Opinion ID: 3010911
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Substantial Evidence Challenge

Text: The Telecommunications Act requires that any decision denying a request to place, construct, or modify personal wireless service facilities be in writing and supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record. See 47 U.S.C. S 332(c)(7)(B)(iii). Substantial evidence does not 11 mean a large or considerable amount of evidence,`but rather such evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.'  Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552, 565, 108 S. Ct. 2541, 2550 (1988) (quoting Consolidated Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229, 59 S. Ct. 206, 217 (1938)); see also Omnipoint Corp. v. Zoning Hearing Bd, 181 F.3d 403, 408 (3d Cir. 1999). A reviewing court's task is to determine whether there is substantial evidence in the record as a whole to support the challenged decision. See Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474, 491, 71 S. Ct. 56 (1951). It has no power either to weigh the evidence contained in that record or to substitute its own conclusions for those of the fact-finder. See Williams, 970 F.2d at 1182. Nevertheless, if the record as a whole contains conflicting evidence, the fact-finder must adequately explain its reasons for rejecting or discrediting competent evidence. See Benton v. Bowen, 820 F.2d 85, 88 (3d Cir. 1987). In the context of S 332(c)(7)(B)(iii), the decision process itself is governed by applicable state and local zoning laws. The reviewing court's task is to determine whether the decision, as guided by local law, is supported by substantial evidence. See Omnipoint Corp., 181 F.3d at 408. Under New Jersey law, local zoning officials must weigh the positive and negative factors associated with a requested zoning variance and determine whether, on balance, those factors weigh in favor of granting or rejecting the request. Thus, the reviewing court's task is to determine whether the findings of local officials concerning the positive and negative factors, and their relative weight, is supported by substantial evidence. The providers do not claim that the record, as a whole, lacks substantial evidence to support the Board's decision. Rather, they challenge two of the Board's specificfindings as being unsupported by substantial evidence. First, they challenge the Board's finding that existing personal wireless service is adequate, arguing that it is based on incompetent evidence. Second, the providers challenge the Board's finding that the proposed monopole would have a substantial detrimental impact on the value of surrounding properties. Again, they argue that the Board's detrimental impact finding relies on incompetent evidence. 12 During the public hearings held to consider the proposed wireless communications facility, the Board heard from three experts who testified about the proposed monopole's economic impact on surrounding properties. The providers presented two experts who testified that the monopole would have no detrimental economic impact, while their opponents presented one expert who testified to the contrary. The providers' experts relied, at least in part, on their conclusions that the very visible presence of telecommunications towers in other New Jersey communities had had no discernable effect on the value of nearby upscale homes. These experts reasoned that if the visibility of communications towers had no effect on the high-end homes they had studied, it would not adversely effect the value of the more moderately priced homes found in Ho-Ho-Kus. The opponent's expert disagreed. Relying on a paired-sales analysis (i.e., comparing the sale price of a home from which a communications tower was visible to the sale price of a similar home from which no tower was visible) he presented evidence tending to show that the proposed monopole would, in fact, adversely impact the value of some Ho-Ho-Kus homes. After hearing all the evidence, the Board chose to give greater credence to the opponents' expert than to the providers' experts. The Board explained that it favored the opponents' expert in part because the communities studied by the providers' experts were not sufficiently similar to HoHo-Kus, and in part because the opponents' expert's paired-sales methodology was superior to the logical extrapolation on which the other experts had relied. On appeal, the providers challenge the scientific validity of the opposing expert's study. They argue that it included too few samples and too many subjective adjustments for factors other than the visibility of nearby communication towers that may have explained differences in sales price. They also note that the paired sales considered by the opponents' expert occurred in one of the very same towns the providers' expert had studied. When evaluating the providers' evidence, the Board concluded that dissimilarities between the studied town and Ho-Ho-Kus rendered the evidence unreliable. Yet, in concluding that 13 the opposing evidence was more reliable, the Board did not address the issue of community dissimilarities at all. The providers argue that the Board cannot have it both ways, and that if the claimed dissimilarities render their evidence unreliable, they must render the opposing evidence unreliable as well. While acknowledging the theoretical possibility that dissimilarities between two towns could render a comparative study based on one methodology less reliable than a study based on another, wholly different methodology, we are not certain how that would be true in this case. In any event, the Board did not discount the providers' evidence solely on the basis of dissimilarities between the relevant towns, but also because it found that the opposing evidence was based on a more reliable methodology. The only issue is whether it was reasonable for the Board to do so. We conclude that it was. Moreover, our decision does not turn on any single factor that the Board may have found weighed against approving the proposed facility. The Board considered a number of other factors, including the proposed facility's purely aesthetic impact on surrounding properties and the adverse effects approval would have on the purpose and intent of the Borough's zone plan and ordinance. The district court ruled, and we agree, that the Board's findings with respect to these other negative factors were supported by substantial evidence. The providers also claim that there is no substantial evidence to support the Board's finding that existing personal wireless service in the Borough is adequate. As discussed in part II-A of this opinion, supra, the providers presented the testimony of three separate experts concerning the various inadequacies of their respective services. Two local residents opposed to the proposed facility presented tape recordings of twelve cellular telephone calls they made from various locations within the Borough. The opponents claimed, and the Board agreed, that the tape recordings demonstrated a level of existing service sufficient to properly serve the public good. See Resolution at 25, reprinted in Appellant's Brief app. at A165. In reaching that conclusion, the Board also relied on 14 the providers' admission that there were no no-service areas3 within the Borough, and only three areas where the chances of getting a no-service light4 were very high. The district court found, as do we, that the tape recordings made by non-expert local opponents of the proposed facility were too insubstantial to discredit the expert testimony presented by the providers. Nevertheless, the district court upheld the Board's decision,finding that the plaintiffs' own expert witnesses testified--at best -- only that there were some gaps in service within the Borough, not that service is unavailable. Cellular Telephone Company v. Zoning Bd. Of Adjustment, 24 F. Supp. 2d 359, 372 (E.D. Pa. 1998). Holding as we do that the district court must determine whether those service gaps are significant, we cannot agree that the expert testimony in this record supports a finding that existing wireless service within the Borough is adequate. Moreover, our own review of the record indicates that the Board either misunderstood or mischaracterized the expert testimony on the issue of existing service. During the public hearings, the providers' experts rated the quality of existing wireless services in the Borough using an industry standard scale ranging from one to five. They testified that a five represents land-line quality service, meaning participants in a cellular telephone call will not hear any background static. At level four, there may be some static, but the conversation is basically unimpeded. At level three, static is constant and can impede conversation to the point of making individual words unintelligible. At level two, whole sentences are lost and intelligible conversation requires constant repetition and clarification. At level one, service is essentially non-existent because even though a connection may be made, any conversation would be unintelligible. See Transcript: April 13, 1996 Ho-Ho-Kus _________________________________________________________________ 3. A no-service area is an area in which it is not possible to establish a cellular connection at any time, under any circumstances. 4. In contrast to a no-service area, a no-service light on a cellular telephone simply informs the user that she cannot establish a connection at that particular time, under the then existing calling conditions. 15 Board of Adjustment Hearing at 114-115, reprinted in Appellant's Brief app. at A750-51. Though the voluminous record produced during the Borough's 44 public hearings is somewhat difficult to parse, the providers' experts appear to have rated existing wireless service in Ho-Ho-Kus at level three for installed mobile phones (i.e., car phones), and somewhere between levels one and two for hand-held portable phones. See id. at 116, reprinted in Appellant's Brief app. at A749. Thus, it may be factually correct that there are no no-service areas and only three areas in which cellular service users face a high likelihood of getting a no-service light. But there is also substantial, unrefuted evidence in the record that even if a cellular caller is able to make a connection from certain locations, any subsequent attempt at conversation will be difficult at best, and virtually impossible for users of the hand-held portable phones that dominate the market today. Thus, based on this record, we conclude that there is no substantial evidence to support the Board's conclusion that the current level of personal wireless service in Ho-Ho-Kus is adequate. While the Board considered several factors that weighed against approval, the only factor it considered with the potential to weigh in favor of approving the proposed facility was the adequacy of existing service. In other words, absent a finding that existing service was inadequate, or that the public would benefit by enhancing that service, any negative factor, no matter how slight, would have tipped the balance in favor of rejection. Because the Board'sfinding that existing service is adequate is not supported by substantial evidence, we will reverse the district court's summary judgment on this issue.