109-H. CC Staff Report dated 1/4/11.pdfATTACHMENT H
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3308 www.cupertin6.9rg
CITY COUNCIL, STALL' REPORT
Meeting: January 4, 2011
g, Subject'
Appeal of an approval of a wireless service facility
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeal of the Planning Commission's
September 14, 2010 approval, based upon the referenced attachments and the record of this
proceeding. This will permit the Applicant to construct a personal wireless service facility
consisting of twelve panel antennas to be mounted on a 74 foot tall monopine and associated
base equipment to be located at the existing Results Way office park.
Description
Appeal of the following Planning Commission Approvals:
Use Permit (U-2010-03) request to allow a personal wireless service facility, consisting of twelve
panel antennas mounted on a 74-f6ot tall monopine and associated base equipment located at the
Results Way office park.
Height Exception (EXC-2010-04) request to allow antennas to be mounted on a monopine at a
height of 67 feet or less where 55 feet is allowed.
Tree Removal (TR-2010-31) request to allow the removal and replacement of four Coastal
Redwood trees associated with the proposed personal wireless service facility.
Property Location: Results Way (rear parking lot)/ APN 357-20-042
Applicant: Dave Yocke, Trillium Telecom (for AT&T Mobility)
Appellant: Allen Wang, Grace Chen, Guo Jin
Property Owner: ECI Two Results, LLC
Discussion
Background
On November 1, 2010, the City Council heard an appeal of an AT&T personal wireless service
facility designed to look like a tree at the Results Way Office Park (Attachment A- Council -
Appeal staff report dated November 1, 2010). Discussion and testimony during the meeting can
be reviewed in the City Council meeting minutes (Attachment B). The City Council directed
that the applicant and property owner consider an alternate site for the personal wireless service
facility located off the Results Way driveway entry behind Buildings No. 1 & 2 at the entrance of
42
N
the office campus. With the applicant's consent, the hearing was continued indefinitely to give
the property owner and applicant time to evaluate the alternate site.
The applicant and property owner have completed their evaluation of the alternate site, with the
applicant suggesting several different facility designs for the location. The property owner
reviewed the site and designs over the last month and has rejected the alternate location as a site
for a personal wireless service facility (Attachment Q. Other alternative sites have been
suggested on the three properties that compose the Results Way Office Park (Attachment K).
These alternate sites have been discussed at the public hearings, neighborhood meeting and in
the staff reports (Attachments A & G). The property owner has reviewed these alternates and
feels at this time that the only feasible site is the site proposed by the applicant and approved by
the Planning Commission (Attachment C & D). Other off -site alternate sites have been
discussed in the Planning Commission and City Council staff reports (Attachments A & G).
The Planning Commission reviewed and approved this project on September 14, 2010 (4-1 vote;
Miller voting no) (Attachments E-resolution, F-hearing minutes, G-Commission staff report, M-
public correspondence & P- approved plan set) and its approval was. appealed by three residents
on September 28, 2010 (Attachment M.
The primary concerns raised by the project opponents at the September 14, 2010 Commission
hearing related to perceived hazards of radio frequency energy. However, a radio frequency
study determined that the cumulative radio frequency exposure (existing and proposed
emissions) were well below federal safety standards. Federal law prohibits cities from making
wireless facility decisions based on the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions that
meet federal standards.
Responses to Appeal Points
The appeal points are described with staff comments in Attachment A- Council Appeal staff
report dated 11/l/10.
Height Exception
The Wireless Communications Facilities Ordinance restricts the maximum height of a personal
wireless service facility to 55 feet, except in situations where the facility is mounted on a tall
building where the wireless facility may be ten feet taller than the building.
In all other antenna mounting situations, such as a monopole (treepole), utility pole or utility
tower, where the applicant desires to mount the antennas above the 55 feet height limit, he/she
must apply for a height exception that may be granted by the Planning Commission. The height
exception is reviewed and may be approved at a public hearing if there are practical difficulties,
unnecessary hardships or results inconsistent with the purpose and intent of this ordinance from
strict application of the regulations. The exception also must not result in a condition that is
detrimental or injurious to property or improvements, not be detrimental to the public health,
safety or welfare, and not create a hazardous condition for pedestrians or vehicle traffic.
43
Staff has reviewed the Planning Commission's actions on wireless facility height exception
requests. To date, the Commission has approved ten height exceptions and denied one. The
height exception approvals range from 60 feet to IS feet.
In the one case where the Planning Commission denied the height exception, the decision was
appealed by the applicant, but later withdrawn when the applicant discovered development
conflict issues with the Santa Clara Valley Water District.
The Planning Commission findings for the approval of the project height exception can be found
in Resolution No. 6605 (Attachment E).
Prepared, by. Colin Jung, AICP, Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Gary Chao, City Planner & Aarti Shrivastava, Community Development Director
Approved for Submission by David W. Knapp, City Manager
Attachments:
A. Council appeal staff report dated 11/l/10
B. City Council Meeting Minutes from I1/1/10
C. Letter from property owner ECI Two Results, LLC to AT&T dated 12/3/10
D. Email from property owner ECI Two Results, LLC to City & AT&T dated 12/16/10
E. Letter to Applicant & Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 6604, 6605 & 6606
F. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes from 9/14/10
G. Planning Commission Staff Report dated 9/14/10
H. Appeal of U-2010-03, EXC-2010-04 and TR-2010-31 dated 9/28/10
I. Santa Clara County Sheriff s Letter dated 6/23/10
J. Photosimulations ofmonopine (3)
K. AT&T Facility Alternate Sites Aerial Map
L. Communications from TIC Commissioners
M. Public Correspondence: Emails and Letters
N. AT&T Mobility Proposed Base Station (Site No. CN3242A)/Results Way, Cupertino,
California/Statement of Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers, dated 10/26/10
O. Existing and Proposed Coverage Maps
P. Planning Commission -approved Plan Set
Is
44