HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 320-09TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER
DATE: JULY 27, 2009
REPORT TYPE: CONSENT
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
CMR: 320:09
SUBJECT: Approval of a Record of Land Use Action and Conditional Use Permit
Application by AT&T on Behalf of Aldersgate Methodist Church for
a 45-Foot Mono-Pine Wireless Communications Facility with
Concealed Antennas and Associated At-Grade Equipment Cabinets at
4243 Manuela Avenue
RECOMMENDATION
Staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission (P &TC) recomnlend that the City
Council approve the Conditional Use Pennit (CUP), for the AT & T antenna at 4243 Manuela
Avenue, based upon the findings and conditions of approval in the revised Record of Land Use
'-~Action (Attachnlent A).
BACKGROUND
On September 30, 2008, AT&T filed an application for a CUP and minor Architectural Review
for a 45 foot tall faux pine tree or "mono-pine" wireless communications facility concealing nine
cellular antennas and an equipment cabinet enclosure within a landscaped area at the Aldersgate
Church site. Staff worked with the applicant to increase the setback of the mono-pine from
Foothill Expressway prior to the tentative approval. On May 5,2009, the Planning and
Community Development Director (Director) tentatively approved the CUP and Architectural
Review application. Neighbors from Palo Alto and Los Altos Hills requested hearings before the
Architectural Review Board (ARB) and P&TC, held June 18, 2009 and June 24, 2009,
respecti vel y.
Subsequent to the P&TC hearing, the Director issued a revised Architectural Review approval
letter dated June 30, 2009 (Attachment B), which included the additional ARB-recommended
approval conditions and the new mono-pine location discussed during the P &TC hearing as now
reflected on the plan set dated July 8,2009. The additional ARB conditions required
replacement of seven trees with seven large evergreens for screening, a mono-pine color that is
compatible with nearby trees and the use of native vines to screen the fenced equipment area.
The new mono-pine location as approved by the Director is set back approximately 241 ' 10"
CMR: 320:09 Page 1 of 5
from Foothill Expressway as noted on the site plan of the July 8, 2009 plan set provided to
Cou~ci1 merrlbers and also shown on Attachment C.
The 14-day appeal period for the revised Architectural Review approval ended July 14, 2009 and
no appeal was filed.
Further background information can be found in the P&TC report (Attachment D) and arborists'
report (Attachment F). The setback is now 241' 10" from Foothill Expressway as noted above.
The previous, 2006 Council approval of a CUP for a 45-foot tall mono-pine on the church site
had expired one year after the approval, as did the associated Architectural Review approval.
These approvals had provided staffwith a framework for the 2009 tentative approvals; however,
one condition had changed since 2007. This was the approval and construction of a home on
adj acent property in Los Altos Hills, such that the previously approved location proved to be
intolerable for the future home owner.
BOARD/COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Architectural Review Board
Prior to the ARB meeting, staffmet on site with Mr. Askari, one of the neighbors requesting the
ARB and P&TC hearings. Mr. Askari, who is building his new home and guest house on the
Los Altos Hills parcel adjacent to the site and Foothill Expressway, suggested relocating the
mono-pine to an alternate location in the parking lot between two sets of pine trees (trees #67-73
as shown in the arborist report site map).
During the ARB hearing on June 18,2009, staff stated that the alternate location had been
studied by staff and the applicant but could not be recommended. The ARB voted 3-1 to
recommend conditional approval of the location shown in the project plans they reviewed. The
location was 187 feet from the Foothill Expressway property line and 23 feet from the adjacent
property whose owner had not objected to the location. The three additional conditions added by
the ARB were to: (I) replace seven diseased trees recommended for removal at a one to one ratio
in 24" to 36" box sized evergreens placed around the mono-pine for screening in locations to be
approved by staff; (2) ensure the color of the mono-pine is a green that is more conlpatible with
nearby trees (not blue green); and (3) use native vines of a species approved by staff for
screening around the fenced equipment area. The dissenting ARB member suggested a parking
lot location east of the trees noted above; however, the location was not supported by the other
ARB members, nor by the other neighbors who had requested the hearing, since it did not have
adequate vegetative screening and appeared to be closer to Foothill Expressway, given the
geometry of the church parcel.
During the ARB hearing, Mr. Askari provided images including an aerial showing a photo-
montage of a home on his property as being close to the church property line, and a photo-
montage of a mono-pine having a height of over 60 feet and located between existing trees on
church property and his property line. His photo-montage images were provided to the P&TC.
CMR: 320:09 Page 2 of 5
Planning and Transportation Commission
For the P&TC's consideration, staff obtained a site plan of Mr. Askari's home. The site plan
shows (1) the guest house located 30 feet from the church's side property line and about 107 feet
from the ARB-recommended mono-pine location, and (2) the primary home located about 75
feet from the church's side propeliy line. Prior to the P&TC meeting, staffmet on site with the
applicant and church representatives to review other possible locations, including the alternate
parking lot location and a new non-parking lot location approximately 60 feet farther to the
northwest from the ARB recommended location. However, the applicant told staff that the
mono-pine would have to be more than 60 feet tall in either location due to the proximity of
existing trees, and staff could not recommend this height due to increased visibility. Staff
summarized for the P &TC the issues with the alternate parking lot location: (1) it would be more
visible as a taller pole (65 ') would be required to get above the 55 foot tall trees; (2) it would be
closer to a northerly neighbor who has no screen trees on her property nor any screening
vegetation nor space for planting such vegetation along the church parking lot; (3) borings for
connections and equipment placement would likely harm near-surface roots of healthy parking
lot pine trees; and (4) the mono-pine and associated equipment would have resulted in the loss of
four parking spaces and the church is considering future expansion.
On June 24, 2009, the P&TC voted unanimously (6-0-1, Commissioner Rosati absent) to
approve the CUP for a 45 foot tall mono-pine in the new "suitable location west of the proposed
location" as reflected in Attachment C and on the revised plans. This location is subject to
additional conditions of approval as reflected in the ROLUA, including an upgrade in the box
sizes of the new screen trees (to 36" box and 48" box sizes, up from 24" box and 36" box sizes
recommended by the ARB). The attachments to the P&TC report are available on the City's
website at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/knowzone/agendas/planning.asp.
During the P&TC hearing, the applicant provided a photo of the site looking toward Mr. Askari's
property, and the new location was discussed in some detail. AT&T's engineer described
transmission requirements with respect to clearance from trees and stated that trees needed to be
located at least 24 feet (the "near field" for the 850 mHz band) from the mono-pine, and that
trees within 32 feet (the near field for the 1900 mHz band) needed to remain ten feet shorter than
the mono-pine. It was therefore clarified that the mono-pine must be placed 32 feet from tree
#10, and that any new screening evergreens to be planted within 32 feet would require ongoing
maintenance to ensure their heights renlain no taller than 35 feet.
The three neighbors (Mr. Askari, Ms. Rayzman, Ms. Berman) who had requested the hearings
spoke to the P&TC. Mr. Askari requested that the P&TC consider requiring the applicant to
locate the mono-pine to the parking lot east of trees #71 -73, and plant seven to ten 72" box
screen trees on his property. Staff also provided answers to Con1ffiissioner Keller's e-mailed
questions (Attachment G).
Revised Architectural Review Approval
The revised Director's approval of the Architectural Review application, dated June 30, 2009,
reflects the P&TC-recommended location. The revised site plan shown on Attachment C and
provided to Council members within the plan set dated July 8, 2009 reflects this location. The
new location would provide better growing conditions for the seven new evergreens the ARB
CMR: 320:09 Page 3 of 5
recommended to be planted around and at least 24 feet from the mono-pine to provide screening
of the mono-pine.
RESOURCE IMPACT
There is no resource impact from the installation of a mono-pine wireless communication facility
on privately owned property.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Telecommunications Act of 1996 sets forth
regulations for radio frequency emissions. Attachment F includes the Radio Frequency Report
submitted by the applicant, which indicates that the project is in compliance with FCC
regulations for radio frequency emissions.
The proposed telecommunications facility is consistent with Comprehensive Plan Policy B-13
which states that the City supports the development of technologically advanced
communications infrastructure and other improvements that will facilitate the growth of
emerging telecommunications industries. Staff believes there are no other substantive policy
implications.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
pursuant to CEQA guidelines Section 15303. This determination is consistent with past
approvals of similar wireless communication facility projects.
PREPARED BY:
Manager of Current Planning
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
CURTIS WILLI S
Director of Planning and Community Environment
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: '1<(2SL.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A:
Attachment B:
Attachment C:
Attachment D:
CMR: 320:09
~~JAMESKEENE ~
City Manager
Record of Land Use Action (revised to include P&TC action)
Architectural Review approval letter dated June 30,2009
Site Map Showing Revised Mono-Pine Location per P&TC*
P&TC Staff Report of June 24, 2009 (w/o attachments)
Page 4 of 5
Attachment E:
Attachment F:
Attachment G:
Attachment H:
Attachment I:
P&TC Excerpt Minutes of June 24, 2009
Arborists' Report of April 7,2009, Arbor Resources*
Responses to Commissioner Keller's Questions
Location Map
Project Plans dated July 8,2009 (Council members only)*
*Submitted by the Applicant
COURTESY COPIES
Dan Askari
Marina Chudnovskaya
Jackie Berman
CMR: 320:09 Page 5 of 5
ATTACHMENT A
(DRAFT) Action NOQ 2009-05
RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE ACTION
FOR 4243 MANUELA AVENUE: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT [08PLN-00000-00307]
(AT&T, APPLICANT)
On July 27, 2009, the Council upheld the of Planning and
Cormnunity Environment's May 5, 2009 decision to approve a Conditional
Use Permit to allow the installation of one telecorrununications
facility making the following findings, determination and
declarations:
SECTION 1.
Alto ("City Council")
ThedCity Council of the City of Palo
, det~erI:rd_nes, and declares as follows:
A. On September 30, 2008, AT&T, on behalf of Aldersgate
Methodist Church, ied for a Conditional Use Permit and Minor
Architectural Review to allow the installation of one
telecormnunications facility, comprised of a 45-foot tall monopine
(faux tree-pole) with nine panel antennas concealed within the top
region of the tree and associated ground-level equipment
within a fenced enclosure ("The Project"). On May 5, 2009, the
Director of and Corrununity Environment (Director)
tentative approval for Architectural and a Conditional Use
Permit for the project.
B. Upon a timely request for hearing and an filed by
neighbors, the project was reviewed on June 18, 2009 by the
Architectural Review Board, which voted to recommend Architectural
Review approval to the Director with a vote of [3-1J. The Planning and
Transportation Corrunission (Corruniss ) reviewed the Condi tional., Use
Permit project on June 24, 2009 and voted [6-0-1J to recorrunend that
Council uphold the Director's decision to approve the Conditional Use .
Permit for the project, subject to revised condi'tions of appr"oval.
The Commission's action is contained in meeting minutes provided with " • ~.>I: the CMR: XXXXX, and the revised conditions are included wlthin this
Record of Land Use Action.
C. The Director issued a sed Architectural Review Approval.
on June 30, 2009, incorporating the revised conditions of approval
discussed during the Corrunission hearing, as clari by l~:tter fo
appellants and applicant on June 7, 2009, and included within this
Record of Land Use Action. The appeal period for the revised
Architectural Review action by the Director concluded on July 15, 2009
with no appeals filed.
Environmental Review. This project is exempt from
the of the California Environmental Act per Section
15303 of the CEQA Guidelines.
3 . Archi Review
1
The design and archi tecture of the proposed improvements., as
conditioned, furthers the goals and purposes of the ARB Ordinance as
it complies with the Standards for Architectural Review as required in
PAMC Chapter 18.76.050(d).
(1) The design is consistent and compatible with applicable elements
of the city's Comprehensive Plan in that the project would meet
B-12 which states that the City supports the development of
technological advanced communications infrastructure and other
improvements that will facilitate the growth of emerging
telecommunications industries;
(2) The design is compatible with the immediate environment of the
site in that the proposed monopine would be and buffered by
the existing tall mature trees that are immediately surrounding the
project area. Furthermore, the ground level equipment would be
screened from public views;
(3) The des is appropriate to the function of the project in that
the monopine design would blend with the environment of the
surrounding existing trees and conditions requiring landscaped
screening have been incorporated in the conditions of approval;
(5) The promotes harmonious transitions in scale and character
in areas between different designated land uses in that the proposed
monopole would be buffered by the existing tall mature trees and
required new landscaped screening, thereby mitigating the impact to
the surrounding uses. The equipment screen/ fencing would be designed
to be compatible with the rustic setting of the si te and general
vicini
(6) The design is compatible wi th approved improvements both on and
off the in that the proposed monopine would be buffered by the
existing tall mature trees that are immediately surrounding the
project area and the equipment screen/fencing would be designed to fit
the rustic setting of the s
(7) The planning and of the various functions and buildings on
the s create an sense of order and provide a desirable
environment for occupants, visitors and the general community in that
the ect is located in a landscaped area adjacent to the parking
lot and would not interfere with the internal circulation of the site
and would not pose significant intrusion to the or the
surrounding properties;
(11) Natural features are appropriately preserved and integrated with
the proj ect in that an arborist report has been prepared to analyze
project impacts and specific trees identified by a certified
arborist and reviewed and approved by the City's Urban Forester would
be removed, with the required planting of appropriate replacement
trees to assist in screening the monopine. The project is located in
2
an area that benefits from the natural screening of the trees and
integrates within the existing landscape;
(12) The materials, textures, colors and de~ails of construction and
plant material are appropriate expression to the design and function
in that they have been chosen to create a less intrusive facility that
would be compatible with the adjacent and neighboring structures,
landscape elements and functions;
(13) The landscape des concept for the as shown by the
relationship of plant masses, open space, scale, plant forms and
foliage textures and colors create a desirable and functional
environment in that the plant material would provide good screening
material and the landscape concept depicts an appropriate uni ty wi th
the various buildings on the s in that it does not detract from the
site;
(14) Plant material is suitable and adaptable to the site, capable of
being properly maintained on the s ,and is of a variety which would
tend to be drought-resistant and to reduce consumptio~ of water in its
installation and maintenance;
ARB findings 40 8-10 and 15 are not applicable to this project.
SECTION 4. Conditional Use Permit Findings
1. The proposed use, at the location approved by the Director
in the revised Archi tectural Review Approval and recommended by the
Commission and as further describ~d the attached Exhibi t 1, will
not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the
vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety,
general welfare, or convenience, in that:
The proposed telecommunications use, located on an existing non-
residentially developed site, will not negatively impact the project
s or the surrounding properties. This new use is ancillary to the
primary religious institution use of the site. The project is
designed and located to minimize visual impacts from off-site views.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) rules require transmitting
facilities to comply with Radio Frequency exposure guidelines. The
limits established in the guidelines are designed to protect the
public health with a very large margin of safety. The proposed use
shall be conducted in accordance with all the City's regulations
(Planning, Building, Fire, etc.) and compl with the FCC regulations
andl therefore, will not be detrimental to public health, safety, and
welfare~
2. The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner
in accord with the Palo Al to Comprehens Plan and the purposes of
Title 18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code in that:
3
The proposed telecommunications use is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan Policy B-13. This policy supports the development
of technologically advance communications infrastructure and other
improvements that will facilitate that growth of emerging
telecommunications industries. The proposed use does not conflict
wi th the promotion and protection of public health, safety, peace,
morals, comfort, convenience, and general welfare.
Condi tional Use Permit and Archi tectural Review
Conditional Use Permit No. 08PLN-00000-00307 is granted to
allow the installation of one telecommunications facili comprised
of a 45-foot monopine with nine panel antennas concealed within the
top region of the monopine wi th associated ground level equipment
cabinets within a wood fence enclosure.
SECTION 5. Plan Approval.
The plans submitted for Building Permit shall be in substantial
conformance with those plans prepared by MSA titled Aldersgate
Methodist Church CN3246, dated xxxxx, 2009 and received July 15, 2009.
as modified to incorporate the conditions of approval this
Record of Land Use Action. A copy of these plans is on file the
Department of Planning and Community Development.
SECTION 6. Conditions of Approval.
Planning Division
1. A complete copy of these Conditions of Approval shall be printed on
the second page of the plans submitted for building permits.
2. Any intensification of use shall require an amended Conditional Use
Permit and any other entitlements as specified in the Palo Alto
Municipal Code.
3. The mono-pine shall be no taller than 45 feet and shall be placed
in the landscaped area at location "N" (as noted by staff on an
aerial photo during the Commission hearing) approximately 32 feet
from tree #10, at the farthest possible point in the north-west
direction from Foothill Expressway.
4. Replace the seven trees to be removed at a one to one ratio in 36"
to 48" box sized evergreens placed around the mono-pine in locations
to be approved by staff to ensure sight I from the neighbors and
Foothill Expressway will be adequately screened.
5. Ensure the color of the mono-pine is a green that
with nearby trees (not blue green) .
more compatible
6. Use native vines of a species approved by staff for screening around
the fenced equipment area. The applicant shall submit a I for
4
the wood fence enclosure prior to issuance of building permits for
staff approval. The wood shall be 'rustic l in appearance and blend
with the surroundings.
7. The applicant and property owner shall comply with all tree
protection guidel specified in sections 6.1 and 6.2. of the
approved arb6rist report prepared by David L. BabbYI April 71 2009.
Sheet T-1 shall be printed on a plan sheet of the-building permit
plan set along with the Tree Disclosure Statement with checks marked
for inspections #1-6.
8. The entire arborist report shall be incorporated into the building
permit plan set.
9. Trees #12 1 13 1 141 15 1 191 28 and 29 as labeled in the arborist
report are in the vicinity of the project and shall be removed due
to poor condition.
10. The Urban Forester will require that native species
of replacement trees and shrubs be planted for landscaped screening
of the equipment. A site between the City Urban Forester and
the applicant shall occur to submittal of a final landscape
plan in order to optimize screening as viewed from Foothill
Expressway and from the south side property
11. The building permit plan set shall include a proposed landscape and
irrigation plan showing trees proposed for removal and replacement
trees required per approval condition #4. The plans shall be
prepared by a licensed landscape architect and qualified irrigation
consultant. The replacement vegetation shall be irrigated with
flexible lines and bubbler heads. Based on the outcome of the
meeting between the IS Urban Forester and applicantls arborist l
other plantings may be determined by the Urban Forester to be
necessary to ensure screening of the mono-pine as required in
association with the Conditional Use Permit approval.
12. The landscape plans shall show any other trees l not mentioned under
item #5 above I that the applicant/owner proposes to remove. Staff
will inform the applicant whether removal of these trees would be
approved.
13. All proposed plantings shown on the approved landscape plans shall
be planted prior to final inspection approval.
14. Samples of the bark and foliage texture and color shall be
submitted and approved prior to construction of the mono-pine. The
mono-pine shall resemble a pine tree and its artificial trunk shall
resemble a real trunk to the maximum extent . Cables leading
to the mono-pine sh~ll be concealed to the maximum extent
15. The antennas shall be painted to match the tree foliage.
5
16. The antennas shall be placed within the fake branches and shall not
protrude beyond the limbs.
17. The density of the faux branch and foliage placement of the mono-
pine shall have the highest density that the mono-pine structure can
support.
18. Prior to granting final building inspection, the applicant shall
provide a letter to planning staff indicating the following: (A)
owner/operator contact information for reporting maintenance issues
and/or complaints. (B) photographs from all angles of the newly
installed mono-pine and enclosure for City records.
19. The Director of Planning and Community Environment maintains
continuing jurisdiction over this Condi tional Use Permi t. For the
life of the project, the City shall retain the right to require the
mono-pine, equipment cabinet enclosure, vegetation and any other
constructed elements shown in this project application to be
maintained consistent wi th the condi tion at the time of granting
"final" building inspection. Any violation of maintenance shall be
repaired within 30 days of contact by the City.
Utilities: Electrical Engineering
20. Power for the proposed equipment shall be supplied from Ci ty of
Palo Alto Utility facilities.
21. Applicant is responsible for the cost to upgrade facilities to meet
the new electrical demand and the existing electrical demand at 4243
Manuela Avenue.
22. Applicant shall meet with the City's Utilities Dept. to discuss
options and requirements prior to sUbmitting building permit
drawings.
Utilities: Water -Gas -Wastewater
23. Utility vaults, transformers, utility cabinets, concrete bases,
or other structures can not be placed over existing water, gas or
wastewater mains/services. Maintain 11 horizontal clear separation
from the vault/cabinet/concrete base to existing utilities as found
in the field. If there is a conflict with existing utilities.
Cabinets/vaults/bases shall be relocated from the plan location as
needed to meet field conditions. The approved relocation of
services, meters, hydrants, or other facilities will be performed
at the cost of the person/entity requesting the relocation.
24. The contractor shall contact underground service alert (800) 227-
2600 one week in advance of starting excavation to provide for
marking of underground utilities.
6
25. The applicant shall provide protection for utility I subject
to damage. utility lines within a pit or trench shall be adequately
supported. All exposed water, gas, and sewer lines shall be
inspected by the WGW Utilities Inspector prior to backfilling. The
contractor shall maintain 12 It clear, above and below, from the
existing utilities to new crossing underground facil
26. The applicant shall be responsible for relocating the existing
utility mains and/or services as necessary to accommodate new storm
with the approval of the Util Department. This
responsibility includes all costs associated with the design and
construction for the relocation of the util mains and/or
services. Sanitary sewer laterals will need to be replaced for the
full length of the lateral (if possible) per the Util Standards.
Sanitary sewer mains can not be relocated.
27 . The contractor shall maintain 5 I horizontal distance from the
exis utilities to new parallel underground facilities. For new
water, wastewater or other non-potable water mains the contractor
shall meet the separation requirements of the State of California
Department of Health.
28. If the Contractor elects to bore new pipes or conduits, the pilot
bore hole shall be 24 II clear from any existing crossing ty
pipes and all existing utility crossings shall be potholed prior to
starting work.
29. The applicant's contractor shall immediately notify the utilities
Department (650)496-6982 or 650/329-2413 if the existing water or
gas mains are disturbed or damaged.
Fire. Department
30. The project shall comply with the 2007 CA Fire Code section 608.
Public Works Engineering
31. STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION:
"Pollution Prevention
included in the building
It's Part of
plan set.
The
the Plan"
's full-sized
sheet must be
Terms of Approval If the Conditional Use Permit
is not used within one year of the date of City Council
approval, the approval shall become null and void, pursuant to PAMC
18.77.090.
PASSED:
AYES:
7
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM
City Attorney
PLANS AND DRAWINGS REFERENCED:
APPROVED:
'Director of Planning and
Community Environment
Those plans prepared by MSA titled Aldersgate Methodist Church CN3246,
dated XXXXX, 2009 and received xxxxx, 2009.
EXHIBIT 1: Location Map Showing Approved Monopine Location
8
June 30, 2009
. AT&T c/o Jacqueline Smart
26 Stoneyford Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94112
ATT ACHME~T B
City of Palo Alto
Department of Planning and
Community Environment
Subject: 4243 Manuela Avenue [08-PLN-00307] Architectural Review Approval
Dear Ms. Smart:
On June 18, 2009, the Architectural Review Board (ARB) recommended approval of the
application for the installation of a 45 foot tall mono-pine with nine concealed antennas and a
fenced enclosure for the seven associated equipment cabinets on the Aldersgate Methodist
Church property at 4243 Manuela Avenue, as recommended by staff with additional approval
conditions as noted in Attachment B to this letter. On June 24, 2009, the Planning and
Transportation Commission (Commission) recommended Council approval of the Conditional
Use Pennit (CUP) subject to additional approval conditions as noted in Attachment B.
On June 30, 2009, the Director of Planning and Community Environment (Director) approved
the Architectural Review component of the application, based upon the findings in Attachment A
and subject to the conditions in Attachment B reflecting the ARB's and Commission's
recommendation as to height and placement of the mono-pine and associated screening. A
revised draft record of land use action reflecting the Commission's recommendation on the CUP
will be provided to City Council for action on July 27, 2009, with placement of the item on the
Consent Calendar such that, unless three Council members pull the item to set a public hearing
date, the modified project CUP would be in effect as of July 27,2009.
In accordance with the provisions of Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 18.77.070, the
Architectural Review approval will become effective 14 days from the postmark date of this
letter, unless an appeal is filed in accordance with PAMC 18.77.070(e). Unless an appeal to City
Council is filed, this Architectural Review approval shall be effective for one year from July 27,
2009, within which time construction of the project shall have commenced, pursuant to PAMC
18.77.090. Application for extension may be made prior to the expiration on July 27, 2010. The
time period for a project may be extended once for an additional year by the Director and shall
be open to appeal at that time. In the event the building permit is not secured for the project
within the time limits specified above, the Architectural Review approval shall expire and be of
no further force or effect.
Should you have any questions regarding this action, please do not hesitate to contact Planning
Manager Amy French at (650) 329-2336 or amy.french @cityofpaloalto.org.
Planning
250 Hamilton Avenue
P.O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
650.329.2441
650.329.2154
Transportation
250 Hamilton Avenue
P.O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
650.329.2520
650.617.3108
Building
285 Hamilton Avenue
P.O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
650.329.2496 2
650.329.2240
Sincerely,
Curtis Williams, AICP
Interim Director of Planning and Community Environment)
Attachments:
A. Findings for Architectural Review Approval
B. Conditions of Architectural Review Approval
(11) Natural features are appropriately preserved and integrated with the project in that an
arborist report has been prepared to analyze project impacts and only specific trees identified by
a certified arborist and reviewed and approved by the City's Urban Forester would be removed,
with the required planting of appropriate replacement trees. The project is located in an area that
benefits from the natural screening of the trees and integrates within the existing landscape;
(12) The materials, textures, colors and details of construction and plant material are appropriate
expression to the design and function in that they have been chosen to create a less intrusive
facility that would be cOlnpatible with the adjacent and neighboring structures, landscape
elements and functions;
(13) The landscape design concept for the site, as shown by the relationship of plant masses,
open space, scale, plant forms and foliage textures and colors create a desirable and functional
environment in that the existing and new plant vegetation would provide good screening;
(14) Plant material is suitable and adaptable to the site, capable of being properly maintained on
the site, and is of a variety which would tend to be drought-resistant and to reduce consumption
of water in its installation and maintenance;
ARB findings 4,8-10 and 15 are not applicable to this project.
Planning Division
ATTACHMENT B
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
4243 Manuela Avenue
08PLN-00000-00307
1. A complete copy of these Conditions of Approval shall be printed on the second page of the
plans submitted for building permits.
2. Any intensification of use shall require an amended Conditional Use Permit and any other
entitlements as specified in the Palo Alto Municipal Code.
3. The mono-pine shall be no taller than 45 feet and shall be placed in the landscaped area at
location "N" (as noted by staff on an aerial photo during the hearing) approximately 32 feet
from tree #10, at the farthest possible point in the north-west direction from Foothill
Expressway.
4. Replace the seven trees to be removed at a one to one ratio in 36" to 48" box sized evergreens
placed around the nlono-pine in locations to be approved by staff to ensure sight lines from
the neighbors and Foothill Expressway will be adequately screened.
5. Ensure the color of the mono-pine is a green that is more compatible with nearby trees (not
blue green).
6. Use native vines of a species approved by staff for screening around the fenced equipment
area. The applicant shall submit a detail for the wood fence enclosure prior to issuance of
building permits for staff approval. The wood shall be 'rustic' in appearance and blend with
the surroundings.
7. The applicant and property owner shall comply with all tree protection guidelines specified
in sections 6.1 and 6.2 of the approved arborist report prepared by David L. Babby, April 7,
2009. Sheet T-l shall be printed on a plan sheet of the building permit plan set along with the
Tree Disclosure Statement with checks marked for inspections #1-6.
8. The entire arborist report shall be incorporated into the building permit plan set.
9. Trees #12, 13, 14, 15, 19, 28 and 29 as labeled in the arborist report are in the vicinity of the
project and shall be removed due to their poor condition.
10. The City Urban Forester will require that specific native species of replacement trees and
shrubs be planted for landscaped screening of the equipment. A site meeting between the
City Urban Forester and the applicant shall occur prior to submittal of a final landscape plan
in order to optimize screening as viewed fronl Foothill Expressway and from the south side
property line.
11. The building permit plan set shall include a proposed landscape and irrigation plan showing
trees proposeq for removal and replacement trees required per approval condition #4. The
plans shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and qualified irrigation consultant.
The replacement vegetation shall be irrigated with flexible lines and bubbler heads. Based
on the outcome of the meeting between the City's Urban Forester and applicant's arborist,
other plantings may be determined by the Urban Forester to be necessary to ensure screening
of the mono-pine as required in association with the Conditional Use Permit approva1.
12. The landscape plans shall show any other trees, not mentioned under item #5 above, that the
applicant/owner proposes to remove. Staff will inform the applicant whether removal of
these trees would be approved.
13. All proposed plantings shown on the approved landscape plans shall be planted prior to final
inspection approval.
14. Samples of the bark and foliage texture and color shall be submitted and approved prior to
construction of the mono-pine. The mono-pine shall resemble a pine tree and its artificial
trunk shall resemble a real trunk to the maxinlunl extent feasible. Cables leading to the
mono-pine shall be concealed to the maximum extent feasible.
15. The antennas shall be painted to match the tree foliage.
16. The antennas shall be placed within the fake branches and shall not protrude beyond the
limbs.
17. The density of the faux branch and foliage placement of the mono-pine shall have the highest
density that the mono-pine structure can support.
18. Prior to granting final building inspection, the applicant shall provide a letter to planning
staff indicating the following: (A) owner/operator contact information for reporting
maintenance issues andlor complaints. (B) photographs from all angles of the newly installed
nl0no-pine and enclosure for City records.
19. The Director of Planning and Community Environment maintains continuing jurisdiction
over this Conditional Use Permit. For the life of the project, the City shall retain the right to
require the mono-pine, equipment cabinet enclosure, vegetation and any other constructed
elements shown in this project application to be maintained consistent with the condition at
the time of granting "final" building inspection. Any violation of maintenance shall be
repaired within 30 days of contact by the City.
Fire Department
30. The project shall comply with the 2007 CA Fire Code section 608.
Public Works Engineering
31. STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION: The City's full-sized "Pollution
Prevention -It's Part of the Plan" sheet must be included in the building permit plan set.
\ '
\ I APN: 175-02-46 "" \ \
\ APN: 175-02-47 \ \:------------.//~-----~-----------------------~
I I \
\
\
\
\
\ \ APN: 175-02-45 I APN: 175-02-44 \
';-- ----------_ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ J~P) 12' WIDE AT&T ACCESS EASEMENT \
.-(\ ~ ~ ~ ~~
\
\
\
\
I ----(E) PUBUC UTIUTIES EASEMENT \
- \ ---------------.------------__ L' \~:~~~~INE64812' ~
VAULT I --------===-==.=~~---~-=--:::-~::==-_:::__::__~ ~ -1t ______ .. !!!! -.--e ... -" \, (E)TELCO~ ~_~~---_ ~-______ _~_ 'to ~ % :z.
\
\
\ 12..\"C \ \~~ omm.--~um.m=-~_~_~~ --~~~---~~~~~~~~~~~~;»;~~":\~--"-~~.~ .'f1;~
1,,1 -~ -. -., I (E) AC ~ \ "'J,c,
1 li;-M~H t). [l· --;;; .. :;: -T -. Ii!: -~ .~. ~ \ \ ~-----(E) 43' TO 49' TAlL \\
'Y,L \
\
SITE PLAN
~r (~I I ~ P1NE TREES. TYP.
I;., -L.______ ,--'---• TYP \ I:: -l I -----1"",--"" '-" ±56'-3" .
J II ----------.---.... #71 ~(E) 30' TALL OAK TREES. \
/; I Lr=L:J' 1 ••
£1 o~ \ 'a b •• r-~ I~ :~.. • I ----=--=-_---=--=------J _\ • I : ; •• ••• \ / « I *-r -----.!.-\\ L 0 -, ~_!_ ______ I #6 ~ -.------l « r;--w\--.-----" .. ;.-~-.~~ __ ,c'O,"L_=_---OO.'~=E~~ .. .. '" /PRO~RTYlINENl8"27·22"W
-J I I V Ii PROPERTY lINE--..J • ~ -• _ r'\.. 16.29 gj i .\;'-. S8S50'28"E 71087' ---------
Z I ~ i (E) UTILITY POLE WITH I (P) 5' WIOE AT&T POWER, \ '---(E) 35.2' HIGH POWER AND « I I ~-I TRANSFORMER & (P) I EASEMENT WI U G UTILITIES (P) 5 WIDE AT&T TELCO \ TELCO POlE ~ I I AT&T POWER P.O C I EASEMENT
I I (El OVERHEAO POWER LINE • " (E) 35.2' HIGH POlE & AT&T
I i 0 i tl12 -6 TELCO \ I ! ~ ! APN, 175-03-30 \
I i I I APN: 175-03-29 / APN: 175-03-28 I I I I \
I I I \ i UI ~ PROPOSED AT&T EOUIPMENT@/ I I i & MONOPINE LOCATION. SEE A2 I ! --------ENLARGEO PLAN
I I W-_ __ _ __ _ SPRI~~HILL ROAD
MSA
Ardli:~!:==g~ Inc.
San Frandsco,CII 94103 4'5.50','''' fU:4I1s.503.,4I54 s..ntaANi SanDJeogo s.nF,....d:lco
www.msu·ap.com
ALDERSGATE METHODIST CHURCH
CN3246
4243 MANUELA AVENUE
PALO AI. TO. CA 94306
SANTA CLARA
7 107/08/091 LEASE AREA RELOCATION
6 106/'5/091 90" ZONING at&t 5 104/06/091 1007. ZONING
4 103/26/091 100'; ZONING
3 101/29/091 MOVE LEASE AREA AT&T Mobility
AT&T Mobility
SITE PLAN
CN3246 CN3246-A 1
~ -t ~
::I:
3: m z -t
(")
TO:
FROM:
ATTACHMENT D
PLANNING &TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION
STAFF REPORT
Planning and Transportation Commission
Lata Vasudevan, Contract Planner DEPARTMENT: Planning and
Community Environment
AGENDA DATE: June 24, 2009
SUBJECT: 4243 Manuela Avenue r08PLN-003071: Request for a hearing on an
approved Conditional Use Permit application by AT&T on behalf of
Aldersgate Methodist Church for a 45-foot mono-pine with concealed
antennas and associated at-grade equipment cabinets. Zone District: R-
1(20,000). Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act per section 15301.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) uphold the Director
of Planning and Community Environment (Director)'s decision to approve the Conditional Use
Permit (CUP) based on findings and conditions of approval in Section 4 of the draft Record of
Land Use Action (Attachment A).
BACKGROUND
Project Site
The project site is an 118,684 square foot through lot with an existing religious institution use.
The depth of the lot ranges from 648 feet to 710 feet. The existing buildings are located within
the first half of the lot, while the remaining half consists of parking and landscaping. The project
area contains many mature trees, comprised mostly of Monterey Pines and including Coast Live
Oaks adjacent to the parking area. Single-family homes are adjacent to the project site. The
closest home is on parcels 175-03-028 and 175-03-019 within Los Altos Hills; the home is under
construction and is located approximately 20 feet from the project site. The closest Palo Alto
home is located across Foothill Expressway, approximately 260 feet from the project site. A
location map in aerial view is provided as Attachment H.
City of Palo Alto Page 1 of5
•
Prior Proj ect Approval
On December 31, 2004, an application was filed for a CUP and minor Architectural Review by
Cingular (now AT&T), for a new wireless communications facility at the Aldersgate Methodist
Church site. The Director tentatively approved the application. A PTC hearing for the CUP was
requested, but the Architectural Review approval was not appealed. After a public hearing on
June 14, 2006, the PTC forwarded the item to the Architectural Review Board (ARB) for
discussion of the pros and cons of the visual impacts of a monopole versus a mono-pine (a faux
pine tree with concealed wireless antennas). The ARB recommended approval of the 45-foot
mono-pine. On July 10, 2006, the City Council upheld the Director's decision to approve the
CUP for a 45-foot tall mono-pine with concealed cellular antennas and associated ground level
equipment cabinet within a fenced enclosure. The prior approved Record of Land Use Action
(ROLUA) is attached (Attachment B) for reference. Pursuant to PAMC 18.77.090, approvals
expire twelve months after approval if the proposed use of the site or proposed construction has
not yet commenced. The CUP and associated minor Architecture Review approvals expired on
July 10, 2007.
Current Application
A new application by AT&T requesting a CUP and minor Architectural Review for a wireless
facility at the Aldersgate Church site was filed on September 30, 2008, showing a mono-pine
located approximately ten feet from Foothill Expressway. Staff requested that the applicant
relocate the mono-pine and equipment cabinet to the same location as had been previously
approved by the City Council, near the rear right side of the parcel, approximately 70 feet back
from Foothill Expressway and 13 feet from the side property line. The revised plan set showed
the 45-foot tall mono-pine concealing nine cellular antennas and equipment cabinet enclosure
located approximately 86 feet from Foothill Expressway and 15 feet from the side property line.
On May 5, 2009, the Director granted tentative approvals of the CUP and minor Architectural
Review with conditions (Attacbment C) based on the revised plans (received April 14, 2009).
The draft ROLUA (Attachment A) includes draft CUP findings in Section 4 and conditions of
approval in Section 6.
Appeal and Request for Hearing
On May 17, 2009, three neighbors sent correspondence (Attachment D) requesting hearings of
both components of the application (CUP and Architectural Review requests) and citing a
preferred location approximately 360 feet from Foothill Expressway, closer to the church
building near an existing utility pole at the side property line. Two of the appellants are residents
of the Miranda Green neighborhood in Palo Alto across Foothill Expressway. The third
appellant is the owner of adjacent home under construction in Los Altos Hills; this appellant
requested placement of the mono-pine on the other side of the parking lot (near the north side
property line). The applicant responded that this location would not work since existing trees
would block reception. Additional neighbor correspondence in support of the project was also
received (Attachment E), and applicant correspondence is provided as Attachment F.
SUMMARY OF LAND USE ACTION:
The PTC's purview is to conduct a hearing on the CUP and review the project's consistency with
the required findings for granting a CUP pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code Section
City of Palo Alto Page 2 of5
18.76.010(c), which is limited to:
1. Finding that the project will not be detrimental or injurious to property or the public
health, safety and welfare, and;
2. Finding that the project is located and conducted in a manner consistent with the City's
Comprehensive Plan and zoning.
SUMMARY OF KEY ISSUES:
Increased Setback and Zoning Compliance
In an effort to accommodate the appellants' preference, the applicant has modified the proposal
to increase the proposed setback from Foothill Expressway by another 90 feet. The table below
indicates the project's compliance with height and setback regulations for the R-1 Zone District:
*
**
Development standards Proposed project R-1 (20,000) Zone District
Standard
Front setback Complies 40', Special Setback
Rear setback 176' 20'*
Side setback 15' 8'
Height 45' 65'**
This segment of Foothill Expressway, on the westerly side, does not have a special setback,
whereas the opposite side of Foothill Expressway has a 60' special setback.
PursuanttoPAMC Section 18.42.110(c).
The newly proposed location of the equipment enclosure and 45-foot mono-pine would be
approximately 176 feet from Foothill Expressway, a dramatic change in setback from the
tentatively approved 86 foot setback. This revised location is approximately half the 360 foot
distance desired by the appellants. Nonetheless, the applicant has indicated to staff that this is the
farthest distance that the proposed wireless facility could be situated from Foothill Expressway
because the Church bas plans to expand the rear of its existing building in the future. The
proposed revised location of the mono-pine would be adjacent to parcel 175-03-029, where there
appears to be many screening trees as shown on the project plans (Attachment 1). Staff
recommends the revised location. The draft ROLUA specifies the revised location at
approximately 176 feet from the rear property line.
Trees
At staff's request, the applicant submitted an arborist report reviewing potential impacts to trees
and the condition of existing trees in the rear parking area (Attachment G). The report was
reviewed by the City's Planning Arborist, who recommended that specific Monterey pines (trees
#12-15, 19,28 and 29 as labeled on the arborist report) be removed due to their poor condition
and beetle infestation. Staffhas required that specific native species of replacement trees and
shrubs be planted for landscaped screening of the equipment. These planting requirements are
City of Palo Alto Page 3 of5
included in the draft ROLUA conditions of approval, which also require a meeting with staff
prior to submittal of a fina1landscape plan to ensure adequate screening as viewed from.Foothill
Expressway and from the south side property line. Additional approval conditions relate to the
mono-pine's appearance and maintenance, including but not limited to required replacement of
aged or faded plastic foliage.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Telecommunications Act of 1996 sets forth
regulations for radio frequency emissions. Attachment F includes the Radio Frequency Report
submitted by the applicant, which indicates that the project is in compliance with FCC
regulations for radio frequency emissions.
The proposed telecommunications facility is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Policy B-
12 which states that the City supports the development of technologically advanced
communications infrastructure and other improvements that will facilitate the growth of
emerging telecommunications industries. Staff believes there are no other substantive policy
implications.
TIMELINE
Application Submittal
Tentative Approval of CUP and Minor Architectural Review
Appeal and request for hearing filing date
Architectural Review Board Public Hearing
Planning and Transportation Commission Hearing
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
September 30, 2008
May 5, 2009
May 17, 2009
June 18,2009
June 24, 2009
This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental·Quality Act (CEQA),
pursuant to CEQA guidelines Section 15303 as construction and location of one new, small
structure.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Draft Record of Land Use Action
B. Record of Land Use Action No. 2006-05
C. Minor Architectural Review and Conditional Use Permit Letter, dated May 5, 2009
D. Correspondence (appellants' emails re: appeal of CUP and request for hearings)
E. Correspondence (emails supporting proj ect)
F. Information Submitted by Applicant and Applicant Response letters*
G. Arborist Report, dated April 7, 2009, Arbor Resources*
H. Project Location Map and Aerial Photo
I. Project Plans (Commission Members only)*
*Submitted by the Applicant
City of Palo Alto Page 4 of5
COURTESY COPIES:
Jacqueline Smart, Cortell LLC
Aldersgate Methodist Church (Ed Nieda)
Jackie Berman
-Dan Askari
Marina Chudnovskaya and Gregory Rayzman
RohinMay
PREPARED BY: Lata Vasudevan, Contract Planner
. REVIEWED BY: Amy French, Manager of Current Plannin~
DEPARTMENTIDIVISIONHEAD APPROVAL: ___ {);:J_-_~_· _) _____ _
Curtis Williams, Interim Director
City of Palo Alto Page 5 of5
ATTACHMENT E
1 Planning and Transportation Commission
2 Verbatim Minutes
3 June 24, 20Q9
4
5 EXCERPT
6
7 4243 Manuela Avenue*: Request for a hearing on an approved Conditional Use Permit
8 application by AT&T on behalf of Aldersgate Methodist Church for a 45-foot mono-pine with
9 concealed antennas and associated at-grade equipment cabinets. Zone District: R-1 (20,000).
10 Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act per section
11 15301.
12
13 Ms. Amy French. Current Planning Manager: Oh yes. This hearing as you noted was requested
14 by neighbors challenging the Planning Director's Decision or tentative approval of the
15 Conditional Use Permit and Architectural Review of the faux pine tree, or mono-pine, antenna
16 within a landscaped area on the church property. The neighbors are here tonight to speak. There
17 are three of them and one of them is a future neighbor of a Los Altos Hills property and the other
18 two are Palo Alto neighbors living on Miranda across from Foothill Expressway.
19
20 The Architectural Review Board conducted a hearing last Thursday, so it is hot off the press, and
21 they voted three to one to conditionally approve the mono-pine's location 187 feet from Foothill
22 Expressway. Please note that the Record of Land Use Action, which was sent out the day of the
23 ARB, would need to be amended to include the ARB conditions from last Thursday going
24 forward to Council.
25
26 Please note also in the Staff Report on page 5 it references 176-foot setback from Foothill. This
27 was in error. This was a draft initial estimate that was then corrected with accurate architectural
28 plans that you have before you.
29
30 The proposed mono-pine would be about 23 feet from the adjacent property owned by Miss
31 Robin May who is a Los Altos Hills resident, who has informed Staff she does not object to the
32 proposed location. This is the closest neighbor. It is 62 feet from Mr. Askari's future home
33 property.
34
35 The three additional conditions from the ARB, which I believe got sent to all of you on the
36 Commission some days ago was to replace seven trees on the property at a one-to-one ratio, 24-
37 inch box to 36-inch box size evergreens placed around the mono-pine for screening in locations
38 approved by Staff. This was recommended in conjunction with our Planning Arborist, Dave
39 Dockter. The second condition would be to ensure that the color of the mono-pine is not blue-
40 green but a color that is more compatible with the nearby trees, to use native vines of a species
41 approved by Staff for screening around the fenced enclosure.
42
43 So prior to the ARB meeting Staff had met onsite with Mr. Askari upon his request. He is
44 building his home there adjacent to Foothill Expressway on the south side of the church property.
45 He had suggested at that time that the mono-pine be located in the parking lot between two sets
46 of pine trees, trees 67 to 73 on your Arborist Report and hopefully you have a copy of that. The
Page 1
1 other appellants expressed support for that location. So that was brought up to the ARB. Also,
2 the dissenting member of the ARB, who voted no on the project, had also visited with Mr. Askari
3 prior to the ARB meeting and he suggested a parking lot location just due east of the trees, trees
4 71 to 73.
5
6 So during the ARB meeting Mr. Askari provided the same photomontage images to the ARB as
7 were forwarded to the Commission via email earlier this week but with a different statement as
8 to what he wanted. The aerial photo simulation Mr. Askari created shows the construction of his
9 home to be quite close to the property line of the church. Staff had requested a site plan of Mr.
10 Askari's home for the Con1fl1ission's consideration to clarify the actual setbacks and was finally
11 able to get a small image of an approved site plan from the City of Los Altos Hills. The site plan
12 shows the guesthouse located 30 feet from church property on the side. Then his home is located
13 about 75 feet from the church property. I can maybe ask Dave to put up a copy of this for
14 clarification, drawing a line from the comer of the guesthouse to the proposed location itappears
15 that the mono-pine would be approximately 107 feet fron1 Mr. Askari's guesthouse. So if you
16 can make heads or tails ... Dave can you point out? The guesthouse, and then the church property
17 are just to the north. The tree is not really showing on there.
18
19 Dave also has the site plan of the mono-pine. I have done a little drawing on that site plan if you
20 want to put that one up too to clarify. So I drew in based on the site plan I received as best as I
21 could. The guesthouse is 45 feet from that comer of Mr. Askari's property and then it is another
22 62 feet to the monopole, between the comer of Mr. Askari's property to the monopole that is
23 proposed.
24
25 So after the ARB meeting, on Monday of this week, Staff met with the applicant and the church
26 representatives. We looked at the parking lot location amongst the trees that Mr. Askari and the
27 neighbors across Foothill Expressway had requested during the hearing. We discussed that and
28 determined that we are not supportive of that location because it would require a taller pole due
29 to the presence of taller trees. The taller pole would have to be 65 feet to get above the trees.
30 Sixty-five feet is the maximum allowable height for these monopoles and mono-pines. It would
31 also be closer to a Palo Alto neighbor on the north side of this property who is not in the country
32 now to protest. She has no screen trees on here property and there was really not much room on
33 the church property to prove screen trees if that were to be put in that location.
34
35 There are two more reasons. The boring for connections to this location would harm healthy
36 parking lot trees because the roots are closer to the surface than those trees that are in the natural
37 landscaped area. Then also parking spaces would be lost and the church does plan to expand in
38 the future and loss of parking spaces would be detrimental to their future plans.
39
40 The other alternate location Staff had studied onsite with the church on Monday is not in the
41 parking lot. It is just another 55 feet farther west from Foothill Expressway, from the proposed
42 location. We studied that. It was about 124 feet from Mr. Askari's property and 242 feet from
43 Foothill Expressway. However, then we learned that the location again was close to trees, would
44 require the monopole to be about 60 feet to be able to transmit above the height of the trees. Of
45 course 60 feet would be more visible to more people and so that was hard. Now the AT&T
Page 2
1 engineer is here tonight to answer questions on heights and transmitting above trees, the
2 technical information.
3
4 Mr. Askari in his statement to the Planning Commission noted now he is interested in having it
5 to the east of trees number 71 to 73. He is asking the Planning Commission to require the
6 applicant to plant seven to ten 72-inch box screen trees on his property. His email statement was
7 forwarded to the applicant for their consideration and the applicant of course is here to provide a
8 response to his request. Also, he has a photo, not a photo simulation, taken fron1 the church site
9 showing the existing vegetation that would buffer from Mr. A.skari' s property the proposed pole.
10
11 Then finally, I wanted to say that Judith Wasserman is here from the ARB, who can represent the
12 ARB. Also, we did get Commissioner Keller's questions today. They are at places with
13 responses. Just briefly the Metro PCS does have an application on file. Metro PCS would co-
14 locate on this mono-pine if approved and they would put their antenna below the antenna for
15 AT &T among the branches. I think I covered n10st of the other questions in my presentation.
16 There was a note about the photo simulation provided. I think Mr. Askari may pass that out to
17 you tonight as well. Staffhad commented on the photo as to the height of the mono-pine relative
18 to the existing vegetation. The vegetation there, the oaks along the property line are
19 approximately 30 to 35 feet, the mono-pine that Mr. Askari shows in his photo simulation looks
20 like about 60 feet and it doesn't show the screening in front of it that is existing.
21
22 Then the other thing is we did ask AT&T to comment on the parking lot suggestion of 176 feet
23 from the rear property line. The Palo Alto neighbors on the other side have stated that they do
24 not support a location closer to Foothill than the ARB recommended 187 feet.
25
26 Finally, the next steps of this are for Planning Comn1ission recomn1endation to Council. The
27 CUP would go to the Council on Consent, it would take three votes to pull it off and schedule a
28 hearing if they wanted to. After this meeting we can make a second ARB decision and then that
29 could be appealed to the City Council again on Consent, three votes to pull it off and potentially
30 schedule it for a public hearing.
31
32 Chair Garber: Thank you for that thorough presentation. Now would be the tin1e for the
33 appellant presentation. I have three cards here, do I understand that these are the appellants Mr.
34 Askari, Ms. Chudnovskaya, and Ms. Berman.
35
36 Ms. French: Technically they are not appellants they are hearing requestors at this point. They
37 have 15 minutes as a group.
38
39 Chair Garber: Okay, so the hearing requestors, are these the three?
40
41 Ms. French: I guess because they are not appellants would the applicant have a chance to go first
42 then? Applicant should go first then.
43
44 Commissioner Keller: Wouldn't it make sense since this sort of like an appeal for the requestors
45 to go first and then for the applicant to respond, and the appellant to have a reply?
46
Page 3
1 Ms. French: Or it could be the applicant presents, the hearing requestors go.
2
3 Chair Garber: There are closing comments by both parties.
4
5 Commissioner Holman: Point of order.
6
7 Chair Garber: Commissioner Holman.
8
9 Commissioner Holman: Our agenda states that after Staff presentation and recommendation the
10 appellant presentation is first not the applicant.
11
12 Chair Garber: But the question of the moment one of definition. Can we refer to these as
13 appellants and therefore they go first. Would the attorney provide some direction, please?
14
'15 Commissioner Holman: If I might as a part of this point of order, in the past if I am not mistaken
16 and perhaps Ms. French can correct me or confirm, in the past we have considered those who are
17 asking for a hearing the same as appellants. Not that it makes any difference but I just think we
18 ought to be consistent in our approach.
19
20 Ms. Tronquet: Why don't we have the people who requested the hearing go first to stay
21 consistent with the process on our agenda but we will clarify that they are not technically
22 appellants, they have requested this hearing.
23
24 Chair Garber: Will the non-technical appellants please rise and address us in the following
25 order. Mr. Askari, Ms. Marina Chudnovskaya, and Ms. Jackie Berman you will each have five
26 minutes totaling 15 minutes. Mr. Askari
27
28 Mr. Dan Askari, Palo Alto: Good evening. I am going to pass out some handouts if it is okay
29 with you. I made copies already prior to knowing that you would have these already but it will
30 be a waste. I sure appreciate it.
31
32 Good evening. My name is Dan Askari. I have lived on Manuel Avenue in Palo Alto for the last
33 ten years. I have had my business in Palo Alto for the last ten or 11 years based here in Palo
34 Alto. Of course I am building my house at 25838 Springhill, Los Altos Hills which backs up to
35 the church's property. The church's parking lot is actually my backyard.
36
37 I should give you a little bit of history. AT&T obtained their permit a few years ago and there
38 was no urgency or no need for them at the time and they just let the permit expire. They come
39 back and when I purchased the vacant land I did it with the understanding that AT&T's tower is
40 not going to be there. Of course they come back and they are not being very sensitive to the
41 issue that the permit has expired and they had their whole argument before that they are totally
42 friendly to neighbors. This is in their report they are 300 feet away from the closest home. Now
43 they have a different tone. They say 20,30,40 feet it is still okay. I beg of you, the past
44 argument should not be based on what they are currently saying. They totally changed their tone
45 as to what they are saying. Whether it is 20 feet or 30 feet or 50 feet based on the Staff Report
46 the cell tower is really about 50 or 60 feet away from my home. Whether it is the guesthouse or
Page 4
1 if it is the main house it is from the living area. These fake trees they look fake from 500 feet
2 away. They look more real from 500 feet away but then they are really so close to you they look
3 totally different.
4
5 If I may make a suggestion that when Staff comes and say it is from the nearest Los Altos Hills
6 neighbor I feel absolutely like a second-class citizen. I live in Palo Alto, and I work in Palo Alto,
7 I have my business in Palo Alto. There is no need to have a distinction between a Palo Alto
8 resident or a Los Altos Hills resident. I really don't understand the reason for that. They talk
9 about that, that it is a Palo Alto resident versus the Los Altos Hills resident, if I could say that.
10
11 At the ARB meeting I thought that since there is a cluster of trees, if you look at the Google map
12 in your handout. There is a cluster of trees in the parking lot, which I thought might be a good
13 location for the cell tower to go. Then I guess it wasn't really acceptable to thenl. The parking
14 lot is 95 percent of the time, if you look at the Exhibit F, 95 percent of the time it is vacant. I
15 live on Manuela and I go for a walk every day and I see maybe only on high holidays that it is
16 maybe 30 percent full. So the new location that I have in mind is still 176 feet per Staff
17 recommendation and it will be on the parking lot, which provides some screening from my
18 house, and losing two or three parking spaces is really not that detrimental. They are generating
19 very healthy income of $24,000 a year from AT&T and I am sure they can afford to rearrange a
20 couple of parking spaces for that. I don't think it is really asking too much. This is a two and a
21 half acre property, the church is, and they don't really have to shove it to being so close to the
22 Los Altos Hills neighbor.
23
24 If I could conclude very quickly that I really appreciate the time. I don't think it is really asking
25 too much if they could put it in the middle of the parking lot and have some screening on my
26 side. Not 24-inch boxes, not 36-inch boxes, this is AT&T I don't think they are going to go
27 broke. Why ask for 24 or 36-inch boxes? If I can have some screening on my side I don't think
28 I anl asking too much. I had a discussion with Mr. Dockter here and he also concurred that the
29 middle of the parking lot where I am proposing the new location is not going to be detrimental to
30 the trees. Believe me, if you look at the picture on Exhibit F that shows the parking lot 95
31 percent of the time that is what you see. I really don't think the parking spaces mind looking at
32 the cell tower. Thank you so much again for your time. If I can answer any questions I will be
33 more than happy to.
34
35 Chair Garber: Thank you. Marina Chudnovskaya followed by Jackie Berman.
36
37 Ms. Marina Chudnovskaya, Palo Alto: Good evening and thank you. Our home is on Miranda
38 Green and that is directly across from the Foothill Expressway, about 130 feet from the
39 Aldersgate Church property. It is facing the side of Foothill and the proposed project site, which
40 is clearly visible from my front door. I would like to point out that what is being referred to as a
41 rear area of the parcel or back of the church property throughout the documentation is very much
42 front for us.
43
44 First I would like to thank City Staff and especially Amy French who joined this ongoing
45 discussion about the specific location for this facility fairly recently and was able to listen and
Page 5
1 understand our concerns right away. Over the past week Amy has been working with all the
2 parties involved to find the most appropriate solution.
3
4 Now I have a few points to make. First, our preference has been and remains that a suitable
5 location outside the church property could be identified as required by the additional submittal
6 requirements, wireless communication facilities document from the City that I am holding in my
7 hand. The first two points call for detailed statement including documenting efforts to negotiate
8 collocation with existing wireless facilities in the area. Also a detailed statement documenting
9 the consideration of alternative project locations. I just don't believe that this document has been
10 completed. Alternative locations for this project need to be fully explored and one such possible
11 location is northwest comer of the Foothill-Arastradero intersection. There is vacant land there
12 and we discussed that at the ARB hearing. I don't think that that location received all the
13 attention it could have. Another is perhaps upgrading the existing facilities at the VA Hospital
14 that is identified as SF0512 at 3801 Miranda Avenue, which is about 500 feet north of the
15 Foothill-Miranda intersection. The other one is CN3183 at 3401 Hillview Avenue, which is
16 approxinlately a half-mile northwest of Arastradero-Foothill. Therefore, perhaps the
17 Commission could ask for a continuance to identify alternative location that is superior to the
18 one before you.
19
20 Now if no other location outside the church property can be identified then I do believe that
21 placement at 187 feet from the Foothill on the parking lot, like Mr. Askari was suggesting at the
22 hearing, would be the most appropriate to all parties involved.
23
24 Regarding the alternative site that was considered on Monday by City Staff and the church and
25 the applicant and was rejected because AT&T is stated that a 60-foot mono-pine would be
26 required at that location. That is not clear because the ground at that location is higher. So the
27 trees are not taller than those in the location that was approved at the ARB. Only one tree on the
28 entire property that is higher than the rest of them is number 44 according to the Tree Inventory
29 Table in the Arbodst Report. That tree is bordering the church property line at the lowest
30 possible elevation level. Why then would a '15-foot higher polebe required there? Ijust don't
31 understand that. Additionally, I do believe that electromagnetic waves are not obstructed by
32 trees and there shouldn't be a requirement to get above thenl.
33
34 For instance there is another mono-pine tower CA2288H constructed and operated by Nextel in
35 Mitchell Park at 3860 Middlefield Road. It is no taller than surrounding trees of which there are
36 plenty. There is a flat area everywhere that provides no elevation change there. I have
37 photographs of the Nextel mono-pine and sent them to City Staff so you could see for yourself
38 that is it just as high as every tree around it. That's that.
39
40 Now regarding the existing antennas on the Veteran's Hospital.
41
42 Chair Garber: Can you just sum up in a couple of sentences?
43
44 Ms. Chudnovskaya: I am sorry. That is basically all I wanted to say and this project has been in
45 the works for 13 years since the church property first had been chosen in June of 1996. Things
46 have changes dramatically since then and this project has been ever expanding. Prior to 2005 it
Page 6
1 was a 40 foot antenna and then it became 45, the amount of antennas increased from 69, the
2 associated equipment, the fence enclosure, future collocations, all of these things, and the one
3 thing that remains constant through several rounds is just that it is on the church property. So I
4 just really sincerely believe that there should be exploration of other locations as required by the
5 City. Thank you very much for your time and consideration.
6
7 Chair Garber: Thank you. Jackie Berman, our last non-technical appellant.
8
9 Ms. Jackie Bemlan, Palo Alto: Thank you very much. I am going to wrap this up quickly. We
10 live on the east of the expressway so the discussion you were having about the Miranda
11 Arastradero intersection, while Miranda Avenue is the entrance to our neighborhood there on the
12 east side of the expressway and the back of the cemetery. So I appreciate all the details you did
13 go into on that issue.
14
15 I too want to say that we in our neighborhood appreciate the hard work and sincere attempt to be
16 responsive to us citizens by Amy French on an issue of where an antenna to provide cell phone
17 reception to our neighborhood can and should be located. As I said at the ARB we are not
18 opposed to cell phones, but it is an appropriate location that is the only issue. At the time I put
19 together these comments there were many different locations kind of floating around so I wasn't
20 sure what I was responding to. So I am just going to make a few conceptual comments.
21
22 One, if a suitable location could be identified outside of the R-l zone such as by upgrading the
23 existing antennas at the Veteran's Hospital and in the Stanford industrial park that would be our
24 first preference. We did today email the representative of AT&T and asked if that could be
25 done. She said that she would consult with the engineers about that question. So in my mind
26 that is still an open question.
27
28 Number two, ifit is not possible to find another location and the only location is the R-l zoned
29 church parking lot then we ask that the antenna be placed no closer than 187 feet, which is what
30 the map there shows from the Foothill Expressway. That is the accurate distance from the
31 expressway. We also ask that the conditions attached by the ARB be supported by members of
32 this Commission so that adequate screening will be provided.
33
34 I do support what my other neighbors said but I tried to sum it up somehow. Good luck. Thank
35 you.
36
37 Chair Garber: Thank you. Is the applicant here to make a presentation? If you would identify
38 yourself when you approach, and you will have 15 minutes.
39
40 Ms. J acgueline Smart, Applicant: Good evening Commissioners. I am here representing AT&T.
41 Ijust wanted to give you the basic objective. The basic objective of this site is to provide
42 cellular coverage along Foothill Expressway from Arastradero down to Edith Avenue, and also
43 in the residential areas along Raquel Avenue, Miranda Avenue, and Escobita. One of the
44 difficulties of providing service in areas like this is that there are little to no buildings or
45 structures to locate these equipments on. We have done extensive research to come up with a
46 location that we are at right now.
Page 7
1
2 This is the third location that we have shown to Staff on drawings for this site. The first site was
3 too close to Foothill boulevard so we moved it approximately 80 feet. Then this location that we
4 are at right now we moved it another 90-something feet to make it 186 feet. So we are sensitive
5 to the comments from the neighbors and we are trying to come up with a solution that will best
6 suite both of us, us providing the necessary coverage that we need to provide and to also mitigate
7 any views to the neighbors.
8
9 In considering the current location we really took a look at all the existing screening that was
10 there provided by the 30-foot oak trees that we still think will provide adequate screening of our
11 antennas from Mr. Askari's property. We have also noted to Staff that we are willing to add
12 additional trees along the property line and also around the equipment enclosure. I have also
13 discussed this with the City Arborist and we provided an arborist report showing the existing
14 trees and we have gone with the recommendations of our arborist.
15
16 The new location proposed by Mr. Askari that we received on Tuesday to consider, I have
17 mentioned it to the church and the first thing -they are concerned about losing four parking
18 spaces because they are trying to grow their membership and it would stunt any future expansion
19 that they are considering. It would limit them to this four less parking spaces. This new location
20 too, I believe will be more visible because there are no trees immediately surrounding it to screen
21 it from view from Foothill Expressway.
22
23 I took a photograph of the proposed location from the church's parking lot that I believe will
24 show you the existing oak trees.
25
26 Chair Garber: There is a portable microphone.
27
28 Ms. Smart: Sorry about the glare there it is a glossy photograph. I wanted to point out that this
29 stump here indicates the approximate proposed location of the tree pole and these are the trees
30 bordering the church's property and Mr. Askari's property.
31
32 Mr. Askari's photos that he provided to the Commission I wanted to point out that they are not
33 accurate. This is the photo simulation provided by Mr. Askari. I want to point out that the
34 proposed tree pole is actually on the opposite side of the trees not immediately in front of Mr.
35 Askari' s property. That the utility pole here that we are looking at just to give you a scale, the
36 utility pole here existing is 35 feet and the tree pole we are proposing is 45 feet. The pole shown
37 in Mr. Askari's photo simulation looks twice as tall as this utility pole from the photo simulation.
38 I also wanted to point out that also in one of Mr. Askari's exhibits showing his new home
39 relative to the proposed location, he shows the location here, and in fact it is on the opposite side
40 of the oak trees, which would put the site approximately here. So there is adequate screening
41 existing. Again, we have proposed and agreed to the condition to add more screening between
42 the properties.
43
44 I am here to answer any questions you may have about the project.
45
Page 8
1 Chair Garber: Thank you. Commissioners, this is the time for questions, at which point we will
2 go to the public although I have no cards. Then the applicant will have the opportunity to make
3 any closing comments and the technically non-appellant will have the same opportunity. Before
4 we start however, does the Attorney have any instructions that they would like to give the
5 Commission?
6
7 Ms. Tronguet: The scope of your review tonight is a Conditional Use Permit. The scope of the
8 findings you need to make are on page 3 of your Staff Report. There are two findings. One that
9 the project will not be detrimental or injurious to property or the public health, safety, and
10 welfare, and a finding that the proj ect is located and conducted in a manner consistent with the
11 Comprehensive Plan and zoning. You are also relatively restricted in the extent to which you
12 can limit cellular towers. Cities can only regulate placement, construction, and modification of
13 wireless telecommunication facilities. So the two findings that are described in the requirements
14 for considering Conditional Use Permits sort of frame that scope for you pretty well. It is related
15 to the Comprehensive Plan and zoning and not injurious to the public health, safety, and welfare.
16 I think if you stay within the scope of the CUP requirements tonight you will also be within the
17 requirements for evaluating wireless telecommunication facilities.
18
19 Chair Garber: Thank you. One other background question. Am I recalling correctly that when
20 the Commission first or I should say last heard this item it was approximately four years ago?
21 Three and a half or four years ago?
22
23 Ms. French: Yes, it was 2006. So it expired 2007.
24
25 Chair Garber: So there I think three ofus on the Commission for that at that time that are here
26 now. Commissioner Lippert.
27
28 Commissioner Lippert: I remember the first time we saw this project. We were breaking new
29 ground in terms of some of the state and federal laws regulating this. At that time it was really
30 wide open and I remember we worked with Don to sort of narrow the focus. I think one of the
31 things we did was we actually said we didn't want cell towers in single family zones. I think that
32 was part of the instruction that we had given Staff at the tinle and was part of the regulations that
33 we had drafted. I am just asking this as a question because we allowed it in this particular case
34 but then when it canle back to us on a variety of cases we began to narrow where they could be
35 and we at the time, again I am getting old here and I am trying to recollect what the discussion
36 was, but we had actually looked at preferring it to be where normal utility poles or utility
37 infrastructure would be, which would be in the public right-of-way rather than actually being on
38 an R -1 property. Now, I know that this is a church property that is on an R -1 zone and that is
39 permitted under RLUIP A but this is accessory to that and that would fall under our normal
40 zoning, correct?
41
42 Ms. French: I know Curtis is looking up the zoning. I remember the meeting you are referring
43 to because I believe that was about the faux magnolia over at the Blockbuster site. There was a
44 discussion that was related to the right-of-way versus private property and pole versus tree. I
45 remember very well that discussion.
46
Page 9
1 Commissioner Lippert: Right, I remember that discussion also. In fact, Dr. Dockter was on the
2 news talking about faux trees.
3
4 Ms. French: Steel Magnolia, I think was the title of that article.
5
6 Mr. Curtis Williams, Interim Planning Director: Part of the Zoning Ordinance Update you
7 adopted a section of code on wireless communication facilities. It does not in any way prohibit
8 location in residential zones. What it does is it differentiates when a Conditional Use Permit is
9 required as opposed to when it is permitted without a use permit and just an Architectural
10 Review. So the Architectural Review is if it is a building mounted project that does not exceed
11 the roof height of the building, and a couple of other facilities. Then a Conditional Use Permit
12 and Architectural Review are required for projects that are located on residentially zoned parcels.
13
14 Commissioner Lippert: Maybe that was it.
15
16 Mr. Williams: And located on a parcel with residential use or if it is a standalone wireless
17 communication facility, which this is. So it just differentiates the review criteria and then says
18 that the antenna shall be designed to minimize visibility offsite and shall be of a stealth design,
19 which is what a tree pole is.
20
21 Commissioner Lippert: Yes, I think it is coming back to me now a little bit more. What we
22 adopted at the recommendation of Staff was a CUP and the reason why we picked that as a
23 vehicle is if you take a very large residential area it wouldn't have any other zoning in that area.
24 If you lost cell coverage in terms of the antenna working that I think was the issue. So in this
25 case it is around a bunch of other similar R-l zones so it would be difficult finding another type
26 of zone that you could locate an antenna. Okay, I answered my own question. Thank you.
27
28 Chair Garber: Commissioner Fineberg and then Keller.
29
30 Commissioner Fineberg: In Attachment D from Dan Askari and the other individuals who have
31 requested this hearing, it talks about a requirement to conform with the Palo Alto application
32 process by submitting some additional docunlentation. Can Staff comment on whether the
33 application has been deemed conlpleted and whether or not this additional requirement has been
34 fulfilled or is even a legitimate requirement?
35
36 Ms. French: Well, the application was deemed complete because it was tentatively approved. It
37 would not have been tentatively approved unless the Staff that was working on it had determined
38 the application was complete. There is in the file a radio frequency analysis, a visual on the
39 areas surrounding the site, and coverage with and without the proposed cell site. So there is
40 sonle analysis. It was determined to be complete by the Staff that was processing the
41 application.
42
43 Commissioner Fineberg: Thank you. Then further down on that page there is an assertion that
44 the applicant has failed to consider all other valuable conlmercial sites, and it goes on to name
45 several. Is the applicant under any responsibility? Is there a requirement that they rule out all
Page 10
1 other sites or can they through their own internal process pick the best site they want and bring
2 us one site?
3
4 Ms. French: I believe that is the case. They can propose a site and we can accept their analysis
5 or not.
6
7 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay, so there is no requirement under state law or City code that
8 other viable alternatives be ruled out?
9
10 Ms. Tronquet: No.
11
12 Commissioner Fineberg: Thank you. A question for the ARB representative if this might be an
13 appropriate time. It was mentioned earlier that one member, actually let me word it differently.
14 Maybe you would like to represent the majority opinion and then I anl particularly curious about
15 the one member who dissented and voted to deny approval. Could you give us a characterization
16 of what issues came up and why they dissented? Thank you.
17
18 Ms. Judith Wasserman, Architectural Review Board: The majority position was that with the
19 conditions the proposed site was adequate. The dissenting member thought that a place in the
20 parking lot -there were several places in the parking lot that were discussed. In a way this was a
21 little bit of a design charrette rather than a review of an application. We ended up finally
22 reviewing the application and not 17 other sites. But he thought that a site in the parking lot
23 would have been better. The majority felt that the problem with the fake trees is that they look
24 fake and if they are not surrounded with similar type species, like if you put a pine tree among
25 the oaks it looks funny. So because Mr. Dockter had recommended that certain pine trees on the
26 site were failing that they should be removed and replaced with new pine trees. If those were
27 located near the proposed fake pine tree that the whole thing, and then the color too would be
28 better matched than the ones they have, and the whole thing would blend in together. Combined
29 with the oak tree screening that is existing it is a little hard to know exactly what you are going to
30 see unless somebody puts a story pole up there because the sightlines go through the trees and
31 through all kinds of shrubs and screening, and it is a little hard to tell exactly what you are going
32 to see. It was our opinion that surrounding the tree with like type trees would cause it to
33 disappear as much as possible.
34
35 Chair Garber: Perhaps before we go to Commissioner Keller this would be a good time to
36 remind the Commissioners that we are not are you completed? I apologize. I thought you
37 were giving me the nod.
38
39 Commissioner Fineberg: I am sorry I thought you might have wanted to keep the ARB
40 Representative up for other Commissioners. I would be happy to cede if other members have
41 questions but I have one more.
42
43 Chair Garber: Please finish up.
44
45 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay. I don't know if this is more appropriately addressed for Staff or
46 the applicant but could we get some clarification about whether RF signals are blocked by
Page 11
1 adjacent trees? I am a bit confused by the desire to have the pole surrounded by trees so that it
2 screens the monopole but then also hearing information that it has to be taller than the adjacent
3 trees. So does it need to be standing alone or does it need to be surrounded? If it needs to be
4 surrounded does it matter whether the trees really are taller than the faux tree?
5
6 Ms. French: This is definitely within the realm of the applicant's engineer who is here.
7
8 Chair Garber: As you approach would you identify yourself?
9
10 Mr. Ali Areefin, Engineer for AT&T: To answer your question antenna radiation pattern clears a
11 near field and a far field. Now for our frequency the near field would be about 20 to 24 feet. We
12 use two different frequency bands one is 1900 megahertz and the other is 850 megahertz. So if
13 trees are within the near field, which is about 24 feet for 1900 and then about 30 feet for 850-.
14 megahertz band, then the signal loss within the near field is much greater than the far field. That
15 is natural loss. Then the fullest loss if the trees at the same length and height within 24 feet the
16 fullest loss is also greater if the trees are in the far field. That is basically electromagnetic wave.
17 That is natural signal loss.
18
19 So the goal is to avoid trees within the near field of antenna. So in our case 24 feet roughly
20 would be the near field tree zone. If we go higher than the tree for something that has vertical
21 radiation pattern and then horizontal radiation pattern, and the vertical pattern also needs to be
22 clear. So any time trees are within the near field and signal traveling through the'trees of course
23 there is higher loss. That is the basic phenomena of signals.
24
25 Commissioner Fineberg: So the proposed location for the antenna, if I understand the drawings
26 right, and forgive me if I am getting confused with three locations being thrown around and
27 different distances. Is the proposed location screened with trees within' 20 feet or the proposed
28 location has the trees more than 20 feet away?
29
30 Mr. Areefin: I have some propagation plots and if you allow me I could share them. I have two
31 locations. One has trees estimated 35 feet but they are not within 20 to 24 feet. They are outside
32 that near field of the antenna. So that would be less problem for signals. The second location I
33 have has about 45-foot tall trees, which are within ten feet of the second location. That would be
34 a problem because trees would be within the near field of the antenna and then the loss would be
35 like I said, signal loss is in the near field itself even without any obstruction it is greater and with
36 trees is even farther.
37
38 Commissioner Fineberg: Is the first location the proposed location, the application? And the
39 second location, is that closer to Foothill or where Mr. Askari wants it in the middle of the
40 parking lot?
41
42 Mr. Areefin: The second location would be farther from Foothill Expressway.
43
44 Commissioner Fineberg: Isn't that the proposed location?
45
46 Chair Garber: Could we get a map so we could know what we are talking about here?
Page 12
1
2 Commissioner Fineberg: So my questions don't seem random, what I am trying to figure out is
3 if it is being screened now by trees in the proposed location or if it is clear how that compares
4 with the location proposed by Mr. Askari. So that is where I am trying to go with this.
5
6 Chair Garber: Forgive me, Amy could you focus that a little bit? Would you put like an A, B,
7 and C or something next to these various locations? I think you need to focus the top. The lens
8 itself will only focus the zoom.
9
10 Now if it is possible can we get an arrow and like an A, B, or C?
11
12 Ms. French: So the issue is that we have this site plan that was prepared ---
13
14 Chair Garber: So this is the application as submitted?
15
16 Ms. French: The application that has been submitted shows -this is the site plan on the project
17 plan set. These trees are not quite right. They are small. They are not showing the right canopy
18 and they are not placed as they are in the Arborist Report.
19
20 This is the proposed location. This is location Y and put a Y there. This is the location that Mr.
21 Askari is proposing as of yesterday. This was the location that was proposed at the ARB by the
22 neighbors and Mr. Askari. This is the location that Staff was out at the site on Monday looking
23 at, and the engineer is saying it is too close to this tree. I would think somewhere in this area you
24 could stay away from trees as well and you would have better growing conditions for trees, if
25 you were to screen it, and they could stay away from the pole. So this is the proposed location as
26 recommended by the ARB. This is what Mr. Askari is saying now. This is what he said at the
27 ARB. This is the one Stafflooked at.
28
29 Chair Garber: Just for some further clarification the engineer if I am understanding your
30 description about the limitations or the design constraints for the antenna, if I were to use the
31 antenna as the center of a circle there is a circle that needs to be 24-foot in radius, that there
32 would be no trees that are at the same elevation as the antenna. There is another radius, which is
33 40-feet, am I understanding that correctly?
34
35 Mr. Areefin: It is 24 and 32.
36
37 Chair Garber: So the second radius 32 feet and you would not want to have trees that are higher
38 than 30 feet closer than that 32 feet. Is that correct?
39
40 Mr. Areefin: Anything outside of 32 feet. ...
41
42 Chair Garber: Can be higher than the antenna?
43
44 Mr. Areefin: Then the trees would be in the far field of the antenna. So it is not as bad as -so
45 they can be as high as -yes, still we will lose some signal but .....
46
Page 13
1 Chair Garber: It is an acceptable loss.
2
3 Mr. Areefin: Some is acceptable there falling within or outside the near field of the antenna.
4 Therefore the loss would be relatively small.
5
6 Chair Garber: Okay.
7
8 Ms. French: I have put up the aerial, which I did my quick work checking back and forth
9 amongst the plans. I believe this X marks the spot of the proposal.
10
11 Chair Garber: Okay, Susan, anything else?
12
13 Commissioner Fineberg: So it is hard to know the height of the trees from an aerial shot but it
14 looks like the distance from side to side on the trees is about the same if you are looking at the
15 proposed location versus what Mr. Askari is looking at. The significant difference is there are
16 sonle trees between Foothill Expressway and the antenna that would block view if you are
17 immediately to the right, which I think translates to east. I am struggling with how it is any
18 worse to put the antenna in middle of the parking lot other than the loss of the four parking
19 spaces. So is there a reason why not to put it in the middle of the parking lot other than those
20 parking spac~s?
21
22 Ms. French: Well if you are going to put a mono-pine there I would argue that it is going to be
23 more naked as a fake pine than if it were surrounded by a grove that had good planting
24 conditions. To plant more trees in parking lot to provide the grove quality the parking lot soil
25 is compacted, there are going to be issues with trying to plant that would be more parking spaces
26 lost to plant such trees. You might as well go with just a monopole as opposed to a monopine if
27 you are going to do that, in my opinion.
28
29 Commissioner Fineberg: What is the distance between the proposed site and the closest three
30 sides? Is that in excess of the 20 or 32 feet?
31
32 Ms. Smart: I am sorry, which trees are you referring to? The trees closest to Mr. Askari's
33 property or to the parking lot?
34
35 Commissioner Fineberg: Again, where I am trying to go with this is if these are more than 20
36 feet and they are not blocking the RF transmission then is there benefit of a visual screen or they
37 are so far away that they are not let me just show the three sides. So I am looking at this. So
38 what is this dimension, this dimension, and that dimension roughly?
39
40 Ms. Smart: The distance between the proposed location and the oak on the property ...
41
42 Commissioner Fineberg: So this one?
43
44 Ms. Smart: This side, well the distance from the site to the property line is 23 feet and those
45 trees are almost on the property line. So that would be an approximate distance that the trees are
46 from the proposed location. However, those trees are oaks that are approximately 30 feet high.
Page 14
1
2 Commissioner Fineberg: So they are within that second radius of they are within the 32 but they
3 are lower.
4
5 Ms. Smart: Yes.
6
7 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay. Thank you.
8
9 Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller.
10
11 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. I didn't expect to get so much of an education in RF
12 transmission. I appreciate that, unlike some of the other things, we are not having complaints
13 from the neighbors about RF radiation but we are getting issues about sightlines and such which
14 is within the proper purview of the Commission.
15
16 So if you look over there, if I can point at something. Here is a tree, which is sort of logical east
17 of the location. You have trees over here, you have trees over here, and you have this sort of
18 empty space in the middle here. I am wondering if we move this X to a point that is sort of the
19 centroid of that blank area it seems that it would in fact improve things because it would be
20 further away from trees, it would provide additional opportunities for screening on the perimeter,
21 it wouldn't have problems with respect to the parking lot and the attendant issues there, and it
22 would seem that it would also be further away from Foothill Expressway and therefore not
23 impact the neighbors in the Miranda Green neighborhood, and be further away from Mr.
24 Askari's property. So I am wondering whether that is a feasible solution.
25
26 Ms. French: This is the location that we were looking at with the church and the applicant onsite
27 on Monday.
28
29 Commissioner Keller: But looking at the aerial view here you can sort of see that there is a little
30 bit more clearing over there where I am pointing now with the pointer. Do you have a comment
31 about that?
32
33 Mr. Areefin: Yes, that location in the center would be better than having it all the way to the
34 west close to the tree. So if it is not and if you moved across to the left, moving to the west,
35 somewhere in the middle of that open space that would be in my view RF-wise totally
36 acceptable. The trees to the south, which I understand are about 35 feet, most of the tree line to
37 the south but I think the trees to the northwest those are taller trees. Again, the open space itself
38 is from that cross to that tree to the left is about 60 feet. I saw it on Google. So moving it to the
39 middle would give us approximately 30 feet of open space around it and should be okay. That
40 should still again the signal will travel through the trees and will have to take some loss but it is
41 not going to be as bad as having antennas right next to the tree within ten feet. So it is a tradeoff.
42 It is not an ideal situation we have in the parking lot on that property but something we could
43 probably be able to live with.
44
45 Commissioner Keller: So it seems to me I am seeing nods from the hearing requestors that
46 movement of the mono tree into that location you will have a chance to rebut later. But I am
Page 15
1 hearing that they are nodding saying that they seem to prefer that modulo looking at the details
2 of that. So I guess the moral of the story is that if a monopole falls in the forest does it make a
3 sound and obviously it does.
4
5 One thing about this is a question of both the applicant and the arborist. To what extent does it
6 make sense to use larger replacement trees, the seven one-for-one replacement trees if you will
7 you have a certain box requirement there. I am assuming those are going to be smaller than the
8 trees that are being replaced because they are younger. Is that right or are they the same height?
9
10 Mr. Dave Dockter, Planning Arborist: The replacement trees will be approximately 20 feet tall.
11 The 24-inch box, the 36-inch box they would be spaced 20 feet away from the mono-pine too.
12
13 Commissioner Keller: So how tall are the trees that are being replaced?
14
15 Mr. Dockter: those are 45 feet. They are off to the east, the Monterey Pines that would be
16 removed.
17
18 Commissioner Keller: So I am wondering the extent to which it might make sense to use sort of
19 larger box trees on the Aldersgate property to provide screening so that they blend in more with
20 this so that it blends in more quickly than with a smaller box tree, which has less relative height
21 to the monopole. Does that make sense?
22
23 Mr. Dockter: Yes. You could condition it to have a mix of different height trees, 36-inch box
24 and 48-inch box trees would be approximately five years more growth in the next size up box.
25 So you are getting different heights and different age trees day one when you plant them.
26
27 Commissioner Keller: So would that provide a better screening from the get-go?
28
29 Mr. Dockter: Yes, from the get-go you are buying a little bit more mature tree with height and
30 spread. We have recommended Canary Island Pine to be an upright spire type tree that would
31 kind of be context for the new mono-pine.
32
33 Commissioner Keller: And those could be placed in such an arrangement so that they wouldn't
34 interfere with the near field issues that one of the applicant representatives said is that right?
35
36 Mr. Dockter: That is correct. We would work with proper placement with their arborist to fit in
37 the open areas there.
38
39 Commissioner Keller: Does the applicant have any comments about that issue? Are there
40 concerns about that?
41
42 Ms. Smart: One comment I wanted to make was that the majority of the trees that are being
43 proposed to be removed was based on our location before this one, which was closer to FoothilL
44 So the trees that are slated for removal are, excuse nle down at this end. As I was pointing out
45 our current location is here but the trees that are being slated for replacement was based on our
Page 16
1 earlier location, which was among these trees right here. So the trees being replaced are down
2 towards Foothill.
3
4 Commissioner Keller: Would they need to be replaced under the new placement?
5
6 Ms. Smart: I defer to Dave.
7
8 Mr. Dockter: If I could speak to that. Where the applicant is finding themselves now is a little
9 bit of a property upgrade. The trees that were recommended for removal for the prior project,
10 even though the footprint doesn't land there anymore are still recommended for removal because
11 they are Monterey Pines that are in decline and have an insect borer problem. It is our opinion
12 that those trees are going to be gone and dead within five years whether there is a project here or
13 not. The applicant has expressed some desire to continue with the removal and replacement of
14 those trees knowing that they were going to do that before. I think I would need to defer to them
15 if they are still willing to do that. It is reconlffiended at this time that they do come out now as a
16 proactive measure while there is an opportunity to properly replace them and plant them in a
17 grove effect for this mono-pine. That would be the right way to approach this whole area.
18
19 Commissioner Keller: Thank you Mr. Dockter. Would it be fair to say that in the near future the
20 screening that is provided on Foothill Expressway by the pines that are in decline basically
21 indicated that nlaintenance of that screening from Foothill Expressway requires that those trees
22 be taken out and new trees providing appropriate screening be placed closer to where the mono-
23 pine is being put in?
24
25 Mr. Dockter: That is correct. It would also give us the opportunity to take the cabinet screening
26 area and adequately screen it too with lower shrubs. So I think the applicant and the landscape
27 plan will adequately screen both the upper story elements and the ground floor elements as seen
28 from Foothill Expressway. The removal of the pines gives the opportunity to do it right.
29
30 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. Does the applicant have anything to add to what Mr. Dockter
31 has said?
32
33 Ms. Smart: No, just that I have discussed this with both the Planner and David that we are
34 willing to replace the trees that were originally slated for removal, and also to add shrubs around
35 the equipment enclosure to further screen our equipment.
36
37 Commissioner Keller: Thank you very much.
38
39 Chair Garber: Commissioner Holman and then Tuma.
40
41 Commissioner Holman: After looking at so many different locations I just want to make sure
42 that we are all on the same page. So the current X that is that X that is the location that we are
43 talking about that is the correct and currently proposed location.
44
Page 17
1 Chair Garber: Would you clarify by going to the map because I believe the X that the
2 Commissioner is pointing at is the one that is in the current application as opposed to the one that
3 is now being proposed. Maybe I am wrong.
4
5 Ms. French: So I believe this is tree 10 that we saw on the site on Monday. We looked at a
6 location 12 feet from it. That was said to be too close and therefore a 60 foot height would be
7 required. I think if it moves over to the center here, this would be N for new, this would be X for
8 proposed. This would be something like 40 feet farther west from the proposed location. That is
9 what I would say is my best guess.
10
11 Commissioner Holman: The location that was discussed with the requestors for the hearing was
12 the location that was further north from that nearer the existing trees. Is that correct?
13
14 Ms. French: Okay, so at the ARB meeting and prior to that the discussion was to put it between
15 this grove of trees basically. There are three trees here and three or four trees up here so
16 somewhere between there was what was discussed. What Mr. Askari proposed recently was this
17 location where there is a light pole. Am I answering the question?
18
19 Commissioner Holman: And your discussion Monday?
20
21 Ms. French: Monday was near tree 10, which is near this new location where the engineer had
22 said we have to put a 60-foot tree so we said 60 feet is kind of tall, maybe not. Tonight he is
23 saying maybe it is okay as long as you have a 20-foot radius. I guess that is what is being said.
24
25 Commissioner Holman: Do we know we have a 20-foot radius at that location? In other words,
26 how are we going to make a determination this evening if we really don't know what the
27 dimensions are?
28
29 Ms. French: Okay. So now I am going to haul out this map. This map I put an X this is the
30 proposed location that the ARB recommended.
31
32 Chair Garber: Amy hold your thought there for a nlonlent. Commissioner Tuma has a thought
33 that might help Commissioner Holman.
34
35 Vice-Chair Tuma: So what if we simply without pinpointing a location conditioned the
36 installation to be - I am just going to use north, south, east, and west looking at this diagram as if
37 X was in the middle. So we said that the location needed to be as far west and north in the grove
38 as possible but to be no closer than 24 feet from the surrounding trees? Does that work is a
39 question for first the applicant.
40
41 Commissioner Holman: If I might?
42
43 Chair Garber: Commissioner Holman.
44
45 Commissioner Holnlan: In theory that works, but if we don't know what the dimensions are
46 north, south, east, west between the trees we don't know if that can be accomplished or not.
Page 18
1
2 Vice-Chair Tuma: Well, ifby parameters that I just set out if the answer is it winds up where X
3 is then it is where X is. That is as far west as you can go and still be 24 feet from'the
4 surrounding trees then that is where it is. If it can go further west, great.
5
6 Commissioner Lippert: I think Amy French has it right here that it is approximately 35 to 40 feet
7 if you use the bar scale at the bottom of the drawing.
8
9 Ms. French: When we were out on the site on Monday we measured 75 feet from tree number
10 10 to the proposed location. So in my estimation where we were looking is somewhere here,
11 which was about another 62. It doubled the distance from the comer of Mr. Askari's property.
12 So I would say this is somewhere between 40 and 50 feet this location right here from the
13 propose ARB recommended. So I would say if you are between 40 and 50 feet you would be in
14 the ballpark.
15
16 Vice-Chair Tuma: Now, using the N location as the marker, assuming we are somewhere in that
17 neighborhood, the property that is due south of that is that the person who is out of the country's
18 property?
19
20 Ms. French: The person who is out of the country is this person.
21
22 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay, we are getting there. At this point I would like Mr. Askari to come to
23 the microphone. Using location N as a potential location and using 36 to 48 inch box pines as
24 screening is that a combination that would serve you reasonably well?
25
26 Mr. Askari: I appreciate it. I should nIention that the original X location that Ms. French is
27 indicating is not correct. They come for two or three minutes.
28
29 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay, let's leave that. Let's look at the N location.
30
31 Mr. Askari: If the area that you are showing as being N on the picture right here is the area that
32 we were originally asking AT&T to put there and it is closer to the second pole away from
33 Foothill Expressway so that is a good, I should say landmark for you guys to see that this N
34 location it is closer to the second pole away from Foothill Expressway. Second PG&E pole.
35 This area is ideal for them because there are no trees around it. We were surprised when AT&T
36 mentioned to them that they have to go to 60 feet because if you go to the site you see that there
37 is probably ten to 12 percent grade as you go up.
38
39 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay. So let me just try my question. So is a short way of saying that this
40 would be acceptable?
41
42 Mr. Askari: This would be acceptable ifit is -if you ask me -may I just make a suggestion? If
43 you ask me what my preference is it is the parking lot.
44
45 Vice-Chair TunIa: I understand.
46
Page 19
1 Mr. Askari: Three or four parking spaces believe me is ....
2
3 Vice-Chair Tuma: I understand.
4
5 Mr. Askari: And, but if I am at the mercy of you guys, and I appreciate that, where the N
6 location is which is closer to the second pole that is my second best option.
7
8 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay. Great. Just to round out if either of other two speakers, folks who
9 have written letters, if you had any comments you wanted to nlake? If you don't have any
10 comnlents, if you are fine with it that is fine, if you do have any comments I would love to hear
11 them at the podium.
12
13 Mr. Askari: May I just be on record to say that based on original 187 feet that they have to this
14 location right here it is another 120 feet. It is not 40 or 50 feet. Please have that on record
15 please.
16
17 Vice-Chair Tuma: Thank you.
18
19 Mr. Askari: Thank you so much everybody.
20
21 Ms. Berman: My only comment is that I am confused because I assumed that the ARB
22 conditions would screen the mono-pine that the trees would be close to the mono-pine. So you
23 wouldn't see the mono-pine so much. Now I am hearing that any tree has to be how many feet?
24 Thirty feet, 20 feet isn't that pretty far? That is standard spacing for .... ? Big trees are 20 feet
25 apart?
26
27 Chair Garber: It is the distance from you to me.
28
29 Ms. Berman: Well, okay if you tell me that that's going to really screen then I won't be
30 confused.
31
32 Vice-Chair Tuma: Well, I am prepared to make a motion.
33
34 Ms. Chudnovskaya: I just want to point out the location N seems the most appropriate except
35 that it is not in the proximity to the current location in the plans that we were reviewing today.
36 The X is actually further to the right if you look at the picture, the actual X. So if we could put
37 that as a condition without the proximity to the current location but write a saying somehow
38 identifying that N is in the middle of the sort of empty area. That would place it probably at
39 about 244 or 245 feet from the property line, fronl Foothill, as opposed to 187. Yes, that would
40 be nluch more acceptable I believe for all parties involved.
41
42 Also, the elevation I would like to point out because I don't think that has been considered
43 before. There is an elevation grade, a significant one, the father from Foothill you go the higher
44 the ground. So the height of the surrounding trees should not be the problem. The tallest ones
45 that are 45 feet and above they are actually further away from that location. They are on the
46 lower ground.
Page 20
1
2 Chair Garber: Thank you. Commissioner Tuma we do need to get back to Commissioner
3 Holman. Thank you though. Commissioner Holman and then I believe Commissioner Fineberg
4 has a follow up at which point possibly we can get back to a motion.
5
6 Commissioner Holman: So given the N location, when it gets down to it, it is like how has it
7 taken so long and hard to get to this. Given the N location up there and given the comments
8 made about the grade change, and presuming that it is at least 20 feet away from the other trees I
9 just want to be real clear that if the other trees are as I understood if it is closer to the other trees
10 that are taller what would be the height of this monopole at this N location. What would be the
11 height of the monopole above grade?
12
13 Ms. French: This is what needs to be answered because where we were looking, this is tree
14 number 10, we were looking 15 feet from tree number 10 and that was within 20 feet and that is
15 why it needs to be 60. If it is outside of20 feet I think the engineer could answer for us does it
16 still need to be 60 feet or can now it drop down to ten feet above the highest tree.
17
18 Commissioner Holman: That is a question I would like to have answered. The other thing is the
19 grade question.
20
21 Ms. French: Right. So given the fact that the grade is higher does the tree still need to be from
22 grade to top.
23
24 Commissioner Holman: And how will that height of the monopole relate to the other existing
25 trees given grade shift and proximity to trees or lack thereof?
26
27 Chair Garber: Will the engineer identify themselves?
28
29 Mr. Areefin: Like I said previously we use two frequency bands. One is an 8S0-megahertz band
30 and the other one is the 1900-megahertz band. So we have two different near fields frequency
31 bands. For the 850 it is roughly 32 feet and for the 1900 it is 24 feet for the near field. Thatis
32 the radius. So if we go somewhere in the middle of that open space and for the 850 frequency
33 band expect the trees to be outside of 32 feet because that is the near field for lower frequency,
34 the 850 band that we use. For the 1900 band frequency that we use trees can be outside of 24
35 feet that will be outside of the near field and will cause less signal loss. That is in theory. That is
36 our basic rule of designing cell sites in situations with trees and other cutter. So if we have trees
37 within say 20 feet from the antenna it will result in more signal loss basically. Can we live with
38 it? I would have to do my analysis.
39
40 The height? The antenna rack center has to be ten feet higher if we have trees within the near
41 field the antenna center has to be ten feet higher than the height of the tree.
42
43 Chair Garber: Commissioner Holman, Commissioner Tuma has hopefully a clarifying question.
44
45 Vice-Chair Tuma: Let me just ask the engineer if the pole is no closer than 24 feet to any of the
46 trees in that empty grove there how high does it need to be?
Page 21
1
2 Mr. Areefin: Yes, I designed it for 45 feet. That was my original design considering that we
3 don't have trees within 24 feet but that is for frequency band 1900 though. Like I said we have
4 two different bands and two different near field regions.
5
6 Chair Garber: So for the other band how far away do they need to be?
7
8 Mr. Areefin: Thirty-two feet.
9
10 Chair Garber: Thirty-two feet, okay. So there is a diameter of 64 feet that ideally would not be
11 interrupted with the location of a 45-foot pole.
12
13 Mr. Areefin: That is exactly what I am trying to say.
14
15 Chair Garber: Okay.
16
17 Ms. French: I have a drawing from Commissioner Keller. Before I get to that I also wanted to
18 because I have drawn on the Arborist map the tree we are trying to stay away from which is tree
19 10, which is 45 feet tall at present. Tree 9 is 20 feet, tree 8 is 15 feet. So there is that formula to
20 get away from tree 10 is how I would look at it. This is what Commissioner Keller has put up.
21 ,So monopole 24 feet, 32 feet, trees ten feet shorter than monopole in this zone, and then any
22 trees outside of that zone.
23
24 Commissioner Keller: No trees in the inner circle.
25
26 Ms. French: No trees within the 24 foot near field.
27
28 Commissioner Keller: Is that what you are trying to say?
29
30 Mr. Areefin: Yes.
31
32 Commissioner Keller: Sorry to interrupt. So if you stay at least 32 feet from tree number 10 you
33 are happy, right?
34
35 Mr. Areefin: How high is tree number 10?
36
37 Ms. French: Forty-five.
38
39 Mr. Areefin: Okay, should be good.
40
41 Commissioner Keller: So if you are at least 32 feet away from tree number 10 you are happy,
42 right?
43
44 Mr. Areefin: Yes.
45
46 Commissioner Keller: Thank you.
Page 22
1
2 Chair Garber: So Commissioner Holman with all that help perhaps you would like to continue
3 your questions.
4
5 Commissioner Holman: So given the grade differential then is that going to be a factor given the
6 relative height of the trees around?
7
8 Ms. French: I would think it would be a good factor in that you wouldn't have to have such a tall
9 fake tree. It could be shorter because the grade has given it a little help at the lower end. It has
10 not been exactly analyzed.
11
12 Commissioner Holman: I think my last question is currently the tree on that side on the drawing
13 up there was 20 feet tall. It is going to grow. So is there going to be a future impact on the
14 monopole's effectiveness let's say?
15
16 Ms. French: I would think if there were trimming of the tree they could keep it where they need
17 it to be. My earlier comment was about the helping grade I was thinking of the trees down slope.
18 The trees up slope of course which are shorter, they are 15 feet and 20 feet.
19
20 Commissioner Holman: But they will grow.
21
22 Ms. French: They will grow, yes depending on the condition of health. I can look at the
23 arborist's report.
24
25 Commissioner Holman: And depending on how far away they are from the monopole. Okay.
26 We have duck soup I think.
27
28 Chair Garber: I am sorry you cannot unless one of the Commissioners calls on you.
29
30 Commissioner Holman: I will. The applicant has been able to speak a lot so I think it is only
31 fair.
32
33 Ms. Chudnovskaya: Just want to point everyone's attention at the current location at the X, it is
34 closer to trees numbered 11, 12, and 13, much closer than the one we are trying to relocate the
35 tower to. Those trees are also 45 feet. I just don't see how is the current location that they were
36 asking for is better than the one you are trying to relocate the tower to. It is not. It does have
37 those trees at 45, 35 feet high.
38
39 Chair Garber: Let nle just ask you, are you arguing to keep the original location?
40
41 Ms. Chudnovskaya: No, no, no I am just saying that what you are looking at now and trying to
42 discuss is much better than the current one.
43
44 Chair Garber: Okay, good. Thank you.
45
46 Ms. French: Public comment has not happened yet other than the ,appellants and applicant.
Page 23
1
2 Chair Garber: You are absolutely correct. However I have no cards. Commissioners, are there
3 any other questions? Commissioner Fineberg.
4
5 Commissioner Fineberg: From the tree inventory table there are a couple of Canary Island Pines
6 number 10 and number 11 that are noted to be 45 feet. Does that mean that the new screening
7 trees cannot be planted 20 feet from the faux tree because then you would have a 45 foot pole
8 with 45 foot trees when they are n1ature, so the screening trees would have to be 32 in that
9 second diameter, I believe it was the 32 feet. So where and how does a detailed map get drawn
10 for where the screening trees will go in? Obviously you are not going to be tearing out the old
11 trees from the ARB plan, so what will the folks that requested the hearing know that they are
12 guaranteed to get from a screening plan?
13
14 Mr. Dockter: I will endeavor to answer that. We will place the new screen trees as close to the
15 20-foot radius as possible, 20 and 32-foot radius. I would anticipate that the new screen trees
16 when they grow up, after 20 years or so, that at that point in time I would expect some tipping
17 down and maintaining the size to keep the mono-pine clear. It would be appropriate to begin
18 trimming and keeping those trees checked. Other trees like the oak trees would be left to grow
19 unobstructed and not topped. But these other trees are specifically planted there for the sake of
20 the mono-pine to create some context and we would not want to see those new screen trees grow
21 up to be 100 feet tall and crowd out the mono-pine. So the maintenance would be expected.
22 Does that answer your question?
23
24 Commissioner Fineberg: Yes it does. Is that expected maintenance something that is a
25 requirement in our CUP? What if the interests of the property owner diverged from the interests
26 of AT&T? Do we need to stipulate whose interest prevails?
27
28 Ms. French: They have a private agreement between the church and AT&T. So I imagine that is
29 detailed in their private agreement about paying the church to be on their site.
30
31 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay. My last question then is of Mr. Askari. Without getting into
32 specific architectural detail, if you would like to step up and then answer this. We don't have
33 benefit of vertical elevations of your home. So I have no idea where your windows are. I can
34 presume that in one respect further from your house might feel like it is better but does the new
35 proposed location make the faux tree more visible? So do you have windows on the left side of
36 your house so that if that tree gets moved lef~are you going to be looking at the trunk versus was
37 it sitting off outside a solid wall even if it was closer?
38
39 Mr. Askari: Obviously the further it goes that direction, the further it goes to the left obviously it
40 blocks the view more. So in other words where they are showing location N, which is closer to
41 tree number 10. Showing on the Arborist Report it really does help substantially. It is not
42 perfect I should say. The middle of the parking lot is really truly ideal but life is not perfect. So
43 I am willing to accept that. So much that you go through months of design and all that for the
44 home and it is very unfortunate.
45
Page 24
1 If I could just mention just one last thing. At the ARB meeting I did not ask them to come to my
2 house, the construction site. I happen to see a gentleman walking down the driveway and that
3 happened to be Mr. Alexander Lew. I did not invite him. When he came he saw the site and he
4 was the only one opposed to the project and he is the one on the ARB. So he said I cannot
5 believe they are putting this on residential sites. Please, let's have that on the record. I am just
6 speechless.
7
8 Commissioner Fineberg: So thank you so much for that extra information. What I just want to
9 confirnl then is for instance do you have a gorgeous big picture window that that now is going to
10 be in the line of sight whereas you might not see it here even if it is closer. I am just trying to
11 confirm that we are not making it worse.
12
13 Mr. Askari: To answer your question where you see this area right here.
14
15 Chair Garber: Before you start let me help the Commissioner out. It is perfectly imaginable that
16 we can direct Staff to work with this particular applicant and to work out and screen the
17 appropriate sight lines that open up, etc. We can condition the project in that way.
18
19 Mr. Askari: I appreciate that very nluch. The reason that I asked for the large trees on my side is
20 because they could come and start screening on their side and cut it down and so forth. I have
21 more to say on my side. So if they were to -if you look at his view right here this is exactly
22 where it is the full exposure and I have windows on this side and all this side right here, which
23 is the full exposure to the tree.
24
25 Yes, I am sorry the tree is right here. So the bedrooms .....
26
27 Commissioner Lippert: Sir that is your garage.
28
29 Mr. Askari: The windows here. Okay. The tree is right here, that is where they are proposing.
30 Am I understanding this right? Yes.
31
32 Chair Garber: Folks, let's keep nl0ving here.
33
34 Mr. Askari: To answer your question yes there are windows that are definitely in direct view of
35 the tree.
36
37 Chair Garber: Fine, thank you.
38
39 Mr. Askari: Thank you very much.
40
41 Chair Garber: Okay. Commissioner Fineberg.
42
43 Commissioner Fineberg: I would agree with Commissioner Holman's suggestion that if one of
44 the conditions is that we ask Staff to evaluate line of sight and make sure screening trees
45 consider the line of sight that I think really answers the problem.
46
Page 25
1 Chair Garber: I think it is important to recognize there are not parts of the code that require any
2 of that to happen.
3
4 Commissioner Holman: It is a Conditional Use Permit though if I might.
5
6 Chair Garber: Exactly, and those things can be worked out to the satisfaction hopefully of all
7 parties. Anything else?
8
9 Commissioner Fineberg: I might disagree with you though in the findings it said not detrimental
10 to property. I would feel that something close to a house that is in the line of sight that isn't
11 screened would be detrimental to the property. So I think that does give us the purview to
12 inlpose those additional conditions.
13
14 Mr. Williams: I took it to be that that's what you said is that it is a condition of approval that
15 you can impose. It is not a specific code requirement to plant trees in this location.
16
17 Chair Garber: Anything else? Let me do this. It is late. I think we have covered most things so
18 forgive me Commissioner Keller I am going to move forward here. We have had a lot of
19 discussion. I am assuming that the applicant and the non-technical appellants have nothing more
20 that they need to say since we have allowed a rather freewheeling meeting on this item. I don't
21 see anyone raising their hand feeling like they have not been heard here.
22
23 So to move forward let us move this back to the Commission. I believe Commissioner Lippert
24 has a motion for us. I will close the public hearing.
25
26 Ms. Tronquet: Do you want to specifically ask the appellants or the other?
27
28 Chair Garber: Do the non-technical appellants wish to make any further comments or rebuttal to
29 any of the comments that have been said?
30
31 Ms. Berman: Just one comment that a 65-foot tree is not acceptable.
32
33 Chair Garber: I am not understanding you. A 65-foot tree?
34
35 Ms. Bemlan: Mono-pine.
36
37 Chair Garber: I see.
38
39 Ms. Berman: So if that is what would be required in the new location.
40
41 Chair Garber: Thank you. The applicants? They are passing on the opportunity. Thank you.
42 Commissioner Lippert a motion.
43
44 MOTION
45
Page 26
1 Commissioner Lippert: I move that we recommend to uphold the Director's decision with the
2 following modifications. Modification number one, that the faux antenna tree be moved west of
3 the originally proposed location to a suitable location that it is within engineered working
4 distance from the adjacent trees. Number two, that the antenna tree remain at 45 feet or below in
5 height. Number three, that there be a plan for the removal of the diseased trees and replacement
6 with new specimen pines 36 and 48-gallon box specimens.
7
8 SECOND
9
10 Comnlissioner Holman: Second.
11
12 Chair Garber: Motion made by Commissioner Lippert and seconded by Commissioner Holman.
13 Would the maker like to speak to their motion?
14
15 Commissioner Lippert: Yes. I think that we have a workable solution here in terms of what we
16 have proposed. I think both the applicant as well as the non-technical appellants will be satisfied
17 with the outcome here.
18
19 What I am a little concerned about are two things. Number one, the applicant had an entitlement
20 on this property for this tree and they didn't perfect that approval previously. That really
21 troubles me. We spend an awful lot of time going through something that we went through three
22 or four years ago with very little variation from what it originally was. That is really is a waste
23 of our time. It is a waste of the applicant's time, and it is a waste of the non-technical appellant's
24 time.
25
26 The other thing that I want to mention and this is really frustrating is that the owner, Mr. Askari
27 purchased this property and at the time there was an application in place and through the
28 property disclosures you should have been notified by your broker and the seller of that property
29 that there was this antenna that was being built at the adjacent site. That is an oversight on their
30 part. I am really sorry that you had to live with that but it really was something that was on file
31 and should have been known to you. So when you bought the property you bought that antenna
32 being adjacent to your property. So with a little more research perhaps you might have found out
33 about it.
34
35 The last thing I want to mention, and again it is a minor aspect but I think it needs to be
36 addressed, Mr. Askari in the beginning of your presentation you did mentioned that you felt as
37 though you were being treated as a second-class citizen. We don't discriminate by where people
38 live. We have done projects to adjacent cities, and we have applicants or appellants come from
39 adjacent cities and present before us. We look at you as being a neighbor. It doesn't make a
40 difference whether you live in Los Altos Hills or whether you live in Mountain View. If you are
41 adjacent to Palo Alto and you have a concern on a project we want to hear from you. You are
42 not a second-class citizen. So I feel deeply offended by hearing that.
43
44 Chair Garber: Let me just temper your final comments in that I believe that the non-technical
45 appellant was sinlply expressing the way that he felt and not necessarily the way that this body or
Page 27
1 any other body of the City was treating him. So I will accept that at face value and I don't think
2 we should further that conversation in any way.
3
4 Seconder, comments?
5
6 Commissioner Holman: Yes, it took us a long time to get here and it is a little frustrating but
7 hopefully we have come up with a solution that will actually be workable in the field. I
8 seconded the motion because I agree with the points made. We have arrived at a location that is
9 further away from Foothill Expressway and further away, hopefully with less impact, to the
10 Askari property. So I think we have satisfied the goals.
11
12 I do have three amendments to add. Hopefully they will be acceptable. This is just to confinn
13 what is already intended but I just want to make sure that it is clear. One is to further screen the
14 monopole from Foothill Expressway when trees are removed and replacements proposed. That
15 is maybe just a clarification if not anything else. That reasonable screening from line of sight
16 from the Askari property be added. That the three additional ARB conditions of approval be
17 attached to our motion.
18
19 Commissioner Lippert: I will accept those.
20
21 Commissioner Holman: I have nothing else to say.
22
23 Chair Garber: Commissioners, discussion. Commissioner Keller.
24
25 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. I assume that Commissioner Holman's comment about
26 adding the ARB conditions are as modified by the other conditions. I believe that the 36 and 48-
27 gallon boxes might modify ARB conditions. So I think that is understood.
28
29 I would like to make a textual friendly amendment to rather than referring to moving it west,
30 when west is sort of ambiguous, I would suggest the language read to move away from Foothill
31 Expressway in a direction roughly parallel with the adjacent property line.
32
33 Commissioner Lippert: I think that is too much detail. What I have suggested here I think gives
34 Staff enough direction.
35
36 Commissioner Keller: I will have to vote against it if you west because west is along Foothill
37 Expressway.
38
39 Chair Garber: Can I just ask Staff if they understand where this is going?
40
41 Ms. French: I certainly understand it. I see a compass direction on the site plan and west,
42 whether it is due west or northwest or southwest, we all know what we are talking about. Trying
43 to get it in a place with reception.
44
45 Chair Garber: Can we say location N on the exhibit of the photograph?
46
Page 28
1 Ms. French: I would say approximately in the location ofN because as you saw it was hurried.
2
3 Chair Garber: Yes. Conlffiissioner Keller, would you accept that?
4
5 Commissioner Keller: That would be acceptable to me if it is acceptable to the maker and
6 seconder.
7
8 Commissioner Lippert: It is acceptable to nle.
9
10 Comnussioner Holman: Yes.
11
12 Chair Garber: Okay. Commissioner Keller.
13
14 Commissioner Keller: I have a question for Mr. Dockter. Do you know how many years, based
15 on the 36 and 48 gallon box trees, it will take before the trees might have to be topped?
16
17 Mr. Dockter: At a foot a year, starting at 20 feet, 20 years.
18
19 Commissioner Keller: So 20 years. So I wish to observe that even though plain old telephone
20 system twisted pair technology has basically been around for 150 years cell phone technology
21 has gone through various generations in the last 20 years when it became widely available. It is
22 likely that the cell phone technology will change before the 20 years is up and therefore who
23 knows what the requirements will be 20 years from now when the antennas need to be replaced
24 for whatever cell phones exist at that point in time and whatever technology exists. Therefore it
25 is a complete wildcard what the height requirements will be, and what topping will require, and
26 the radiation blockages, and issues like that. So I think that is essentially an issue that we cannot
27 predict at this time.
28
29 I would like to thank the ARB for looking at this and their suggestions and comments. I would
30 like to thank the applicant and what I would like to refer to as the hearing requestors, and I
31 suggest we use that language instead of the weird language of non-technical appellant and that
32 we call them hearing requestors. I would like to thank the hearing requestors for working
33 cooperatively with this. I realize that there is a preference of some of putting it in the parking lot
34 that would have additional screening issues, and that is in some ways a taking of their parking
35 spaces because they do wish to expand at some point in the future. I understand that may be an
36 issue. So thank you very much to Staff and especially like to thank Amy French for her
37 wonderful finger puppets.
38
39 Ms. French: Thank you. My final conclusion is I wrote 32 feet from tree 10 because as I
40 understood the technical issue, that's where N is approximately.
41
42 MOTION PASSED (6-0-0-1, Commissioner Rosati absent)
43
44 Chair Garber: Commissioners, all in favor? (ayes) Opposed? The motion passes unanimously
45 with Conlffiissioners Keller, Holman, Garber, Tuma, Fineberg, and Lippert voting for and
46 Commissioner Rosati absent and no nays.
47
48 This item is closed. Thank you very much.
Page 29
EXCERPT OF PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MEETING OF JUNE 14, 2006
1 4243 Manuela Avenue [04PLN-00143]: Request by Cingular Wireless on behalf of
2 Aldersgate Methodist Church for a Conditional Use Pennit to allow the installation of
3 one telecommunications facility, comprised of a 45-foot tall tree-pole with six panel
4 antennas concealed within the top region of the pole and associated equipment cabinets.
5 Zone District: R-1 (20,000). Environmental Assessment: Exempt fonn the California
6 Environmental Quality Act per section 15301.
7
8 Ms. Clare Campbell. Planner: Yes. Good evening Commissioners. As a correction to
9 the item in the report packet there are a few inconsistent references in the report and in
10 the Record of Land Use that reflect the monopole and the tree-pole as the Staffs
11 recommendation. So to clarify this I would like to just restate the recommendation.
12 Staff s recommendation is that the Planning and Transportation Commission recommend
13 that the City Council uphold the Director of Planning and Community Environment's
14 2005 decision to approve a monopole design wireless communication facility.
15
16 The project before you tonight is for a new Cingular Wireless communication facility
1 7 located within the parking lot area of the existing church site. The Commission reviewed
18 this project last year on August 31 and at that meeting the issues that were raised by the
19 speakers primarily focused on the aesthetic qualities of the project. Based on these
20 concerns the Commission directed the project to the Architectural Review Board for
21 Design Review and continue the item.
22
23 On May 18, 2006 the Architectural Review Board discussed the proposed design options
24 for the new facility. The applicant provided four design options: a monopole, a pine tree
25 pole, a palm tree pole, and a light standard. The two options that were considered by the
26 ARB were the standard monopole and the mono-pine. The Board voted three to two in
27 favor of the mono-pine design.
28
29 Now with the feedback from the ARB the Commission can make a decision on which
30 design they prefer either Staffs recommendation for the monopole or the ARB's
31 preference for the tree-pole. Staff is not wholly opposed to the tree-pole but believes that
32 the more modest proposal is more appropriate in this location due to the existing trees
33 that are in that immediate area.
34
35 If the tree-pole design is the Commission's recommendation Staffwill modify the
36 conditions of approval accordingly to assure a quality project.
37
38 For additional background on the site this project site abuts Foothill Expressway, which
39 is a designated scenic route and for the most part has a special setback of 60 feet to help
40 preserve the scenic views from the road. In the immediate area of the project parcel there
41 is no special setback requirement. There are a total of nine R-1 lots that backup to
42 Foothill Expressway and that have the potential of building a 30-foot tall structure 20 feet
43 away from this scenic route. This project proposes a 70-foot setback from Foothill
Page 1
1 Expressway and in doing so minimally impacts the visual qualities of the route. Also, an
2 application was filed for another facility in 1996 and that application was denied for not
3 meeting the required findings. Over the ten years that have elapsed since that submittal
4 the telecommunications industry has improved both technologically and aesthetically.
5 Staff was unable to locate a copy of those plans that were submitted at that time but I feel
6 confident in saying that the project before you today is a more attractive project than
7 what was previously proposed.
8
9 Another difference in the decision-making between 1996 and now is that fhere is a more
10 general understanding and acceptance of the impacts and benefits of these types of
11 projects. This concludes Staffs report. Pamela Nobel, the applicant, is here tonight and
12 is ready to make a presentation for you. Thank you.
13
14 Chair Burt: Thank you. Does the Commission have any questions of Staff before
15 hearing from the applicant? Karen.
16
17 Vice-Chair Holman: Yes, an additional clarifying question. In the plans that we have the
18 front page indicates a monopole as I read this and then the third page from the back
19 indicates then the mono-pine. So there is an inconsistency within the plan drawings as
20 well it seem.
21
22 Ms. Campbell: That is right. These plans were the original plans that the Commission
23 saw last year and there are no new plans that have been submitted since that time. What
24 happened in the original conditions of approval is the plan that was submitted reflected
25 the tree-pole and in the conditions of approval it was modified to say that it had to be the
26 monopole. We had a previous submittal so I attached that to the front of the plans that
27 way you would have something to see as a reference of what it would look like.
28 Basically nothing else changes. The siting is exactly the same except the profile would
29 be different -the elevation would be different.
30
31 Chair Burt: Thank you, Clare. So at this time the applicant has up to 15 minutes to make
32 a presentation. Welcome.
33
34 Ms. Pamela Nobel, Applicant: Good evening Chairman Burt and Commissioners. My
35 name is Pamela Nobel. I am a consultant with NSA Wireless representing the applicant,
36 Cingular Wireless Services this evening.
37
38 The project before you this evening was heard by this Board last August as probably all
39 of you remember after it had been initially approved by both Administrative Planning and
40 for Design Review in July 2005. I guess as a result of one letter requesting a public
41 hearing that is how you saw it in August. At the Planning Commission hearing in August
42 from reading, I was not the person that was representing back then, but having reviewed
43 all of the comments and concerns basically it seemed that the major concern was the
44 aesthetics of the project. To that end I guess my understanding is that this body
45 continued the project over to Design Review to work those details out. That has
46 happened, we have had meetings with the Planner, responding to the neighborhood on the
Page 2
1 neighbors concerns about the aesthetics and came back to a Design Review meeting in
2 May and presented a number of options that we felt would blend well into the Foothill
3 Expressway and R -1 area that surrounded it.
4
5 We believe that the mono-pine fits in quite graciously with the existing landscaping of
6 the Foothill Expressway. We of course will do the monopole as the Staff ... so you have
7 two sets of drawings there where basically you can see the tree, you see the monopole
8 and that was what was presented as well to the Design Review. I guess as the Staff
9 reported the Design Review voted for the tree. I have here this evening, I know rather
10 than go over a lot of I think pretty much a number of the questions were answered in the
11 last hearing that was held in August. But if there are any questions from a technical
12 standpoint or from a health issue I have an RF engineer here this evening to answer any
13 questions that you may have. I also have someone representing from [Hammet and
14 Edison] that did a RF emissions analysis for the project. We have submitted alternative
15 site analysis, which I believe you reviewed at the last meeting. So basically I think we
16 have responded to the neighbors' concerns. I am hoping that is the case. I am here to
17 answer any questions that you might have to further make a judgment here.
18
19 Chair Burt: Thank you. Do Commissioners have any questions of the applicant at this
20 time? Okay, thank you very much and if we have more we will get back to you.
21
22 Before we hear from the two mernbers of the public perhaps it would be helpful if the
23 City Attorney would review the constraints upon the Commission of federal legislation
24 affecting siting of telecommunications poles.
25
26 Mr. Don Larkin, Senior Deputy City Attorney: As I believe the Commission is aware
27 any decision on whether or not to approve this project can be based only on land use and
28 planning considerations. Radio frequency emissions are not factors that can be
29 considered in denying or approving a wireless project under the Federal
30 Telecommunications Act.
31
32 Chair Burt: Thank you, Don. At this time we have two speakers from the public who
33 can speak up to five minutes each. Our first speaker is Vic Nelson to be followed by
34 Jackie Berman. Welcome.
35
36 Mr. Vic Nelson, Palo Alto: I live on the comer at Moana Court. You can see the
37 proposed project. I can't get wireless cell receiving in my house. I have to go outside to
38 get it. It has been that way for a long time, since 1990 when I got my first cell phone. I
39 have lived there for 30 years.
40
41 In 2004 I had my house remodeled for several hundred thousand dollars. The contractors
42 came in there plus my contractor had to go out in the middle of Moana Court to carry on
43 conversations on their cell phones.
44
45 So what I am doing here tonight is I am asking that you guys get a pole of some kind
46 somewhere so that everybody will approve it. I don't care who it is. I am with Verizon
Page 3
1 right now. I just want a pole so I can use my cell phone. I also have a managing business
2 of commercial property and I need that cell phone. I have to leave a message, call me on
3 my land line, leave me a message and if you have to leave me a message you know I am
4 not home so I am probably on my cell phone and you can get me because I will be out
5 where I can get a signal. I got a fax machine. I have an email there, everything. I think
6 this is terrible that we don't have a pole there.
7
8 Now, my neighbor over here, Jackie, is going to disagree. Well, I don't disagree with
9 Jackie. They come up Miranda and they look right where that project is. I come out
10 Moana and I am going down Miranda I am not going to pay any attention to that pole.
11 You can put that pole anywhere I'll never look at it. That's all I have to say.
12
13 Chair Burt: Thank you. Jackie Berman. I don't have any other speaker cards.
14
15 Ms. Jackie Berman, Palo Alto: We do have a very wonderful neighborhood and good
16 friendly relations. Vic has been a loyal servant of Palo Alto as a fireman for many years
17 in the service of our city. We appreciate that.
18
19 I am here on behalf of the neighbors who don't want to look at any old thing that you
20 want to put up, quoting Vic. We oppose it because one, it will be a visual intrusion in our
21 neighborhood and along the Foothill Expressway which is a designated scenic route. In
22 your material I thought it was interesting that in the AT&T papers AT&T calls the
23 Foothill Expressway a freeway. So it is no longer a designated scenic route as far as
24 AT&T is concerned. There have been comments that it will be fully screened by existing
25 trees but the ARB minutes state clearly that the tower must be ten feet higher than the
26 existing trees or the tower won't work. So it won't be screened by existing trees. Also,
27 according to the City Arborist in the ARB minutes the trees are in very bad shape and are
28 going to die soon. So they are going to plant some little ones to take over when these die.
29 So we don't think it will be very effective in terms of screening.
30
31 Some people have said they can't see the tower and some people say they don't care what
32 it looks like but I am here to tell you that we can see it and some of us do care. We are
33 not against cell phones. We are not against antennas. We are not against technology.
34 We are not complaining about the RF. We just think that it could and should be located
35 not in an R-1 area. When you start locating cell towers in R-l areas you are setting a
36 policy for the city and you are going to have to make decisions on a case-by-case basis
37 and what are your criteria going to be?
38
39 We think it can and should be located in the Stanford Industrial Park to the north of
40 Arastradero. Now, the claims in the material you have that they can't
41 consider sites north of Arastradero because, "the applicant is proposing a separate
42 telecommunications site inside the Hillview-Arastradero triangle at Roche Labs." But no
43 one has even asked them what is being planned at that site and why it precludes an
44 antenna somewhere in the same industrial park area where you wouldn't be setting a
45 precedent for R-l. Now, the proposed pole that the Staff continues to recommend in
Page 4
1 spite of the ARB recommendation for a mono-pine the Staff goes back to the ugly
2 smokestack-like monopole. We think that is very ugly.
3
4 I have visited the two existing antennas in R -1 zones in the city. One is totally and I
5 might say nicely concealed in the huge cross on the Congregational Church at
6 Embarcadero and Louis Road. The other is a faux pine tree at the end of a very long
7 driveway at the back ~f the Achieve School on Middlefield just north of Charleston. The
8 faux pine is next to the Mitchell Park fence among other tall pine trees. It looks realistic
9 from Middlefield and it is not contiguous to any residential area. The ARB has
10 recommended the faux pine, mono-pine, for the Aldersgate site but the Staff has rejected
11 this and had opted for the industrial-looking monopole. The reason that I could divine
12 from the material is that they think that the branches of the real trees could interfere with
13 the branches of the faux pine. The minutes from the ARB meeting indicate that that
14 argument was rejected by the City Arborist. He said it wouldn't interfere.
15
16 As I have stated we do not want any antenna on this R-l site but if there is to be an
17 antenna forced on us we should be given the same consideration as the other R-l
18 neighborhoods and have as much concealment as possible. We should have just as bushy
19 and realistic a faux pine as the one on Middlefield that borders Mitchell Park. Thank
20 you.
21
22 Chair Burt: Thank you. At this time we will return to the Commission for questions of
23 Staff. Commissioners, who would like to go first? All right, I have a question. Would
24 Staff just share a little bit more of their thinking on why they have the preference for the
25 monopole versus the mono-pine?
26
27 Ms. Campbell: In that immediate area for the location of the pole there are a lot of
28 existing mature trees. When Dave and I were out there looking at the site we felt that the
29 standard monopole would be a better fit just because when you do the construction of the
,30 pole and the new branches won't conflict with the existing natural branches of the trees.
31 In discussions at the ARB Dave did mention that we could carefully review how they do
32 the installation. The applicant is more than willing to work with us on this project to
33 modify the lengths of the limbs of the tree-pole to try to get the best fit for something that
34 will go in there. So that was the general logic behind why we were going with the
35 monopole originally ..
36
37 Chair Burt: Have you had comments from other neighbors on their aesthetic
38 preferences?
39
40 Ms. Campbell: Other than the tree? It has really basically been about the tree. There
41 was a community meeting that the applicant held and they showed the tree-pole at that
42 community. I wasn't there for that meeting but it seemed to be something that they
43 seemed to be more agreeable with. Staff is not opposed to a tree-pole. I just want to
44 reiterate that. The initial recommendation was for a monopole because we thought it
45 would be a better fit for that site.
46
Page 5
1 Ms. Amy French, Current Planning Manager: I was also at the ARB meeting and heard
2 their debate and views on it. We are certainly in support and concur with the ARB as
3 well for the reasons they mentioned. I believe you have the minutes. Certainly if the
4 neighbors are more favorable or seeing the tree as the more protective of their views then
5 we are in support of that as well.
6
7 Chair Burt: I just want to be clear because we only had two neighbors speak tonight, one
8 who really wasn't speaking on the aesthetics. Out of the other neighbor comments that
9 you have received either last year or more recently I think that I understood Clare to be
10 saying that the neighbors seem to be favoring the mono-pine.
11
12 Ms. Campbell: The comments primarily were not in favor of anything but the neighbors
13 were made aware of the mono-pine design by the applicant's community meeting. So
14 what I perceive from the feedback is from the original Staff recommendation for the
15 monopole the reaction was they would prefer the mono-pine versus the monopole.
16
17 Chair Burt: Karen.
18
19 Vice-Chair Holman: The handout that was delivered by Mr. Emslie and prepared by Ms.
20 Berman it says that she is here on behalf of neighbors who oppose the Staff
21 recommendation to construct a 45-foot monopole. I don't know how many neighbors
22 that is. Public comment isn't closed I guess she could comment. It says on behalf of her
23 neighbors.
24
25 Chair Burt: I had one other question. Ms. Berman raised a question as to why the pole
26 could not be located in the Research Park and that evidently the applicant had alluded to
27 something to do with an upcoming pole near the Roche facility.
28
29 Ms. Campbell: Right. The Roche facility had an application in file approximately the
30 same tinle this came through. That was approved and it is probably up and running for
31 some time already. So they already have a site in place for this particular carrier. So I
32 think to answer the question that particular site covers a certain range and it doesn't cover
33 far enough to reach this particular site where we are at Manuela.
34
35 Chair Burt: Does that also nlean that other sites on the southwestern edge of the
36 Research Park are not viable sites to provide the range that is necessary?
37
38 Ms. Campbell: Let me have the applicant speak to that.
39
40 Mr. James , RF Engineer: I am the RF engineer working on this project. In
41 response to the question as to why we can't go further north that would bring us close to
42 other wireless towers and would not provide us with the coverage that we are looking for
43 further south on Foothill Expressway. That is the primary reason -we would not achieve
44 our coverage objective.
45
Page 6
1 Chair Burt: So this neighborhood immediately surrounding the pole might be covered
2 but the intention of this pole is basically to cover a certain radius from the pole and
3 further south would not be covered by a pole at the edge of the Research Park.
4
5 RF Engineer: That is correct. It would not connect with the cell site further to the south
6 on Foothill Expressway.
7
8 Chair Burt: Thank you. Lee.
9
10 Commissioner Lippert: I just wanted to hear from the City Arborist in terms of being
11 able to install this and preserve the existing trees and whether the existing trees are going
12 to be stressed and whether they will need to be replanted.
13
14 Commissioner Garber: I understand we also need to be careful about asking about
15 expertise and bird habitat.
16
17 Mr. Dave Dockter, City Arborist: To respond to Commissioner Lippert's question, the
18 Monterey pine trees are in various stages of health. I made a statement in the ARB
19 meeting that they are probably in the same status they will be there for another 15 years.
20 There may be a tree here and there that does suffer mortality from beetles or other things.
21 We have provided for an arborist assessment and replanting of trees if that does occur
22 whether it is a faux pine or a monopole. So either way I believe it is conditions 14
23 through 19, well several conditions apply to either one. The fate of the pines I think is
24 not something that we can really determine with certainty at this point but we have
25 provided for the replacement if there is one or if there are ten trees then there is provision
26 for replacement.
27
28 Chair Burt: Dave, about how many pines in the vicinity of the 30 to 35-foot height level
29 are nearby to this proposed tower?
30
31 Mr. Dockter: I don't have the number of trees.
32
33 Chair Burt: Just a ballpark.
34
35 Mr. Dockter: The area for the pole is surrounded by Monterey pines and beyond that
36 there is another layer of coast live oaks that is the first barrier that one would see going
37 northbound on Foothill Expressway.
38
39 Chair Burt: Karen.
40
41 Vice-Chair Holman: The ordinance says and I just want clarification on this if I could
42 please, Dave. The ordinance under the conditions of approval says replacement trees,
43 this is presuming some will die off, that replacement trees shall be one of the following:
44 [corcus] species, canary island pine, coast redwood or other approved species. Just for
45 clarity for my own mind, I don't know how invasive the beetle is it is attacks the pine and
Page 7
1 you replace pines in there are those pines going to be subject to the same beetle
2 infestation? I trust that the tree pine would not be subject to the infestation.
3
4 Mr. Dockter: The latter is correct. Of the pine trees selected for replacement canary
5 island pine is significantly more resistant to the beetle attack than these Monterey pines.
6 Any new pine also would be required to be replaced with a watering system to it so the
7 new pines would benefit from the irrigation to support that new pine. So that is another
8 resistor against the beetle too.
9
10 Commissioner Lippert: Does that mean that the pine pole is subject to electronic bugs?
11
12 Mr. Dockter: No comment.
13
14 Chair Burt: Dave, I just want to make sure I grasp the essence of what you are saying.
15 So is it correct that while some of those pines may succumb to disease over the next 15
16 years you don't anticipate a wholesale loss of that grove of pines and a wholesale loss of
17 the screening that they provide?
18
19 Mr. Dockter: I would not expect that because if we have an annual report from an
20 arborist assessment which we have provided for that would immediately catch if there
21 were an epidemic of one tree after another falling to the beetle. There are treatments that
22 can be applied to those trees. If the Commission were to condition the project to say even
23 add extra water to the existing pines that could extend the life and survivability of the
24 existing pines. If you added that condition that would be probably appropriate. That
25 could be done very cheaply with a soaker hose or that type of thing.
26
27 Chair Burt: Thank you. Commissioners, any discussion or should we go to a motion?
28
29 MOTION
30
31 Commissioner Bialson: I would be happy to go to a motion because I feel the ARB
32 covered this ground very completely and they also couldn't control themselves and had
33 some jokes in there too. So I feel that the matter has been discussed and I would like to
34 move the recommendation that the Director of Planning and Community Environment's
35 decision to allow a conditional use permit be forwarded with the change that instead of a
36 monopole we would have the tree-pole.
37
38 SECOND
39
40 Commissioner Lippert: I'll second that.
41
42 Commissioner Bialson: I have seen these tree-poles and they need to be pointed out to
43 me when they are within an area that has regular trees. The mind sort of fools itself as it
44 looks at a group of trees and whether they are real or not assumes that they are all real. I
45 think that we are going to be benefiting this area. The conditions already on the approval
46 I think are solid ones. I don't think saving the trees that are there is necessarily
Page 8
1 something that we should impose. I think they have a useful life if one wants to look at it
2 that way and some of them are probably reaching the end of those lives. I would like to
3 see different types of trees in there. I think aesthetically that would look better and
4 having that be the obligation of the applicant makes it even more comfortable for myself
5 and I am sure the City and the neighbors. So I would expect that in four or five years
6 time the site will look better than it does today.
7
8 As to having a precedent with regard to an R -1 area I think we are seeing this as an
9 unusual location and one that is necessary. I think that there are places in Palo Alto
10 where we have much like the first speaker mentioned rather poor coverage. Since I stand
11 out in the middle of my street to get any coverage I know of exactly what he speaks.
12 People are asking for these things and I think they are necessary.
13
14 Chair Burt: Would the seconder like to speak?
15
16 Commissioner Lippert: Well, the only reason I seconded actually is because I had made
17 the original motion to refer this to the Architectural Review Board. They have done their
18 work in terms of reviewing this and made their recommendation and I would like to
19 support their recommendation in terms of going forward to Council and also the tree
20 solution I think is the most appropriate solution. They are the arbiters of quality and
21 character in our community and therefore I believe that their recommendation here is
22 important and should be heard by Council.
23
24 I just wanted to say I want to second Annette's comments with regard to flushing out and
25 looking at the R-l regulations and whether we allow these further in the future. I know
26 that Staff is in the process of creating regulations for cell towers, are you not? So with all
27 speed I hope you will come up with your guidelines for that.
28
29 Chair Burt: Phyllis.
30
31 Commissioner Cassel: Annette, would you consider adding the condition to add watering
32 to the existing trees?
33
34 Commissioner Bialson: I would not because as I expressed before I am looking forward
35 to some of those trees that are there reaching the point where they would be necessary to
36 be removed and be replaced by the various trees that Dave has indicated.
37
38 Commissioner Cassel: Okay. I will support the motion anyway. There are a couple of
39 things we should comment about. One is the single-family issue. Even though we have
40 some various faux trees and poles in areas that are comnlercial that doesn't mean that
41 they are necessarily very far from residential spaces. They are often very close but it
42 somehow seems to calm people down just because they are in the commercial space. The
43 situation is the same. They need to be buffered or concealed or placed in a way in which
44 they are not too obvious. The distances are as appropriate by our existing laws that we
45 must be governed by. This particular tower is set way back from the road. You would
46 really have to be looking for it if you were driving down Foothill. It is quite some
Page 9
1 distance from any of the other residential areas and there is a considerable amount of
2 buffering for trees in that area. Thank you.
3
4 Chair Burt: Dan.
5
6 Commissioner Garber: I will be supporting the motion. I was simply going to remind
7 the Commission that at the previous hearing in August we had had sonle thorough
8 investigation conversation/discussion on alternative sites. At that time we had become
9 satisfied with the site that was being proposed.
10
11 Chair Burt: Karen.
12
13 Vice-Chair Holman: I am also going to be supporting the motion. I have one question if
14 I might I don't know if it is for Planning Staff or the City Arborist. Other projects that
15 come along similar to this one of the conditions is, as number nine is here, for the first ten
16 years of the life of the project the following tree monitoring project will be in effect or
17 should be implemented. Why just the first ten years? This pole could be there for say 30
18 years. Why just the first ten years?
19
20 Ms. Campbell: I think at the very end of that condition there is an item here that says that
21 after these ten years have passed then we make a decision on whether or not there needs
22 to be continued monitoring on this site. Then if so we would draft a new set of
23 conditions for the site if we had to do that.
24
25 Vice-Chair Holman: Okay. Thank you for that clarification. Now if I could and this is
26 going to sound like wordsmithing but to me it is kind of important and then I might ask
27 the maker of the motion ifit is okay. It probably doesn't need to be in the motion. Nine-
28 D, it is a nit but again it may make a difference depending on who is reading it. For trees
29 determined to be in poor condition and then you go down and it says a replacement tree
30 shall be installed. It doesn't sound like on a one-for-one basis and I am just wondering if
31 that was the intention, a one-for-one basis.
32
33 Ms. Campbell: It would be a one-to-one basis.
34
35 Vice-Chair Holman: It doesn't need to be a part of the motion but maybe a little
36 clarification of that language might be helpful. I am happy to support the motion and
37 also concur with other Commissioners comments about the R-l issues.
38
39 AMENDMENT
40
41 Chair Burt: I also support the motion but I agree with Commissioner Cassel regarding
42 the preference for providing irrigation. I think it is important that we attempt to preserve
43 a full canopy that exists there. We heard the City Arborist indicate that a fairly low cost
44 irrigation will help preserve the vitality of these existing trees and they consequently fend
45 off disease. So that is I think just a constructive approach. I think it is concurrent with
46 what we heard would be the preference or the recommendation of the City Arborist as
Page 10
1 well as the one member of the public who spoke. So it would be an amendment to the
2 motion if I have a seconder.
3
4 SECOND
5
6 Commissioner Cassel: I'll second it.
7
8 Chair Burt: Okay, do other Commissioners wish to speak to the amendment or to the
9 motion?
10
11 Commissioner Bialson: I would like to speak to the amendment.
12
13 Chair Burt: Okay.
14
15 Commissioner Bialson: The reason that I would look for a gradual change or turnover in
16 those trees is that I think that you will have them at various states of maturation and it
17 would be less likely that all of those trees that seem to have been planted all at same time
18 will all reach their end point at the same time and then you will not have anything there.
19 So if you allow trees to naturally pass on to greater things and replace those as they come
20 up you will have differing ages of trees and perhaps differing species which I think
21 allows for a canopy to be preserved rather than trying to freeze in place the canopy that
22 now exists. Because there is no provision for putting additional trees there now. So what
23 you would hope for is that you would be able to start replacing those trees that die off and
24 able to have a canopy that has different ages and will expire at different rates of time.
25
26 AMENDMENT PASSED (5-1-0-1, Commissioner Bialson voted no with Commissioner
27 Sandas absent)
28
29 Chair Burt: Okay. So let's call the motion. All those in favor say aye. (ayes) This is
30 the amendment. So the amendment passes five to one with Commissioners Cassel,
31 Garber, Lippert, Holman and Burt in favor and Commissioner Bialson voting nay.
32
33 MOTION PASSED (6-0-0-1, Commissioner Sandas absent)
34
35 So back to the primary motion. Any other discussion? All those in favor? (ayes) That
36 passes unanimously with Commissioner Sandas absent.
37
38 So I think that concludes this item. Thank you all very much for coming. We look
39 forward to better reception and hopefully an aesthetically acceptable environment. Thank
40 you for coming and participating.
41
Page 11
ARBOR RESOURCES. ATTACHMENT F
profes510nal consulting arborlsts and tree care
A TREE INVENTORY AND REVIEW OF THE
THE AT&T MOBILITY CELLULAR EQUIPMENT
PROPOSED FOR INSTALLATION AT
4243 MANUELA AVENUE
(ALDERSGATE METHODIST CHURCH)
PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA
SITE NAME: Aldersgate Methodist Church
SITE NUMBER: CN3246
Prepared for:
MSA Architecture & Planning, Inc.
301 8th Street, Suite 250
San Francisco, CA 94 ~ 03
Prepared by:
David L. Babby
Registered Consulting Arborist #399
Board-Certified Master Arborist #WE-4001 B
April 7, 2009
Received
APR 1 42009
&Departme.nt of Planning
Community Environment
.t:> .0. box 25295, san mateo. california 94402 II email: arborresources@comc3st.net
t:>hone~ 650.654.335 I it fax: 650.240.0777 !I licensed contractor #79G763
· David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist April 7, 2009
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION TITLE PAGE
1.0 INTRODUCTION •••..••••••.•••...•••••.•.••••••••••...••••••••..•••••••.•• 1
2.0 TREE COUNT AND COMPOSITION .................................. 2
3.0 REG~ATED TREES •••••..••••••••••••.•••••.•••.••.••••••.••••••.•.••••• 3
4.0 SUITABILITY FOR TREE PRESERVATION .......................... 4
5.0 REVIEW OF POTENTIAL TREE DISPOSITION •.•••••.... ~ ••••••• 5
6 .. 0 TREE PROTECTION GUIDELINES .................................... 6
6.1 Design and Installation Guidelines .................................. ... 6
6.2 Protection Measures before and during Construction ............... 8
7.0 ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS ................... 11
EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT TITLE
A TREE INVENTORY TABLE
B SITE MAP
C PHOTOGRAPHS (includes photo index)
D FENCING SIGN TEMPLATE
1
David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist April 7, 2009
1.0 INTRODUCTION
AT&T Mobility' is planning to install cellular equipmerit at the Aldersgate Methodist
Church, 4243 Manuela Avenue, Palo Alto. I have been retained by MSA Architecture &
Planning, Inc. to [1] review the preliminary design; [2] inventory and evaluate trees located
in close proximity to the proposed equipment, utility locations, parking lot, driveway, and
between Foothill Expressway from the equipment area; and [3] provide a tree protection
plan for enabling a reasonable assurance of survival for trees being retained. In doing so,
specific tasks performed are as follows (intended to comply with those requirements set
forth in the Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 8.10.030):
• Identify all trees that have trunks greater than four iriches in diameter (measured at
12 inches above grade) and are located either on-site or on neighboring properties if
they are exposed to potential impacts.
• Measure their trunk diameters at approximately 54 inches above grade or as
appropriate to obtain the most representative sample of trunk size; all diameters are
rounded to the nearest one-half of an inch. Trees with more than one trunk ..
diameter listed have multiple trunks.
• Estimate tree heights and canopy spreads.
• Ascertain each tree's physiological health and structural integrity.
• Identify each tree's overall condition (e.g. good, fair, poor or dead).
• Rate each tree's suitability for preservation (e.g. high, moderate or low).
• Assign numbers to each inventoried tree, and plot these numbers on the map
presented in Exhibit B; the map is copy of a Site Plan (Sheet 1), dated 3/26/09, by
MSA Architecture & Planning, Inc.
• Affix metal tags with corresponding numbers to accessible tree trunks on the
subject site (the tags are rOWld aluminum with engraved numbers -they should not /
be confused with the rectangular tags found on most trees).
• Obtain photographs of each tree; these can be viewed in Exhibit C.
• Review the current set of plans.
4243 Manuela Avenue, Palo Alto; Site No. CN3246
MSA Architecture & Planning, Inc.
Page 1 qj'll
David L. Bobby, Registered Consulting Arborist April 7, 2009
• Identify whether any of the trees are defined as "regulated" by the City of Palo Alto
Municipal Code; information regarding "regulated" trees can be viewed on page
xiii of the City's Tree Technical Manual. 1
• Provide general guidelines to help avoid or mitigate anticipated impacts to trees
that will be retained (i.e. a ''tree protection plan"), to include site inspections
required by the City of Palo Alto.
2.0. TREE COUNT AND COMPOSITION
Seventy-three (73) trees of four various species were inventoried for this report. They are
.sequentially numbered as 1 thru 73, and the following table identifies their names, nwnbers
and percentages:
%OF
NAME TREE NUMBER(S) COUNT TOTAL
Canary Island Pine 10,11,53,61,63-73 15 21%
Canary Island Date Palm 60 1 1%
Coast Live Oak 7-9, 20-27, 37 .. 39, 41 f 45-25 34% 50,56,58,59,62
Monterey Pine 1-6, 12-19,2~36,40,42-32 44% 44,51,52,54,55,57
Total 73 100%
As indicated in the above table, the site is populated primarily by Monterey pines, coast
live oaks, and Canary Island pines.
Specific information regarding each tree is presented within the Tree Inventory Table in
Exhibit A. The trees' approximate locations can be viewed on the map in Exhibit B.
1 The T,ree Technical Manual can be viewed at the following website address:
www.cityofpaloalto.orglcivicalfilebanklblobdloadasp? BlobID=6436.
4143 Manuela Avenue, Palo Alto; Site No. CN3246
MSA Architecture & Planning, Inc.
Page 2 of 11
David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist April 7, 2009·
Two trees, #6 and 20, have trunks situated entirely or partially on the neighboring
southern property (APN 175~03~29) and are exposed to potential canopy and/or root loss
during construction.
I found 15 trees to be seemingly missing from the Site Plan; they include #1, 3, 5, 12, 13,
20, 47-49, 53, 55, 68 and 69. Note that their locations shown on the map in Exhibit B
(trunk: indicated by a blue dot) are only approximate and should not be construed as being
surveyed or necessarily accurate. Also, note that trees shown on the plans but not assigned
nutTlbers either do not exist or have trunk: diameters less than four inches at 12 inches high.
3.0 REGULATED TREES
The City of Palo Alto regulates specific types of trees on public and private property for
the purpose of avoiding their removal or disfigurement without ftrst being reviewed and
pennitted by the City's Planning or Public Works Departments. Three categories within
the status of regulated trees include protected trees (pAMC 8.10), street trees (pAMe
8.04.020), and designated trees (additional information can be viewed on pages xiii and
xiv of the City's Tree Technical Manual).
For this project, 20 trees are defmed as protected trees; they include trees #9, 20, 21,23-
27, 37-39, 41, 46, 47, 49, 50, 56, 58, 59 and 62. Each is a coast live oak with a tnmk
diameter (at 54 inches above grade) larger than 11.5 inches.
None of the trees are regarded as street trees (Le. none are situated within the public right-
of-way).
The designated tree category can be enacted by the City and applied to any specific tree
associated with' a proposed development project. In the event the City qualiftes a speciftc
tree to this category, it may become provisioned to be retained.
4243 Manuela Avenue. Palo Alto: Site No. CN3246
MSA Architecture & Planning, Inc.
Pa!le 301'1 j
David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist April 7, 2009
4.0 SUITABILITY FOR TREE PRESERVATION"
Each tree has been assigned a "high," "moderate" or "low" suitability for preservation
rating as a IIlethod for cumulatively measuring and considering their physiological health,
structural integrity, location, size and species. A description of these ratings with the
assjgned tree numbers are presented below; note that the "high" category comprises 27
trees, the "moderate" category 23 trees, and the "low" category also 23 trees.
High: These trees have a' high potential of providing long-term contribution to the site,
appear in good health, contain seemingly stable structures, and/or are classified as a
"protected tree."
• Applies to #10, 11, 20·25, 27, 37-39, 41, 45-47, 49, 50, 53, 56, 58, 59, 62, 63, 67,
71 and 73.
Moderate: These trees contribute to the site but not at seemingly significant levels. Their
longevity and contribution is less than those of high suitability, and more frequent care is
needed during their remaining life span.
• Applies to #1,·2, 7-9, 16-18,26,30,32,35,40,44,51,57,60,64-66,68, 70 and 72.
Low: These trees are predisposed to irreparable health problems and/or structural defects
that are expected to worsen regardless of measures employed (i.e. beyond recovery). In
several cases, they are already dead or dying.
• Applies to #3-6,12-15,19,28,29,31,33,34,36,42,43,48,52,54,55, 6t' and 69.
4243 Manuela Avenue, Palo Alto: Site No. CN3246
MSA Architecture & Planning. Inc.
Page 401'1 j
David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist April j. 2009
5.0 REVIEW OF POTENTIAL TREE DISPOSITION
Implementation of the proposed design is not expected to impact existing· trees that Ii
function as a screening element and buffer between Foothill Expressway and the proposed V'
equipment area. The anticipated impacts would occur along the southern section of the
site, were there are numerous Monterey pines (namely #4, 5 and 12-16) that would be
exposed to significant root loss if the proposed routes of the electrical and telco lines are
installed via open trenching; note that Monterey pines are very intolerant of root loss and
can be expected to decline and possibly die shortly following significant root
10ss/disturbBalce.
To avoid subjecting the adjacent pines to their likely demise and instability (or in some
instances, hasten a tree's already declining condition), the proposed electrical and telco
lines will require being dIrectionally-bored (i.e. twmeled) by at least four feet below
existing grade, and the access pits Bald any above-grotmd infrastructure (e.g. splice boxes,
meters and vaults) should be established beyond the trees' canopies (except possibly at the
ele~trical pole beneath tree #3's canopy).
If open trenching is desired in most or all areas, and the exposed pines are not expected to
be significantly impacted, the proposed routes require modification (e.g. to the south side
of the exposed trees). However, to accurately determine that the route can avoid these
significant impacts, it will be essential that the specific route be staked on-site and verified.
Construction of the proposed eqUipment area may severely impact the already significantly
declining trees #18 and 19 (both Monterey pines, 8.5 and 17 inches, respectively). When
considering their current declining condition combined with their poor tolerance of root
disturbance, their loss may be an inevitable result of the project.
4243 Manuela Avenue, Palo Alto: Site No. CN3246
MSA Architecture & Planning, Inc.
Page 5 of11
David L. Bobby, Registered Consulting Arborist April 7, 2009
6.0 TREE PROTECTION GUIDELINES
Recommendations presented within this section are intended to serve as guidelines for
achieving the viable mitigation and protection of retained trees, and must be carefully
followed and incorporated into the project plans to achiev~ a reasonable assurance of their
survival. Note that they are subject to revision upon reviewing the full, revised set of
project plans, and I should be consulted if any cannot be feasibly implemented.
6.1 Design and Installation Guidelines
1. For ibis project, the minimum Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) for any given tree should
be regarded as the section of unpaved area that is a radial distance from the trunk of
10 times its diameter (e.g. a tree with a 12-inch trunk diameter would have a TPZ of
10 feet in all directions from its trunk); for trees with mUltiple trunks, the largest
diameter should be used for determining the TPZ (all distances should be interpreted
from a trunk's closest edge). The TPZ is the area where all grading (soil cuts,
overcut, fill and fmish-grading), trenching and soil scraping shall be avoided. In
areas where this is not feasible, the impacts should be reviewed by the project
arborist for determining whether an alternative TPZ can potentially support a tree's
longevity and stability.
2. Recommendations presented in the previous section of this report should be
considered and followed regarding the proposed routes and installation method( s).
3. If the lines are to be directionally .. bored, I recommend the tunnel is at least four feet
below existing grade, the ground above the tunnel( s) remains undisturbed, and the
access pits and any above-ground infrastructure (e.g. splice boxes, meters and vaults)
established beyond the trees' canopies, except possibly at the electrical pole beneath
tree #3' s canopy.
2 The "project arborist" refers to me or another individual that is both certified by the International Society of
Arboriculture (ISA) and is a member of the American Society of Consulting Arborists (ASCAj.
4243 Manuela Avenuet Palo Alto; Site No. CN3246 Page 6 of 11
MSA Architecture & Planning, Inc.
David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist April 7, 2009
4. Any approved digging required within a tree's TPZ shall be manually performed with
great care under the supervision of the project arborist. Roots encountered with
diameters of two inches and greater· should be retained and not damaged during the
process. Note any approved trench should not require overcut.
5. The existing drainage· pattern must not be modified in a manner than directs the flow
of water towards an existing oak tree. Additionally, the drainage design should not
require trenching within a TPZ.
6. All existing, unused lines or pipes within a TPZ shall be abandoned and cut off at
existing soil grade (rather than being dug up and causing subsequent root damage).
7. Pursuant to City Ordinance, a copy of this report shall be incorporated into the final
set of project plans; titled Sheets T -1, T -2, etc. (Tree Protection Instructions); and .
referenced on all site-related plans. Also, refer to the following website:
www.city.palo-alto.ca.usldeptslplnlplanningJorms.asp for additional forms required
bytbe City.
8. Any future plantings should conform to the following additional guidelines:
a. Plant material installed within a TPZ should be avoided or highly minimized to
avoid conflicts with tree roots and trunks. Note plant material should be
established no closer than 48 to 60 inches from the bases of the trunks.
b. Plant material installed beneath the oak canopies should be drought-tolerant,
limited in amount, and planted at least 48 inches from their trunks. A source
for identifying suitable drought-tolerant plant material is as follows:
www.californiaoaks.orglExtAssets/CompatiblePlantsUnder&AroundOaks.pdf.
c. Irrigation can, overtime, adversely impact the oak trees and should be avoided.
Irrigation for any new plant material beneath their canopies should be low-
volume, applied irregularly (such as only once or twice per week), and
temporary (such as no more than two to three years). Irrigation should not
strike the trunks of the pines.
d. In the event trenches for irrigation and/or lighting are required within a TPZ ..
4243 Manuela Avenue. Palo Alto; Site No. CN3246
MSA Architecture & Planning. Inc.
Page 701'11
David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist April 7, 2009
they shall be installed in a radial direction to the trees' trunks. If this is not
. possible, the work may need to be performed using a pneumatic air device
(such as an Air-Spade®) to avoid wmecessary root damage.
e. StQnes and new fencing should be placed no closer than least two feet from a
tree's trunk. Additionally, mulch should not be placed against the trunks.
f. Tilling beneath canopies should be avoided, including for weed control.
g. Bender board or other edging material proposed beneath the canopies should be
established on top of existing soil grade (such as by using vertical stakes).
6.2 Protection Measures before and during Construction
9. Prior to the arrival of heavy equipment, site clearing and construction, an on-site, pre-
construction meeting shall be held between the project arborist and contractor (an
additional meeting may be necessary prior to construction). The intent is to review
work procedures, protection fencing locations, placement of drilling equipment for
the tower, trees being removed, procedures for digging beneath or near TPZs, access
pit locations, limits of grading, staging area( s), route of access, root zone buffer( s),
equipment washout pits, pruning (if necessary), supplemental watering, future
plantings, and any other required protection measures. This meeting should be
conducted a least two full weeks prior to construction, and the equipment area and
limits of grading should be staked prior to the meeting.
10. Tree protective fencing shall be installed prior to any construction activity for the
purpose of restricting access, dumping, storing and cleaning into the TPZs. It shall
be comprised of five-to six-foot high chain link mounted on eight-foot tall, two-inch
diameter steel posts that are driven 24 inches into the ground and established no
farther than 10 feet apart. Where the fencing must be established on existing
pavement, panels (reserved for the pavement sections) can be erected using metal
stands or concrete blocks. All fencing must be maintained throughout construction,
and at no time shall it be opened or relocated without direct authorization from the
arborist. Note that the specific location of fencing will depend upon which trees
remain and the method of utility installation.
4243 Manuela Avenue, Palo Alto; Site No. CN3246
MSA Architecture & Planning, Inc.
Page8qf'11
David L. BabbY, Registered Consulting Arbori$t April 7, 2009
11. Unless otherwise approved, all construction activities must be conducted beyond the
designated-fenced areas (even after fencing is removed), and beyond the unpaved
areas beneath tree canopies, to include, but not limited to, the following: grading,
stripping of topsoil, trenching, equipment cleaning, stockpiling/dumping of materials,
. and equipment/vehicle operation and parking. Also, tree trunks shall not be used as
winch supports or for moving/lifting heavy loads.
12. Tree protection warning signs must be prominently displayed on each fence side
facing construction activities, and ·be of a minimum 8-~ by 11 inches in size. See
Exhibit D for a template. (dated 7/21/07) derived from the City's following website
address: www.city.palo-alto.ca.uslcivicalfilebanklblobdload. asp? BlobID= 2716.
13. Prior to the City issuing a demolition permit, the project arborist is required to
prepare a letter verifying tree fencing is correctly established.
14. The project arOOrist must be retained to regularly inspect the project site as outlined
on page 2-14 of the Tree Technical Manual (Section 2.30 Inspection Schedule).
Inspections shall occur once per month (minimum) and continue through final
inspection. A written summary of pertinent observations and recommendations shall
coincide with each inspection, and a copy emailed to the City's Planning Arborist.
Pertinent measures to promote the longeVity and vigor of retained trees beyond the
development period shall also be provided at the end of the project.
15. I recommend the drill rig used for installing the pole is set on existing pavement, as
opposed to operating on and compacting exposed soil beneath tree #17's canopy.
16. Prior to construction, if requested by the project arborist, a four-to five-inch layer of
coarse wood chips (v..-to %-inches in size) from a local tree service company may be
required to be manually spread on unpaved soil beneath ~e canopies of trees in close
proximity to the electrical and telco routes, as well as the equipment area.
4243 Manuela Avenue, Palo Alto: Site No. CN3246
MSA Architecture & Planning, Inc.
Page 9 QlIl
David L. Bobby, Registered Consulting Arborist April 7. 2009
17. The project arborist shall be retained to monitor development activities authorized
within a TPZ. Any digging or trenching within a TPZ shall be manually perfonned
(i.e. through hand-digging) without using heavy equipment or tractors.. For
trenching, roots exposed with diameters of two inches and greater should remain
intact and not be damaged (if necessary, tunneled beneath).
18. Recommendations that are presented within Section 6.1 of this report and pertain to
actual construction should also be followed.
19. Throughout construction during the. months of May thru October (or as deemed
necessary), supplemental water shall be supplied to the retained trees in close
proximity to the proposed features. The methodology, frequency and amounts shall
be prescribed by the project arborist.
20. The pruning and removal of trees shall be performed by a California state-licensed
tree service company (D-49 classification) that has an ISA certified arborist in a
supervisory role, carries General Liability and Worker's Compensation insurance,
and abides by ANSI Z13:tl-2006 (Safety Operations). Pruning shall also be
performed under the direction of the project arborist and in accordance with ANSI
A300-20P 1 standards. Any prunitig of trees should be limited to removing deadwood
one-inch and greater, clearing encroachments, and reducing heavy limb weight.
21. Any stump being removed within a TPZ shall occur using a stump grinder rather than
being pulled up with an excavator or backhoe.
22. Great care must be taken by equipment operators to position their equipment to avoid
the trunks and branches of trees. Where a conflict exists, the project arborist should
be advised to provide a feasible solution.
23. The disposal of harmful products (such as cement, paint, chemicals, oil and gasoline)
is prohibited beneath canopies or anywhere on site that allows drainage beneath or
near canopies. Herbicides shomd not be used beneath the trees' canopies; where
used on site, they should' be labeled for safe use near trees.
4243 Manuela Avenue. Palo Alto.; Site No. CN3246
MSA Architecture & Planning, Inc.
Page 10 qfll
David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist April 7,2009
7.0 ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS
• All information presented herein covers only those items that were examined and reflects the
condition of those items at the time of my observations on March 30, 2009 and April 1, 2009.
• My observations were performed visually without probing, coring, dissecting or excavating. I
cannot, in any way, asswne responsibility for any defects that could only have been discovered
by performing the mentioned services in the specific area(s) where a defect was located ..
• The assignment pertains solely to trees listed in Exhibit A. I hold no opinion towards other
trees on or surrounding the project area.
• I cannot provide a guarantee or warranty, expressed or implied, that deficiencies or problems of
any trees or property in question may not arise in the future.
• No assurance can be offered that if all my recommendations and precautionary measures
(verbal or in writing) are accepted and followed, that the desired results may be achieved.
• All information presented on the plans reviewed is assumed to be correct. I cannot guarantee or
. be responsible for the accuracy of information provided by others.
• I assume no responsibility for the means and methods used by any person or company
implementing the reconlmendations provided in this report.
• The information provided herein represents my opinion. Accordingly, my fee is in no way
contingent upon the reporting of a specified fmding, conclusion, or value.
• This report is proprietary to me and may not be copied or reproduced in whole or part without
prior written consent. . It has been prepared for the sole and exclusive use of the parties to who
submitted for the purpose of contracting services provided by David L. Babby.
• The map presented in this report (Exhibit B) is solely intended to show approximate tree
locations and numbers and shall not be interpreted as an engineered or architectural drawing.
• If any part of this report or copy thereof be lost or altered, the entire evaluation shall be invalid.
Prepared By: W {,. h4
David L. Babby
Registered Consulting Arborist #399
Board-Certified Master Arborist #WE-4001 B
4243 Manuela Avenue. Paio Alto; Site No. CN3246
MSA Architecture & Planning, Inc.
Date: April 7, 2009
Page 110[11
David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist
EXHmITA:
TREE~NTORYTABLE
4243 Manuela Avenue. Palo Alto: Site No. CN3246
MSA Architecture & Planning. Inc.
April 7, 2009
•
TREE
NO.
ARBOR RESOURCES
professIOnal consulting arborlsts and tree care
TREE INVENTORY TABLE
~"if Q 'i' ~'l ~ :s
~ ~ ~ e~ ~ ·Ib i~ ......, B~ iii 1 . 0 :f3! i~ ..at
a~ g 00 s 1~ ~ C) Ib
~~ it .a~
TREE NAME ~ 'a 10 ~~ lf~
Monterey Pine
(Pinus rad/ata ' 50% 75%
Comments: Adjacent to guy wire high-voltage electrical pole.
Monterey Pine
Pinus radiala)
Comments: Adjacent to guy wire high-voltage electrical pole.
Monterey Pine
i S~ .~ g :a 5~ ~~ ,6~
(pinus radiata) 25% Poor
~ 'i' I ~ i .~ :: 00 ! s ~ « <2g~ F-i
,e..~ ~ j g
Iii t) ~ t, ~ 00
'0 8i. :: Z ..::i '
Comments: Adjacent to high-voltage electrical pole and transformer. Has a one-sided canopy due to its
location.
Monterey Pine
(Pinus radiata 75%
Comments: Three trunks originate at grade.
Monterey Pine
(Pinus radiata)
Comments: Appears to be on the neighboring property.
Monterey Pine
(Pinus radiala 75%
Comments: Beneath high-voltage electrical wires.
Comments: Two trunks at grade fonn poor attachment.
ercus agrifolia)
Comments: Two trunks originate at grade and fonn a weak attachment.
Site: 4243 Manuela Avenue, Palo Alto; Site No. CN3246
Prepared for: MSA Architecture and Planning, Inc.
Prepared by: David L. Sabby 10f8 April 7, 2009
•
;
TREE
NO.
ARBOR RESOURCES
professiOnal consulting arborlsts and tree care
TREE INVENTORY TABLE
TRBENAMB
Canary Island Pine
(Pinus canariensis)
Comments:
Canary Island Pine
(Pinus canariensis
Comments:
Comments:
Monterey Pine
(Pinus radiata
2t'ii ~'a g~
~i Is:: a~ 1-8 ~~
~ e
1 ,,-.. 11 e 00
it J ~
Comments: Has codominant leaders.
Monterey,Pine
(Pinus radiata)
Comments:
Monterey Pine
(Pinus radiata)
Comments: Has codominant leaders.
Monterey Pine
c----~ ~ ~ ~ .t:~ 6~ .~ ;t;..J' lrf s= rs 8t 1~ ~§ g~ ::t!~ ... ooe
(Pinus rodiata 75%
'i ge .~ ~ ~~
8'!ij ]~ 52-
Comments: Grows with a slight lean due to crowded growing conditions.
Monterey Pine
(f'inus radiata) 75% Fair
Comments: Sparse canopy and dieback observed. Heavy limb weight.
Monterey Pine
(Pinus radiata)
Comments:
Site: 4243 Manuela Avenue, Palo Alto; Site No. CN3246
Prepared tor: MSA Architecture and Planning, Inc.
Prepared by: David L. Babby 20(8
ta ~~I s:: I .!!
~ 00 =6' CI 0 -< ~-B] 1 ~ 6 ~~i .d 11 00 j£~ &::: ~ c
April 7, 2009
TREE
NO.
ARBOR RESOURCES
professional consultmt;J arborlsts and tree care
TREE INVENTORY TABLE
TREE NAME
Monterey Pine
Pinus radiata)
~i
I 'f ""':.'0-g~
i] m~ aca
~~ 8a
Comments: Dying.
--S
I ,,-..,
5 ~ ~ ! ~
-C-~ ~ Ul ~ ~ ~~ t:::l II:. 'ih~ o~ !, '.Jj ;a....:-~lf a ~ 8~ 11! -S~ ~ 10 g8 ::B~ ooC
Comments: Beneath high "voltage electrical wires and at pole.
j
II) 8~
'.t,I 8 ~~ o .tJ u~ 18 5~
--~ ~ =~ ~ i H ~§"O "i .€'i 0
iii i J: til&: =
Comments: Beneath high-voltage electrical wires. Three leaders form a weak attachment.
Coast Live Oak
(Quercus agrifolia
Coast Live Oak
(Quercus agrifolia)
51 s:: 5 .~ 00 ~ ~ 8 « ~ § i-t ~
0 .§ 0 Z a=:
Comments: Beneath high-voltage electrical wires. Two trunks near grade form weak attachment.
Comments: Trunks are spaced apart by about three inches.
Site: 4243 Manuela Avenue) Palo Alto; Site No. CN3246
Prepared for: MSA Architecture and Planning, Inc.
Prepared by: David L. Babby 30'8 April 7, 2009
•
TREE
NO.
ARBOR RESOURCES
profes510nal consulting arbOrl5ts and .tree care
TREE INVENTORY TABLE
TREE NAME
Monterey Pine
(Pinus radiata)
&'iI .. [
"':' e.<' ~§ ;~ ~~
l~
Comments: Declining.
Monterey Pine
(pinus radiata )
Comments: Declining.
Monterey Pine
(Pinus radiata
Comments:
Comments: Declining.
Monterey Pine
(pinus radiata)
Monterey Pine
(Pinus radiata)
Comments: Declining.
Monterey Pine
. (Pinus radiata)
Comments: Declining.
Monterey Pine
.....-;-e
i '6 ::a
.'Z' ! ~ 'i -. ~ II) s, 'i~ c::d~
1 §~ .g 8 • .p 0 0 0 :a 1""" J1i s~ o ~ 0 00 ut ]1f i~ ~ .s~ ~~ ~ 19 O~ u :fc ooC
~81 ·~'ii :a ~ S rI) ~. &:.~
(Pinus radiata) Low
Comments: Grows with a distinct lean. Has two leaders that fonn a weak: attachment.
Site: 4243 Manuela Avenue, Palo Altoi Site No. CN3246
Ptepared for: AfSA Architecture and Planning, Inc.
Prepared by: David L. Sabby 4018
ta s:: l:l
= .~ ~ 0 00 :er e g -< F--i
i j 6
Q ~t s 00 ~ "0 ~ .s~ :: Z
April 7, 2009
• ARBOR RESOURCES
professIOnal c~n51Jltln~ arpoTists and tree care
TREE ·INVENTORY TABLE
bta 'C' ~ Q.,(I) (I) 9 g! ,!. .~ J.t i' 0 ---~ ~ g~ s 'i~ ~ as Ali I Q)::5 '.a 0 ~jf :a 0 eaQl me:: -. i' 8] gO . iSea s 00 8t ..... 'i 0
TREE l~ i ~ .;3~ ~ 1~ ~;i ~ 18 ~~~ NO. TREE NAME ~ l::i:c ooC o~ oo~
Comments: Small wound at base. Two of three leaders fonn a weak attaclunent.
(Quercus a
Comments:
Comments:
Monterey Pine
Pinus radiata)
Comments: Declining.
Comments:
Comments: Declining.
Monterey Pine
(Pinus radiata)
Comments: Declining with a chlorotic canopy.
Site: 4243 Manuela Avenue, Palo Alto; Site No. CN3246
Prepared for: MSA Archltectul'e and Planning, Inc.
Prepared by: David L 8abby 5018
if 5:: i ~ =<1) 00 :s' ~ 8 -<
i ~ §
~ ~ 1t ~ ~ .s~
Aprll7, 2009
ARBOR RESOURCES
pl"'ofesslonal consultmg ari;;lorlstsand tree care
TREE INVENTORY TABLE
TREE NAME
Comments:
Comments: Trunks are stump sprouts.
Comments:. Two trunks form a weak attachment.
Comments:
Monterey Pine
Pinus radiata)
Comments: Declining.
Monterey Pine
(Pinus radiata
Comments: J)ying.
Canary Island Pine
Pinus canariensis
Comments:
Comments: Tree is dead.
Site: 4243 Manuela Avenue, Palo Alto; Site No. CN3246
Prepared for: "'SA Architecture and Planning. Inc.
Prepared by: David L. Babby 60f8 Apr/IT, 2009
• ARBOR RESOURCES
professIOnal consultln~ arborlsts and tree care
TREE INVENTORY TABLE
TREE
NO. TREE NAME
Monterey Pine
(Pinus radiala
b-a Q.CIl .!-'i! ~~
b§ l) ~6: . 6 CI~ 1] ~C
Comments: Dying.
Comments:
Monterey Pine
(pinus radiata)
Comments:
-. S
~ Go) -. 11 e 00
i ~ ::g ~
Comments: Has a buried root collar.
Canary Island Date Palm
Phoenix canariensis)
-C-~ ~
t::: Ib o?f:. ,,,,0 ;a...r
t::: ·fJ 8t ~~ ::C ~ ...
Comments: Has approximately 1 S brown trunk feet
Canary Island Pine
(Pinus canariensis )
~ ~~ 'i~ ~.~ ~lf It ~ Eg ooC
Comments: Declining and has a very sparse, chlorotic canopy.
Comments:
Canary Is1and Pine
Pinus canariensis )
Comments:
Site: 4243 Manuela Avenue, Palo Alto; Site No. CN3246
Prepared for: MSA Architecture and Plannlng# Inc.
Ptepared by: David L. Babby 70t8
s! .'" 8 ~] 8' ~~ b 0 ~2-
j ~ ~ d
cd ,~ I .B ~ 00
~ t::: G a :tr < 0"'0 i ~ 5 .e-'i 0 ~il ,.8. il £ 00
'0 .3 0 oo~ :: Z ~
April 7, 2009
• ARBOR RESOURCES
professional consulttnt3 arborlsts and tree care
TREE INVENTORY TABLE
TREE
NO, TREE NAME
Canary Island Pine
Pinus canariensis)
~1 · 'f! "'-:-p" g~ i§ ~s:: iS~ 1-8 H~
/
Comments: Tip dieback.
Canary Island Pine
(Pinus canariensis )'
Comments: Declining,
Canary Island Pine
Pinus canariensis
Comments: Declining,
Canary Island Pine
(pinus canariensis)
Comments:
Canary Island Pine
(Pinus canariensis)
...-:-e
i ~
Comments: Sparse canopy.
Canary Island Pine
Pinus canariensis
...-:-e
1 00
t! ~ C,)
Comments: Dying, Has poor trunk taper.
Canary Island Pine
(Pinus canariensis
Comments: Branch dieback.
Canary Island Pine
(Pinus canariensis
Comments: Asymmetrical canopy,
Canary Island Pine
(Pinus canariensis)
Comments:
Canary Island Pine
(Pinus canariensis)
Comments:
Site: 4243 Manuela Avenue, Palo Alto; Site No. CN3246
Prepared for: MSA Architecture and Planning, Inc.
Prepared by: David L. Sabby 80f8
~ i ] 0 ~ ~~ §E! §$ '§b8 '.Q :3 '.;:J :a...,J'
If
;a 0
CI fi §~ 8~ i~ -s~ ~ 18 8 ~.~ 0:0. 000.
~ ~ 1 1i .~
-CD 00 :t:r . ~ ~ S cSdi -< ~ § .P~ 0 ~ :Set .a it ~ 00 J~~ &:: ~ ..s 0 :: .. tf:
April 7, 2009
David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist
EXHIBITB:
SITE MAP
4243 Manuela Avenue. Palo Alto: Site No. CN3246
MSA Architecture & Planning. Inc.
April 7, 2009
-.. _ ... -
~
u:;
+:;! is .u..
r·:.,
~:
~
·2~
..................
.... .. --..... -... -
" ... --i;; ~ ~:;;. ~._/ / S .,. ~ '" . --.. ,. ~.;; a~
" '. '. . :-" ~ Vi :; "". . rl ;;l .~~~ .... .z.
+-z
David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist
EXHffiITC:
PHOTOGRAPHS
Page C-l: Tree # 1 thru 9
Page C-2: Trees #10 thru 23
Page C-3: Trees #24 thru 40
Page C-4: Trees #41 thru 56
Page C-5: Trees #56 thru 63
Page C-6: Trees #64 thru 73
Photo Index
4243 Manuela Avenue, Palo Alto; Site No. CN3246
MSA Architecture & Planning, Inc.
April 7, 2009
David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist
4243 Manuela Avenue, Palo Alto; Site No. CN3246
MSA Architecture & Planning, Inc.
April 7, 2009
Page C-l
David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist
4243 Manuela Avenue, Palo Alto; Site No. CN3246
MSA Architecture & Planning, Inc.
April 7, 2009
PageC-2
David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist
4243 Manuela Avenue, Palo Alto; Site No. CN3246
MSA Architecture & Planning, Inc.
April 7, 2009
PageC-3
David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist
4243 Manuela Avenue, Palo Alto; Site No. CN3246
MSA Architecture & Planning, Inc.
April 7, 2009
Page C-4
David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist
4243 Manuela Avenue, Palo Alto; Site No. CN3246
MSA Architecture & Planning, Inc.
April 7, 2009
PageC-5
David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist
4243 Manuela Avenue, Palo Alto; Site No. CN3246
MSA Architecture & Planning, Inc.
April 7, 2009
PageC-6
David L. Bobby, Registered Consulting Ar-horist
EXBffiITD:
FENCING SIGN TEMPLATE
4243 Manuela Avenue. Palo Alto: Site No. CN3246
MSA Architecture & Planning, Inc.
April 7. 2009
WARNING-
--
Tree Protection Zone
This fencing shall not be removed
without City Arborist approval
(650-496-5953). Removal without
permission is subject to a $500 fine
per day*.
·Palo Alto Municipal Code S'ection 8.10~ 110
ATTACHMENT G
Responses to Commissioner Keller's Questions:
1. Please comment on the assertion by an appellant about the need for
two separate poles, one by AT&T and the other by Metro PCS.
Metro PCS has applied to co-locate an antenna onto AT&T's monopine, should it be
approved by Council.
2. (a) Please confirm the issue of visibility of the mono-pole from Dan
Askari's parcel.
Data
The staffreport states that Mr. Askari's home is about 20 feet from the church property.
This was based upon an initial visual estimate by the project planner. However, based on
a site plan from the approved building permit plans obtained from the City of Los Altos
Hills, Mr. Askari's guest house is located 30 feet from the Church property at its closest
point, whereas his home is located about 75 feet from the church property.
The proposed location of the monopine is 62 feet from the comer of Mr. Askari's
property, where a utility pole is located (as shown on the arborist's report Site Map and
the project plans Site Plan). The monopine would be 45 feet tall, located approximately
107 feet from Mr. Askari' s guest house.
Mr. Askari' s Photo Simulation
The photo simulation Mr. Askari provided show his guest home in the foreground, with
the property line fence, monopine and fenced equipment area in the middle ground, and
trees in the background. The monopine appears closer to Mr. Askari' s property than it
would as proposed.
The height of the monopine as shown in the photo-simulation appears to be about 60 foot
tall, where a 45 foot tall monopine is proposed. Arborist David Babby's report Site Map
(Exhibit B) indicates 30 foot tall oak trees bordering the property line, and trees #20 and
21, near the utility pole, are cited by the arborist as 30 feet tall and 35 feet tall,
respectively. The existing oak trees in the middle ground between the proposed location
(more in the background) and the fenced property line are shown behind the monopine in
this sumulation.
2. (b) Please comment on his request for trees to be planted by AT&T on
his parcel.
The ARB recommendation is to plant 7 additional trees in 24"box and 36" box sizes, as
recommended by the City Arborist, on Church property to provide additional screening
of the monopine from views from Mr. Askari's property and Foothill Expressway. Staff
has forwarded Mr. Askari' s request for 72" box sized trees to the applicant and the
~
4216
4224
~ ~
4260
<:> ~
~ ~
oIee2. 2009-06-08 13:29:22
4192
4230
fO IG N '<I'
~~~
Zcning D1.lrt~ Plein (\'<:c-mllpllgls$1gl._n~nin;.mdb)
(; g
'"
o §;
Ii') N
14850
* 10 ~
Ol ~ oil; N
\
\,\
25638
(0.
The City of
Palo Alto
This map is a pro'duct of the
City of Palo Alto GIS
~ --rr 197'
ThIs document Is • grephic ~lIIIIon oriy of best Zl'l1IIIebIe SOl
The CIty of Palo Alto .......... no """""';bliity for trty -=So 01989 to 2009 CIty of Palo,
~ -f » (1
~
3: m z
-f
:I: