EXC-2010-04b _ _ __
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
C U P E RT I N O TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3223 • FAX: (408) 777-3366
Febi-uaiy 18, 2011
Re: Petition for reconsideration of the City Council's January 4, 2011 decision to deny an appeal
of a personal wireless service facility at the Results Way Office Park
At its February 15, 2011 meeting, the Cupertino City Council adopted Resolution No. 11-022
denying the Petition for Reconsideration upholding Council's original decision.
Please call the Cominunity Development Department at 777-3308 if you have any questions.
Tlze decision by the City Council above described is fina[ effective February 1 S, 2011. The time
witliin wlzicli judicial review must be souglzt is governed by �1096.6 of tlie California Code of
Civil Procedure wliiclz is 90 dctys following tlze above effective date.
Sincerely,
�`�
Grace Schmidt
Deputy City Clerk
encl: Resolution No. 11-022
cc: Trillium Telecom
Attn. Dave Yocke
7901 Stone'ridge Dr. Ste. 503 `�
Pleasanton, CA 94588
Grace Chen
10192 Imperial Ave.
Cupertino, CA 95014
City Attorney
Community Development
RESOLUTION NO. 11-022
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
DENYlNG THE PETITION OF GRACE CHEN & GUO JIN SEEKING COUNCIL
RECONSIDERATION OF ITS DECISION TO DENY AN APPEAL OF U-2010-03, EXC-
2010-04 & TR-2010-31, A USE PERMIT, HEIGHT EXCEPTION & TREE REMOVAL TO
FACILITATE THE DEVELOPMENT OF A PERSONAL WIRELESS SERVICE FACILITY
AT THE RESULTS WAY OFFICE PARK
WHEREAS, on January 4, 2011, the Cupertino City Council received a staffreport and
recommendation to deny an appeal of a Use Permit, Height Exception and Tree Removal
approvals to facilitate the development of a personal wireless service facility at the Results Way
Office Park.
WHEREAS, the Cupertino City Council held a public hearing and at the conclusion of the
hearing denied the appeal filed by Allen Wang, Grace Chen and Guo Jin on a 4-1 vote at its
meeting of January 4, 2011
WHEREAS, the Cupertino City Council's decision was within its discretion and made at
a properly noticed public meeting.
WHEREAS Grace Chen and Guo Jin requested that the City Council reconsider its
decision under the provisions of Section 2.08.096 of the City's municipal code; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered all relevant evidence presented by the
parties at all hearings, including evidence presented at the February 15, 2011 reconsideration
hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS:
1. The petitioners' Reconsideration Petition is defective on its face in that it does not offer
proof of facts as required by Municipal Code Section 2.08.096.
2. The petitioners have failed to offer any new evidence that there are any feasible
alternative sites to the project that are less intrusive. (See Municipal Code §
2.08.096(B)(1).) Specifically, the City Council detennines that:
.�
a. The City Council's decision is supported by findings of fact attached as Exhibit 1.
b. The fuldings of fact related to the City Council's decision were supported by
substantial evidence in the record of proceedings.
3. The petitioners' Petition for Reconsideration of the City Council's decision of January 4,
2011 on itein 9 is DENIED, thereby affirming the original decision.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular ineeting of the City Council of the City of
Cupertino this 15 day of February, 2011, by the following vote:
Vote Members of the City Council
AYES: Wong, Santoro, Chang, Mahoney, Wang
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
ATTEST: APPROVED:
� /s/ Kimberly Smith /s/ Gilbert Wong
City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino
THIS iS �0 CEAT{FY THAT'�HE V�►�'Hll�
� OF ORIGINAL QiN FlL� �iv TFiRS 6t`FI�E
ATTEST - . � 3L---� 2(�-�L
CIT1' CLERK OF Tt�� GI CUPER !NO
' f ,.
BY
ClTY CLERK
EXHIBIT 1 .
CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS IN RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Cupertino Municipal Code section 2.08.096 states:
"A petition for reconsideration shall specify in detail each and every ground for reconsideration.
Failure of a petition to specify any particular ground or grounds for reconsideration precludes
that pai omitted ground or grounds from being raised or litigated in a subsequent judicial
proceeding.
The grounds for reconsideration are limited to the following:
1) An offer of new relevant evidence which, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, could
not have been produced at any earlier city hearing.
2) An offer of relevant evidence which was improperly excluded at any prior city hearing.
3) Proof of facts which demonstrate that the City Council proceeded without, or in excess of
its jurisdiction.
4) Proof of facts which demonstrate that the City Council failed to provide a fair hearing.
5) Proof of facts which demonstrate that the City Council abused its discretion by:
a) Not proceeding in a manner required by law; andlor
b) Rendering a decision which was not supported by findings of fact; and/or
c) Rendering a decision in which the findings of fact were not supported by the
evidence."
Original Petition
The petition for reconsideration consists of three pages. Reconsideration of this item
constitutes the fourth full hearing of this matter conducted by the City. The grounds for the
reconsideration are siulunarized below. It should be noted that three out of the four claims
do not Uear any relationship to the criteria referenced above. The City's findings of fact on
each of claims a.nd the criterion are delineated below.
Findin�: There are three claims that do not bear any relationship to the Reconsideration
criteria found in municipal code section 2.08.096(B).
Petition Response
Screeni�g landscaping for the monopine Petitioners seek to add and refine
needs to follow strict a�sthetic guidelines. development conditions that have already
We request the addition of a condition to been adopted by the City Council
the approval that the "additional screening (Attachment K) which does not relate to
trees at the northern propei line" will the reconsideration criteria. Petitioners'
conform to that of the approved interests are already addressed by
redevelopment plans of the Results Way Council's added condition #6: "require that
office parlc and any revisions or tree planting conform with the approved
modifications of those plans. Landscape development plans of the results way office
screening plans are unclear and should be park." In addition to #6, City Council .
open for public view. added six more conditions pertaining to
. landscaping.
Staff has already agreed to allow Astoria
Townhome owners to informally review
the landscape plans when they are
submitted.
Request to add a new condition to the Petitioners seek to add new development
approval requiring applicant to pay condition to City Council approval, which
$30,000 to the Astoria Homeowners does not relate to the reconsideration
Association for additional irrigation, trees, criteria. There are no legal grounds to add
fencing and related matters connected to this condition.
the visual screening of the wireless facility.
We are talking to the property owners of There is no evidence or facts that relate to
10340 & 10420 Bubb Road to explore a the reconsideration criteria. The request
lease for a cell site. This alternative site for continuance should be denied. The
should have similar criteria as compared to applicant already evaluated 10420 Bubb
the approval with less impact to residents. Road in its alternative site analysis (PC
We request additional time allowance staff report). Applicant cited a lack of
room and proximity to the freeway where
AT&T already has coverage.
Findin�: The petitioners have not offered any new evidence to demonstrate that Monta Vista
High School has become a viable alternative site for wireless facilities - Cupertino Municipal
Code, section 2.08.096(1).
Petition Response
The Fremont Union High School District The petitioners have not presented any
has recently entered into leases for cell evidence that FUHSD would be willing to
sites at several other high schools in the consider Monta Vista H.S. for cell sites
District. More than 5 years have passed again. The 2005 City approval of a
since AT&T approached FUHSD about wireless facility at Monta Vista H.S.
Monta Vista High School (H.S.). Given expired in 2007, so the applicant would
what has happened at other area high need to go through another public
schools, AT&T should go back and check entitlement process again. A request to
about antenna opportunities at Monta Vista place a wireless facility at a school site is
since District criteria may have evolved. not before the Council.
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
CITY HALL
- 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
C U P E RT 1 N O TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3223 • FAX: (408) 777-3366
Januaiy 6, 2011
Re: Appeal of an approval of a wireless service facility on Results Way
At its January 4 meeting, the Cupertino City made the following action:
Denied the appeal, required the conditions as recommended by the Planning Comnussion, and
added the following conditions to the Planning Commission resolution: (1) plant additional
screening trees at the northern properiy line to screen the treepole from the astoria townhome
development; (2) require berming and plant at least two 36" box, coastal redwoods blue aptos
variety on the benn on either side of the monopole to screen it; (3) improve irrigation around the
trees to ensure proper growth; (4) remove and replace trees witli dead tops; (4) adequately
maintain and water the trees in the parking lot; (5) re,quire an annual status report on the trees by
a certified arborist for three years from the date of the tree planting; (6) require that tree planting
conform with the approved development plans of the results way office park; (7) allow a
monetary cap of $75,000 for the berming and tree planting required in the added conditions.
The Use Permit conditions are as foltows unless amended above:
SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPT. � .
1. APPROVED EXHIBITS
Approval is based on Exhibits titlec�: "at&t/CN3242-AlNovember Drive/Results
Way/Cupertino; California 95014" prepared by Jeffrey Rome & Associates, Inc. dated
08/31/10 and consisting of seven sheets labeled T-1, A-0 through A-3, A-1.1 and C-1, except
a.s may be amended by the conditions contained in this resolution.
2. NOTICE OF FEES DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS
The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication
requireinents, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code
Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount
of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are
hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees,
U-2010-03 January 6, 2011 2
dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section
66020(a), has begun. Lf you fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all
of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such
exactions.
3. COLOCATION OF ANTENNAE
The treepole shall be structurally designed to accommodate the collocation of additional
antennae from other wireless carriers. The co-location agreement shall be at market rates
with reasonable compensation to the mast owner. -
4. ABANDONMENT
If after installation, the aerial is not used for its permitted purpose for a continuous period of
18 months, said aerial and associated facilities shall be removed. The applicant shall bear
the entire cost of demolition.
5. EXPIRATION DATE
This use permit shall expire ten (10) years after the effective date of tlie permit. The applicant
may apply for a renewal of the use permit at which time the Planning Commission may review
the sfate of wireless communication technologies, camouflage techniques and maintenance to
determine if the visual impact of the aerial facility can be reduced.
6. TREE POLE APPEARANCE AND MAINTENANCE
The applicant shall use a sufficient number of artificial branches to obscure the appearance of
the panel antennae and any associated mounting framework. The top portion of the tree pole
shall have branches of varying length to give the tree pole a conical form. Panel antennae
mou.nted away from the mast shall have needle covers to blend with the green foliage of the
artificial branches. The mast shall be wrapped with a faux bark and any antenna mounted
close to the mast shall be painted brown to mimic a tree trunk. The foliage shall have a
� mottled green coloration.
The building permit sliall be reviewed and approved to the satisfaction of the Coinmunity
Developinent Director to ensure the above condition is met. The applicant shall perform .
regular maiiitenance of the tree pole to maintain its appearance and obscure the panel antennae
from public view.
" =t 7. E�UIPMENT ENCLOSURE � -
The base equipment enclosure shall be constructed of high quality materials andlor be
screened by appropriate landscaping as deternuned by the Director of Community
Development. The final enclosure design, wall treatment/color and screening strategy shall be
reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of
building permits. . �
8. TREE REPLACEMENT
The removed trees are to be replaced with three (3) 24" box Coastal Redwoods in the
northwest corner of the property. Final locations shall be reviewed and approved by the
U-2010-03 January 6, 2011 . 3
Director of Community Development prior to issuance of building permits. Applicant shall
provide a letter from a landscape architect, certifying that the newly planted trees are in good
health and the irrigation system is operating properly to maintain the trees. In addition, the
final landscaping plan shall confirm that the existing irrigation systems are operating properly
in order to service the existing and new trees in the area.
9. TESTING OF RADIO FREQUENCY (RF) LEVELS
Radio frequency levels will be monitored and tested annually for a period of three (3) years
from the date of the final occupancy approval. The result of these tests will be made available
to the Planning Department and the FCC for review. The City reserves the right to perform
code enforcement actions andlor revoke this use permit if the results show RF levels
inconsistent with the federal standards.
Please review conditions carefully. If you have any questions regarding the coaditions of
approval, please contact the Department of Community Development at 408-777-3308 for
clarification. Failure to incorporate conditions into your plan set will result in delays at the
plan checking stage. If development conditians require tree preservations, do not clear the
site until required tree protection devices are installed.
Tlie conditions of project approval set fortlz lzerein may include certain fees, dedication
requireme�a.ts, reservatio�z requirements, and otlzer exactions. Pursumzt to Government Code
Section 66020(d)(1), tliese conditions constitute written notice of a statement of tlze amount of
such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are
hereby fui�tlzer notified tlzat tlie 90-day approval period in whicl: you may protest tlzese fees,
dedications, and otlzer exactions, pursuant to Govern�zent Code Section 66020(a), lias begun.
If you fail to file a protest witliin tlzis 90-day period comptying witlz alt of tlze requirements of
Section 66020, you will be legal[y barred from later challenging sucli exactions.
Any interested person, including tlze applicant, prior to seeking judicial review of tlze City
Council's decision in tliis matter, must first file a Petition for Reconsideration witl: tl:e City
Clerk witlzin ten days after tlze mailing of the notice of tlie Council's decision. Any petition so �
�led »zust comply with Municipal Ordinance code �2.08.096.
Sincerely, ,
C��,�c-
- `� -
Grace S chmidt
Deputy City Clerk
cc: Community Development
Trillium Telecom
Allen Wang, Grace Chen, Guo Jin Attn. Scott Longhurst
10170 Iinperial Avenue 7901 Stoneridge Drive, Suite 503
Cupertino, CA 95014 Pleasanton, CA 94588
�.rrr.......�
p c�c�c�ovr�
City of Cupertino $EP � 8 2010
10300 Torre Avenue
C U P E RT 1 N O Cupertino, CA 95014 CUPERTINO CITY CLERK
(408) 777-3223
APPEAL
U-2010-03, EXC-2010-04, TR-2010-31
1. Application No.
Dave Yocke, Trillium Telecom (For AT&T Mobility)
2. Applicant(s) Name:
3. Appellant(s) Name:
Allen Wang, Grace Chen, Guo Jin
Address 10170 Imperial Ave, Cupertino, CA 95014
Phone Number (408) 421-0207
Email
structorsQyahoo.com
4. Please check one:
Q Appeal a decision of Director of Community Development
Q Appeal a decision of Director of Public Works
� Appeal a decision of Planning Commission
� Appeal a decision of Design Review Committee
� Appeal a decision of Code Enforcement
5. Date of determination of Director or mailing of notice of City decision:
September 16, 2010
6. Basis of appeal:
See Attachment 1
Signature(s) ��//
- �h� �'��--- .
a
Please complete form, include appeal fee of $162.00 pursuant to Resolution No. 09-051 �
($155.00 for massage application appeals), and return to the attention of the City Clerk,
10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, (408) 777-3223.
ATTACHMENT 1. BASIS OF APPEAL
l. The application does not meet the minimum aesthetic requirement established in City of
Cupertino's Wireless Facilities Master Plan. It violates the following policies:
Policy 6-1 : Personal wireless service facilities should be sited to avoid visually intrusive impacts
as viewed from the public right-of-way and from residential neighborhoods.
Policy 6-2 : Perso�al wireless service facilities shall be appropriately scaled to fit harmoniously
with the surrounding elements of the site and neighborhood.
Policy 6-3 : Personal wireless service facilities shall be compatible with their surroundings so
that their shape, size, color, material, and texture blend with their surroundings.
It is contrary to the following aesthetic guidelines relating to Lattice Towers and Monopoles
on page 24 of the Wireless Facilities Master Plan
The artificial tree should be of a form similar to the surrounding trees to which it is being
visually integrated, and be constructed of materials that retain a natural appearance for
the life of the personal wireless service facility.
The artificial tree should not be significantly taller than the surrounding vertical elements
(i.e., buildings, trees, structures, etc.).
The proposed 74' tall cellular phone tower will be significantly taller than its surrounding
buildings. See Photo 1-1. Results Way Office Park parking lot — westerly strip, with proposed
monopole added for illustration. Existing surrounding structures do not exceed 30 feet; the
proposed monopole will be more than 40 feet taller than existing structures. The proposed tower
will be an eyesore, as it is significantly taller.
It does not blend in with current landscape. Existing landscapes have height similar to the
surrounding buildings, of approximate 30 feet. See Photo 1-2. View from Imperial Avenue,
with proposed monopole added for illustration. The proposed cell tower will be significantly
taller, does not visually integrated, and does not enhance the natural appearance. Current
Cupertino city ordinance - and specifically the Monta Vista neighborhood - do not allow
structures or buildings exceeding 30 feet.
The existing roof-mounted Sprint-Nextel antennas structure is already an eye-sore to the
neighbors, the residents in Monta Visat do not want to see another one so nearby. See Photo 1-3.
View from Imperial Way of the roof mounted Sprint-Nextel antenna, with proposed monopole
added for illustration. Again, the proposed monopole will tower over existing structures and
buildings.
The artificial tree will be highly visible especially from nearby residents and pedestrians,
passersby and commuters who traverse Bubb Road and McClellan Road.
Attachment 1-1
2. The application does not meet the safety requirement established in City of Cupertino's
Wireless Facilities Master Plan. It violates the following policies:
Policy 7-1 : The City reserves the right to require applicants to prepare radiofrequency radiation
assessments for personal wireless service facilities when the general public is in reasonably close
proximity to such a facility and to determine compliance with FCC Guidelines.
Policy 7-2 : The City shall require a radiofrequency radiation assessment for the following types
of personal wireless service facilities:
• For building-mounted antennas when the building is designed for human occupancy;
• For antennas mounted less than 10 meters (32.8 feet) above ground level;
• For all co-located antennas; (The concern is for cumulative emissions exceeding the
FCC Guidelines) and
• For residential deployment of personal wireless service facilities.
The radiofrequency radiation study done by Hammett & Edison , Inc., Consulting Engineers,
dated August 20, 2010, is outdated and was based on twelve antennas mounted at an effective
height about 65 feet above ground.
A new study should be done based on the bottom elevation (about 56' above ground) of the
lower tier of the antennas proposed and also based on the bottom elevation of future antennas
proposed at lower elevations.
A radiofrequency radiation study should be done to calculate the combined emission by all
carriers and sources at the proposed location and future towers planned by AT&T and other
carriers.
AT&T has not established the need for twelve antennas for this application . In last year's
application, AT&T had proposed six antennas. The city should not approve more antennas than
actually needed to improve the coverage.
3. Planning commissioners, city staffs and residents have never seen a correct coverage
map based on the proposed location.
Prior to the planning commission meeting, dated September 14, 2010, an outdated proposed
coverage based on the antennas located about 1,300 feet away from the actual proposed location
was included in the staff report and another outdated proposed coverage map which is offset
about 170 feet was presented by AT&T's representative in the meeting. See Exhibit 1. 1
Cupertino Planning Commission Staff Report, dated September 14, 2010, Attachment 2:
Coverage Map (Existing). Location of proposed monopole and associated coverage area are
placed at intersection of Imperial Way and McClellan Road, differing from that mentioned in the
Staff Report.
An updated coverage map with the proposed monopole correctly placed on the mentioned site
should be studied and reviewed. The city should not approve a wireless facility application
Attachment 1-2
without even seen a correct coverage map based on actual proposed location.
Next, if the location of the proposed monopole is incorrectly placed on the map, then the
coverage area that the proposed monopole is to service will be affected. As a result, Exhibit 1.2
(from the Cupertino Planning Commission Staff Report, dated September 14, 2010, Attachment
2: Coverage Map (Proposed)) does not accurately reflect that the coverage area of the proposed
monopole.
We can see from the proposed coverage map that the 74 feet tree pole at the proposed location
will not improve coverage effectively. See Exhibit 1.3 Google Earth with proposed "wrong"
and "correct" location of the monopole. Given that the proposed location is to be in the Result
Way office park, those customers who AT&T would like to service, that is living on/near Bubb
Road, south of McClellan Road, will still not be included the "new" coverage area. Those
clients who have complained of poor service, that is south of McClellan Road, still will not be in
the coverage area, because the physical location of the monopole is shifted northward by at least
400 meters or 1250 feet.
Also, so far, we have three different versions of existing coverage map.
One, from AT&T's official website (www.wireless.att.com/covera�eviewer/, with zip code
95014) the coverage map shows good coverage for most of the Monta Vista area, See Exhibit 1.4
AT&T Coverage Viewer.
One was included in the staff report that shows that the proposed tree pole is located in
acceptable coverage area. See Exhibit 1.1. The area prior to the monopole has acceptable
coverage.
Third, a coverage map presented by AT&T's representative in the September 14, 2010 meeting
shows that at the proposed tree pole that there is no/limited coverage. See Exhibit 1.5. Coverage
maps presented by AT&T, Cupertino Planning Commission meeting, September 14, 2010
We need to determine the assumptions of the existing coverage map and the proposed coverage
map, on a revised map.
4. Coverage versus capacity
It was brought up during the Planning Commission meeting, on September 14, 2010, that in the
area under discussion at times there is good coverage.
It was mentioned that there was a"significant degradation in coverage" especially during after
school hours and after work hours when many parents are calling their children. This particular
area of Monta Vista is the home to Cupertino's education trifecta of Lincoln Elementary,
Kennedy Middle, and Monta Vista High School. More than 4,400 students (not including
teachers and administrators) arrive at school and are dismissed, within a 30-60 minutes interval.
Attachment 1-3
Given this, if this is the problem, then capacity issues may be misconstrued as "poor coverage".
This issue still needs to be explored and further discussed by the city staff, council members and
its residents. It should be clear whether there is a need for this application and perhaps seek
other alternatives that can resolve this issue.
5. Alternative locations and structures shall expand to larger areas.
Knowing that the antennas at the proposed location will not improve the coverage effectively, it
is necessary to study alternative locations, at nearby parks, near freeways and existing office
buildings, with considerations to aesthetic, coverage improvement, and such.
It is also clear that a smaller structure, such as roof mounted antennas at the center of coverage
gap may suffice in improving the coverage in this area, instead of the more than the 74' tree pole
located at this wrong location.
Half of the Monta Vista area has good coverage, namely from Sprint-Nextel & Verizon Wireless,
and yet, there is no Sprint or Verizon cell phone tower near the residential area. Why is it
necessary that a 74' monopole is the only viable solution to help AT&T provide better service to
its customers in this area? Had AT&T really explored all alternatives? Can roof mounted
antennas serve as potential solutions to AT&T's problems, or does AT&T have other intentions?
Attachment 1-4
Cifiy of Cupertino
, , , 10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 777-3251
C U P E RT I N C? FAX (408) 777-3333
" Community Development Department
September 16, 2010
Dave Yocke
Trillium Telecom
7901 Stoneridge Dr., Suite 503
Pleasanton, Ca, 94588
SUBJECT: PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIC)N LETTER - U-2010-03, EXC-2010-04 TR
This letter confirms the decision of the P] anning Commission, given at the meeting of
September 14, 2010, approving a Use Permit to allow the construction of a personal wireless
service facility, consisting of a 74-foot tall monopine with twelve panel antennas and associated
base equipment; approving a height exceptior� to allow antennas to be mounted on a monopine
at a height of about 67 feet or less; approving t1e removal and replacement of up to four Coastal
Redwood trees associated with the installatio�i of a proposed personal wireless service facility,
located at the Results Way office complex, accc�rding to Planning Commission Resolution No.(s)
6604, 6605 and 6606.
Please be aware that if this Permit is not u� ed within a two-year period, it shall expire on
September 14, 2012.
Also, please note that an appeal of this decisicm can be made within 14 calendar days from the
date of this decision. If this happens, you will be notified of a public hearing, which will be
scheduled before the City Council.
Sincerely,
� _ .,
�s
colin Jung
Senior Planner
Planning Departrnent
Enclosures: Resolution 6604, 6605, 6606
CC: ECI Two Results, LLC, 1301 Shoreway Rd, Suite 2�U, Belmont, CA 94402
Allen Wong, 10170 imperial Avenue, Cupertino, CE► 95014
g:/planning/post hearing/actionletterU-2010-03,EXG2010-04,TR-2(10-31
EXC-2010-04
CITY OF ;�UPERTINO
10300 Tc�rre Avenue
Cupertino, (;alifornia 95014
RESOLUT [ON NO. 6605
OF THE PLANNING COMMISS[ON OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
APPROVING A HEIGHT EXCEPTION TO ALLOW ANTENNAS TO BE MOUNTED
ON A MONOPINE AT A HEIGHT OF P.BOUT 67 FEET OR LESS ON A PERSONAL
WIRELESS SERVICE FACILI7�' LOCATED AT RESULTS WAY
SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.: EXC-2010-04
Applicant: Dave Yocke (for AT& T Mobility)
Location: Results Way
SECTION II: FINDINGS rOR EXCEPTIO �T
WHEREAS, in order to provide heig nt flexibility in situations where practical
difficulties, unnecessary hardships or resu lts inconsistent with the purpose and intent of
Chapter 19.108 occur, an applicant for d�velopment may file an exception request to
seek approval to deviate from the standar��s; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission fi�lds the following with regards to the Height
Exception for this application:
1. That the literal enforcement of the pr �visions of this title will result in restrictions
inconsistent with the spirit and inten : of this title in that the extra antenna height
above the ordinance maximum of 55 feet is needed because the monopine rests in a
location Uelow the grade of the neighborhood that will be serviced with telephone
coverage.
2. That the proposed project will not Ue i:lJurious to property or improvements in the
area nor be materially detrimental to tlle public health, safety, or welfare in that the
wireless technolog_y produces RF ener�;y below federal exposure standards, and
3. That the proposed development will not create a hazardous condition for pedestrian
or vehicular traffic Uecause it is not ;;ited within the travel ways or sight lines of
pedestrian or vehicular traffic.
NOW, THEREFCOPE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence
submitted in this matter, application no. F XG2010-04 is hereby approved; and
Resolution No. 6605 EXC-20 '. 0-04 September 14, 2010
Page 2 �
That the suUconclusions upon which tY.e findings and conditions specified in this
Resolution are based and contained in the Public Hearing record concerning
Application EXG2010-04, as set forth i�l the Minutes of the Planning Commission
Meeting of SeptemUer 14, 2010, and are inc�orporated by reference herein.
SECTION III: CONDITIONS AL�MINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DEPT. �
1. APPROVED EXHIBITS
Approval is based on Exhibits titled: "at&t/CN3242-A/November Drive/Results
Way/Cupertino, California 95014" p repared by Jeffrey Rome & Associates, Inc.
dated 08/31/10 and consisting of seven sheets labeled�T-1, A-0 through A-3, A-11
and G1, except �s may be amended by the conditions contained in this resolution.
2. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS
The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees,
dedicatian requireinents, reservation �equirements, and other exactions. Pursuant
to Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice
of a stateinent of t]Ze ainount of suc 1 fees, and .a description of the dedications,
reservations, and other exactions. Ycu are hereby further notified that the 90-day
approval period in which you may pr �test these fees, dedications, reservations, and
other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you
fail to file a protest within this 90-day �eriod complying with all of the requirements
of Section 66020, you will be legally Ua rred from later challenging such exactions.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 14th day �f SepteinUer 2010, at a Regular Meeting of the
Planning Commission of the City of Cupe:�tino l�y the following roll call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Chair B•ophy, Vice Chair Lee, Giefer, Kaneda
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Miller
ABSTAIN: COMMISS[ONEPS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONEP.S:I\?one
ATTEST: APPROVED:
/s/Aarti Shriv�stav� �s/Paul Brophy
Aarti Shrivastava Paul Brophy, Chair
Community Devel�pmcnt Director Planning Commission
g:�plaiining�p�lr�port/res/2009;F`�C-?07!)-O-I rc�.��ar
i
�
�
�
_ _