Loading...
CC Resolution No. 11-022 Deny the Petition of Grace Chen & Guo Jin, Reconsideration of Appeal of U-2010-03, EXC-2010-04 & TR-2010-031, Personal Wireless Service Facility, Results Way Office Parl RESOLUTION NO. 11 -022 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DENYING 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 staff report 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 .af 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 determines that: a. The City Council's decision is supported by findings of fact attached as Exhibit 1. b. The findings 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 item 9 is DENIED, thereby affirmi;,ng the original decision. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting 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: /2/GL— / City Clerk Mayor, City of Cuperti . 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 particular 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; and/or 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 summarized below. It should be noted that three out of the four claims do not bear any relationship to the criteria referenced above. The City's findings of fact on each of claims and the criterion are delineated below. Finding: 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 Screening landscaping for the monopine Petitioners seek to add and refine needs to follow strict aesthetic 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 property 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 park 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. Finding: 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 Res . onse 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.