. Ensure these issues are all approved by both administrative, and field engineering staff with the pole owning agency. Lastly, remind the carrier and pole owning agency of any pending streetscape improvement plans, that may affect existing poles. Simply put, make sure the folks who install and maintain the poles and those who work on new streetscape plans are all aware of the project. Have the carrier also affirm that no ground-mounted equipment or additional equipment (e.g. GPS antennas, overhead lines) is proposed but absent from plans and photo simulation.
Some older wireless ordinances tried to discourage single carrier monopoles (tall steel towers with antennas for only one wireless carrier) by requiring a separation distances of a 1,000 feet, for example, between other monopoles. If the City’s definition of a monopole also extends the public right-of-way, and even to fairly small Small Cells (especially if attached to existing poles), then this may push carriers to put the next Small Cell site closer to a residential area than needed (to maintain the buffer distance).
Do not “require” a pre-application meeting. Offer, and suggest them. Cities like San Marcos try to work out the design and application well in advance of an actual submittal. This approach appears to work well for them.
If you require a pre-application, then the carrier can argue that the Shot Clock starts running on that day and not the day they submit the application. 1 week before the meeting, strongly suggest that the carrier rep actually take the time to READ the application form and any suggested pages of the code/ordinance. Perhaps send them an example of a previously approved project packet. Ideally, they will come better prepared.
Pole Safety. City can require the same structural calculations provided to the owner of the wooden poles (consistent with CPUC regs such as General Order 95); but can’t require anything more generally. The city/county can and should require structural calcs that take into account new mounting and conduit entry holes for poles it owns. If a pole top extension is proposed (though a pole replacement is preferred) you may want to check to see if the calcs determined the pole-overturning requirements show the current footing depth is sufficient.
Shot Clocks. Verizon (and any network partner they use, like Crown Castle or Extenet Systems) may try to say that any wireless facility on an existing building or pole; even if it doesn’t have a wireless facility already; is subject to a 90 day collocation Shot Clock; instead of a 150 day clock. That’s wrong. Be clear on it in comment letters.
Shot Clocks do not apply to City owned properties or poles.
Keep a good written record.
Note if sudden changes are made or snuck in late in the process. Also, note, in writing the reasons for denials.
The Shot Clock can be paused, but only if you tell the carrier within the first 30 days of application submittal that it is incomplete and why. If the re-submittal is still incomplete, then you have 10 days to tell them, and indicate why and pause the clock once more.
The clock does NOT pause because the design is not code complying or appropriate (viable). The time it takes for the carrier to make changes counts AGAINST the City/County.
Create special color folders for wireless facility applications. Make sure your entire administrative staff knows submittals need to be routed immediately.
Be sure to come up with automatically applied conditions of approval that are specific to the public right-of-way; and place a ten-year time limit on permits. These conditions can focus on items listed further below (See: Sample Conditions of Approval for Auto Approvals).
Project Plans Completeness: Consider requiring the following:

Nearest street address, based on an address a neighbor will actually recognize that matches the address on the photo simulations (yes, this often becomes an issue).
Name of Carrier and/or Network Being Served
Project Description that clearly indicates if a new pole is being added, a pole is being replaced, or if antennas/equipment are being attached to an existing pole.
The name of the pole-owning agency
A note indicate either “no noise generating equipment is proposed” or indicating the maximum decibel level at ground level.
An elevation sheet clearly showing any new excavations or a note indicating no new excavations.
An elevation sheet clearly showing any new surface mounted (boxes/electric meters/disconnect switches) within 100 feet of the pole, or a note indicating “no equipment is proposed on sidewalks/landscaping other than the pole.” You will get a lot of calls from neighbors asking about this…
An elevation sheet that calls out the sizes of equipment, and top of the pole or antenna (whichever is taller).
For wood poles: elevation sheets that shows the offset between the pole and equipment (encourage flush attachment or no greater than 4 inch gaps). Also, elevation sheets that shows conduit/cables will be flush to the pole. See photo Example Foxtrot further below.
For concrete/steel poles: elevation sheets that show cabling will be located inside the pole and equipment will be flush to the pole.
Location of ALL node identification stickers and RF warning stickers. Require node ID (carrier name and phone number) stickers to be on the underside of equipment enclosures and RF sticker to be placed below antennas, and not near ground level on the pole.
Clear notes regarding the color that antennas, brackets, exposed cabling, electric meters, disconnect switches will be painted (e.g. Gray Matters or Sable by Sherwin-Williams — in a non-glossy matte finish). Please note that while painting antennas sky blue may seem like a good idea, it tends to look cheesy. Especially if there are exposed bundles of cables and brackets around the antenna.
Sheets which provided equipment specifications (equipment names, model numbers and size.
Staff note: always check to see the equipment specs match the elevation sheet. It often fails to match, and is a sign of poor quality submittals. Also see if the antenna descriptions match the antenna noted in the radio-frequency (RF) emissions report. They often do not. Make sure the RF report is stamped by an engineer licensed in the State. Yes, you have every right to ask for this. Neighbors will ask for it too.

Remember, Small Cells proposals may include inappropriately large/tall and unscreened ground-mounted equipment. It’s not just about the antennas….

Citisite brand mockup integrated light pole with Nokia cell antennas/equipment near the top of the pole. Width of top element is 24 inches. Enclosure can be made opaque (instead of see-thru). In this example the light arms are shortened for the demonstration. Sometimes the very narrow nature of the arms can make the pole look larger than it is (you can request a wider arm).

California Environmental Quality Act

Archaeology for Pole Replacement, Aesthetics, Historic Preservation, Noise, Cumulative Effects

Think about context. If you have sensitive habitat such as wetlands within some public rights-of-way; then ask for environmental clearance for any new structures/trenching, up front, in those areas.

If you want noise studies (not all Small Cells have noise-generating cooling fans), then say so on the form; or perhaps only require them if the equipment can produce noise and is located within 50 feet of a sensitive receptor (home, child care center, hospice). If you are in a rural or agricultural area, or near an airport, be aware that some poles as short as 50 feet may need aircraft warning paint and lighting (link).

If you think you may need it, ask for it up front; and preferably create metrics that focus certain items based on context. Look at examples in Calabasas, Ojai, San Diego, and San Francisco. Some applications are specific to wireless in the public right-of-way.

Map out how CEQA review will occur. If sites are on existing poles (or similar replacements) and no extensive trenching, aircraft warning lights, really tall poles, equipment areas on habitat/marshland; it may not be appropriate to require an Initial Study. Crown Castle will often try to tell you their work is exempted by the CPUC and you can’t require CEQA review. You can review.

Discuss issues of aesthetics, archeology (if there is a ground disturbance such as a pole replacement), geology (special soils), historic preservation, illumination (aircraft or equipment indicator lights, if any) and noise (if any) in your exemption paperwork (if required). Reserve the right to reject sites further down the road if it seems the cumulative impact of multiple sites closely together on a specific streetscape segment (not a 360 or regional basis) would impair scenic vistas, for example.

Historic Preservation & Individual Site Review. One metric to consider is not whether a site should be denied just because it is next to a historic building; but how it affects views of significant character-defining features of the building. For example a “not-too-ugly” wireless facility on an existing utility pole in front of a historic landmark, like a large old church, may be acceptable if the existing pole happens to be near a rear edge of the church where the facade is secondary (not the primary “face” the building presents to the community).

If possible place the CEQA determination online for residents to view. Attach sample plans and photo simulations. If no brand new pole locations are discussed (except replacements) then indicate that in the project description.

If you think you will need clearance from the Department of Fish & Game or Army Corps of Engineers (habitat, wetlands/marshes) then ask for that up front on the application form, so it is a completeness item for the purpose of the shot clock challenge and solid review.

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION/OUTREACH

You are going to get a LOT of calls to City/County staff. Even if public notification is not required. So, create clear information (FAQ) sheets to educate residents about what is proposed. Place a link to the online version that is prominently featured on issued permits, especially if the permits are attached to the pole or mailed to residents (if you require notification). See examples at www.sf-planning.org/wireless (steel poles) and www.sf-planning.org/woodenpoles (wood poles). Unfortunately, there are examples where the wireless carrier’s sub-contractor installs fiber optic cables at the pole a few months before the neutral host carrier submits an application to add cell antennas and equipment; and then the subcontractor tells a neighbor to buzz off when the neighbor asks why there is a large construction truck in front of their house, and what is being installed. This can results in justifiably upset calls to the council member or County supervisor, and staff taking a good deal of time to figure out what is being built. Some cities tell the carriers up front they may not install backhaul in advance of approvals.
Consider holding an information session for the City Council or various hearing bodies. Show the good, bad and ugly of designs. Invite carriers to present. Go into closed session, if needed, afterward, for your City Attorney to answer questions (or provide legal advice).
Require (in your ordinance) wireless carriers to arrange for free noise (cooling fans — if present) and radio-frequency (RF) emissions testing, for residents (within 150 or 300 feet), at no charge, in their homes. Provide any easy to find request phone number or e-mail address on the permit form itself.
Determine if you want to require public notification, or maybe only for sites along residential streets and historic districts. Or, only for sites with ground mounted equipment on local or collector streets. In other words, come up with a metric that makes sense (e.g. within 75 feet of a residential window, doorway, or usable balcony) for your neighborhoods. Consider creating tentative approvals and a 20-day hold during which protests/appeals to be filed. Decide if the initial protest/appeal hearing can be free (recommended), and be held by a Zoning Administrator or Public Works Director (either are recommended).
If public hearings are required and/or appeal hearings are required/afforded, tell the carrier not to bring an RF engineer who mumbles or has a thick accent that will make it hard for folks in the audience to understand. Also, some carriers will “hire” residents (often times folks who are, or appear to be, partially disabled) to say they need service at the hearings and the site should be approved. One could argue they should be registering as lobbyists, if required by City/County ordinance. Separately, Verizon will sometimes tout how they sent a message to subscribers nearby to see if they wanted better service. Though, it doesn’t seem they describe or send photos of the sites; especially “oDAS XL” (larger and uglier versions) ones as part of the survey…
Foreign Languages. If you require public notification and you have a neighborhood with a high degree of folks for whom English is not their native language, consider requiring a portion of the notice to be printed in Chinese (simple) and Spanish. Since the term “Personal Wireless Services Facility” can confuse folks who may wonder if public Wi-Fi is being proposed; it may be advisable to indicate something like “small-scale cell antenna” in the translation.
Notify folks near both poles. If you do decide to require resident notification, ensure the notification boundary includes another pole if other equipment such as battery backup cabinets are placed on the second pole down the street. Consider having the carrier add a note to the cover sheet of the plans indicating no radio-frequency (RF) emissions or noise (if applicable) come from the secondary pole (if applicable).
In more suburban contexts consider waiving public notification or public hearings for well-designed sites on wider arterial (e.g. six-lane roads); but requiring notification for systems with larger footprints (e.g. any ground-mounted equipment unless undergrounded or stealthed inside the new light pole). In other words, incentivize placement away from locations a few feet from residences or scenic vistas, and toward more appropriate designs.
If you require a community meeting (earlier and different from an official public hearing), remind the carrier representative to make sure the location can easily be accessed by those with limited mobility (stairs/hills) and can be found on Google/Yahoo Maps and Mapquest, easily! Require a copy of the meeting notice, a copy of the sign-in sheet, the mailing list that was used, and a synopsis of what occurred.
Come up with a notification boundary that seems appropriate. For instance, 150 feet for Small Cells under 45 feet in height, and 500 feet for large or tall sites. Decide if you want to notify just property owners and residential tenants, and commercial tenants too. Remember, commercial tenant spaces are a lot harder to find/discern; so it is not generally recommended. Determines if notices need to go to individual units in dormitories or retirement homes that may not have public suite numbers available. Consider requiring the notice (and photo simulation) to be posted on each pole where equipment or antennas will be added. Include a link to an online FAQ sheet. Consider not requiring publication of hearings in newspapers too, as this can make scheduling of hearings more of a challenge given the Shot Clock issue.
If you have a Historic Preservation hearing body, consider notifying them of pending applications as part of a study session. Determine if this body needs to review facilities in the public right-of-way located in historic districts. Bear in mind that you may have a timing challenge (given AB 57) if the City/County does not own the poles and two or more public hearing bodies need to review. Some cities/counties allow for an administrative review track for historic preservation applications (if appropriately designed) that may be worth considering. Or alternatively, holding a joint review session (if the code allows for it).
If the system does not create any noise (lack of cooling fans for computers/batteries, aka, “passive cooling”) then ask the carrier to indicate that with a prominent note on the cover page of the project plans. It is a issue that your staff will get a lot of calls from residents on.
The “Government/External Relations Representative Goes off the Reservation Syndrome.” It is all too common for representatives of wireless carriers to put out inaccurate information at public meeting/hearing. See example below. Consider empowering your staff (or counsel, if present) to get up (if allowed by the forum) and provide a correction for the benefit of the public; if appropriate at the meeting/hearing. Otherwise it may frustrate elected/appointed officials and/or serve as fodder for continued appeals or lawsuits. Example X.