CVL01280 Plan Check Response letter on behalf of
605 Coolidge Drive Suite 100
Folsom, CA. 95630
Fax (916) 781-5927
DATE: 02/11/2020
City of Campbell Community Development Dept.
C/O Stephen Rose
70 N. First Street,
Campbell, CA
Plan Check Response Letter
Re: Campbell Community Development Department Incomplete letter dated 12/19/2019
Project (PLN2019-231) 1630 W. Campbell Avenue
AT&T Wireless Facility Site Ref# CVL01280 – Wings Shopping Ctr.
Located at: 1630 W. Campbell Avenue, Campbell CA APN: 403-02-054
Dear Mr. Rose/Planning staff,
In reference to the initial review of the AT&T collocation application for a new concealed wireless facility that
has been determined the application is incomplete. And the follow up email dated 1/17/2020 kindly provided by
Stephen Rose’s office.
Please find the requested written responses detailed below to cure and or address said incomplete items:
Global Comments
Item #1
“The application indicates a property address of 1770 W. Campbell Avenue. Prior permits associated with this
facility reflected 1630 W. Campbell Avenue as the project address. It is recommended to retain 1630 W.
Campbell Avenue as the address of record (revising the plans accordingly)”.
Response:
The plans have been revised accordingly by Borges Architectural Group. Address on title sheet has been
changed to 1630 W. Campbell Ave., please see revised ZD set title sheet T-1 for review.
Item #2
“Context of Review & Maximum Building Height: The subject site is zoned C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial)
which has a maximum height of 35-feet (reference CMC 21. 10.040). Any facility other than a stealth facility
must comply with this maximum height limit. The proposed tree pole at +/-61 feet would therefore be ineligible
for consideration at the proposed height unless clear and convincing evidence can be provided that: A) a
significant gap in coverage exists; and B) all alternative sites identified in the application review process are
either technically infeasible or not potentially viable in accordance with CMC21 .34.070 - General
Development Standards, 6. Development and operational standards. & CMC 21.34.160 - Limited exemption
from standards”.
on behalf of
605 Coolidge Drive Suite 100
Folsom, CA. 95630
Fax (916) 781-5927
Response:
Please see provided (ASA) alternate sites analysis detailing the Proposed Facility is the least intrusive means for
AT&T to meet its service coverage objective and close its significant service coverage gap in this portion of the
City of Campbell.
Item #3
“Permit Withdraw”
Response:
AT&T has completed an exhaustive search and eliminated all other viable construction options for the area, and
AT&T feels it has provided the City of Campbell adequate documentation to justify its determination that the
proposed colocation and concealed facility is the best option to close its significant service coverage gap.
Additional Information
Item #1
“Collocation”
“Please identify all existing carriers and provide true and correct copies of all previously issued permits as
required by CMC 21.34 .060.J - Prior Permits. Further, it is unclear if the subject permit would seek to
'approve' the equipment to be added subsequently by separate carriers or if each of those requests are to be
separately processed – please clarify your intention in this regard”.
Response:
There is only (1) existing carrier (Sprint) CUP ref# PLN2013-33 at the site and AT&T would seek to “approve”
Sprints existing equipment be approved to be relocated on the new proposed tower.
Item #2
“Site and construction plans: Please provide a demolition plan showing the removal of the existing slimline
tower”.
Response:
The plans have been revised accordingly by Borges Architectural Group. Demolition plan has been added to the
plan set, please see revised sheet A-1.1, view 3 titled “Enlarged Demo Plan” for review.
on behalf of
605 Coolidge Drive Suite 100
Folsom, CA. 95630
Fax (916) 781-5927
Item #3
Visual Simulations
“Please provide a visual simulation showing the maximum expansion of the facility which could occur as a
result of a future eligible facility request pursuant to Section 6409”
Response:
A note has been added to the revised plans stipulating the height of the facility as proposed by AT&T is as tall
as the Mono tree could ever be, any and all extensions would defeat the concealment method expressed in the
City’s code (note: trees only grow to a certain height and extension would defeat concealment objective). See
sheet A-4.1
Item #4
Tree Removal
“The new tower would result in the removal of one more tree(s) that were required as part of an approved
landscaping plan. Please disclose the number, species, and size of each tree proposed for removal on the plans
and submit an application all applicable fees and providing all required paperwork)”.
Response:
The plans have been revised accordingly by Borges Architectural Group. Recommended relocation of subject
tree has been added to the plan set, please see revised 100ZD plans, sheet A-1.1, view 3 titled “Enlarged Demo
Plan” for notes & relocation plan of existing tree.
Item #5
“Construction Staging/Phasing Plan Please provide a construction staging/phasing plan indicating the location
and duration of all associated construction activities”.
Response:
The plans have been revised accordingly by Borges Architectural Group. Construction staging has been added
to the plan set, please see revised plans on sheet A-1.1 & A-1.2 for layout and duration of staging areas.
Item #6
“Alternative Sites Analysis Please provide a list of all existing structures considered as alternatives to the
proposed location, together with a general description of the site design considered at each location. The
applicant must also provide a written explanation for why the alternatives considered were unacceptable or
infeasible, unavailable or not as consistent with the development standards in this chapter as the proposed
location”.
on behalf of
605 Coolidge Drive Suite 100
Folsom, CA. 95630
Fax (916) 781-5927
Response:
Please see (ASA) alternate sites analysis provided with the resubmittal materials including all existing structures
considered as alternatives to the proposed location. Additionally, please note per the findings in the Site And
Architectural Review Permit (PLN2002-111) approval by the community development director dated April
21,2003. Due to existing physical obstacles and structures that would impair signal from antennas. AT&T’s
proposed antennas and existing antennas need to maintain an unobstructed height to provide reliable, seamless
coverage for the area.
Item #7
“Design Requirements If a faux tree is to be pursued at the site please provide additional information to aide in
the assessment of the quality and 'species' of the tree selected as follows”:
a. Please provide information on the quality and longevity of materials (branches & bark), paint, and
finish.
Response (a):
Chameleon engineering (tower manufacturer) has provided the following information:
The proposed bark and branches last indefinitely, though have a warranty of five years.
The foliage typically will last for 5-6 years, and “foliage” is what typically needs to be replaced.
Note: AT&T will not have an issue in the event the COA’s require the Monotree to be evaluated every (5) years
for foliage where and tare and possible replacement. (See Faux Tree Design Notes on sheet A-4.1 of the revised
plans)
“b. Species selection. Please explain why a Eucalyptus was selected as the appropriate species based on the
surrounding trees in the area”.
Response (b):
Chameleon engineering (tower manufacturer) have provided the following information:
In an effort to meet the preferred V-Shaped tree species as detailed in the City’s Wireless Facility Design
Requirements. A Eucalyptus design tower is the ONLY standard ‘faux’ tree foliage currently available for a
V-shaped Mono tree tower. Additionally, Chameleon engineers advise a eucalyptus tree design is the best true-
to-species match based on other existing trees in in the surrounding area. Note: there are No groves of trees in
this C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) use zoning district, however; AT&T would be willing to plant additional
trees if required as part of an approved landscaping plan. (See Faux Tree Design Notes on sheet A-4.1 of the
revised plans)
on behalf of
605 Coolidge Drive Suite 100
Folsom, CA. 95630
Fax (916) 781-5927
“c. Please provide a written response and/or exhibits demonstrating compliance with each of the standard
requirements for faux trees (a. through j.) specified on Sheet 10 of the City's Design Requirements for Wireless
Facilities”.
Response (c):
The plans have been revised accordingly by Borges Architectural Group. See plan check correction letter dated
2/11/2020 provided by Borges Architectural Group. (See Faux Tree Design Notes on sheet A-4.1 of the revised
plans)
“d V-Shaped Trees. The facility design appears to 'columnar' where a 'v-shaped' appearance would be more
appropriate for the selected species (Eucalyptus). It is therefore recommended to amend the design of the
branches to achieve an appearance more consistent with the species. This may be achieved by extending branch
lengths by using a more reinforced branch”.
Response (d):
The project plans have been updated to show additional detail to confirm the Monotree is in compliance as
specified in the City of Campbell Wireless Facility Design Requirements. (See Faux Tree Design Notes on
sheet A-4.1 of the revised plans)
Should you have questions and or need any additional information to deem the application complete, please do not
hesitate to contact my office directly at the undersigned
Sincerely,
Carl Jones
Project Manager
Epic Wireless Group LLC
(916) 798-2275 carl.jones@epicwireless.net