> ## Content Index > Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.smdp.com/llms.txt > Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further. # Vision for future doesn’t include ugly utility poles - URL: https://www.smdp.com/vision-for-future-doesnt-include-ugly-utility-poles/ - Published: 2004-02-13T16:00:00.000Z - Updated: 2026-10-23T03:46:54.000Z - Author: Carolyn Sackariason - Tags: Government & Politics, Santa Monica, #archive-import *City plan for utilities: Out of sight, out of mind* It’s been nearly three decades since City Hall has formally addressed the management of its utilities on public land, but with the rapid onset of new technology, officials have realized its time to step into the 21st Century. A new law aimed at managing utilities in the public right of way is being devised, a provision which primarily addresses when, where and how wireless companies can install cell phone antennas. Santa Monica already is visibly crowded with pedestrians and traffic, but its starting to get crowded underground as well — competing uses like water, sewer, storm drains, gas, electric, telephone, telecommunications and cable lines are all vying for limited space. The ordinance, drafted by civil engineers, attorneys and other city staff, is an attempt to regulate current and anticipated needs by various agencies — both public and private — with the main goal of protecting the community from unnecessary utilities that can be obtrusive and unsafe. 4A6,“We want this ordinance to take us into the future,” said Dave Britton, a civil engineer for City Hall. “We want Santa Monica to be an example for other communities.” Britton and other City Hall representatives this week explained the nuances of the ordinance to wireless communication executives who will comment on it before it goes before City Council later this month. The detailed document spells out how to obtain a permit to install cell phone antennas, what the restrictions are and what requirements would be necessary. City Hall would require cell phone companies to make their infrastructure as unobtrusive as possible, such as camouflaging antennas, attaching equipment to existing utilities and hiding equipment from public view, if possible. Those requirements will determine how in-depth of an approval process the companies would have to go through in City Hall. A minor permit would be granted when the wireless infrastructure doesn’t adversely affect the aesthetic character of the area and relates “harmoniously” with the neighborhood. That would include underground facilities and micro-cell antennas that are incorporated into existing utility poles and street lights. But if the equipment appears to change the aesthetics of the neighborhood, like extending above the height of existing poles or new poles are needed altogether, a major permit would be needed and an extensive public review would be required. All property owners, as well as residential and commercial tenants near the proposed project, would be notified and a public hearing would be held. Craig Perkins, the director of the environmental and public works department in City Hall, would issue either an approval or a denial after that process. “It should be the smallest equipment possible,” said Don Patterson, an administrative analyst for City Hall. “And it should be placed as far away to site properties as possible.” Some industry executives criticized the ordinance, saying City Hall wants the companies to adhere to site selection criteria — keeping their equipment small, underground and in specific areas — but doesn’t offer any incentives to do it. City officials responded by saying that the two levels in the permit process is the incentive. 5D2,“Do something that attempts to get it out of public view,” Britton said. The ordinance would require that equipment can’t obstruct traffic, and would be preferred on existing utility poles and street light poles, as well in alleys. Only one antenna would be permitted every 100 feet and companies would have to prove that there are no other feasible locations within the city to place the equipment other than where they are applying. “We want to make sure there is a need for the location,” Britton said. “We are always concerned about the overbuilding in the public right of way, especially if they are unnecessary.” Along with site and construction plans, applicants also would be required to submit detailed maps and network diagrams of their facilities once a year. “It’s so critical for the city to have an up-to-date map that shows what’s underground,” Britton said. “The goal is to have one map that shows all underground facilities in the right of way.” That requirement didn’t sit well with some industry representatives, who are concerned about the safety of their operations, especially because of terrorism threats. They also said it would be cost prohibitive to provide a detailed map every year. Britton said City Hall would work with companies to make sure sensitive information about key equipment wouldn’t be made public. “We don’t want any sabotage going on,” he said. “We’ll work with you on that.” *Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on February 13, 2004.* [Read the original PDF.](https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/smdp%5Fbackissues/021304.pdf?ref=smdp.com)