No preview available
102-A. City Council Resolution & Exhibit 1.pdf RESOLUTIONNO. 11-017 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. 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,includingevidencepresentedattheFebruary 1, 2011reconsideration hearing. NOW, THEREFORE,ITISHEREBYRESOLVEDASFOLLOWS: 1.The petitioners'ReconsiderationPetitionis defective on itsfaceinthatit does not offer proof offactsasrequiredby MunicipalCodeSection 2.08.096. 2.TheCityCouncil did notexcludeanyevidence presentedbythe petitionersatany prior city hearing.(See MunicipalCode § 2.08.096B(2).) 3.The petitioners havefailedto presentanyevidencethattheCityCouncilfailedto provide afairhearing.(See MunicipalCode § 2.08.096B(4).) 4.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 ExhibitA. b.ThefindingsoffactrelatedtotheCityCouncil'sdecisionwere supportedby substantialevidenceintherecord of proceedings. 5.The petitioners'PetitionforReconsideration oftheCityCouncil's decision ofNovember 29, 2010 on item __ isDENIED,therebyaffirmingthe originaldecision. PASSEDANDADOPTEDataregularmeeting oftheCityCouncil oftheCity of st Cupertinothis 1 dayofFebruary 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’sintroductory paragraphs,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 petitioner federal 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 beforeactingtoapprove level 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 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,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. The petitionerallegesthat T-Mobilecould notThisclaimisimmaterialtoanybasisfor 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.