Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso - CC - 031-2012RESOLUTION NO. 31.-2012 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME DENYING THE APPEAL OF DOUGLAS LUFTMAN AND MARK WILSON IN REGARD TO THE CITY'S GRANT OF SPECIAL ENCROACHMENT PERMITS NO. 82790-2 AND NO. 82790-3 TO EXTENET SYSTEMS OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE PLACEMENT OF WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES WHEREAS, in September 2010, ExteNet Systems of California, LLC (ExteNet), submitted eight (8) encroachment permit applications for the placement of wireless antennas in the City of Burlingame public right-of-way; and, WHEREAS, in conjunction with the proposed wireless antennas, the project, as proposed by ExteNet, includes additional fiber optic lines to be installed on existing above -ground utility poles and installation of thirteen (13) required guy -wire safety anchors for the utility poles at various locations in the City right-of-way; and, WHEREAS, given the potential aesthetic and other impacts (but not including impacts of radio frequency [RF] emissions) of the proposed sites and absent a City ordinance establishing a process for such applications, staff developed a wireless antenna policy for processing these permits; and, WHEREAS, in developing the wireless antenna policy, City staff collaborated with and solicited comments from, among others, ExteNet. WHEREAS, the wireless antenna policy was designed to minimize aesthetic and other impacts (but not including impacts of RF emissions), to the extent feasible and to the extent permitted by Federal and State regulations, and to inform the public through notification to residents of the proposed antenna, related equipment and guy wire anchor sites; and WHEREAS, fr om December 2010 to July 2011, staff worked with ExteNet in developing and reviewinC the public notification documents -- including photo -simulations of the proposed facilities and maps detailing their location — which notification documents were revised several times to ensure their adequacy, clarity, and accuracy; and WHEREAS, after ExteNet mailed public notifications for eight (8) wireless an tenna sites and thirteen (13) anchor sites to the public on July 12, 2011, Public Works staff received seventy-four (74) comments from the public, most of which were critical of the proposed facilities primarily because of concerns of adverse aesthetic impacts, compliance with RF emission standards, and negative impacts on property value due to the proposed facilities; and WHEREAS, on September 2, 2011, based on the review of public comments an d materials submitted by ExteNet, staff requested that ExteNet provide additional information regarding possible aesthetic improvements and/or undergrounding of the facilities, an alternative locations analysis, compliance with FCC regulations regarding RF emissions, the necessity of the facilities to eliminate a gap in coverage, property value impacts and alternatives to eliminate anchors; and WHEREAS, Public Works staff conducted extensive discussions and site visits with ExteNet regarding possible modifications to their proposed facility locations with an objective to minimize the aesthetic impacts of the proposed facilities; and WHEREAS, ExteNet did mod fy its original proposal to underground some of the equipment at two (2) locations, to relocate the two (2) antennas and equipment that are the subject of this Resolution to a nearby rear utility easement and to eliminate two (2) guy wire anchor supports for City approval; and subsequently agreed to underground equipment at one (1) additional antenna site and eliminate one (1) anchor after approval by Public Works Department; and WHEREAS, on February 23, 2012, after an extensive review and consideration of all the materials submitted and the modifications made by the applicant, the Public Works Department conditionally approved the eight (8) special encroachment permits for the placement of eight (8) wireless antenna and related ExteNet facilities; the permits included findings supporting the grant of the permits and conditions of approval required prior to and after installation; and WHEREAS, on March 5, 2012, Douglas Luftman and Mark Wilson appealed the decision of the Public Works Department to issue the special encroachment permits to ExteNet for the placement of the eight (8) wireless antenna and related wireless communications facilities in the public right-of-way; and WHEREAS, on April 9, 2012, Douglas Luftman and Mark Wilson submitted a comprehensive brief in connection with their appeal, in which they explain in detail several significant concerns with the accuracy of the information submitted by ExteNet, the extent to which that information reconciles with online coverage map information available on T -Mobile's website, the accuracy of field data on signal coverage levels, field data that contradicts the conclusions regarding coverage advanced by ExteNet; and a host of additional legal, factual, and technical issues; and WHEREAS, on April 16, 2012, the City Council held a hearing on the appeal, at which it received significant additional testimony from the appellants, ExteNet and the public, all of which the City has considered and incorporated into its decision-making process. NOW, THEREFORE, BE 1T RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Burlingame as follows: 1) The Council has reviewed all 47+h e material submitted by City staff, by the appellants and by the applicant, and by members o£the public, has listened to and reviewed all public comment and testimony regarding this matter, and, based upon that body of evidence, makes the decision herein. 2) The Council finds the materials presented by all of the parties to this proceeding provide the following facts which the Council finds to be true and correct: a. ExteNet submitted applications for eight (8) special encroachment permits for wireless communications facilities including eight (8) antennas, related equipment, fiber optic aerially -strung wire and thirteen (13) guy wire anchor supports in the northwestern residential areas of the City of Burlingame. b. The proposed placement of the antenna and equipment at this locations that are the subject of applications 82790-2 and 82790-3 meet the "order of preference" requirement in the Department of Public Works (DPW) special encroachment permit policy because the antenna and related equipment and wiring will be placed upon a utility pole, the third locational preference under the DPW policy; as there is no building at this location, the higher preferences of "fagade mounted" and "roof mounted" are not applicable. c. DPW requested re -submissions of photo simulations and maps of the proposed facility locations prior to approval for public notification in order to ensure accuracy and clarity. d. The final photo simulations, site location drawing, and notification of the proposed facilities were sent to the residents per guidelines of the City's wireless antenna policy. e. Per the guidelines of the wireless antenna policy, the residents responded to the ExteNet with letters and emails regarding the proposed facilities and provided copies of the responses to the DPW; these comments indicated a host of concerns relative to the adverse impacts of the proposed facilities, including but not limited to adverse impacts on the residential character of the locations of the proposed facilities. f. The applicant responded to the residents comments with copies to DPW; the applicant on at least one occasion, met with residents in the area of the Valdivia proposed facility. g. Based upon the residents' assertion that the applicant did not adequately address their concerns, DPW requested additional information from the applicant, addressing the following issues, among others: i) Request for alternatives to address aesthetic impacts such as undergrounding facilities; Alternative location analysis including Public Utility Easements; iii) Radio Frequency (RF) emissions in regards to compliance with FCC regulations; iv) The need for facilities to eliminate a gap in service coverage; v) Property value impact; and vi) Alternative means to eliminate anchors but still satisfying safety requirements. h. After receipt of the additional information fr om the applicant, DPW met with the applicant to discuss alternative locations for the antenna and related equipment; as a result, the applicant agreed, among other things, to relocate two (2) of the eight proposed antennas to less visually intrusive locations, in rear utility easements (those two antennas are the subject of this (esolution); the remaining six (6) of the proposed antennas (which are not the subject of this Resolution) were to remain on utility poles within the street right-of-way with undergrounding equipment of three (3) of the six (6) as to mitigate aesthetic impacts. i. DPW commissioned RCC Consultants, Inc., an outside independent wireless communications expert, to review the technical submissions of the applicant with regard to, among other things, the need for the facilities, RF compliance with FCC regulations and whether the proposed project by ExteNet is consistent with industry practices. RCC's determined that information provided by ExteNet does confirm the existence of service coverage gap (assuming that ExteNet has a contractual relationship with T -Mobile, and assuming that the coverage standards applied by ExteNet and RCC are appropriate in this circumstance). RCC further found that the RF emissions from the proposed facilities will comply with FCC regulations. j. DPW reviewed all of the materials submitted by the applicant and granted the eight (8) special encroachment permits for wireless facilities per modifications as stated above, and accepted in principle the conclusions offered by RCC. k. Residents Douglas Luftman and Mark Wilson filed a timely appeal of DPW's approval of the special encroachment permits. 3) The Council has been informed of and recognizes that while the City retains discretionary authority over the permitting of wireless facility, that authority is constrained by federal and state law. 4) After heazing and reviewing all the evidence and based upon the facts as found to be true herein, the City Council hereby determines the following: a. ExteNet is permitted by the State Public Utilities Code and regulations of the State Public Utilities Commission, to place its facilities in the public right-of-way so long as (i) the proposed placement does not incommode the use of the public rights of way, and (ii) ExteNet complies with reasonable time place and manner restrictions (which may include aesthetic considerations). b. In regard to applications 82790-2 and 82790-3, ExteNet has substantially complied with the Public Works Department Special Encroachment Permit Policy for Wireless Communications Facilities by submitting the requested material, including corrected photo simulations of the proposed facilities and location maps, certification of the need for the facilities, an alternative locations analysis, revised photo simulations for the relocated antennas from the public right-of-way to utility poles in the rear easements of both locations. c. The proposed placement of the antenna and equipment at this location meets the "order of preference" requirement in the DPW special encroachment permit policy because the antenna and related equipment and wiring will be placed upon a utility pole, the third locational preference under the DPW policy; as there is no building at this location, the higher preferences of "fagade mounted" and "roof mounted" are not applicable. d. The original proposal of the said two (2) applications was to place wireless antenna and related equipment on City streetlight and existing utility pole, both in front of resident homes. The original proposed location on existing City streetlight has zero existing overhead utilities along the street fronting resident homes. The original proposed location on existing utility pole has zero pole mounted facilities and minimal overhead wire. The original proposal of the two locations would render the streetlight and utility pole an ugly eyesore. e. The revised proposal for the said two (2) applications is to relocate the two (2) wireless antenna and related equipment to nearby rear utility easements. There are existing utility poles with overhead wires and facilities in the rear easement as well as tall trees adjacent to the proposed pole for screening. The relocation to the rear easement has reduced the aesthetic impacts to both neighborhoods. f. The relocation of the wireless antenna from the City streetlight to the rear utility easement also eliminated the original need for an electric meter pedestal in front of a resident's home. g. The City Council is satisfied that, in regard to applications 82790-2 and 82790-3, although the evidence of the existence of a significant gap in coverage is equivocal, the facilities proposed at these two locations are the least intrusive options for improving existing coverage in the vicinity of the proposed locations. h. The City's outside independent wireless communications expert, RCC, determined in their independent review, that ExteNet's proposed RF emissions will comply with FCC regulations and is consistent with industry standards. i. Appellants and others have presented substantial evidence undermining ExteNet and RCC's conclusions regarding the existence of a significant gap in coverage, including questions regarding whether: (i) ExteNet may rely on T -Mobile's asserted "gap" in coverage for purposes of demonstrating a gap in coverage; (ii) ExteNet has any contractual relationship with T -Mobile, and what the details of that relationship are; (iii) Online coverage maps available from T -Mobile are consistent with the coverage assertions made by ExteNet; (iv) The removal of some (but not all) proposed facilities would render any gap (if one exists) less than significant; (v) The signal strength standards asserted by ExteNet are in fact the level of signal strength required to avoid a "significant gap" in coverage; and (vi) Other factors, including but not limited to proximity to primary roadways and significant business hubs support a "significant gap" determination. Notwithstan ding this information, the City Council is satisfied that, with regard to these two facilities only, the site design and the absence of superior alternatives are sufficient to warrant the granting of the applications to improve existing coverage even if no cognizable "significant gap" in coverage currently exists. 5) Based upon all the factual evidence presented and the Council's fin dings there from as stated herein, the City Council of the City of Burlingame does hereby DENY the appeal of Douglas Luftman and Mark Wilson to the ExteNet special encroachment permits No. 82790-2 and No. 82790-3 for the wireless communication antennas and related facilities and CONFIRMS the DPW grant to Extenet Systems special encroachment permits No. 82790-2 and 82790-3. ExteNet shall comply with all of the conditions contained within each special encroachment permit I, Mary Ellen Kearney, Clerk of the City of Burlingame, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Burlingame City Council held on the 10 day of April, 2012, by the following vote to wit: AYES: Councilmembers BAYLOCK,BROWNRIGG,DEAL, KEIGHR R, NAGEL NOES: Councilmembers: NONE ABSENT: Councilmembers: NONE t Mary Ell n Kearney, City Clerk