CC Resolution 13186 - Appeal of Planning Commission's Approval of Conditional Use Permit to Allow 75 - Foot Wireless Facility Tower RESOLUTION NO. 13186
BEING A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CAMPBELL APPROVING AN APPEAL AND DENYING THE PLANNING
COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WITH
SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW (PLN-2023-1) TO ALLOW THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A 75-FOOT WIRELESS FACILITY TOWER
DESIGNED TO RESEMBLE A EUCALYPTUS TREE ON PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 2633 S. BASCOM AVENUE. THE PROJECT INVOLVES
SEEKING A SPECIFIC EXCEPTION TO EXISTING ZONING
REGULATIONS, AS THE PROPOSED TOWER EXCEEDS THE
PROPERTY'S STANDARD ALLOWABLE HEIGHT LIMIT (35 FEET) IN
THE NC (NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERICAL) ZONING DISTRICT.
PROJECT FILE NO.: PLN-2024-103
After notification and public hearing, as specified by law and after presentation by the
Community Development Director, proponents and opponents, the hearing was closed.
After due consideration of all evidence presented, the City Council of the City of Campbell
finds as follows with regard to file number PLN-2024-103:
Environmental Finding
1. The action to deny the Proposed Project is Statutorily Exempt from environmental review
under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Public Resource
Code Section 21080(b)(5).
Evidentiary Findings
1. The project site is zoned NC (Neighborhood Commercial) and designated Neighborhood
Commercial by the General Plan.
2. The project site is located behind commercial buildings near the northwest corner of S.
Bascom Avenue and Union Avenue.
3. Access to the site is provided by a 450-foot long, 20-foot-wide private alleyway with
entrances on Cambrian Drive and South Bascom Avenue.
4. The front parcel is currently developed with a commercial building occupied by a private
communications services business, and the rear property is developed with many
existing buildings that support the front parcel's business operations.
5. Many of the existing buildings are considered to be nonconforming with the City's current
zoning standards, but are allowed to continue in accordance with CMC Section
21.58.050 (Restrictions on nonconforming structures), as they were constructed prior to
the site's annexation to the City in 2013.
City Council Resolution 13186 Page 2 of 5
2633 S. Bascom Ave — Conditional Use Permit Appeal (PLN-2024-103)
6. The applicant is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit with Site and
Architectural Review to allow for the establishment of a new concealed wireless facility
(artificial tree pole) with a request for a limited exemption from standards to retain the
existing height of the facility.
7. The facility would be designed to resemble a eucalyptus tree which, as designed and
conditioned, may be found to satisfy the requirements of the city's adopted Wireless
Communications Facilities Ordinance and Wireless Facility Design Requirements.
8. All aspects of the design of the facility, including the size and width of the facility and
surrounding canopy of artificial branches, contribute to the concealment of the facility.
9. Any increase to the height and width of the facility as measured to the edge of the exterior
branches as depicted on the project plans would defeat the concealment of the artificial
tree as designed.
10. The maximum allowable height of a structure in the NC zoning district is 35-feet, where
the existing/proposed facility would be 75-feet, not including the addition of new artificial
branches that will be used conceal the facility as a eucalyptus tree.
11. The applicant bears the burden of demonstrating why a limited exemption to standards
(height) should be granted.
12. For the city to approve a limited exemption, the applicant must demonstrate with clear
and convincing evidence that a significant gap in the applicant's service coverage exists
(or in this case, would occur without the requested height) and that all alternative sites
identified in the application review process are either technically infeasible or not
potentially available.
13. The applicant has provided an analysis of the service coverage of the carrier to be
served by the proposed tower facility (AT&T) and resulting gap in coverage that would
occur without the facility at the proposed height.
14. The applicant also provided an assessment of alternative locations considered, and why
they were found to be infeasible.
15. To assist the City Council in its assessment, a third-party consultant was hired to
determine the impact that reducing the tower height would have on wireless coverage.
16. The third-party consultant report concludes that the requested height may be
supported on the basis that the tower's height of 65 feet is strategically chosen. This
height is crucial to achieve desired coverage and also allows for the possibility of
colocation, where other carriers can place their equipment on the same tower, thus
reducing the need for multiple structures. A technical breakdown in the findings of the
report was provided comparing coverage at 65 feet versus 45 feet, illustrating
significant reductions in coverage at the lower height, especially in the mid-band
spectrum which provides faster data speeds.
City Council Resolution 13186 Page 3 of 5
2633 S. Bascom Ave — Conditional Use Permit Appeal (PLN-2024-103)
17. The third-party consultant report included a list and evaluation of alternative sites,
detailing why they are infeasible for the proposed wireless facility. Reasons cited
include unsuitable locations, restricted heights on existing structures, and landlords'
reluctance to grant long-term leases. Additionally, three alternative PG&E electric
transmission lattice towers are positioned too far north to provide necessary coverage
and would cause undesirable interference with other AT&T sites, reinforcing the
chosen site as the most viable option to avoid coverage gaps.
18. As the requested height and placement of the facility may be found necessary to avoid
a significant gap in coverage, and in consideration that all alternative sites identified in
the review process are either technically infeasible or not potentially available, the City
Council may approve a limited exemption to standards to allow an increase in height at
the proposed location.
19. Although the project includes development plans, it does not require a separate
architectural review permit application but is subject to site and architectural review in
accordance with CMC 21.46.050 (Site and architectural review).
20. The Conditional Use Permit application was considered by the Planning Commission at
its meeting of June 25, 2024, wherein, after closing of the public hearing, adopted
Resolution No. 4709, granting approval of the Conditional Use Permit application.
21 . No substantial evidence has been presented which shows that the project, as currently
presented and subject to the required conditions of approval, will have a significant
adverse impact on the environment.
22. A timely Appeal of the Planning Commission's action to approve the Conditional Use
Permit application was received on July 3, 2024.
23. After consideration of the evidenced provided in the administrative record and public
hearings, the City Council finds that the configuration of the tower proposed by the
Conditional Use Permit application does not meet the findings for approval, specifically
Conditional Use Permit Finding No. 6:
The establishment, maintenance, or operation of the proposed use at the location
proposed will be detrimental to the comfort, health, morals, peace, safety, or
general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed
use, or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the
neighborhood or to the general welfare of the city;
Based upon the foregoing findings of fact, and in consideration of the entire administrative
record, the City Council further finds and concludes that:
Wireless Communications Facilities Findings (CMC Sec. 21.34.110):
1. The proposed facility, or modification to an existing facility, as conditioned will not be a
stealth or concealed facility as defined in Section 21.34.200;
City Council Resolution 13186 Page 4 of 5
2633 S. Bascom Ave Conditional Use Permit Appeal (PLN-2024-103)
2. The proposed facility, or modification to an existing facility, as conditioned will not comply
with all requirements of Chapter 21 .34 (Wireless Communications Facilities);
3. The proposed facility, or modification to an existing facility, as conditioned will not comply
with all applicable design guidelines;
4. The proposed facility, or modification to an existing facility, as conditioned will not be
consistent with the general plan;
Conditional Use Permit Findings (CMC Sec. 21.46.040):
5. The proposed use is allowed within the applicable zoning district with Conditional Use
Permit approval, but does not comply with all other applicable provisions of this Zoning
Code and the Campbell Municipal Code;
6. The proposed use is not consistent with the General Plan;
7. The proposed site is not adequate in terms of size and shape to accommodate the fences
and walls, landscaping, parking and loading facilities, yards, and other development
features required in order to integrate the use with uses in the surrounding area;
8. The proposed site is not adequately served by streets of sufficient capacity to carry the
kind and quantity of traffic the use would be expected to generate;
9. The design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the proposed use are not
compatible with the existing and future land uses on-site and in the vicinity of the subject
property;
10. The establishment, maintenance, or operation of the proposed use at the location
proposed will be detrimental to the comfort, health, morals, peace, safety, or general
welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use, or be
detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or to the
general welfare of the city;
Site and Architectural Review Permit Findings (CMC Sec. 21.42.060.B):
11. The project will not be consistent with the General Plan;
12. The project will not be consistent with the Zoning Code;
13. The project will not aid in the harmonious development of the immediate area;
14. The project is not consistent with applicable adopted design guidelines, development
agreement, overlay district, area plan, neighborhood plan, and specific plan(s);
Environmental Finding(s) (CMC Sec. 21.38.050):
City Council Resolution 13186 Page 5 of 5
2633 S. Bascom Ave - Conditional Use Permit Appeal (PLN-2024-103)
15. The project is Categorically Exempt under Section 15301 (Class 1) of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pertaining to the operation and leasing, and/or minor
alteration of an existing private structure; and
16. No substantial evidence has been presented which shows that the project, as currently
presented and subject to the required conditions of approval, will have a significant
adverse impact on the environment.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council approves an appeal (PLN-2024-103)
and denies the approval of a Conditional Use Permit with Site and Architectural Review
(PLN-2023-1) to allow the construction of a 75-foot wireless facility tower designed to
resemble a eucalyptus tree on property located at 2633 S. Bascom Avenue. The project
involves seeking a specific exception to existing zoning regulations, as the proposed tower
exceeds the property's standard allowable height limit (35 feet).
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of July 2024, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners: Lopez, Furtado, Bybee, Scozzola
NOES: Commissioners: None
ABSENT: Commissioners: None
RECUSE: Commissioners: Landry
1 /
APPROV D:
ergioWVice Mayor
ATTEST: 014 ('�'(go 04 .L,J
Andrea San' ers, City Clerk
idotiltamc
ells* Ile
***Ea
s ela,r. ,wa9
fMaY,NEE 5,3029 1:3e:19 G!1
atua'tmenb. .tiCa
matia
{g1 1 Some people who received this message don't often get email from sarahliregger11.15@gmaRcom earn why Or is-nronarn
nC:ibis sail originated from an a¢ama:mal amass.Ylea..do not open atta d.mta or click an lints mla.s you ars certain it is lgitiab-
Hello,
Below is the statement specifying the basis for the appeal and the specific aspects of the decision being contested on PLN-2023-1 which is a 75ft Cell/wireless tower on 2833 Bascom Ave.
Unfortunately,we were unable to reach any personnel in the planning department today(7/5)as myself and my community have additional questions regarding this statement.However,given the 7/5/24
by 5pm deadline received,I am preemptively sending in this statement.
Thank you.
2633 Bascom Ave Reason for Appeal
1.Based on ATT's own data published on their website shown below no coverage gap has been found,as of July 2024.While a gap MAY have existed at the time of the consultants analysis of
Sept 2023,as documented in"Draft Review of the Application of AT&T Wireless',no such gap is shown from ATT now.
Details:
From ATT's website,ATT coverage map shows no gap in coverage.All areas in DARK blue have both 5G and 4G LTE with solid coverage,covering all of Campbell,and the specific location
that the undesirable tall tower proposal claims to cover
•
►saved >..�+. rand a scrn• Om er espahc.
a _ Deals xi tttess sugvet Accesar es p.epait ell,bolting for_ Q J Support My AT&T i,
. - . �" ink ` Stanford Milt;itot ,4s _
! f Wireless coverage map s.,
' . , . Los Altos Sunnyvale o a�•�a fast�cwait
9 -.' las Altos HMS iah
' , cy
4 +v Comers Santa Clara a,a. i s a a-
` 11ose .y �,�.tiy
5 Cupert so Swoa.a ta,a aaa. .k• i K} ke
..�, _,,t,, Wert,vent.Clara alte_ . _ y,
Campbell Sit Vas...wear
g - ' Saratoga 0 - t
' Cambria!Part rdau w t6M nag .' •
ilk
` G$nelsvr .. . ua uaa Monte Serino a 0 •a d '' :.
' a'=. " .Sams Part . LOS Gatos carom rtaa ..ears ", >
s . venues .:;G• .56 .4C,LTE .Partner c- O ■ —a
�i 4tett.
hloo gaa Hill
Zoom out view showing both 5G and LTE coverage for Campbell
a v + a
•ATAT NCp-Lwdeln Ca r.v.Nry b AAR-
.......E axles,
a = Deals Wireless Internet Assessor/es prepaid .- ..
NA N Y IllWL1
ALRSRTSON BECK
all Mrarwucoverage map v / 111
Nor 1
iiiith,
4111116. . imits Illprelliir 0
2633 5 Bascom Ave CA 95008 Ili
5G- SG.1G LEE Ca rays '`mow
Mid
ON
1
moo
EEtEMT . -AO Seb.l M� � r
Mod
AK
Ni-Ealli
rill
) WtL.
46 ifekomaie i f_2 r
e ■ ■ . 3'G:.:c In pat .,,:-,ea-ge- O ES73/7T!'zr --
k .:.wLr,C
""k" OST
SR
Q PONDEROSA S HN
Sarah IGYxger
O •Ci44
• :•1,7”, •
Community Development Department
Planning Division
MEMORANDUM
To: Site and Architectural Review Committee Date: May 28, 2024
From: Larissa Lomen,Assistant Planner Lt.
Via: Rob Eastwood, Community Development Director
Subject: Conditional Use Permit with Site and Architectural Review
File No.: PLN-2023-1 —2633 S Bascom Avenue
BACKGROUND
Proposed Project: This application would allow for the installation of a new concealed wireless
tower facility designed as a faux eucalyptus tree to serve the AT&T network with a request for a
"limited exemption from standards" to retain the height of an existing tower facility (35-feet
permitted; 75-feet existing/requested)and exceed the required side and front setbacks.
Existing Site
415.
e ..r
Proposal
4111
•
r
- s
3 a .
L4
.
y
_4r
Project Site: The project site is an approximately 6,098 square foot property located behind
commercial buildings near the northwest corner of S. Bascom Avenue and Union Avenue. Access
to the site is provided by a 450-foot long,20-foot-wide private alleyway with entrances on Cambrian
Drive and South Bascom Avenue. The property is predominantly surrounded by commercial land
uses to the south and east, with a single-family dwelling situated to the north. Additionally, the
SARC Memorandum—May 28, 2024 Page 2 of 5
PLN-2023-1 —2633 S. Bascom Ave
property abuts a hotel to the south, which is within the jurisdiction of the City of San Jose, as
illustrated in the aerial map below.
44
110;itit /kiiiiititi* .
• 1
,, ''''. . i 1 j 26/ /
'','-':."..:",, ' ' .£ / r • „, 40;"
2627 �,++�
14
•
� .'
-.. 0 ,,',..1, • ...,,,.....-::, , • ‘ ilt
4.
N.
•
The property shares the address and ownership with the parcel directly in front. The front parcel is
currently developed with a commercial building occupied by a private communications services
business, and the rear property is developed with many existing buildings that support the front
parcel's business operations. Many of the existing buildings are considered to be nonconforming
with the City's current zoning standards, but are allowed to continue in accordance with CMC
Section 21.58.050(Restrictions on nonconforming structures),as they were constructed prior to the
site's annexation to the City in 2013.
PROJECT DATA
Zoning Designation: NC (Neighborhood Commercial)
General Plan Designation: Neighborhood Commercial
Net Lot Area: 6,098 square feet
Proposed Allowed
Height: 75 feet' 35 feet(Max. Allowed)
Setbacks: 2
Front 2.8 feet 15 feet(Min. Required)
The proposed height of the wireless facility exceeds the allowable 35-feet as set in the Zoning Ordinance,but shall
be allowed through an exception to height as provided in CMC Section 21.18.050.
2 The proposed side and front setbacks of the wireless facility exceed the allowable as set in the Zoning Ordinance,but
shall be allowed through an exception to height as provided in CMC Section 21.18.050.
SARC Memorandum—May 28, 2024 Page 3 of 5
PLN-2023-1 —2633 S. Bascom Ave
Rear 96 feet 10 feet(Min. Required)
Side: 3 feet 37.5 feet(Min. Required)
DISCUSSION
Scope of Review: The Site and Architectural Review Committee's (SARC) role is to review the
design and materials of the proposed project for compatibility with City design standards and
guidelines and to make recommendations as appropriate to the Planning Commission.
Design: The applicant proposes a faux Eucalyptus tree as a new wireless communications facility,
necessitating a design review under the City's Wireless Facility Design Requirements (WFDR).
These requirements mandate an assessment of the appropriate tree species, shape, size, quality,
longevity of materials(branches& bark), color, and finish in relation to the facility's surroundings.
The WFDR specifies that the tree species should match its surroundings and ideally be placed in a
grove of comparable trees.Although the applicant has chosen a faux eucalyptus tree for its effective
antenna screening capabilities, no other eucalyptus trees are present nearby, and it is a non-native
species that is not compatible with the City's urban forest as specified in the City's Tree Protection
Ordinance. The closest comparable trees are palm trees, redwood trees, and deodar cedars located
to the north and southeast of the existing tower as seen in the below photo.
Palm Trees '
/
` - Cedar Trees
Redwood Trees
(111111 4FIA •-• dr,
/ e
. it -,
The WFDR requires that faux trees replicate the shape, structure, height, and color of live trees.
The proposed 75-foot wireless tower uses a faux eucalyptus tree for its design, reflecting the
natural characteristics of a eucalyptus,which can grow up to 150 feet and possesses dense foliage.
The upside down "V" shape of a eucalyptus tree was chosen as it offers the greatest screening
where antennas are mounted towards the top of the facility. However,the proposed structure
diverges from a true Eucalyptus profile by featuring a flatter canopy and less base tapering,which
deviates from the rounded top and tapered base typical of real Eucalyptus trees.
SARC Memorandum—May 28,2024 Page 4 of 5
PLN-2023-1 —2633 S. Bascom Ave
-41
'"' Proposed AT&T " `
Installation
\\ y 1y 1
•
�
Given the non-native status of the eucalyptus and its potential conflict with the urban forest
management outlined in the City's Tree Protection Ordinance,yet considering its effectiveness in
concealing wireless infrastructure,the SARC should evaluate whether this design is suitable or if
an alternative species or design approach should be pursued.
Materials and Construction: To appear natural, the WFDR stipulates that a faux tree must have at
least three branches per foot and use realistic materials, which the proposal demonstrates on Sheet
A-6. Branches must seamlessly connect to the faux bark cladding, detailed in the plan specification
sheets.All tower-mounted equipment, including antennas,equipment cabinets,cables,mounts, and
brackets, must be painted in flat, natural colors to mimic the tree's bark or branches, as noted on
Sheet REF-1 the equipment will be painted"Bark Brown"to match the tower's branches.
Additionally, the canopy must envelop all tower-mounted equipment and extend at least 18 inches
beyond it,a criterion confirmed on Sheet A-6 of the project plans.Antennas and equipment cabinets
must be covered with leaf or needle "socks" to blend with the faux foliage, also detailed on Sheet
REF-1. The vertical structure will also be covered with three-dimensional faux bark cladding and
all coaxial cables must be routed directly from the ground up through the pole as fulfilled on Sheet
A-6.
CONSIDERATIONS
The SARC should discuss the proposed project's design,with a specific emphasis on the following
discussion points:
• Should an alternative tree species be considered?
o Staff Recommendation: Given the absence of eucalyptus trees in the vicinity and the
non-native status of this species, it is recommended that the applicant reconsider the
choice of a faux eucalyptus tree for the concealment structure. Alternative species
that are native to the area or other types of concealment strategies should be.explored
to ensure better integration with the local environment. Potential alternatives could
include the use of a faux redwood tree,or deodar cedar tree,which are present in the
nearby area and would harmonize with the city's urban forest.
SARC Memorandum—May 28,2024 Page 5 of 5
PLN-2023-1 —2633 S. Bascom Ave
• Should the shape of the tree be altered in any way to better conceal the tower?
o Staff Recommendation: The facility's height should be increased, and the canopy
should be extended to create a wider and rounder shape. This will help conceal the
equipment more effectively and provide a rounded top that tapers more to a point at
the base,better mimicking the natural form of a eucalyptus tree as seen in the below
photo.
• .41
t _ • ' �
is.
•
.rR , 71'
•
'..
.)^•1 '1 _
-44 • ._ 1•
pie
• Should a non-tree facility be utilized?
o Staff Recommendation: Alternatively, non-tree-like structures such as slimline
towers, flagpoles, or artistic installations might provide effective concealment while
avoiding the botanical incompatibility issues associated with a non-native species.
These alternatives must be designed to "integrate seamlessly"with the surrounding
environment, in compliance with the WFDR.A prominent 75-foot tower or a similar
large structure may initially seem more obtrusive than a faux tree, especially to
residents of nearby single-family homes. Consequently, staff suggest considering a
slimline tower styled as a faux flagpole or streetlight,though this design could limit
radio frequency capabilities and may not fulfill the project's feasibility requirements.
Attachments:
1. Project Plans
2. Photo Simulations