At some point the council is going to move forward, but this has been a long and very arduous process, as the council went through each proposed cell tower location, on a site-by-site basis, in painstaking fashion.
The city is running into the April 16th deadline, after which without a written extension from Crown Castle, their time would expire to make further decisions.
The public wants to fight this.
A letter to the editor from Kathy Leipham criticized the newspaper for missing “the extent and persistence of the public outcry against the Crown Castle application – the emphasis on the obliteration of the Davis telecommunications ordinance, the vision of a proliferation of cell towers throughout the city, the pitting of neighbor vs. neighbor over cell tower sites and especially the demise of our democracy as we know it – the loss of local control to a corporation.”
She writes, “Why do we have to give up without a fight – because City Attorney Harriet Steiner said so? Where is the local control of our city? Does our local government have any power?”
The council continues to believe that this battle is one that they cannot win. However, the public believes otherwise and many came forward, urging the fight.
Mayor Joe Krovoza, following the lead of City Manager Steve Pinkerton and City Attorney Harriet Steiner, believes the law is on the side of Crown Castle, and any decision that would lead to litigation would be, at best, a costly mistake.
The mayor said pointedly, “I don’t believe this community can even begin to afford going into a lawsuit on this matter. “It would be frivolous, unnecessary and I’m not going to put staff time into that or the citizens’ money into that… Lots of things are going to fall off the budget in June and that’s at the top of my mind.”
Councilmember Dan Wolk remained the councilmember holding out for a fight, even though he was admonished by his colleagues including Councilmember Souza, who said pointedly, “I am convinced, looking at the case law, we will lose local control, we will lose all say.”
The item on for tonight in a special meeting figures to continue the long and arduous process.
In fact, the council ended up approving just three sites located on Covell Blvd west of Lake, East Eight Street just east of D, and one on Eighth and J. The council also rejected four sites asking Crown Castle to come back with different proposals for those locations.
(click image to enlarge)
As we wrote last week, I think the speakers on Tuesday were largely correct, that strong monied interests were able to lobby Congress and the State Legislature to give these telecommunications companies special status and usurp the right of local control.
But we are not arguing this before Congress – if we were, this would be a no-brainer. Instead, we are determining what the city can do and, frankly, there is not much.
What that means is that City Attorney Harriet Steiner and Mayor Joe Krovoza are largely correct that the chances of prevailing in court are small. The risk to the city is great.
Many citizens stepped forward and believe that we should fight anyway. If this were a different time, I might be inclined to agree. Take it to the Supreme Court, get them to rule in favor of local control and self-determination. Unfortunately, in the next few years we are going to be closing pools and parks. We are going to be laying people off.
And the question a reasonable person might ask is how many people should have to be laid off so that Sally doesn’t have to view a seven-foot extension on the telephone poll across the way. No one wants to think in those terms, but that is why we elect officials, to make those tough choices.
It is called leadership, and sometimes leadership means you have to make tough choices that anger your residents and voters.
This is a fight we cannot win and can only lose. In fact, given the amount of time the city has already spent on this, we have already lost.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
You must be logged in to post a comment.
[quote]And the question a reasonable person might ask is [b]how many people[/b] should have to be laid off so that Sally doesn’t have to view a seven-foot extension on the telephone poll across the way. [/quote]26.5 FTE.
Has there been any conversation with the city council about Don Shor’s idea for using foliage to mitigate view impacts?
Frankly, I think this opposition is silly. I try to put in context with everything else in this world that requires time and attention, and it does not register. I have a street light pole in front of my house. It is metal. Nobody complains about it.
We have over $1 trillion in student debt that is at risk of crashing the economy again. Unemployement numbers are still up, and job growth is still far below what we need. Yet, we are spending all this time and effort on pole placement and deciding if we can afford a legal battle to prevent their installation.
I love Davis, but sometimes I am embarrassed by the actions of my fellow residents.
[quote]Has there been any conversation with the city council about Don Shor’s idea for using foliage to mitigate view impacts? [/quote]Excellent plan…. works for ground-mounted equipment (unless the equipment needs to be accessed) and even better for antennae mounted on streetlight poles (cuts down on lighting that defeats the ‘dark sky ordinance!). Think you folks have come up with a perfect solution.
[quote]And the question a reasonable person might ask is how many people should have to be laid off so that Sally doesn’t have to view a seven-foot extension on the telephone poll across the way. No one wants to think in those terms, but that is why we elect officials, to make those tough choices.
It is called leadership, and sometimes leadership means you have to make tough choices that anger your residents and voters.[/quote]
Precisely right…
And Don Shor’s suggestion of foliage to screen the antennae nodes is spot on!
[quote]And Don Shor’s suggestion of foliage to screen the antennae nodes is spot on! [/quote]Ok. If the antennae are on [b]streetlights[/b], and if foliage obscures the antennae…. can everyone ‘connect the dots’?
BTW… dense foliage interferes with the signals from the DAS. Or, is that precisely what was intended?
You don’t put the plants in front of the poles.
The plants are put in, or next to, the yards of the people who are bothered by the appearance of the poles. Those people might, if I understand the science of it, have interference with the signal to their own homes. Presumably that doesn’t bother them. There are very upright-growing plants (fastigiate is the horticultural term) that would provide screening without making a significant impact on other yards.
Might we try to leave the door open to undo what may be unavoidable right now by 1. adding language to permits stating that the permits become void when the law that is tying the city council’s hands changes, and 2. trying to get that law changed?
[quote]You don’t put the plants in front of the poles.
The plants are put in, or next to, the yards of the people who are bothered by the appearance of the poles. Those people might, if I understand the science of it, have interference with the signal to their own homes. Presumably that doesn’t bother them. There are very upright-growing plants (fastigiate is the horticultural term) that would provide screening without making a significant impact on other yards.
We do this all the time with people who are dealing with second-story windows.[/quote]
Thanks for the more complete explanation. I assumed that was essentially what you meant…
For me the chart graphic clearly states a key crux of the biggest problem I have with their application . . . specifically no standardization on a single delivery method or number of carriers. Look at site 3 which is being reviewed for a whip antenna. That makes absolutely no sense, because if my information is correct a whip antenna only supports a single carrier, and that means that site will be useless to Crown Castle when/if they add any more carriers to their system. Thus it is virtually assured that they will be changing that site after the fact.
That kind of illogical/incomplete/inconsistent application would not be allowed of any Davis resident or business, why is it being even considered/contemplated/processed here?
Example of a tree that is used in urban settings: [i]Carpinus betulus[/i] ‘Fastigiata’:
[img]http://www.arhomeandgarden.org/images/plantoftheweek/Fastigiate_European_Hornbea.jpg[/img]
The well-known Italian cypress:
[img]http://redwoodbarn.com/images/Cuprsempervirens.jpg[/img]
[quote]That kind of illogical/incomplete/inconsistent application would not be allowed of any Davis resident or business, why is it being even considered/contemplated/processed here?[/quote]
It is my understanding the city is going to tighten language in the contract so that there will be no changes after the fact. However, I wonder if such a contract is even enforceable in a utility right of way?
Love the photos of the trees, which shows what can be done with clever landscaping. Thanks Don, for the excellent visual…
Hey Don, I have a landscaping question for you: When (in Davis) did planting a “fence” of Italian Cypresses become popular? I don’t ever recall a single house having one of those “fences” when I left Davis in 1982. Maybe I was just not paying attention. In the last decade or more, I see them in many neighborhoods, old and new, all over town.
My take on I.C.’s: I think they are great for blocking a hot western sun in a large yard. However, it seems like a lot of times they grow to be too large and too verticle for the yards they are planted in.
Matt: [i]” the biggest problem I have with their application . . . specifically no standardization on a single delivery method or number of carriers.”[/i]
I don’t understand this complaint. If a light pole is the least obtrusive facility in one location and a telephone pole is the least obtrusive in another, why would you prefer a method where everything has to be uniform? The idea behind having various choices is to try to find the installation which causes the least aesthetic and practical problems at a wide variety of sites.
As to number of carriers … I don’t know enough about this to say. However, it seems to me–without knowing more–that Davis would be better off having Crown Castle install a system which can handle multiple carriers, not just one. Why is that better? Two reasons: 1) more competition will help cell phone customers; and 2) in case more cell phone companies want to enter the Davis market using the DAS system, having capacity in the CC DAS will forego the need to build a second set of nodes all over Davis.
[quote]Mayor Joe Krovoza, following the lead of City Manager Steve Pinkerton and City Attorney Harriet Steiner, believes the law is on the side of Crown Castle, and any decision that would lead to litigation would be, at best, a costly mistake.[/quote]
One thing is crystal clear. The City has a $2.5 million shortfall we need to deal with. Inseated we are debating about an antennae –and it appears the City can’t win.
We need to move to more important issues.
Rifkin said . . .
[i]”If a light pole is the least obtrusive facility in one location and a telephone pole is the least obtrusive in another, why would you prefer a method where everything has to be uniform? The idea behind having various choices is to try to find the installation which causes the least aesthetic and practical problems at a wide variety of sites.”[/i]
My thought on that was that since it is the City’s direction to move utilities underground where possible and economically feasible, being proactive to anticipate that may make some sense. The timing may make elimination of wood poles infeasible at a number of sites, but if there are two equivalent site alternatives very close to one another with one as a wooden pole and the other being a street light metal pole, we should prefer the metal street light pole for aesthetic reasons.
Rifkin said . . .
[i]”As to number of carriers … I don’t know enough about this to say. However, it seems to me–without knowing more–that Davis would be better off having Crown Castle install a system which can handle multiple carriers, not just one. Why is that better? Two reasons: 1) more competition will help cell phone customers; and 2) in case more cell phone companies want to enter the Davis market using the DAS system, having capacity in the CC DAS will forego the need to build a second set of nodes all over Davis.”[/i]
Agreed
[i]”… if there are two equivalent site alternatives very close to one another with one as a wooden pole and the other being a street light metal pole, we should prefer the metal street light pole for aesthetic reasons.”[/i]
I will assume for argument’s sake that “we should prefer the metal street light pole for aesthetic reasons (in all cases).” If that is so, this is yet another reason why the Council’s vote to approve the application was the correct vote. If Crown had been turned down, Davis would have no say with regard to aesthetic concerns.
Now removing the “for argument’s sake” stipulation, it seems to me that a uniformity rule still does not make the most sense. In some of the node sites, there are existing wooden utility poles and no close light poles. Site #13 is one of these. Were we to follow your suggestion, they would have to put in a new light pole (presumably where it is not needed), despite there being an existing wooden pole in place. I cannot see any benefit from adding a new pole. I also don’t think the antennas placed on existing wooden poles make the poles more unattractive.
[img]http://lh5.ggpht.com/_91SFbopY8BI/TXjnMtnGz8I/AAAAAAAADf4/-2DcI7wOkIs/utility-pole-with-das.jpg[/img]
Rich, if no pole existed at one site, then the two sites would not be equivalent because one would have infrastructure and the other wouldn’t.
I am not sure what you mean by “infrastructure” in that sentence, Matt.
A pole to attach to.
Forget my last comment. I see what you are saying. And it seems to me that since some sites have various choices of infrastructure–light poles or utility poles or telephone toles–while others have just one type of pole and others have none, the best approach is for the Council to decide not one “uniform” answer at each site–which is what I thought you were advocating–but rather to have a unique answer at every site, one which minimizes problems for property owners and causes the least aesthetic problems.
Said another way, if there are two closely located poles, one wooden and the other a metal streetlight, the metal streetlight should be the preferred choice.
We seem to have a lot in common with this community, just without the same historical significants:
[url]http://forthunt.patch.com/articles/mvcca-reviews-williamsburg-model-for-cell-phone-tower-infrastructure[/url]
“significance”… sorry!
I owned a fence company in the late 80’s that installed fencing around 10 different cell sites. At one site (located in the middle of nowhere) I installed a fence around a tower disguised as a tree approx. 60′ high. The tower had a brown bark like pole with artficial limbs at the top looking like those on a high quality Christmas tree. The antenna’s extended partially above the fake limbs. It was not perfect but it was pretty good if you could get past the green lollypop look. My other comment is that each site is different and should be designed as a separate project for the best look.
STORMY, in the world of the pre-DAS technology your approach makes total sense, but in this new world of DAS, trying to establish some consistency makes sense, if only because the number of nodes/sites needed to achieve the same geographic coverage is significantly higher.
To put that point into local context, how many towers does Verizon currently have in its coverage of Davis? Compare that to Crown Castle’s 27 nodes/sites in its network.
Further, what is the height of the typical towers in Verizon’s current Davis network? How does that compare with the height of the typical Crown Castle tower?
[i]”… if there are two closely located poles, one wooden and the other a metal streetlight, the metal streetlight should be the preferred choice.”[/i]
I have no opinion on your preference, if all else is absolutely equal. However, I doubt all else is absolutely equal at any site. And in theory there could be a good reason to prefer the wooden pole near the metal streetlight pole. (E.g., the streetlight may be closer to a residence and the DAS there would cause an aesthetic problem for the homeowner.) As such, I agree with Stormy: “each site is different and should be designed as a separate project for the best look.”
Rich, lets agree to disagree. I simply don’t see how anyone can consider the “robot arms” design that is used with wood poles as more aesthetically pleasing than the vertical extension of a metal light pole. JMHO.