.02 DIR-2006-07 T Mobile
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM
Application:
DIR-2006-07
Agenda Date: June 12, 2007
Applicant: Erik Corkery (for T-Mobile)
Property Owner: Stevens Creek Office Center Associates
Property Location: 20833 Stevens Creek Boulevard
Height of Antennas (above grade): 37 feet
Height of Antennas (above parapet): 5 feet
Environmental Review: Categorically Exempt, Section 15303, Class 3e
Application Summary:
Director's Minor Modification of 13-U-79, (File No. DIR-2006-07) to install a
wireless telecommunication facility at an existing office center (Stevens Creek
Office Center)
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny DIR-2006-07 in
accordance with the model resolution.
BACKGROUND:
The applicant Erik Corkery, representing T-Mobile, is requesting the
establishment of a wireless telecommunications facility on the roof of an existing
two-story office building with below-grade parking located at 20833 Stevens
Creek Boulevard (see location aerial photo below). Six 4.5 feet tall panel
antennas will be mounted in pairs in the equipment well of the building roof,
along with four associated equipment cabinets. Two pairs of the antennas are
oriented toward Stevens Creek Boulevard and the third pair toward the rear of
the building. The surrounding land uses are all commercial uses and the Union
Church across Stevens Creek Boulevard. The distance to the closest residential
property on Bianchi Way (across Stevens Creek Boulevard) is 395 feet, and 435
feet to the pastor's residence on the Abundant Life Church property.
~-I
DIR-2006-07
June 12, 2007
Page 2
~ " ~ . .:=-~.
. Propos~d Location of T-Mobile Cell Site
DISCUSSION:
The antenna heights comply with the City's wireless communications facilities
ordinance requirements fl?r roof-mounted antennas. The equipment cabinets are
completely screened from public view by the equipment well, and the antennas
will be visually screened with a cOlublnation of existing landscaping and rooftop
equipment screens. Note that the plan elevations depict fewer roof screens than
what is shown in the photosimulations.
While the antennas can be fully screened, the screens are not architecturally
integrated with the design of the building and is thus not conipatible with its
surroundings (See photo). From a design standpoint, staff prefers a full
perimeter roof sc~een, which would integrate better with the appearance of the
building, rather than the "pop-up chimney" approach.
The applicant states that a full per~eter roof screen is not structurally feasible
because of the wind loads and the obstructions posed by other equipment
already on the roof that Inuits how the screens can be braced (See exhibit A).
Staff had suggested that the equipment screens be perforated to reduce the wind
load, but the structural engineer said it would not help enough and the cell
antennas would be visible through the screen perforations.
2
~-~
DIR-2006-07
June 12, 2007
. Page 3
Front Roof Screen
Locations
If the Commission chooses to approye the proposal, staff recommends certain
conditions that are included in the attached resolution of approval, including a
condition that requires the antennas to be fully screened to the satisfaction of the
Director of Community Development as depicted in the photosimulations.
Submitted by: Colin Jung, Senior Planner ~
Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Corrullunity Developme~
Enclosures:
Model Resolution for Denial
Model Resolution for Approval
Exhibit A: Letter from Delta Groups, Inc. dated July 17,2006
Photosirnula tions
H: Groups/Planning/PDREPORT /DIRreports/2006/DIR-2006-07
3
c2'~
DIR-2006-07
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
RESOLUTION NO.
(denial)
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
DENYING A DIVERTED DIRECTOR'S MINOR MODIFICATION TO ALLOW THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY AT AN
EXISTING OFFICE CENTER (STEVENS CREEK OFFICE CENTER) LOCATED
AT 20833 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD
SECTION I: FINDINGS
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received a diverted
application for Director's Minor Modification, as described in Section II of this Resolution;
and
WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural
Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more
public hearings on this matter; and
WHEREAS, the project's roof screens, designed to visually screen the antennas, does not
architecturally integrate with the appearance of the office building and is thus not compatible
with the surroundings and at variance with the adopted siting and design guidelines and is
thus inconsistent with the City's Wireless Facilities Master Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence
submitted in this matter, the diverted application for Director's Minor Modification is hereby
denied; and
That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this resolution
are based and contained in the public hearing record concerning Application No. DIR-2006-
07 as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of June 12, 2007, are
incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.,
SECTION II: PROTECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.:
Applicant:
Property Owner:
Location:
U -2006-07
Erik Corkery (for T-Mobile)
Stevens Creek Office Center Associates
20833 Stevens Creek Boulevard
o2wlf
DIR-2006-07
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
RESOLUTION NO.
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
APPROVING A DIVERTED DIRECTOR'S MINOR MODIFICATION TO ALLOW THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY A T AN
EXISTING OFFICE CENTER (STEVENS CREEK OFFICE CENTER) LOCATED
AT 20833 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD
SECTION I: FINDINGS
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received a diverted
application for Director's Minor Modification, as described in Section II of this Resolution;
and
WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural
Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more
public hearings on this matter; and
WHEREAS, the project's roof screens can adequately screen the antenna and are of a height,
color, design that is architecturally compatible with the appearance of the office building.
The project is thus consistent with the City's Wireless Facilities Master Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence
submitted in this matter, the diverted application for Director's Minor Modification is hereby
approved; and
That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this resolution
are based and contained in the public hearing record concerning Application No. DIR-2006-
07 as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of June 12, 2007, are
incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.
SECTION II: PROTECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.:
Applicant:
Property Owner:
Location:
U -2006-07
Erik Corkery (for T-Mobile)
Stevens Creek Office Center Associates
20833 Stevens Creek Boulevard
o1~"
Resolution No.
June 12,2007
Page 2
SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPT.
1. APPROVED EXHIBITS
The approval is based on plan set titled: SF15041A/Stevens Creek Office Center,"
consisting of five sheets dated 11/09/06 and labeled T1, A1 through A4, except as may
be amended by the conditions contained in this Resolution.
2. LANDSCAPING
The applicant shall plant three 36-inch box Flowering Pears (Pyrus calleriana variety
Chanticleer) in the empty tree wells fronting the office building. "The irrigation system
shall be in operating condition.
3. EXPIRATION OF APPROVAL
The approval is valid for a period of 10 years and shall expire on June 12, 2017.
4. SCREENING OF VISIBLE ANTENNAS
Antennas and mounting hardware shall be fully screened from public view to the
satisfaction of the Director of Community Development.
5. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS
The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees,
dedication requirements, 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, 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 period complying with all of the requirements of
Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions.
/1,1
I) Delta Groups, Inc.
Exhibit A
5627 Stoneridge Drive, Suite 314, Pleasanton, CA 94588
Tel.: (925) 468-0115 Fax: (925) 468-0355
July 17, 2006
AUn: Mr. Bill Stephens
T -Mobile
1855 Gateway Boulevard, 9th Floor
Concord, CA 94520
Subject:
Parapet Extension at Project SF15041A, "Stevens Creek Office Center,"
located at 20833 Stevens Creek Boulevard in Cupertino, California
Dear Sir:
Per your request, we have reviewed this project with regards to the addition of a parapet screen
wall extension encompassing the perimeter of the existing building. In order to screen the
proposed antennas, the parapet screen wall extension would extend to at least six feet in height
above the existing six foot high parapet wall. Wind-loading would become a very significant
factor. The parapet screen wall extension would need to be braced to the existing roof using
some diagonal bracing. Also, note that there are existing HVAC units located along the south
parapet wall that would prohibit bracing of a proposed parapet screen wall extension (see
Attachment A).
Delta Groups Engineering, Inc. has performed a Structural Evaluation to determine whether or
not a proposed parapet extension would be structurally feasible. We have reviewed both the
areas where diagonal bracing is feasible and where diagonal bracing is not feasible due to the
existing HV AC equipment. In both cases, the existing structural capacity of the roof would be
overstressed (see attached Structural Calculations). In conclusion, we have determined that a
parapet screen wall extension is not feasible at this project site. Should you have any
questions, please contact us.
Best regards,
Albert Teng
President
;2-q