Loading...
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:April 5, 2011 Subject Reconsideration petitionforaCityCouncil denial ofanappeal ofanapprovedwireless communicationsfacilityat 11371 BubbRoad RecommendedAction ConductahearingonapetitionforreconsiderationregardingtheCityCouncil’sdecisiononthe wirelesscommunicationsfacilityat 11371 BubbRoad. AdoptResolutionNo.______,DenyingthePetitionofShaulBergerseekingCouncil reconsiderationofitsdecisiontoapprovethewirelesscommunicationsfacilityat11371Bubb RoadinaccordancewithPlanningCommissionResolutionNo. 6616 (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, 2010CommunityDevelopmentDirectorapprovedwirelessfacilitywitha Director’s Minor Modification,DIR-2010-28(AttachmentB). Sept. 20, 2010Projectapprovalappealedbyadjacent propertyownerShaulBerger (AttachmentC). Nov. 9, 2010ThePlanningCommissionconsideredtheappealandrecommendeddenial oftheappeal on a 4-0-1vote(AttachmentD, E,&F). Nov. 29, 2010TheCityCouncil heardtheappealand denieditona 3-2 vote(Attachment G,H). Dec. 9, 2010AppellantShaulBergerfiles petitionforreconsideration(AttachmentI). Feb. 1, 2011Reconsideration hearingcontinuedto March 15, 2011. March 15, 2011Reconsideration hearingcontinuedtoApril 5, 2011. Background/CouncilDirection TheCityCouncilcontinuedthereconsideration hearingfromFebruary 1, 2011to March 15, 2011togivethepetitionerandapplicanttimeto discusstheir differencesincalculatingtheradio frequencyenergyexposures ofthe proposed T-Mobile personalwireless servicefacility.A continuancewasrequestedbythepetitioner because hisengineerwould beout ofthecountryin March,andthiswasagreedtobytheapplicant.TheCityCouncilcontinuedthe hearingtoApril 5, 2011. Theapplicantattemptedtoreachthe petitionerinFebruary butwas not successful (Attachment M ).Sincetheyhave not had discussions,thereis no newinformationfor staffto present on radiofrequencyenergyexposures. 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 been producedatanyearliercityhearing. 2)An offer ofrelevantevidencewhichwasimproperlyexcludedatany priorcity hearing. 3)Proof offactswhich demonstratethattheCityCouncil proceededwithout, orinexcess ofits jurisdiction. 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 supportedbytheevidence. The petitionforreconsiderationconsists ofthreepagesaccompaniedbyapetitionwith 31 signatories.Reconsideration ofthisitemconstitutesthethirdfull hearingofthismatter conductedbytheCity.As statedinthe petition’sintroductoryparagraphs,the petitioner has madeclaimsforreconsideration undertheabovereferencedcriteria #2, #4,#5band #5c. The petitioner submitted hisradiationanalysis(AttachmentK) on January 27, 2011, 49 daysafterthe reconsideration petitionwasfiled on December9, 2010. Theanalysisclaimsfora reconsideration underreferencedcriteria #1. TheCity’sfindingsoffactandresponses on each ofthesecriteriaare setforth below. 1.An offer ofnewrelevantevidencewhich,intheexercise ofreasonablediligence,couldnot havebeenproduced at anyearliercityhearing. Finding: Theoffer of newrelevantevidencebythe petitionercould havebeen presentedatthe CityCouncilappeal hearing ofNovember 29, 2010 orwiththereconsideration petition submitted on December9, 2010, instead of 49 dayslater on January 27, 2011. PetitionResponse Inthepetitioner’sanalysis of powerdensity,Theapplicant’sradiofrequencyenergy assumptionsaremadeaboutthe T-mobileconsultantfindsthe petitioner’smethodology equipmentand powerdensityiscalculatedasaandcalculationsto bereasonable,exceptforan percentage ofthe MaximumPermissibleerrorin usingthe proposed output powerfrom Exposure(MPE)allowedbytheFederaltheantennaasthe output powerfromthe Governmentfor uncontrolledenvironments(1transmitter,whichaccordingtotheconsultant milliwatt percentimetersquared) Therearemakesall ofthe petitioner’sresultstoo highby three pagescalculatingpower density 12 feet,afactor ofabout 15 times(1500%). The 20feetand 30feetfromtheantenna. Theconsultantalso points outthatthe petitioneris results showexposures of 632%, 227.5%andcalculatingthe power densityinfront ofthe 101.1% ofthe MPE.antennaswhichare 44feetintheair,instead of wherepeoplemightbe present suchasat groundlevel orin nearby buildings (AttachmentL). Theapplicantattemptedto contactthe petitioner, providingadditional technical specificationsonthe T-Mobilecell facility, but has notbeenabletomeetwiththe petitioner(AttachmentM). Toremoveany doubtastotheaccuracyofthe consultant’sRFenergyanalysis,theCityhas alsoconditionedtheapprovaltorequire post- constructionRFmonitoringtomakecertainthe RFenergyexposuresarewithinfederal standards. 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 hisanalysisThe petitionerclaimedattheNov. 29, 2010 presentedattheNov. 29, 2010 meeting meeting,that hisanalysis ofthecalculated indicatesthatradiofrequency(RF)energyenergylevelsat 12 feetfromtheantennaswas exposurewasmorethan6times higherthan morethan sixtimeswhatwasallowedbythe approvedgovernmentlevels. The petitionerfederal standard. The petitioner did not offera furtherallegesthattheCouncil voted on this copyoftheanalysistotheCouncil or staff. projectwithoutcheckingtheseclaimsthattheAfterthehearing, staffrequestedthatthe RFenergyexposurewashigherthanapprovedpetitioner provide hisanalysisforthe public governmentlevels.record;thepetitioner did not provideany analysistotheCity(AttachmentJ) until 49 daysafter hisreconsideration petitionwas filed,and 5 days beforethereconsideration hearing(AttachmentK). TheCityCouncilcan onlyact on thefactsandevidence on hand whenits decisionisrendered. TheCity hasrelied on areputablefirm, Hammett& Edison,to preparetheRFenergy analysis.Hammett& Edison haveclarified thattheRFenergyatthis siteiswellwithinthe federal safety standardsatalevel of 0.0012 milliwatt percentimetersquaredforallground levelexposures,and 0.0022milliwatt per centimeter squaredfor secondfloorexposures ofany nearbyresidence. Toremoveany doubtastotheaccuracyofthe consultant’sRFenergyanalysis,theCityhas alsoconditionedtheapprovaltorequire 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 not Sincethis project has been heardby boththe provideafair hearing becausetheCommunityPlanningCommissionandtheCityCouncil, DevelopmentDirector did notconvenea public anyalleged 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 Nov. 29, 2010.One sitewas LindaVistaPark on a hill. This parkwas estimatedto beabout ¾ofamileawayand wasfeltto betoofarawayto providegood coveragetotheBubbRoadarea. Thesecond suggestedalternative sitewasthe proposed AT&TmonopineatResultsWaywhich had the 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 sitealternativesiteconsideredbythe CouncilwastheSanJoseWaterCompany water storagefacilityatRegnartRoadand LindyLane. Thisfacilityisacoveredearthen reservoir.Staffindicatedthatthe structure lacked heightandamonopolewould haveto be built. TheCityCouncilrejectedtheconcept oferectinga new,tallmonopolecell siteatthe edge 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)(1)and indicatesthatradiofrequency(RF)energy(B)(2). exposurewasmorethan6times higherthan approvedgovernmentlevels. The petitioner furtherallegesthattheCouncil voted on this projectwithoutcheckingtheseclaimsthatthe RFenergyexposurewashigherthanapproved governmentlevels. AT&Tacquisition ofT-Mobile announcement The petitionerShaulBerger hasemailedtheCityregardedtheannouncedacquisition of T- MobilebyAT&T. Thepetitioner believestheacquisitionwill havefar-reachingimplicationsfor th wirelesscoverageinCupertinoandthatallactivity,includingtheApril 5reconsideration hearingforfile no. DIR-2010-28 should be put on hold untilthecompaniesfigure outtheir combined plans(AttachmentN). Therehave been pressreportsthatAT&Tis planning on acquiringT-Mobile.Staff has contactedAT&Tandwasinformedthatthemergerwill nottake placeforatleast 12 months.In fact,the plannedacquisitionis subjecttofederalregulatoryapprovalandwill not occurfor quite sometime,ifatall.Atthistime,theCityCouncilmay notconsiderthe potentialacquisitionas groundsfor denialoftheproject. Thetwocellularsystemsarecurrently separate.Unlessthe applicantwithdrawsherapplication,theCityCouncil should proceedwiththereconsideration hearing.Legally,theCitymay notconsiderthis possible businesstransactionas part ofthe requestforreconsideration ofthecellfacility siting.Also,the possible sale of T-Mobileto AT&T does notconstitute grounds underthereconsideration ordinance. ____________________________________ Preparedby:ColinJung,AICP,SeniorPlanner Reviewedby:GaryChao,CityPlanner;AartiShrivastava,CommunityDevelopmentDirector ApprovedforSubmissionby:DavidW.Knapp,CityManager Attachments: A.CityCouncilResolutionNo.______and Exhibit 1 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. EmailfromShaulBergerregardingradiationanalysis ofT-Mobile Antenna proposaldatedJan. 27, 2011. L.ResponsetoPetitioner’sRadiationAnalysis preparedbyHammett& Edison,Inc. DatedJanuary 31, 2011. M. Emailfrom MarkNeumann ofHammett&EdisontoShaulBergerregarding ERP calculations datedFeb. 11, 2011, andemailfrom MarkNeumannofHammett& EdisontoColinJungregardinglack ofresponsefromShaulBerger datedFeb. 25, 2011 N. EmailfromShaulBerger datedMarch 21, 2011 O.ApprovedPlanSet