What Situation Can Be

TOWERS AND WIRELESS FACILITIES . . .

THEIR IMPACT AND

HOW TO DEAL WITH IT

By Lawrence (Rusty) Monroe & Richard Comi
Co-Founders of The Center for Municipal Solutions

Mr. Monroe and Mr. Comi are former telecom industry
executives. As the founders of The Center for Municipal
Solutions they exclusively represent and assist
municipalities and counties in dealing with the issues
related to tower and wireless facilities. They are both
widely published, nationally, and are regular speakers at
municipal conferences on this subject, as well as dealing
with cable companies.

While in the short term there are certainly issues of a more critical nature facing every community, few will have more of a long term, permanent impact and effect on the nature and character of a community than the erection of wireless telecommunications towers and other wireless facilities, even if co-located on existing structures. The number, placement and appearance of these facilities goes to the heart of preserving the nature and character of a community, while the safety of towers and wireless facilities should be of paramount concern. The effects of today's decisions regarding these facilities will have to be lived with for decades and the question is, is the nature, character and safety of the community worth protecting? If the answer is yes, then the next question then is "How"? First, though, it's important to understand the current situation in context.

Fact: More than half of the towers erected since the passage of 1996 Telecommunications Act do not need to exist!

Fact: The vast majority of towers are much taller than they need to be to meet the needs of the wireless carriers.

Fact: If only for reasons of economic development, every community needs (and should want) wireless service to be as universally available and as seamless as possible throughout the community. Thus, local regulations should not create an obstruction, delay or be difficult to comply with. They should be geared to enable the carriers (not the tower companies) to obtain what they can prove they need, though not necessarily everything they would ideally wish for. Tower companies are different entities than carriers and have no standing under the 1996 Telecommunications Act, because they have no "need". They simply provide one means of carriers meeting their needs. A balancing of interests of the carrier and the community should be the goal. An excellent rule of thumb to follow is Ronald Reagan's belief that responsible government "Trusts . . . but verifies".

What's Coming? The industry has acknowledged that it will need nearly 1 million more sites in the next few years. For technological reasons it will be "dividing" its current sites into multiple sites, i.e. between 3 and 4 sites to serve the area presently covered by a single site, as well as a number of new sites. Communities that are not prepared to deal with the matter will find themselves answering to their constituents as regards why their community has so many towers and ugly wireless facilities when other nearby communities don't. As a current example of the effects of this, one of the national carriers recently announced that in rural western New York State, they will be erecting another 1,800 sites (in an area only about 100 miles by 150 miles involving only a few counties), in addition to the several hundred they already have.

The good news is that if a community wants, it can truly control the entire issue, including minimizing the number of towers and other wireless facilities, as well as the effects the community of those that are truly needed and assuring that all facilities are actually safe and that the approved design is actually what is built 1. However, as with most matters involving government, it's as much a matter of how it is done. The regulatory process should enable a 'win-win' situation. In such a situation the applicant should get what it can prove it needs (as fast as possible), while the community should get expanded coverage and the new technologies and services as they become available, without having to live with a multitude of unnecessary new towers, towers that several times as tall as they need to be, having to put up with facilities where they're not wanted or even being able to recognize most wireless facilities. All of this should be able to be achieved at no cost to the local government or the taxpayers.

The first key to controlling the issue is a well-crafted local 'Tower and Wireless Facilities Siting Ordinance' that requires the preceding to be proven (and verified by experts experienced with analyzing what are rather technically sophisticated RF propagation studies and the "modeling" information that was used to show the situation ). In about 50% of the cases reviewed by the authors around the nation, either the facility doesn't really need to exist at all, or a new tower isn't really needed, or if a new tower is needed it doesn't need to be anywhere near as tall and visually intrusive as proposed.

The second key is that the community should have access to its own experts capable of analyzing the information and providing alternatives where appropriate, i.e. at least as knowledgeable as the applicant's experts. Contrary to the opinion of some, this is a very technical matter requiring the analysis of rather sophisticated information, even for the most basic issues, such as the need for a new facility at all, the need for a new tower and the need for the requested height, as well as the structural adequacy of the design2 and compliance with the FCC RF emissions standards, plus camouflaging options. Often the need is not really what is represented initially and something significantly less visually intrusive will suffice.

In addition to the traditional iterations and more obvious requirements, a well crafted ordinance should also include the following:

No Cost for Expert Assistance: The local regulations should require the applicant to place an escrow deposit with the community that is used to pay for the cost of the expert assistance needed to analyze the issues that should be addressed in an application. This should not be confused with an application fee (which is the community's money). Any balance in the escrow account that remains after the grant of the issuance of the required permits, e.g. Special Use, Building and Certificate of Completion of Occupancy, should be returned to the applicant.

No New Towers: As the first matter of policy in a community, no new towers should be permitted, unless it can be proven that there is absolutely no alternative. This is permissible, even if it were to mean that more than one co-located facility was needed to meet the carrier's needs.

In all but the most rural locales today, a new tower should be an aberration, as there are normally numerous co-location alternatives, ranging from existing towers to rooftops, billboards, utility poles, electric high tension towers, light standards and a plethora of other alternatives.

However, if it can be proven that there is no alternative to a new tower, the new tower should not go where the community doesn't want it, and it should be no taller than the lowest height at which at least a sizeable portion of the gap in service for a given carrier can be filled (see previous comment about multiple co-located sites). This is normally much lower and thus significantly less visually obtrusive than what was initially requested. The test for the appearance of the facility should be "the least visually and physically intrusive means that is not commercially or technologically impracticable", i.e. that enables the provision of service primarily within the community". Note: No community should or is obligated to bear the burden of a tower intended primarily to provide service in another community, for example on the border of the two.

Key to Assuring the Minimum Height: Require an applicant for a new tower or a new co-located facility to
prove the lowest height at which the gap in coverage can be filled; realizing that the law does not obligate the community to enable the service provider to cover the entire gap from a single site. For example, the community may wish to have two or more smaller/shorter facilities than a single tall one, as this is significantly less visually intrusive, and with today's state-of-the-art normally still allows for multiple co-locators, even though it's significantly shorter 3. This is best and most effectively done by requiring that the applicant provide: 1) a set of propagation studies form the proposed sight showing the results of attaching at the lowest height that is functional (including all the modeling information that was used to generate them); and 2) another set of propagation studies showing the coverage situation 10 feet below that. The last set should show that the lower height leaves gaps in coverage. However, again, you do not have to permit a service provider to fill its entire gap in coverage from a single site, if this is not deemed in the public interest.

Key to assuring towers and facilities don't go where they're not wanted: Establish a
priority list of designated types of land use or zoning designations for the siting of a wireless facility, whereby the applicant must prove (conclusively) that the highest priority won't work to fill at least a substantial portion of a gap before being allowed to proceed to next highest priority, and so on down the list. Residentially zoned areas and neighborhoods should always be last on the list and a community may want to consider actually prohibiting new towers in residential areas or within a reasonable distance of residential areas. The first priority should always be co-locating on an existing structure of some kind, which may be on municipally or County-owned property, in order to establish new non-tax revenue source. A new tower should always be the last alternative.

Never permit a tower to be built on speculation. Tower companies should never be permitted to apply for a Permit without a signed commitment from a wireless carrier to use the tower. Tower companies, by themselves, should have no standing, as tower companies have no "need" under the federal law. Only the carrier has a need. The tower company is merely a means of facilitating the carrier's need, just as the owner of a building that antennas are being attached to facilitates the carrier achieving its needs. Both are merely a place to attach antennas. An argument can also be made that the rent paid to a local owner of a building has a more positive economic impact than an absentee tower company. Likewise, rent paid to the community is often deemed to be a greater benefit for the community as a whole than for merely a single property owner.

Reserve the right to deny a permit if it is shown that the new facility is not intended to provide service
primarily within the community. At the very least, the facility should be no taller than is needed to primarily serve your community, not the neighboring community. This will often reduce the height needed and opens the door to numerous 'camouflage' opportunities. With the state of the camouflage industry today, many facilities should not even be recognizable as wireless facilities to anyone other than experts.

If it can be proven that a new tower really is needed, the applicant should be required to design the facility to accommodate multiple carriers. Note that today it is even possible to accommodate
more than one carrier at a given height. This is because the state-of-the-art is becoming such that horizontal separation can often be used in lieu of vertical separation for purposes of frequency isolation between carriers' facilities.

An applicant should be required to use materials, colors and textures designed to blend with or match the structure to which it may be affixed and/or to harmonize with the natural surroundings. This is especially critical for co-locations on buildings, since the facility should be all-but-"invisible" and not detract from the appearance of the building, if done correctly.

When dealing with attachments to buildings, it is recommended that communities consider requiring antennas to be mounted on the face of the building and not be allowed to extend above the roof line.

Key to Assuring a Facility Designed to be Safe: Every community should require detailed
structural design plans for any facility, including both for a new tower and for a co-location, regardless of what structure the facilities are being attached to. A structural analysis is highly recommended, since, in addition to the obvious concern of public safety, there is the issue of potential 'derivative liability' to the community by having effectively deemed the facility safe by granting the permit. Local officials need to know that the facility is safe and will withstand the loads and demands placed upon it, e.g. ice and wind loads for the area.

Communities should require that all information submitted related to the design of the facility be
certified, signed and stamped by a Professional Engineer registered in that State.

Require the provision of the calculations of the RF emissions applicable to the site to verify compliance with the FCC's parameters. If there is more than one (1) carrier at the location, the calculations must include the cumulative emissions data from
all facilities at that location. These calculations should be verified by a qualified engineer, since all-too-often the calculations are not correct or the measurements are taken in the wrong place, making them invalid. Co-locations on buildings makes this a particularly critical issue, since in many instances anyone coming within 5 to 10 feet of an antenna will be exposed to more RF radiation than the FCC's regulations permit for human exposure.

Key to Expediting the Process for the Applicant: An application process should require a
Pre-Application Site Visit and Meeting to: 1) identify issues involved with the particular site that need to be addressed in the application; and 2) address them prior to the submittal of the application. This helps to significantly expedite and facilitate the review and permitting process, i.e. to the applicant's benefit. Any costs associated with the site visit and meeting should be borne by the applicant, as the beneficiary, and be paid out of the escrow deposit.

Key to Assuring the Facility is Constructed as Designed and as Permitted: Inspections should be conducted throughout the construction process. The facility should pass a final inspection before it is permitted to be activated or use it to provide service.

Key to Assuring Continued Compliance with all the Changes that will be Occurring for Years to Come: The owner of a wireless facility should be required to notify the community of any intended
modification of a wireless facility and submit an application to modify the facility. All-too-many local officials are misled into believing that something such as changing antennas or adding radios to the site is relatively innocuous. This simply is not the case. While both of the examples appear to be innocuous to the layperson, in effect both can significantly change (increase) the RF radiation/emissions. With the recent rash of equipment changeouts occurring nationally, this is becoming a major issue. The equipment changeouts are occurring because of the need to deploy new technologies and existing sites reaching their call handling capacity, and thus having to add radios to increase the call handling capacity,. This is especially critical for facilities co-located on structures other than towers such as buildings, given the probability of human exposure to the RF radiation.

In short, if a community wishes to do so, under the current federal law (at 47 USC 332) there is very little that a community cannot control as regards the issue of the location, siting, appearance, construction and modification of towers and wireless facilities and none of this should cost the community anything, including having the right (updated) ordinance or regulations.

1. Regrettably, all too often towers are not built according to the plans approved by the Company's Professional Engineer and the community's permitting authority.

2. Tower collapses and failures are a major problem, especially with the accelerated deployment in recent years. In 1999, alone, more 400 towers came down in this country, most of which were preventable and due to structural design inadequacies. Even requesting attachment to an existing tower or other structure (i.e. a co-location) sometimes reveals issues of structural inadequacy, especially with added loads of the new equipment.

3. Carriers no longer need the 10' or often even 6' of vertical separation between antenna arrays that they did even 2 years ago.