Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
101-T-Mobile/Bubb Rd Reconsideration Report.pdf
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 1010300TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408)777-3308www.cupertino.org CITYCOUNCILSTAFFREPORT Meeting: February 1, 2011 Subject Reconsideration petitionforaCityCouncil denial ofanappeal ofanapprovedwireless communicationsfacilityat 11371 BubbRoad RecommendedAction ConductahearingonapetitionforreconsiderationregardingtheCityCouncil’sdecisiononthe wirelesscommunicationsfacilityat 11371 BubbRoad. AdoptResolutionNo.11-017,DenyingthePetitionofShaulBergerseekingCouncil reconsiderationofitsdecisiontoapprovethewirelesscommunicationsfacilityat11371Bubb Road(SeeAttachmentA). Description PetitiontoreconsideraCityCouncil decisionto denyanappeal ofaDirector’s Minor ModificationApprovaltoallowa personalwireless servicefacility,consisting ofthree panel antennasandassociatedequipmentinstalled on anexistingPacific,Gas& Electric polelocated infront of 11371 BubbRoad. Discussion Background Thefollowingisa summary ofthevariouseventsthat occurredregardingthis projectleading up tothereconsiderationrequest: Sept. 7, 2010CommunityDevelopmentDirectorapprovedwirelessfacilitywith aDirector’s Minor Modification,DIR-2010-28(AttachmentB). Sept. 20, 2010Projectapprovalappealedbyadjacent propertyownerShaul Berger(AttachmentC). Nov. 9, 2010Appeal heardbyPlanningCommissionwhorecommended denial oftheappeal on a 4-0-1vote(AttachmentD, E,&F). Nov. 29, 2010Appeal heardbyCityCouncil,who deniedtheappeal on a 3-2 vote (AttachmentG,H). Dec. 9, 2010AppellantShaulBergerfiles petitionforreconsideration (AttachmentI). Basisforthe Reconsideration TheCity’s MunicipalCode, section 2.08.096, provides proceduresforinterested partiesto petitiontheCityCounciltoreconsiderits decisions.A petitionforreconsideration shall specify in detaileachandeverygroundforreconsideration.Failureofa petitionto specifyany particulargroundorgroundsforreconsiderationprecludesthatparticularomittedground or groundsfrom beingraised orlitigatedina subsequentjudicial proceeding. The groundsfor reconsiderationarelimitedtothefollowing: 1)An offer of newrelevantevidencewhich,intheexercise ofreasonable diligence,could not have beenproducedatanyearliercityhearing. 2)An offer ofrelevantevidencewhichwasimproperlyexcludedatany priorcity hearing. 3)Proof offactswhich demonstratethattheCityCouncil proceededwithout, orinexcess of itsjurisdiction. 4)Proof offactswhich demonstratethattheCityCouncilfailedto provideafair hearing. 5)Proof offactswhich demonstratethattheCityCouncilabusedits discretionby: a)Not precedinginamannerrequiredbylaw;and/or b)Renderinga decisionwhichwas not supportedbyfindings offact;and/or c)Renderinga decisioninwhichthefindingsoffactwere not supportedbythe evidence. The petitionforreconsiderationconsists ofthreepagesaccompaniedbyapetitionwith 31 signatories.Reconsideration ofthisitemconstitutesthethirdfull hearingofthismatter conductedbytheCity.As statedinthe petition’sintroductoryparagraphs,the petitioner has madeclaimsforreconsideration undertheabovereferencedcriteria #2, #4,#5band #5c. The City’sfindingsoffact on each ofthesecriteriaare setforth below. 2.An offer ofrelevantevidencewhichwasimproperlyexcluded at anypriorCityhearing: Finding: Thepetitionerhas offered no newrelevantevidencethatwasexcludedatany priorCity meeting, norhas petitioner proventhatanyevidencewaspreviouslyexcludedbytheCity Council. Thecomplaintisan opinion ofthe petitionerthat has not been supportedbyanyfacts orevidence. PetitionResponse The petitionerallegesthat hisanalysis The petitionerclaimedattheNov. 29, 2010 presentedattheNov. 29, 2010 meetingmeeting,that hisanalysis ofthecalculated indicatesthatradiofrequency(RF)energy energylevelsat 12 feetfromtheantennaswas exposurewasmorethan6times higherthanmorethan sixtimeswhatwasallowedbythe approvedgovernmentlevels. The petitionerfederal standard. The petitioner did not offera furtherallegesthattheCouncil voted on thiscopyoftheanalysistotheCouncil or staff. projectwithoutcheckingtheseclaimsthattheAfterthehearing, staffrequestedthatthe RFenergyexposurewashigherthanapprovedpetitioner provide hisanalysisforthe public governmentlevels.record;thepetitioner did not provideany analysistotheCity(AttachmentJ). The petitionercould haveprovided hisRFanalysis as part of hisreconsideration petitionand presenteditas newevidence, but did not do so. TheCity did notexcludeanyevidenceasthe applicantwas unwillingor unableto provide anyinthismatter. TheCityCouncilcan only act on thefactsandevidence on handwhenits decisionisrendered. TheCity hasrelied on areputablefirm, Hammett& Edison,to preparetheRFenergy analysis.Hammett& Edison haveissuedan opinionthattheRFenergyatthis siteiswell withinthefederal safetystandardsatalevel of 0.0012milliwatt percentimeter squaredforall groundlevelexposures,and 0.0022 milliwatt percentimeter squaredfor secondfloor exposures ofany nearbyresidence. To remove any doubtastotheaccuracy oftheconsultant’s RFenergyanalysis,theCityhasalso conditionedtheapprovaltorequire post- constructionRFmonitoringtomakecertainthe RFenergyexposuresarewithinfederal standards. 4.Proof offactswhichdemonstratethattheCityCouncilfailedtoprovide a fairhearing: Finding: Thepetitionerhas not providedany proof offactsthat demonstratetheCouncilfailed to provideafairhearing. To thecontrary,areview ofthe hearing on November 29, 2010 shows thattheCouncil heardlengthytestimonyfromthe petitionerand neighborhoodresidents,aswell asinformation presented by staffandtheapplicant. TheCouncilasked questionsandreceived responses beforedeliberating on the project. PetitionResponse The petitionerallegesthattheCity did notSincethis project has been heardby boththe provideafair hearing becausetheCommunityPlanningCommissionandtheCityCouncil, DevelopmentDirector did notconvenea publicanyalleged processingflawattheDirector designreviewhearing beforeactingtoapprovelevel has been overcomeatthis point.At both theapplication.thePlanningCommissionandCityCouncil hearings,the petitionerhas had opportunitiesto reviewandinfluencethedesign ofthewireless facility. TheDirector’sapproachwas not based on a determinationthattheitemwould not becontroversial;rather,theDirector determinedthatthe placement ofthewireless equipment on anexisting utility pole constitutedaminor designchangetothe appearance ofthe pole.TheCity’sadopted WirelessFacilities MasterPlanindicatesthat theDirector’sapprovalisthe proper processing optionfor suchafacilitydesign. 5.Proof offactswhichdemonstratethattheCityCouncil abuseditsdiscretionby: b)Rendering a decisionwhichwasnot supportedbyfindingsoffact; and/or c)Rendering a decisioninwhichthefindingsoffactwerenot supportedbytheevidence. Finding: Thepetitionerhas not providedany proof offactsthat demonstratetheCouncilabused its discretionbyrenderingadecisionwhichwasnot supportedbyfindingsoffact, orrenderinga decisioninwhichthefindings offactwere not supportedbytheevidence. PetitionResponse The petitionerallegesthattheCityCouncilThereis no requirementthatthe best solution neverreviewedalternativecell site optionsthatbefound, onlythata projectis determined providea better solutiontoall parties. Theappropriate. TheCity’sWirelessFacilities petitionerallegesthatanalternative solutionMasterPlanexpressesadesign preferencethat involvingatallertowerinamoreremotewirelessfacilitiesinresidentialareas be sited locationwould providebettercoverageandonexisting utilitytowersand poles,ratherthan collocation“savings”andresultina differentbuilding new structures.Thusthe proposed decision.sitemeetstherequirements oftheCity’s WirelessFacilities MasterPlan. TheCity Council did discussthreealternative sitesinits deliberations on 11/29/10.One sitewasLinda VistaParkwhich hasa hill. This parkwas estimatedto beabout ¾ofamileawayand wasfeltto betoofarawayto providegood coveragetotheBubbRoadarea. Thesecond suggestedalternativewasthe proposedAT&T monopineatResultsWaywhichhadthe potentialto serveanothercarrieratalower height on the pole.Itwasinappropriateto considertheResultsWay siteasanalternative because no decision on the projectappeal had beengrantedbyNov. 29, 2010. TheCouncil knewthattheAT&Tmonopinewas 19 feet lowerthanthegroundtothe south, so anyT- Mobilecollocatedantennas(at 46 feet, effectively 27 feet)would be similartotwo nearby T-Mobilefacilitiesandtoolowin heightandtoofaraway(1+mile)to provide cellcoverageto southernBubbRoad. Thethird sitealternativeconsideredbythe CouncilwastheSanJoseWaterCompany water storagefacilityatRegnartRoadand LindyLane. Thisfacilityis notawatertank, butacoveredearthenreservoir.Staffindicated thatthe structurelackedheightandamonopole would haveto be built. TheCityCouncil rejectedtheconcept oferectinga new,tall monopolecell siteattheedge ofthereservoir nexttotheexisting houses. Thisclaimisimmaterialtoanybasisfor The petitionerallegesthat T-Mobilecould not provideanyinformationaboutthe number ofreconsideration.Also,the 1996 subscribersthatwould benefitfromtheTelecommunicationsAct, section proposedwirelessfacility. TheCouncil704(7)(B)(i)(I)prohibitsanylocal decision- renderedadecision on thisfacilitywithoutmakingagencyfrom unreasonably knowingiftherewasany public benefit.discriminatingamong providers offunctionally equivalent(personalwireless) services. The petitionerallegesthat hisanalysisSeeCityResponsetoPetitioner’sclaim under presentedattheNov. 29, 2010 meetingMunicipalCode section 2.08.096(B)(2). indicatesthatradiofrequency(RF)energy exposurewasmorethan6times higherthan approvedgovernmentlevels. The petitioner furtherallegesthattheCouncil voted on this projectwithoutcheckingtheseclaimsthatthe RFenergyexposurewashigherthanapproved governmentlevels. _____________________________________ Preparedby:ColinJung,AICP,SeniorPlanner Reviewedby:GaryChao,CityPlanner;AartiShrivastava,CommunityDevelopmentDirector ApprovedforSubmissionby:DavidW.Knapp,CityManager Attachments: A.CityCouncilResolution 11-017and Exhibit1 B.Director’s Minor ModificationApproval datedSept. 7, 2010 C.AppealbyShaulBerger datedSept. 20, 2010 D.PlanningCommissionStaffReport datedNov. 9, 2010 E.PlanningCommission Meeting Minutes ofNov. 9, 2010 F.PlanningCommissionResolutionNo. 6616 G.CityCouncilStaffReport datedNov. 29, 2010 H.CityCouncil MeetingAction Minutes ofNov.29, 2010 I.PetitionforReconsiderationfiledDec. 9, 2010 J. EmailfromShaulBergertoCity staffdatedNov. 30, 2010 K.ApprovedPlanSet