Loading...
102-A. City Council Resolution & Exhibit 1.pdf RESOLUTIONNO. ARESOLUTIONOFTHECITYCOUNCILOF THECITYOFCUPERTINO DENYING THEPETITIONOFSHAULBERGERSEEKINGCOUNCIL RECONSIDERATIONOFITSDECISION TODENYANAPPEALOFDIR-2010-28,A DIRECTOR’SMINOR MODIFICATIONTOALLOWAPERSONALWIRELESSSERVICE FACILITYONANEXISTINGPG&EPOLEAT 11371 BUBBROAD WHEREAS, on November 29, 2010, theCupertinoCityCouncilreceiveda staffreportand recommendationto denyanappeal ofaDirector’s Minor Modificationapproval ofa T-Mobile personalwireless servicefacilityproposed on anexistingPG&E poleat 11371 BubbRoad. WHEREAS,theCupertinoCityCouncil helda public hearingandattheconclusion ofthe hearing deniedtheappealfiledbyShaulBergerona 3-2 voteatitsmeeting ofNovember 29, 2010,thusapprovingtheproject,DIR-2010-28,inaccordancewithPlanningCommission ResolutionNo. 6616. WHEREAS,theCupertinoCityCouncil'sdecisionwaswithinits discretionandmadeat a properly noticed publicmeeting. WHEREAS,ShaulBergerrequestedthattheCityCouncilreconsiderits decision underthe provisions ofSection 2.08.096 oftheCity'smunicipalcode;and WHEREAS,theCityCouncil hasconsideredallrelevantevidencepresentedbythe partiesatall hearings,includingevidencepresentedattheApril 5, 2011 reconsideration hearing. NOW, THEREFORE,ITISHEREBYRESOLVEDASFOLLOWS: 1.The petitioners'ReconsiderationPetitionis defective on itsfaceinthatit does not offer proof offactsasrequiredby MunicipalCodeSection 2.08.096. 2.The petitioners did not provide newrelevantevidencewhichintheexercise ofreasonable diligence,could not have been producedatanyearliercity hearing(SeeMunicipalCode § 2.08.096B(1).) Evidence presented did notincontrovertibly provethatfederallaws regardingmaximumlevels ofradiofrequencyenergyexposurewould be violated. The Cityhasrequired post-constructionradiofrequencyenergymonitoringtoinsure compliancewithfederallaw. 3.TheCityCouncil did notexcludeanyevidence presentedbythe petitionersatany prior city hearing.(See MunicipalCode § 2.08.096B(2).) 4.The petitioners havefailedto presentanyevidencethattheCityCouncilfailedto provide afairhearing.(See MunicipalCode § 2.08.096B(4).) 5.The petitioners havefailedto demonstratethattheCityCouncilabusedits discretion by denyingtheappeal ofaDirector’sapproval(file no. DIR-2010-28) ofapersonal wireless servicefacilityonanexistingPG&E polelocatedat 11371BubbRoad.(See MunicipalCode § 2.08.096B(5).)Specifically,theCityCouncil determinesthat: a.TheCityCouncil'sdecisionis supportedbyfindings offactattachedas Exhibit 1. b.ThefindingsoffactrelatedtotheCityCouncil'sdecisionwere supportedby substantialevidenceintherecord of proceedings. 6.The petitioners'PetitionforReconsideration oftheCityCouncil's decision ofNovember 29, 2010 on item __ isDENIED,therebyaffirmingthe originaldecision. PASSEDANDADOPTEDataregularmeeting oftheCityCouncil oftheCity of th Cupertinothis 5 dayofApril 2011, bythefollowing vote: VoteMembers oftheCityCouncil AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST:APPROVED: ___________________________________________ CityClerkMayor,City ofCupertino EXHIBIT 1 CITYCOUNCILFINDINGS INRESPONSETOPETITIONFORRECONSIDERATION Cupertino MunicipalCode section 2.08.096 states: “A petitionforreconsideration shall specifyin detaileachandeverygroundforreconsideration. Failureofa petitionto specifyanyparticularground or groundsforreconsideration precludes that particular omittedground or groundsfrom beingraised orlitigatedinasubsequentjudicial proceeding. The groundsforreconsiderationarelimitedtothefollowing: 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 proceedinginamannerrequiredbylaw;and/or b)Renderinga decisionwhichwas not supportedbyfindings offact;and/or c)Renderinga decisioninwhichthefindingsoffactwere not supportedbythe evidence.” OriginalPetition 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 on January 27, 2011, 49 daysafterthe reconsideration petitionwasfiled on December9, 2010. Theanalysisisaclaimfor reconsideration underreferencedcriteria #1. TheCity’sfindingsoffact on each ofthese criteriaaresetforth below. 1.An offer ofnewrelevantevidencewhich,intheexercise ofreasonablediligence,couldnot havebeenproduced at anyearliercityhearing. Finding: Theoffer of newrelevantevidencebythe petitionercould havebeen presentedat theCityCouncilappealhearing ofNovember 29,2010 orwiththereconsideration petition submitted on December9, 2010, instead of 49 dayslater on January 27, 2011. PetitionResponse Inthepetitioner’sanalysis of powerTheapplicant’sradiofrequencyenergy density,assumptionsaremadeabouttheconsultantfindsthe petitioner’smethodology T-mobileequipmentandpower densityisandcalculationsto bereasonable,exceptfor calculatedasa percentage ofthe Maximumanerrorin usingtheproposed output power Permissible Exposure(MPE)allowedbyfromtheantennaastheoutput powerfromthe transmitter,whichaccordingtotheconsultant theFederalGovernmentfor uncontrolled environments(1milliwatt percentimetermakesall ofthe petitioner’sresultstoo high squared) Therearethree pagescalculatingbyafactor ofabout 15 times(1500%). The power density 12 feet, 20feetand 30feetconsultantalso points outthatthe petitioneris fromtheantenna. Theresults showcalculatingthe power densityinfront ofthe exposures of 632%, 227.5%and 101.1% ofantennaswhichare 44feetintheair,instead the MPE.ofwhere peoplemight be present suchasat groundlevel orin nearby buildings. The applicantattemptedtocontactthe petitioner, providingadditionaltechnical specifications onthe T-Mobilecellfacility, buthas not been abletomeetwiththe petitioner. Toremoveany doubtastotheaccuracyofthe consultant’sRFenergyanalysis,theCityhas alsoconditionedtheapprovaltorequire post- constructionRFmonitoringtomakecertain theRFenergyexposuresarewithinfederal 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 meetingmeeting,that hisanalysis ofthecalculated indicatesthatradiofrequency(RF)energyenergylevelsat 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 until 49 daysafterhis reconsideration petitionwasfiled,and 5 days beforethereconsideration hearing. TheCity Councilcan onlyact on thefactsandevidence on handwhenits decisionisrendered. TheCity hasrelied on areputablefirm, Hammett& Edison,to preparetheRFenergy analysis.Hammett& Edison haveclarified thattheRFenergyatthis siteiswellwithin thefederal safety standardsatalevel of 0.0012milliwatt percentimeter squaredforall groundlevelexposures,and 0.0022 milliwatt percentimeter squaredfor secondfloor exposures ofany nearbyresidence. Toremoveany doubtastotheaccuracyofthe consultant’sRFenergyanalysis,theCityhas alsoconditionedtheapprovaltorequire post- constructionRFmonitoringtomakecertain theRFenergyexposuresarewithinfederal 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 opportunities toreviewandinfluencethe design ofthe wirelessfacility. TheDirector’sapproachwas not based on a determinationthattheitem would not becontroversial;rather,the Directordeterminedthatthe placement ofthe wirelessequipment on anexisting utility pole constitutedaminor designchangetothe appearance ofthe pole.TheCity’sadopted WirelessFacilities MasterPlanindicatesthat theDirector’sapprovalisthe proper processing optionfor suchafacility design. 5.Proof offactswhichdemonstratethattheCityCouncil abuseditsdiscretionby: b)Rendering a decisionwhichwasnot supportedbyfindingsoffact; and/or c)Rendering a decisioninwhichthefindingsoffactwerenot supportedbythe evidence. 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,rather collocation“savings”andresultina differentthan building new structures. Thus the decision.proposed sitemeetstherequirements ofthe City’sWirelessFacilities MasterPlan. The CityCouncil did discussthreealternative sites inits deliberations on November 29, 2010. One sitewasLindaVistaPark on a hill. This parkwasestimatedto beabout ¾ ofamile awayandwasfeltto betoofarawayto provide good coveragetotheBubbRoadarea. The second suggestedalternativewasthe proposedAT&TmonopineatResultsWay which hadthe potentialto serveanother carrieratalowerheightonthe pole.Itwas inappropriatetoconsidertheResultsWay site asanalternative becauseno decision on the projectappeal had beengrantedbyNov. 29, 2010. TheCouncil knewthattheAT&T monopinewas 19 feetlowerthantheground tothe south, so any T-Mobilecollocated antennas(at 46 feet,effectively 27 feet) would be similartotwo nearby T-Mobile facilitiesandtoolowin heightandtoofar away(1+mile)to providecellcoverageto southernBubbRoad. Thethird sitealternativeconsideredbythe CouncilwastheSanJoseWaterCompany water storagefacilityatRegnartRoadand LindyLane. Thisfacilityisacoveredearthen reservoir.Staffindicatedthatthe structure lacked heightandamonopolewould haveto be built. TheCityCouncilrejectedthe concept oferectinga new,tallmonopolecell siteattheedge ofthereservoir nexttothe existing 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 of functionallyequivalent(personalwireless) services. SeeCityResponsetoPetitioner’sclaim under The petitionerallegesthat hisanalysis 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.