NewPath is Back with a Different Name and a New Application

In the meantime, Crown Castle this fall purchased NewPath Networks.  On November 15, Crown Castle submitted a pre-application to the City to start preliminary review of a proposed Distributed Antenna System network.

However, neighbors noticed building activities without adequate notice, and protested to the city.  Concerns arose that the review process was inadequate and that the public had not been properly notified of the project.  Roughly a year ago, the City Manager, following Thanksgiving complaints, issued a Stop Work Order and on December 5, rescinded all 37 permits.

The justification for the rescission was stated to be “because the project did not follow the review process outlined in the City Telecommunications Ordinance.”  NewPath appealed the decision and arrogantly defended their practices, effectively thumbing their noses at the concerns of the citizens and the city council.

Now they are back with a new proposal.

The city, apparently learning from past missteps, has put the matter on the agenda allowing review and comment. “Crown Castle submitted a pre-application to the City to start preliminary review of a proposed Distributed Antenna System network.”

The proposal is once again to build a DAS (Distributed Antenna System) throughout the city, creating a grid of smaller-scale antennas.  As the city staff report acknowledges, while there are advantages of such a network which “can include better distribution and consistency of cellular coverage and signal strength throughout the community, with smaller-scale and less powerful, but more frequently occurring, equipment,” “the key challenge to such systems is to locate them within residential areas of the city while minimizing aesthetic impacts.”

After the rejection of the appeal by council, NewPath filed a lawsuit in federal district court challenging the revocation and asking for a preliminary injunction to allow it to build its system. The preliminary injunction was denied.

The city responded by filing a complaint against NewPath at the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) “alleging that the environmental review of the NewPath Davis project violated CEQA [the California Environmental Quality Act] and that the permits were issued in violation of CPUC rules and regulations.”

NewPath had taken other cities on, with long and expensive legal battles.  However, staff reports that a few months ago, “NewPath approached the City and suggested that it would be prepared to apply for permits under the City’s Telecommunications Ordinance. Based on the request, NewPath and the City requested that the federal case be stayed until the permit process was completed and the City had determined whether or not to grant permits to NewPath. Similarly, the CPUC case was put on hold.”

Moreover, NewPath was acquired by CrownCastle International.

Staff reports two levels of discussions.

First, developing a two-stage review process that includes full public participation and transparency from the start.

Second, having a discussion of acceptable equipment and locations, including nodes, antennas and ground equipment.  Moreover, “In lieu of stand-alone poles, staff and CrownCastle have been exploring the option of installations on existing City street light poles (where the entire structure would be replaced with a new street light with antenna equipment located at the top).”

The proposal at this time calls for 25 proposed node sites for installation of equipment on either joint utility poles or co-located on City street light poles in locations distributed throughout the City.

According to the staff report, the proposed process would also include a series of community meetings to be held in January in an effort to gauge community feedback on the proposed project in general, as well as about specific node locations. The meetings would be held in an open house format, with applicant and city staff representatives available for comments and questions.

Here are the locations of the proposed sites (click to blow up to full size):

Here is one location located on Lake and Arlington (no irony there):

And here is what it would look like in comparison with how it currently appears:

That process was a disaster from the standpoint of the city, and undermined confidence by the public in the city’s operations.

The decision to move from a free-standing structure to the one depicted in the picture above seems a wise one. The public will ultimately decide if this is an acceptable compromise – but at the very least, the city is setting up a process that will allow that process to play out, and allow neighbors to figure out if this indeed something they want in their neighborhood and their community.

We applaud the city for setting up the process in advance, but wonder why this has not been the typical set-up for such proposals.  We have called for this sort of public process numerous times in numerous venues, and this is the first time we have seen it played out.  Hopefully this is the sign of things to come from the new city management and council.

—David M. Greenwald reporting