In 2009, NewPath Networks sought to install a Distributed Antenna System (DAS) network in Davis. City staff issued encroachment and related building permits for the project, which included 24 antenna structures on a combination of both new stand-alone poles and co-location of antennas on existing joint utility poles.
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.
In November of 2009, the city manager, following Thanksgiving complaints, issued a Stop Work Order and on December 5, rescinded all 37 permits.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.
The city council held a public hearing on January 19, 2010. At that hearing the city council denied the appeal and adopted a resolution spelling out the findings in support of the rescission of the permits. As part of this action, the council specifically determined that rescission of the permits would not preclude NewPath from submitting an application for its DAS project pursuant to the procedures set forth in the city’s Telecommunications Ordinance
Now Crown Castle USA, which purchased NewPath Networks, is proposing to construct a neutral host fiber-optic cable-fed distributed antenna system (DAS) in the city’s public right-of-way and on real property owned by the city.
According to the staff report, like their predecessor, Crown Castle does not provide wireless services to customers. Rather, they lease infrastructure capacity to various wireless/cellular carriers who, in turn, provide service to paying wireless customers.
The proposed DAS network would consist of one hub and 25 antenna nodes. The antenna nodes include 17 street light replacement poles, five joint utility wood (PG&E) utility poles, two new wood poles, and one new steel pole that will be interconnected by approximately 102,000 feet of fiber-optic cable in a combination of underground conduits and above ground lines (for areas not served by underground utilities).
Following the 2010 appeal hearing, NewPath filed suit in federal court, challenging the city’s authority to revoke and asking for a preliminary injunction that would enable it to build out its system. The judge denied the preliminary injunction.
The city fired back and filed its own complaint against NewPath with the California Public Utilities Commission, alleging that the environmental review of the NewPath Davis project violated CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) and that the permits were issued in violation of CPUC rules and regulations.
Both sides would then back off. In mid-2010, NewPath applied for permits again, under the city’s tele-com ordinance. At this point, both sides requested that their federal cases be stayed until the permit process was completed and the city had determined whether or not to grant permits to NewPath.
According to the staff report, on November 15, 2010 Crown Castle submitted a pre-application to the city in order to start preliminary review of a proposed DAS network.
Staff writes, “The pre-application process was intended to provide the applicant the opportunity to engage in more in-depth conceptual discussions with staff and the community.”
According to the city, “Over the course of six evenings in mid-January, the City, in conjunction with the applicant, held community open houses in an effort to gauge community feedback on the proposed project. Input was sought on the general concept of a DAS network, as well as specific node locations being proposed. The meetings were conducted in an open house format with applicant and city staff representatives available for questions.”
Staff reports that while attendance was intermittent, there was strong “support for the concept of providing stronger, more consistent and reliable wireless services in the community.”
They also report, “Relatively few concerns about aesthetic impacts of proposed nodes, with some, but relatively few and isolated, concerns over the aesthetics of some proposed nodes due to sightlines from homes.”
On the other hand, there were other concerns: “Considerable concerns over potential health impacts of RF emissions;” “Skepticism over the Federal regulations and limits for RF emissions;” “Concerns about the need to amend the current Zoning Ordinance language that prohibits telecommunications facilities within 500 feet of residential districts.”
It should be noted, according to the staff report, “Pursuant to Federal Law, the City does not have the authority to render a decision against a telecommunication facility based on perceived health impacts, provided the proposed equipment is in conformance with RF emissions limits established by the FCC.”
There are a couple of points that should be made here.
First, I assume the purchase of Crown Castle was crucial to restarting these talks. NewPath, from the very start of this project, seemed like snake-oil salespersons, they came into the appeal hearing brazenly, and they immediately filed suit against Davis, as they had against many other communities.
Crown Castle, on the other hand, appears willing to work with the city, even in areas that they really do not have to.
Second, it seems interesting that the community would express strong “support for the concept of providing stronger, more consistent and reliable wireless services in the community.” In the past, this project has been pushed under the auspices that there was a “significant gap in coverage.”
Maybe in 2009, when this project was first conceived, that was the case. But at this point, I have a strong and pretty consistent coverage throughout the city. I have not noticed, and I frequently use a cell while traveling through the city, any areas that are dead zones.
So I would question whether there really is a gap in coverage in Davis.
Finally, there remains a good deal of anger in the community over how this was originally handled and the amount of disruption this caused to the community.
Heads rarely roll in this city. Staff who make grievous errors are rarely held accountable and it remains a sore spot among many from all over Davis’ political divide that Katherine Hess, who was seen as the chief culprit in the original debacle, would merely be demoted.
At this point, there is likely little to do about that, but it is a point we should be more cognizant of, moving forward.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Would someone knowledgeable about the technical aspects explain why we need these towers? I wonder if it is associated with the 4g aspects of increasing amounts of data and advertising that comes with the new cell phones and ipad devices. My coverage is very good. I live near where they want to put one of these things. I don’t like it.
Second. Will the city get a check each month from these sharks?
Anyway you could cite the locations?
SODA, the locations are listed on page 27 of the Council Packet for the item tonight. Here is a LINK [url]http://cityofdavis.org/meetings/councilpackets/20120320/07 Crown Castle DAS.pdf[/url] to that packet.
Thx Matt but link doesn’t work for me. Will try to get packet.
Anyone out there able to live stream CC mtgs on an iPad?
I have been unable to, have written city and they cannot help either.
GandG, the question back to you is, [i]”Is your wireless provider MetroPCS?”[/i] Crown Castle’s attempts to put this “next generation” of antennas in Davis is specifically designed to give MetroPCS customers better wireless reception. If you have AT&T or Verizon, then the proposed project will not affect your reception.
My concerns about the project are three-fold.
1) Crown Castle is in my opinion practicing “bait and switch” with respect to its individual antenna configurations. They have been very unclear about how many carriers each proposed antenna will support, and reserve the right to swap out an approved antenna for a different antenna if their marketing to other carriers beyond MetroPCS bears fruit. The antenna configurations for different numbers of carriers are substantially different, so residents could end up with something very different in time than what was presented by Crown Castle in their attempt to gain approval.
2) Crown Castle has done a very incomplete job of “planning” their installation. Until they provide a complete plan with no anticipated ex-post-facto changes the application should be rejected as incomplete. That is what would happen to any homeowner or contractor or developer who submitted a similarly “fluid” application.
3) The City has an underground utilities ordinance that has been in place for well over a decade. That was passed to eliminate the erection of any additional utility poles or utility transmission boxes above ground. Crown Castle needs to comply with that ordinance wherever possible. The wooden utility poles that they are using in a number of their sites are remnants of the pre-underground ordinance times, and will in time be themselves eliminated as PG&E performs system maintenance/upgrades and locates those remnant utilities underground. There is no reason that Crown Castle should be given preferential treatment under the terms of Davis’ underground utility ordinance.
Bottom-line, administratively, this application should never have gone beyond the Staff level until it was complete, and its “completeness” should have included the location of Crown Castle’s antennas and cabinets underground.
Is this staff report the work of K Hess also?
Matt… pretty much all utilities have above-ground pedestals and other facilities… AT&T, PG&E, Comcast, City water (BFD’s), etc. This is not in violation of either the letter nor the spirit of the UG ordinance. These are ANTENNAS… try getting a good read on your Garmin, Tom-tom or other GPS device while it’s buried. Broadcast TV & Radio antennas… should these all be undergrounded, too? That’ll work well… NOT. The UG ordinance was to keep WIRES and other cabling UG, and to prohibit the installation of poles whose sole purpose is/was to support such wires/cabling. The City would well be in its rights to let a DAS network use existing joint utility poles, streetlights, etc, but require that all the cabling be placed underground (and ‘trenchless’, to boot. BTW, street lighting is in most respects a public utility… should we also place them underground?
There are several valid reasons to deny the DAS system proposed, mainly on aesthetics… if approved there should be agreements, including maintenance, repair, etc. of any City-owned light standards if DAS is co-located there. It is reasonable to require Crown Castle to pay franchise fees (as PG&E, AT&T, and Comcast do) for use of City street right of way (the revenues should be ‘earmarked’ for street/sidewalk maintenance, in my opinion). The City can/should also require lease payments if a facility is located on City facilities/properties. as is currently done for arrays located on City water tanks and other property.
Argue for or against the proposal any damn way you want… but citing the UG ordinance is bogus (and petty). Reminds me of a time, years ago, when a “battered women’s shelter” was opposed on ‘traffic’ “concerns”. BS then, BS now.
[quote]Is this staff report the work of K Hess also? [/quote]http://cityofdavis.org/meetings/councilpackets/20120320/07 Crown Castle DAS.pdf I suggest you judge for yoursel. t the time of the original project, Ms Hess was the Department Head… Department Heads are generally shown a an “author” on CC staff reports… protocol thing. Often they are not the “authors”.
“Is this staff report the work of K Hess also?”
No. Ken Hiatt and Mike Webb are the listed authors.
SODA, to navigate directly to the Packet 1) go to the City’s main webpage, 2) click on the City Council and Commissions link, 3) click on the City Council link, 4) click on the Tue. Mar. 20, 2012 Packet link on the left side of the screen.
[quote]In 2009, NewPath Networks sought to install a Distributed Antenna System (-)AS) network in Davis. City staff issued encroachment and related building permits for the project, which included 24 antenna structures on a combination of both new stand-alone poles and co-location of antennas on existing joint utility poles.
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.[/quote]
If my memory serves me correctly, this was not just about the review process. Did not this company try to plop a pole right in the middle of someone’s front yard in Village homes? That this was not a matter of just retrofitting existing utility poles?
hpierce, you appear to be assigning arrogance to my comments regarding the underground utility ordinance, and in fairness to you I do not profess to be an expert on that ordinance; but with that said, is there any reason in your opinion why Crown Castle shouldn’t be attempting to comply as much as is technically possible with the provisions of that ordinance?
[quote]Heads rarely roll in this city. Staff who make grievous errors are rarely held accountable and it remains a sore spot among many from all over Davis’ political divide that Katherine Hess, who was seen as the chief culprit in the original debacle, would merely be demoted.[/quote]
To what extent was former city manager Bill Emlen responsible for the debacle?
Taking into consideration hpierce’s objections to using the underground ordinance, the other two point I raised stand as written. Crown Castle was very clear about its intentions to change the equipment on individual poles if the number of carriers they need to support changes and as a result exceeds the capacity originally approved and installed. There is no reason that they can’t do enough capacity planning to make their application for a system that will support any future growth they may achieve. That will mean that the residents will actually find themselves living with what was approved (if it is approved).
That’s a tough question. On the one hand, it is clear that Emlen knew enough about Davis sensibilities that he probably would have recognized this as a problem in advance. But it seems inconceivable that the Planning Director would have acted on her own.
Matt… did not mean to assign “arrogance” to your comments… far from. Second cup of coffee has not kicked in yet. Feel free to contact me @ hoertensepierce@yahoo.com, and we can take this ‘off-line’. The DAS proposal, what they have to place below ground, what they’re allowed to place above, should be under the same rules as Comcast, AT&T, PG&E. No more, no less, in my opinion (and, probably, under law). That was the point I was trying to make, however clumsily.
Matt… second cup kicked in… it’s hortensepierce@yahoo.com
I think the antenna is just plain ugly. It seems to loom over the street (and thus the houses around it).
Look at it this way – If this was given as a choice for a street light, would we ever pick it?
[quote]”Staff reports that while attendance was intermittent, there was [b]strong ‘support[/b] for the concept of providing stronger, more insistent and reliable wireless services in the community’. They also report, ‘[b]Relatively few concerns[/b] about aesthetic impacts of proposed nodes, with [b]some, but relatively few and isolated, concerns[/b] over the aesthetics of some proposed nodes due to sightlines from homes’.”[/quote]This kind of staff report language usually means a staff effort to push through.
Haven’t read the report yet, but one presumes there are adequate numbers of comments cited to justify this kind of summary–saying the public supports the general idea of better wireless service (but for this particular project?) without much concern about the impact of this project’s equipment (but “relative” to what?).
I certainly trust that the staff–even if they’re embarrassed about their earlier bad decisions or because they are–are putting their most objective evaluation efforts forth this time.
Earlier reports about this project said the equipment was being installed on spec, that there was no wireless company ready to use the equipment. Has that changed?
Matt Williams refers to our underground utilities ordinance and suggests that it was ignored during the first, staff approval and ignored the future impact and added costs that could be involved during the upcoming PG&E upgrades. Does the new report (being considered by the City Council this evening) correct that oversight?
[quote]Matt Williams refers to our [b]underground utilities ordinance[/b] and suggests that it was [b]ignored[/b] during the first, staff approval and ignored the future impact and added costs that could be involved during the upcoming PG&E upgrades. Does the new report (being considered by the City Council this evening) correct that oversight? [/quote]Matt was incorrect… PW staff would have caught that, even if others did not (except there was some ambiguity in THAT ordinance as to whether additional overhead wires could be added to ‘grandfathered’ overhead lines). Arguably, the first go-around was in violation of the City’s telecommunication ordinance, which arguably was not consistent with State/Federal law.
hpierce, not to quibble, but I don’t think there is any question that the underground ordinance was at best in the background (or even non existent) in the initial analysis. However, you are absolutely right that Staff have brought the underground ordinance into the active thought process. Mike Webb and his colleagues have done their level best to ensure that the application is being thoroughly vetted . . . and I think the Planning Commission’s recent decision has benefited from Staff’s thorough work.
That doesn’t change the fact that it is imperative that Crown Castle settle on a single antenna design, so that whatever is approved, if anything is approved, will not be subject to market driven modifications ex-post-facto of any approval.
It is important to note that Crown Castle’s decision not to colocate on existing wireless towers using the same technology as currently exists for any wireless carriers located on those towers is a [u]discretionary[/u] decision on their part. No one in Davis asked them to make that technology choice, and therefore it is incumbent on Crown Castle to ensure that their discretionary decision for the benefit of a selected group of Davis residents and visitors isn’t a burden on the City as a whole.
Matt… check your e-mail… particularly re: your first paragraph… re: your second and third paragraphs,I do not opine, one way or the other.
[quote]Look at it this way – If this was given as a choice for a street light, would we ever pick it?[/quote]
[quote]That doesn’t change the fact that it is imperative that Crown Castle settle on a single antenna design, so that whatever is approved, if anything is approved, will not be subject to market driven modifications ex-post-facto of any approval. [/quote]
Fair points…
hpierce said . . .
[i]”Matt… check your e-mail… particularly re: your first paragraph… re: your second and third paragraphs, I do not opine, one way or the other.”[/i]
I got it Hortense. Thanks for the deeper level information. I’ll defer to your point, which still leaves my most important two concerns intact. They are the most important ones in my opinion. Bottom-line, Crown Castle needs to finalize the details and carve them in stone before they receive any approvals from the Planning Commission or Council.
[quote]Bottom-line, Crown Castle needs to finalize the details and carve them in stone before they receive any approvals from the Planning Commission or Council. [/quote]
Bingo!
Essentially the CC directed staff to come back with a thorough discussion of each site for the location of the “butt ugly” antennas, as one speaker called them. If there were any antenna sites that were noncontroversial, perhaps they could be okayed, and then something could be worked out for those sites that individual citizens raised a stink about…
There was also talk about tightening the language in the contracts between the City and Crown Castle to assure there will be no changes or mission creep down the road…
Elaine, the problem I see with Council’s site by site approach is that Crown Castle isn’t going to want to instal a partial system. Their client MetroPCS isn’t likely to pay them for partial coverage.
So what I see Council doing is creating legal positioning for the inevitable law suit that is coming down the turnpike.
[quote]Elaine, the problem I see with Council’s site by site approach is that Crown Castle isn’t going to want to instal a partial system. Their client MetroPCS isn’t likely to pay them for partial coverage.
So what I see Council doing is creating legal positioning for the inevitable law suit that is coming down the turnpike.[/quote]
I don’t think the CC had a choice but to go in this direction. If they take a definite “no” stand, or insist there will be no cooperation until Crown Castle comes up with a “final” plan, it will not go well with the City in court. If nothing else, the City has to look as if it is trying to work with Crown Castle in a reasonable way, else it will surely lose the legal battle. The law is on the side of Crown Castle, not on the side of the city. The City is really in a tough position here, and is forced by law to work with Crown Castle, even if the City cannot stand this company and the way it does business…
Point of Interest: Public comment concerning Crown Castle’s DAS Project at the DCC Meeting last night was OVERWHELMINGLY NEGATIVE (AGAINST).
Steve, much as I think it was important to get those overwhelmingly consistent concerns on the record, Crown Castle is going to argue that our feelings simply do not trump the law.
[i]”Elaine, the problem I see with Council’s site by site approach is that Crown Castle isn’t going to want to instal a partial system.”[/i]
I am not sure what the Council is thinking with the site-by-site approach. My guess is that none of the three people running for reelection wants to buck the people of Davis who want the City of Davis to buck Crown Castle. The political calculus is this: They get no extras votes in June if they allow the DAS; they lose votes they would have had if they support this project; and the votes they lose are going to go into the column of a candidate who opposes this project. Brett Lee and Lucas Frerichs have absolutely nothing to lose by siding with the passionate people in Davis, all of whom oppose Crown Castle.
Yet every perspicacious being understands this DAS is coming to Davis. Of that there is no doubt. The state and federal law give Davis no choice. And there may be a stiff financial cost to the City if the City does not get in line soon. So if this Council bucks Crown Castle, the City’s finances may be seriously hurt by that decision.
Since Joe, who is not running for reelection this year, was the person who most strongly advocated for the site-by-site examination, perhaps he thinks he can find a solution which, at the very least, removes most of the residents from the opposition whose objections are based on the specific sitings nearest their homes. That is, if putting an antenna on this pole or that pole is problematic to this person or that person, then how about we use instead a pole across the street or around the corner for this specific site that no one has any strong objections to. I think Joe’s hope is that for any pole which causes a specific problem, a new pole which does not cause any specific problems can be found nearby.
Still, I don’t expect Sue or Stephen or Dan to every vote in favor of this project before the June election. They know they have nothing to gain and everything to lose by doing so. If Joe or Rochelle were running this year, they would never vote for the DAS either. It’s self-preservation. It’s politics. It’s human nature.
Ideally, this thing can be put off until the day after the election in June. If that were to happen, the Council would vote for some version of the DAS, maybe even 5-0.