Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
101-Staff Report.pdf
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 1010300TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408)777-3308www.cupertino.org CITYCOUNCILSTAFFREPORT Meeting:January 4, 2011 Subject Appeal ofanapproval ofawireless servicefacility RecommendedAction StaffrecommendsthattheCityCouncil denytheappeal ofthePlanningCommission’s September 14, 2010 approval, based upon thereferencedattachmentsandtherecord ofthis proceeding. Thiswill permittheApplicanttoconstructa personalwireless servicefacility consisting oftwelvepanelantennasto bemounted on a 74 foottallmonopineandassociated baseequipmentto belocatedattheexistingResultsWayoffice park. Description Appeal ofthefollowingPlanningCommissionApprovals: UsePermit(U-2010-03)requesttoallowapersonalwireless servicefacility,consisting oftwelve panelantennasmounted on a 74-foottallmonopineandassociated baseequipmentlocatedatthe ResultsWayofficepark. Height Exception(EXC-2010-04)requesttoallowantennasto bemounted on amonopineata height of 67feet orlesswhere 55feetisallowed. TreeRemoval(TR-2010-31)requesttoallowtheremovalandreplacement offourCoastal Redwoodtreesassociatedwiththe proposed personalwireless servicefacility. PropertyLocation:ResultsWay(rear parkinglot)/APN 357-20-042 Applicant:DaveYocke, Trillium Telecom(forAT&T Mobility) Appellant:AllenWang,GraceChen,GuoJin PropertyOwner:ECI TwoResults,LLC Discussion Background OnNovember 1, 2010, theCityCouncil heardanappeal ofanAT&Tpersonalwireless service facilitydesignedtolooklikeatreeattheResultsWayOfficePark(AttachmentA-Council Appeal staffreportdatedNovember 1, 2010).Discussionandtestimony duringthemeetingcan bereviewedintheCityCouncilmeetingminutes(AttachmentB). TheCityCouncil directed thattheapplicantand propertyownerconsideranalternate siteforthe personalwireless service facilitylocated offtheResultsWaydrivewayentrybehindBuildingsNo.1& 2 attheentrance of the officecampus.Withtheapplicant’sconsent,the hearingwascontinuedindefinitelytogive the property ownerandapplicanttimetoevaluatethealternate site. Theapplicantandproperty owner havecompletedtheirevaluation ofthealternate site,withthe applicant suggestingseveral differentfacility designsforthelocation. Theproperty owner reviewedthe siteand designs overthelastmonthand hasrejectedthealternatelocationasa site fora personalwireless servicefacility(AttachmentC).Otheralternative sites have been suggested on thethreepropertiesthatcomposetheResultsWayOfficePark(AttachmentK). Thesealternate sites have been discussedatthepublic hearings, neighborhoodmeetingandin the staffreports(AttachmentsA&G).The propertyownerhasreviewedthesealternatesand feelsatthistimethatthe onlyfeasible siteisthe site proposedbytheapplicantandapprovedby thePlanningCommission(AttachmentC&D).Other off-sitealternate sites have been discussedinthePlanningCommissionandCityCouncil staffreports(AttachmentsA&G). ThePlanningCommissionreviewedandapprovedthis project on September 14, 2010 (4-1 vote; Miller voting no)(Attachments E-resolution,F-hearingminutes,G-Commission staffreport, M- publiccorrespondence&P-approved planset)anditsapprovalwasappealedbythreeresidents onSeptember 28, 2010 (AttachmentH). The primaryconcernsraisedbythe project opponentsattheSeptember 14, 2010 Commission hearingrelatedto perceived hazards ofradiofrequencyenergy.However,aradiofrequency study determinedthatthecumulativeradiofrequencyexposure(existingand proposed emissions)werewell belowfederal safety standards.Federallawprohibitscitiesfrommaking wirelessfacility decisions based on theenvironmentaleffects ofradiofrequencyemissionsthat meetfederal standards. Responsesto Appeal Points Theappeal pointsare describedwith staffcommentsinAttachmentA-CouncilAppeal staff report dated 11/1/10. Height Exception TheWirelessCommunicationsFacilitiesOrdinancerestrictsthemaximum height ofa personal wireless servicefacilityto 55 feet,exceptin situationswherethefacilityismounted on atall buildingwherethewirelessfacilitymay betenfeettallerthanthe building. Inall otherantennamounting situations, suchasamonopole(treepole), utility poleor utility tower,wheretheapplicant desirestomounttheantennasabovethe 55feet heightlimit, he/she mustapplyfora heightexceptionthatmay begrantedbythePlanningCommission. The height exceptionisreviewedandmaybeapprovedatapublic hearingiftherearepractical difficulties, unnecessary hardships orresultsinconsistentwiththe purposeandintent ofthis ordinancefrom strictapplication oftheregulations. Theexceptionalsomust notresultinaconditionthatis detrimental orinjuriousto property orimprovements, not be detrimentaltothe public health, safety orwelfare,and notcreatea hazardousconditionfor pedestrians orvehicletraffic. Staff hasreviewedthePlanningCommission’sactions on wirelessfacilityheightexception requests. To date,theCommission hasapprovedten heightexceptionsand denied one. The heightexceptionapprovalsrangefrom 60feetto158feet. Inthe onecasewherethePlanningCommissiondeniedthe heightexception,the decisionwas appealedbytheapplicant, butlaterwithdrawnwhentheapplicant discovered development conflictissueswiththeSantaClaraValleyWaterDistrict. ThePlanningCommissionfindingsfortheapproval ofthe project heightexceptioncan befound inResolutionNo. 6605 (Attachment E). _____________________________________ Preparedby:ColinJung,AICP,SeniorPlanner Reviewedby:GaryChao,CityPlanner&AartiShrivastava,CommunityDevelopmentDirector ApprovedforSubmissionby:DavidW.Knapp,CityManager Attachments: A.Councilappeal staffreport dated 11/1/10 B.CityCouncil Meeting Minutesfrom 11/1/10 C.Letterfrom property owner ECI TwoResults,LLCtoAT&T dated 12/3/10 D.Emailfrom property owner ECI TwoResults,LLCtoCity&AT&T dated 12/16/10 E.LettertoApplicant&PlanningCommissionResolutionNos. 6604, 6605 &6606 F.PlanningCommission Meeting Minutesfrom 9/14/10 G.PlanningCommissionStaffReport dated 9/14/10 H.Appeal ofU-2010-03, EXC-2010-04and TR-2010-31 dated 9/28/10 I.SantaClaraCountySheriff’sLetter dated 6/23/10 J.Photosimulations ofmonopine(3) K.AT&TFacilityAlternateSitesAerial Map L.CommunicationsfromTICCommissioners M.PublicCorrespondence: EmailsandLetters N.AT&T MobilityProposedBaseStation(SiteNo.CN3242A)/ResultsWay,Cupertino, California/Statement ofHammett& Edison,Inc.,Consulting Engineers,dated 10/26/10 O. ExistingandProposedCoverageMaps P.PlanningCommission-approvedPlanSet