No WCF on Single-Family Property

 

HELP US PROTECT ALL RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS IN BELMONT FROM LARGE-STYLE WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES (WCF) ON PRIVATE, SINGLE-FAMILY PROPERTIES 

 

The reason we’re asking you, our fellow Belmont residents, to sign this petition is that we strongly believe that commercial-industrial facilities, like the one described below, do not belong on a property zoned for single-family residential use. 

 

 

We believe that such a facility has no business on a private residence and have decided to send a petition to the Planning Commission and the City Council. We hope you will sign the petition because, if allowed, the facility would 

  • be an unprecedented use of a single-family property in Belmont, and likely the entire SF Peninsula and beyond 
  • significantly alter the character of the neighborhood and degrade its aesthetics  
  • have the potential to be replicated in other neighborhoods in Belmont, either by AT&T or other carriers (the Telecommunications Act (TCA) forbids cities to discriminate among wireless carriers) 
  • grant the property owner privileges that others in the neighborhood don’t have 
  • have an impact on surrounding property values because the neighborhood would no longer be strictly residential 

 

Most people who purchase their homes in the residential areas of Belmont do so because they like the peacefulness and tranquility. They do not expect to see or hear a commercial facility in the front yard of a single-family residence. What they should expect is that a residential neighborhood remains non-commercial and aesthetically pleasing.

 

Help us keep the character of residential neighborhoods in Belmont and sign our petition. 

 

 

 

 

PETITION

 

No Wireless Communications Facility on a Single-Family Residence in Belmont 

 

We, the signatories to this petition, request that the Belmont Planning Commission and, if necessary, the Belmont City Council, deny the application presented by AT&T and the owner of 1920 Notre Dame Ave. (Application No: PA2014-0010). 

 

We strongly believe that a commercial-industrial facility such as the one proposed in this application does not belong on any private property in Belmont zoned for a single-family residence. It would 

  • degrade the aesthetics of a residential neighborhood and change its character 
  • provide a substantial financial benefit to one property owner at the expense and exclusion of his neighbors 
  • be an unprecedented use of a single-family property and encourage AT&T and other carriers to apply for similar installations in this and/or other neighborhoods of Belmont 

We need our city government to 

  • insist on strict application of the ordinances that protect residential neighborhoods from being negatively altered 
  • embrace both the letter and spirit of existing laws and policies 
  • prevent the profiteering by individual property owners at the expense of their neighbors 
  • prevent the inevitable distress caused to any neighborhood for which such an installation is proposed, and
  • require that all telecommunications providers find the least intrusive sites in Belmont to meet their coverage needs.

 

 

Brief Summary 

 

For the past 10 years, a utility pole in the public right of way (ROW) adjacent to 1999 Notre Dame Ave. has served as a wireless communications facility, first for Cingular Wireless, then for AT&T. While Cingular Wireless had obtained a Temporary Encroachment Permit to do some preliminary work in anticipation of installing equipment later, they added the equipment without the necessary permit. Cingular Wireless was granted a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) by the Belmont Planning Commission two years after installation. Subsequently, AT&T become the owner and added equipment over the course of several years, even after they had been ordered by the City to stop. In 2011, the Planning Department demanded that AT&T bring the facility into compliance. Their proposed solution was to install all equipment cabinets in an enclosure in the front yard of 1920 Notre Dame Ave. and replace the existing two antennae with six, three each on two opposing utility poles. The proposal was turned down by the Planning Department a couple of years ago because they did not want to recommend using a property zoned for a single-family residence for commercial purposes. Of the subsequent proposals submitted by AT&T, one was unfeasible and therefore dropped, the other was denied by the Belmont Planning Commission in March of 2014. AT&T filed an appeal for an abeyance, which was granted without a hearing. At this time, much of the facility is still illegal. 

 

Now, AT&T has revived their earlier proposal to utilize the front yard of 1920 Notre Dame Ave. and mount all the equipment inside a 6’ high wood fence enclosure measuring 15’8” along the street by 10’8” along the property line with the neighbor to the left . The enclosure would house 2 LTE cabinets, 1 very large multi-purpose integrated electronics outdoor cabinet, 6 larger and 8 smaller remote radio unit cabinets, 1 networking cabinet,     1 other large equipment cabinet, 1 Telco Box, 1 Meter and 2 GPS locators). Several of the cabinets would require cooling, which would emit a constant or near-constant loud hum. The two antennae currently located on the pole would be replaced with new ones that are 6’ tall (50% taller), 14.8” wide and 7.4” deep, and the numerous cables at the bottom of the antennae and sheathing along the pole would still be visible to the general public. So would three radiation warning, alert and information signs. The enclosure would be partially shielded by landscaping, some of which would extend 3’ into the ROW. 

 

AT&T would pay the owner a sizable monthly leasing fee for the duration of the contract (initially 5 years with four 5-year extensions for a total of 25 years). In addition, AT&T would build a deck, repave the driveway area, and add a trash enclosure and landscaping to the front yard. The total financial benefit to the property owner could be in the range of seven figures. 

 

What cities are and are not allowed to do when they receive an application for a wireless installation 

 

The TCA governs how cities can regulate the installation of a wireless facility. Over the years, the courts have weighed in and clarified the rights of cities in their rulings. 

 

A city may 

  • determine the time, place and manner of a wireless facility
  • deny an installation if it alters the character of a neighborhood 
  • deny an installation on aesthetic considerations 
  • deny an application if the applicant does not demonstrate that the proposed facility is the least intrusive means to close a coverage gap. In this case, AT&T has never provided evidence that the current site or the proposed installation are the least intrusive alternatives. 
  • deny a variance request if it does not meet all the requirements listed in Section 14.5.1 of the Belmont Zoning Ordinance (BZO). In this case, a variance is required because the property is owned by private persons and not AT&T. 

A city may not 

  • deny a wireless facility based on concerns about Radio Frequency (RF) emissions.  The TCA forbids this expressly. According to a report by AT&T which was independently reviewed by a third party, the current proposal meets all Federal guidelines for RF emissions. 
  • cite a drop in property values because of the perceived risk of RF emissions as a reason for denial. In this case, the value of the surrounding properties would drop because of the placement of a commercial-industrial, noise-emitting facility in a residential neighborhood.
  • act in a way that prohibits or has the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services.

For more information on the history of the facility and related links, please see below.

 

 

 

 

Background on the Wireless Communications Facility in the Public Right of Way adjacent to 1999 Notre Dame Avenue in Belmont 

as of September 2014 

 

2002-2005 

On September 30, 2002 the applicant (Cingular Wireless) applied for and received a temporary encroachment permit in anticipation of future installation of the subject wireless communications facility and to permit associated trenching work required for underground facilities. Subsequent to approval of the temporary encroachment permit, the applicant installed the two panel antennas and the one equipment cabinet, both located on the existing utility pole. After the facility was installed the applicant was informed that they must obtain the required planning approvals in order to legalize this facility. The applicant submitted the subject application for a Conditional Use Permit and Design Review on October 28, 2005 (Application ID: PA2005-0065). 

Information obtained from the Staff Report prepared for the Planning Commission Meeting on February 7, 2006 

 

February 7, 2006 

The Belmont Planning Commission approved the Conditional Use Permit (CUP), as recommended by the Belmont Planning Department. Subsequently, AT&T became the owner of the facility. 

 

June 2010 

Neighbors began complaining to the Planning Department as equipment was added to the pole and a data cable was strung across the street. The Planning Department determined that AT&T had not obtained the necessary permits for additional equipment and told the AT&T supervisor at the site that day to stop adding equipment or performing upgrades. Only regular maintenance was permitted. After that, when the Planning Department tried to contact AT&T, they got the run-around for an entire year. 

 

2011 

In July, AT&T added four more boxes (by now the number had grown from the permitted five cabinets to 14). Again, neighbors complained to the Planning Department, who was finally able to contact AT&T and demand that they bring the facility into compliance. As a result, AT&T filed an application to update the facility and locate all equipment inside a wood fence enclosure in the front yard of 1920 Notre Dame Ave. The two existing antennae were to be replaced with three, and three additional antennae were to be placed on the utility pole in front of 1920 Notre Dame Ave. A neighborhood Outreach Meeting was held at the site on November 8, 2011, and neighbors requested information on the noise impact. Representatives of AT&T said that they were still 

working on the required report. Subsequently, the proposal was turned down by the Planning Department.

 

The Staff Report dated November 19, 2013, which was prepared for a different proposal by AT&T, included the following paragraph:

Quote (Emphasis added later) 

2011: AT&T submitted an application to significantly modify the existing facility by relocating most ancillary pole mounted equipment to a private property location, leaving the pole mounted antennas in the public right-of-way. After extensive internal and third party review, including review of other 'similar' facilities in the Bay Area, staff determined that it could not recommend approval of the residential land use variance required to place wireless telecommunications equipment on a private residential property. 

Unquote 

 

AT&T was still required to bring the facility at 1999 Notre Dame Ave. into compliance. 

 

June 18, 2013 

The Planning Commission heard a proposal for modification of the wireless facility at 1999 Notre Dame Ave. to remove and consolidate ancillary equipment mounted on the monopole. (PA 2013-0026). After questions and discussion, the Planning Commission asked AT&T to find a better solution.

 

September 3, 2013 

AT&T presented a revised proposal that assumed the public right of way extended about three feet into the property at 1999 Notre Dame. The proposal sought to mount all equipment to an H-Frame located inside a fenced-in enclosure with a sliding gate next to the utility pole. AT&T presented a topographic map instead of an official survey in support of their proposal, which the Planning Department had recommended for approval. An official survey had been ordered by the Planning Department but had not yet been completed. The Planning Commission insisted on waiting for the independent survey before making a decision. When it 

was completed, the survey showed that the land belongs to the property owner, and the proposal was withdrawn. 

 

November 19, 2013 

AT&T re-submitted the plan from June 2013. The Planning Commission was ready to deny the proposal, but the City Attorney recommended that the Commission task his office with preparing a Resolution of Denial. The Commission agreed. 

 

March 2014 

After months of unexplained delay, the Planning Commission received the Resolution of Denial on March 4 and formally approved it.  Within the required 10-day period, AT&T appealed to the City Council and requested an abeyance. It was granted without a public hearing or announcement.  

 

AT&T submitted the current proposal (AP 2014-0010), a slightly altered version of the 2011 proposal which the Planning Department had not approved. 

 

September 16, 2014 

Staff made a presentation of the new proposal, which they recommended for approval, to the Planning Commission. The Commissioners asked questions of staff, the applicant and the City Attorney. A Public Meeting was held during which eight Belmont residents spoke in opposition. The Secretary stated that she had received three letters in opposition. Due to the fact that the meeting was running very late and that there was no third party review of the Noise Assessment 

Report, the Commission decided to postpone the discussion and vote to October 21, 2014. 

 

 

Links: 

Staff Report for the current proposal prepared for the Planning Commission Meeting on 9/16/14 

Staff Report for the proposal prepared for the Planning Commission Meeting on 11/19/13 

Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting on 11/19/13 

Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting on 3/4/14 

Belmont Zoning Ordinance Section 25 (Wireless Communication Facilities, Section 25.7 starts on page 25-4) 

Belmont Zoning Ordinance Section 14 (Variances; Section 14.5.1 Limitations starts on page 14-2)