Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 3.1Item 3.1 TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS October 2, 2008 Staff Report to the Planning Commission RE: A SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR AN UNMANNED WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY CONSISTING OF SIX (6) PANEL ANTENNAS MOUNTED TO A 65' TALL TREEPOLE AND ASSOCIATED GROUND EQUIPMENT. LANDS OF EPISCOPAL LAYMENS GROUP OF LOS ALTOS (AT&T WIRELESS); 26410 DUVAL WAY; FILE #139 -08 -CUP -IS -ND. FROM: Brian Froelich, AICP, Associate Planner ZF- APPROVED BY: Debbie Pedro, AICP, Planning Director : R RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission Forward a recommendation that the City Council adopt the attached Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve the requested Site Development Permit and Conditional Use Permit, subject to the recommended conditions and findings of approval in Attachments 1, 2, and 3. BACKGROUND The subject property is owned by the Episcopal Laymen Group of Los Altos. The site is 1.03 acres with a moderate 11.7% slope. The property is developed with a church building, accessory Sunday school building, parking lot and driveway. The property is surrounded on three sides by residential properties and Interstate 280 across Duval Way. The nearest residential building is approximately 200 feet away from the proposed treepole. The site currently contains two other wireless providers: T -Mobile and Sprint. The T - Mobile installation is located within the church steeple and Sprint is located within the flagpole onsite. The church building is listed in the Town of Los Altos Hills General Plan as a historic structure. However, the building is not a designated landmark per chapter 1, title 11 of the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code. Also, the proposed treepole and associated equipment would be sited over 100 feet away from the building and will not alter the building's use or architecture. DISCUSSION AT&T Wireless has submitted plans to construct a 65 foot tall treepole, with six (6) panel antennas and ground equipment in an area approximately 100 feet north of the church building. The proposed ground equipment and tree pole will be sited on a 300 square foot concrete pad. The ground equipment will consist of three 2.5' x 4' ground cabinets. The concrete pad and equipment will be screened by a seven (7) foot tall wood slat fence. AT&T Wireless 26410 Duval Way October 2, 2008 Page 2 of 9 Co -location will be structurally possible with the proposed treepole and is required per conditions of approval. A radio frequency analysis for the project was prepared by TRK Engineering in May of 2008. The report concluded that the proposed AT&T Wireless service and the two existing carriers (T -Mobile in steeple and Sprint in flagpole) on site would collectively comply with the FCC's current prevailing standard for limiting human exposure to RF energy. See full report attached (Attachment 8). The proposed treepole will be purchased from the same manufacturer as the Cingular Wireless treepole at Town Hall and the Verizon Wireless treepole at Westwind Barn. The pole is required to be clad with a material resembling tree bark in texture and contain sufficient artificial vegetation to resemble a mature pine and screen all antennas. Recommended condition #10 also requires that the applicant submit a landscape screening plan for review by the Planning Commission, prior to final inspection. CODE REOUIREMENTS Wireless Communications facilities are regulated under Section 10-1.703 (h) (2) and 10- 1.1107 of the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code. The project was also reviewed for compliance with the established requirements in the Wireless Communications Policy including: siting, collocation, screening, and color to ensure that the facility blends with the surrounding area. Procedural code standards also require that all Conditional Use Permits must be reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council. Findings of approval are attached to this report for Planning Commission review (attachment #2). WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY POLICY The proposed facility is consistent with the Town's Wireless Communications Facilities Policy because the location is a quasi -public facility site. Visual impacts are reduced by the design of the pole and existing mature evergreen trees that partially screen the tree pole and the ground equipment. The 65 foot tall treepole is also designed to accommodate one additional wireless service provider. Conditions of approval require the applicant's structural engineer certify that the wireless communication tower is structurally capable of co -location (subject to a separate CUP review and approval). The Town's Wireless Communications Facilities Policy #6 states: "Any applicant for a wireless communication facility site shall submit applications, to the best of their knowledge, for all sites anticipated to be required by the carrier for a three (3) to five (5) year period, and the requests shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council m a master plan application." AT&T Wireless has submitted a 3-5 year Antenna Master Plan showing all existing AT&T sites, current search areas and, existing and potential coverage in and around the Town's boundaries (Attachment #5). AT&T Wireless 26410 Duval Way October 2, 2008 Page 3 of 9 NEIGHBORHOOD OUTREACH The applicant has sent an invitation to neighbors within 500 feet of the church site to attend an informal meeting at Town Hall to introduce the project (Attachment 47). Eight (8) neighbors attended the September 16, 2008 hearing and expressed opposition to the project. The issues discussed are listed below: • The wireless treepole will reduce their property values • There are too many wireless communications facilities in immediate area and the neighbors request that the applicant seek an alternative location • The proposed installation will degrade the historic value of the site • The existing pine trees on the northern side of the site are dying and will not provide adequate screening in the future • Concerns about landscape screening and maintenance of the screening plants CEOA STATUS Consistent with Wireless Communications Facilities Policy #5 and in conformance with CEQA requirements, staff has prepared an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project. The Initial Study identified one potential impact relating to aesthetics. Based on the analysis contained in the study, the impact will be reduced to a less than significant level with mitigation. A detailed analysis of the potential impacts and mitigation measures are discussed in the Initial Study. (Attachment 43) A Notice of Intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration was published in the Town Crier on August 13, 2008. The notice was also submitted to the Santa Clara County Clerks Office for a 20 day public review period which began on August 13, 2008 and will end on September 4, 2008. The proposed project, as conditioned, complies with the Town's Zoning and Site Development Code requirements and Wireless Communication Facilities Policies. The project will benefit the community by improving and expanding cellular telephone coverage in the area. AT&T Wireless 26410 Duval Way October 2, 2008 Page 4 of 9 ATTACHMENTS: 1. Recommended Conditions of Approval 2. Findings for Approval of the Conditional Use Permit 3. Initial Study/Notice of Intent to Adopt Negative Declaration 4. Wireless Communications Facilities Policy 5. AT&T Wireless 3-5 Yew Antenna Master Plan (2 -pages) 6. TRK Engineering -RF Report May 2008 7. AT&T invitation to Neighbors -September 10, 2008 8. Development Plans and Photo Simulations (Commission only) AT&T Wireless 26410 Duval Way October 2, 2008 Page 5 of 9 ATTACHMENT RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT -WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY (AT&T WIRELESS) 26410 DUVAL WAY -EPISCOPAL LAYMENS OF LOS ALTOS FILE# 139 -08 -CUP -IS -ND r�Cs71 1. Any changes or revisions to the telecommunications facility or its use shall require an amendment to the applicable conditional use permit(s). Additionally, the Planning Director may, at any time, schedule a review or revocation hearing before the Planning Commission regarding the use permit, if any condition of approval is not being met or the facility is being used inconsistently with the approved use or in violation of Town development codes. 2. In accordance with the Town's Wireless Communications Policy, the applicant shall permit the collocation of other carrier's wireless communications equipment at this facility. If no collocation has occurred within 12 months of this approval, the Town may initiate conditional use permit review proceedings pursuant to condition #1. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant's structural engineer shall certify that the wireless communication tower is structurally capable of co -location. 3. The use permit shall expire ten (10) years from the date of approval. Renewal of the permit must be requested in writing, with appropriate fees, prior to the expiration date. 4. The pole shall be clad with a material resembling tree bark in texture and shall be an earth tone color with a reflectivity value not greater than 40%. The mono -pine shall contain sufficient artificial vegetation to resemble a healthy mature pine and to screen all antennas. A sample of all colors and materials most be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. 5. The applicant shall submit a signed agreement to the Town that should the use be discontinued by the carrier, all facilities Will be removed not later than ninety (90) days after discontinuance of the use or abandonment. The agreement shall be approved by the City Attorney, and must be signed by the applicant and submitted to the Town prior to acceptance ojplans for building plan check. AT&T Wireless 26410 Duval Way October 2, 2008 Page 6 of 9 6. The applicant may be required to correct any and all future interference problems experienced by neighbors with respect to reception problems caused by this facility. 7. AT&T Wireless or the operator of the site shall be responsible for repair or repainting of the proposed facilities in case of vandalism or wear and must do so within 72 hours of notice by the Town that a complaint has been received. 8. The applicant is required to water sweep roads if soil material is carried onto public streets. 9. After installation of the pole and prior to scheduling a £mal inspection, the applicant shall submit a landscape screening plan and applicable fees for review by the Planning Commission. All required landscape screening shall be installed prior to final inspection. 10. A landscape maintenance deposit of $5,000.00 shall be posted prior to final inspection. An inspection of the landscape to ensure adequate establishment and maintenance shall be made two years after installation. The deposit will be released at that time if the plantings remain viable. ENGINEERING: 11. No grading shall take place during the grading moratorium (October 15 to April 15) except with prior approval from the City Engineer. No grading shall take place within ten feet of any property line. 12. Final grading and drainage shall be inspected by the Engineering Department and any deficiencies corrected to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department prior to final approval. 13. Any, and all, areas on the project site that have the native material disturbed shall be protected for erosion control during the rainy season and shall be replanted prior to f nal inspection. 14. The applicant shall inform the Town of any damage and shall repair any damage caused by the construction of the project to pathways, private driveways, and public and private roadways, prior to final inspection and shall provide the Town with photographs of the existing conditions of the roadways and pathways prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. AT&T Wireless 26410 Duval Way October 2, 2008 Page 7 of 9 CONDITION NUMBERS 4, 5, AND 14 SHALL BE COMPLETED AND SIGNED OFF BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO ACCEPTANCE OF CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR PLAN CHECK BY THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT. NOTE: The Site Development permit is valid for one year from the approval date (until October 2, 2009). All required building permits must be obtained within that year and work on items not requiring a building permit shall be commenced within one year and completed within two years. Upon completion of the construction, a final inspection shall be required to be set with the Planning and Engineering Departments two weeks prior to final building inspection approval. AT&T Wireless 26410 Duval Way October 2, 2008 Page 8 of 9 ATTACHMENT FINDINGS OF APPROVAL FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY (AT&T WIRELESS) 26410 DUVAL WAY -EPISCOPAL LAYMENS OF LOS ALTOS FILE# 139 -08 -CUP -IS -ND 1. The proposed use or facility is properly located in relation to the community as a whole, land uses, and transportation and service facilities in the vicinity; The proposed location of the pole and ground equipment is properly located in the community and is a priority location per the Town's Wireless Policy. The site is currently operated by a quasi -public entity (St. Lukes Church) and is centrally located within the Town. The proposed treepole would be located new existing mature evergreen trees and the antennas will be screened by faux evergreen branches and foliage. The pole would be placed in the furthest location from adjacent properties and nearest to the Interstate 280. The ground equipment would be screened by a seven (7) foot tall wood slat fence. Construction of the proposed wireless communication facility will not place a burden on existing transportation facilities or utility services. The construction operation will be temporary and will typically generate a maximum of three vehicle trips per day. Robleda Road and Duval Way can accommodate this increased demand without a reduction in the level of service. Maintenance and service of the facility would require one or two vehicle trips per month. If approved, this installation would improve wireless service in the vicinity and link an AT&T coverage gap between Foothill College and the Little League fields. 2. The site for the proposed use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate this use and all yards, open spaces, walls and fences, parking, loading, landscaping, and such other features as may be required by this chapter or will be needed to assure that the proposed use will be reasonably compatible with land uses normally permitted in the surrounding area; The site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed treepole and ground equipment. The proposed installations total approximately 300 square feet. The site is currently developed with a church, parking lot, and accessory structures. The existing puking facilities would be sufficient for the limited trips generated by construction and maintenance of the ground equipment. No trees would be removed to install the treepole or the ground equipment. AT&T Wireless 26410 Duval Way October 2, 2008 Page 9 of 9 3. The site is served by streets and highways of adequate width and pavement to carry the quantity and kind of traffic generated by this proposed use; and The construction and maintenance of the proposed pole and ground equipment will generate minimal additional traffic (typically, one -three vehicle trips per day during construction and one-two per month for maintenance and service). The site is served by Robleda Road and Duval Way. These roads can both accommodate traffic generated by the proposed use. 4. The site does not adversely affect the abutting property or the permitted use thereof. Conditions of Approval requiring landscape screening will mitigate the visual impacts and future problems with the site. The proposed wireless communication facility, as conditioned, will not adversely affect other properties or interfere with permitted uses in the vicinity or the general welfare of the Town. Attachment 3 INITIAL STUDY Initial Study Checklist AT&T Wireless Communications Facility Lands of Episcopal Laymens Group of Los Altos 139 -08 -IS -ND -CUP Prepared By: Town of Los Altos Hills -Planning Department 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 Environmental Checklist Form 1. Project Title: AT&T Wireless Communications Facility, (File # 139 -08 -IS -ND -CUP) 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: Town of Los Altos Hills, 26379 Fremont Road, Los Altos Hills, California 94022 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Debbie Pedro, AICP, Planning Director (650) 941-7222 Initial Study prepared by:Brian Froelich, AICP, Associate Planner (650) 941-7222 4. Project Location: The project is located at the southwest comer of Robleda Road and Duval Way, 26410 Duval Way, Los Altos Hills, CA 94022, APN4175-48-057 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Phillip Thomas, 4420 Rosewood Drive, Pleasanton, CA 94588 6. General Plan Designation: Institutional -Religious 7. Zoning: R -A (Residential -Agricultural) 8. Description of Project:AT&T Wireless requests a Site Development Permit and Conditional Use Permit to allow an unmanned wireless communications facility consisting of six (6) antennas mounted to a 65' tall treepole and associated ground equipment. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Surrounding land uses include single family residences on 1+ acre parcels to the North, South and West. Interstate 280 is approximately 200 feet to the East. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required: Santa Clara County Fire Department I. AESTHETICS —Would the project a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glaze which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the arca? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 IMPACT: The project consists of a 65 foot tall treepole and a 300 square fool ground equipment enclosure. The installation of a treepole and equipment cabinets, as mitigated, will not substantially degrade the visual character and quality of the site and its surroundings. The site is currently screened by mature evergreen trees and the proposed tree "pine" pole will integrate witb the existing trees. No trees will be removed and the nearest residential building is over 200 feet away from the proposed location. The Los Altos Hills General Plan notes "important vistas" and "historic sites" in the Open Space Element of the General Plan. None of these resources listed in the General Plan will be negatively impacted by the proposal. MITIGATION: The pole shall be clad with a material resembling tree bark in texture and shall be an earth tone color with a reflectivity value not greater than 40%. The mono -pine shall contain sufficient artificial vegetation to resemble a healthy mature pine and to screen all antennas. A sample of all colors and materials most be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. The mono pine will also accommodate a collocated carrier to potentially reduce future aesthetic impacts. Sources: 1,2,4,5,6 II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES— Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the ❑ ❑ ❑ [� maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or ❑ ❑ ❑ nature, could result in conversion of Farmhud, to non-agricultural use? Discussion: The proposed wireless facility will have no foreseeable impact on Agricultural Resources. The site is not and has not been used as agricultural land. Source: 8 III. ALR QUALITY — Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of ❑ ❑ ❑ the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected art ❑ ❑ ❑ quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality ❑ ❑ ❑ Q standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? ❑ ❑ ❑ Q e) Create objectionable odors affecting a ❑ ❑ ❑ substantial number of people? Discussion: The proposed treepole and ground equipment will have no foreseeable impact on Air Quality. Maintenance of the facility requires one or two vehicle trips per month for regular maintenance. Construction phase vehicle hips will be below thresholds of significance and only minor grading/preparatory ground disruption is associated with the proposal. All vehicles will be traveling on paved road surfaces to and from the site. Source: 9 5 IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES — Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, venial pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish Or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 6 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 01 J Discussion: The proposed treepole and ground equipment will have no foreseeable impact on Biological Resources as defined above. The site is currently developed with a church facility and puking lot. The proposal adds approximately 300 square feet of new impervious surface and will require only minor ground preparation in the area of work. Sources: 1,6,10 V. CULTURAL RESOURCES— Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined ❑ ❑ ❑ 10 in'15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource ❑ ❑ ❑ Q pursuant m'15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique ❑ ❑ ❑ geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including ❑ ❑ ❑ Q those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Discussion: The Church Building is listed in the Town of Los Altos Hills General Plan as a Historic Structure. However, the building has not been recognized per California Public Resources Code Section 5020.1 (k) (required by section V(a) above). The proposed pale and associated equipment would be sited over 100 feet away from the building and will not alter the building's use or architecture. The proposed treepole and ground equipment will have no foreseeable impact on Cultural Resources as defined in Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidlines. Sources: 5,16 0 VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS — Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential ❑ ❑ ❑ Q substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the ❑ Q State Geologist for the area or based on other ❑ ❑ substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ❑ ❑ ❑ Q iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including ❑ ❑ ❑ Q liquefaction? iv) Landslides? ❑ ❑ ❑ Q b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss ❑ Q of topsoil? ❑ ❑ c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in ❑ ❑ ❑ Q on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code ❑ Q (1994), creating substantial risks to life or ❑ ❑ property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or ❑ ❑ ❑ Q alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? Discussion: The proposed treepole and ground equipment will have no foreseeable impact on Geology and Soils. The site is not located in an area known as a fault rupture, ground deformation or for slope instability. Sources: 7, 11 9 VII, HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS— Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or ❑ ❑ ❑ (71 the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions ❑ ❑ ❑ Q involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section ❑ ❑ ❑ 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety ❑ ❑ ❑ Q hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response ❑ ❑ ❑ plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fres, including where wildlands are adjacent ❑ ❑ ❑ El to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Discussion: The proposed treepole and ground equipment does not produce a hazard or hazardous waste and will have no for -seeable impact related to Hazards and Hazardous Materials. The site is not located in an identified location according to CA Govemement Code 65962.5. Sources: 12 10 VIII HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY— Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste ❑ ❑ ❑ Q discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater ❑ Q table level (e.g., the production rate of pre- ❑ ❑ existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the ❑ ❑ alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a ❑ manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage patient of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or ❑ ❑ ❑ substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ❑ ❑ ❑ g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard ❑ ❑ ❑ Q Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood bazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area ❑ 0 structures which would impede or redirect flood ❑ ❑ flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, ❑ ❑ ❑ including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ❑ ❑ ❑ Discussion: The proposed treepole and ground equipment will have no foreseeable impact on Hydrology and Water Quality as defined above. Sources: 2, 10, 13 12 DL LAND USE AND PLANNING— Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ ❑ EJ b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, ❑ ❑ ❑ local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community ❑ ❑ ❑ conservation plan? Discussion: The proposed trmpole and ground equipment will not physically divide a community. The nearest residential building is over 200 feet from the proposed pole. The project complies with the Los Altos Hills General Plan, Zoning Code, and Wireless Communication Policy. The project is not located in an area denoted as Open Space Conservation Area on the Genal Plan Map. Sources: 3,5,6 13 X. MINERAL RESOURCES — Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known ❑ mineral resource that would be of value to the ❑ ❑ region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery ❑ ❑ ❑ [✓] site delineated on a local general plaq specific plan or other land use plan? Discussion: The proposed treepole and ground equipment will not result in a loss of mineral resources. The project is not located in an area known for valued minerals. Sources: 1 14 XI. NOISE—Would the project result in a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established ❑ ❑ ❑ Q in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome vibration or ❑ ❑ ❑ Q groundbome noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity ❑ ❑ ❑ Q above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project ❑ ❑ Q ❑ vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport ❑ ❑ ❑ Q or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? t) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people ❑ ❑ ❑ Q residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Discussion: The proposed treepole and ground equipment do not produce noise beyond acceptable limits per Los Altos Town Code under normal operation conditions. Construction noise will be regulated by the Town's Municipal Code Section 5-7.02. No construction activity shall take place before Sam or 5:30pm Monday -Saturday. No work on Sunday or Public Holidays. Sources: 6 15 XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING— Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by ❑ ❑ Q proposing new homes and businesses) or ❑ indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing ❑ housing, necessitating the construction of ❑ ❑ replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, ❑ ❑ necessitating the construction of replacement ❑ housing elsewhere? Discussion: The proposed treepole and ground equipment will not have a foreseeable impact on population or housing Sources: 5 16 XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES— Would the project a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the ❑ construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? ❑ Police protection? ❑ Schools? ❑ Parks? ❑ Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ Q Discussion: The proposed treepole and ground equipment will not have a foreseeable impact on any public service or facility. The proposal is co -located on a site currently utilized by two additional wireless carriers and no impact to service is anticipated. Sources: 5 17 XIV. RECREATION — Would the project: a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that ❑ ❑ ❑ Q substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or ❑ expansion of recreational facilities which ❑ ❑ might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Discussion: The proposed treepole and ground equipment will not have a foreseeable impact on recreation facilities. Sources: 5,6 18 XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC— Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the ❑ ❑ ❑ Q county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous ❑ ❑ ❑ Q intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ ❑ I) Result in inadequate puking capacity? ❑ ❑ ❑ g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Discussion: The maintenance and service of the proposed installations requires one or two vehicle trips per month. These trips would typically be during off-peak hours (9am-3pm). Robleda Road and Duval Way can accommodate these additional vehicle trips. Construction of the proposed tree pole and ground equipment will require approximately one to three vehicle trips per day for a limited period (2-3 weeks). Robleda Road and Duval Way Road can carry this temporary, additional traffic without a reduction in level of service. Sources: 1,2,5 19 XVI. UTILnIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS— Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements ❑ Ll the applicable Regional Water Quality ❑ Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or LJ ❑ expansion of existing facilities, the El construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient 0 permitted capacity to accommodate the ❑ ❑ ❑ project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Discussion: The proposed project does not require tie in to any established water or waste water system and no additional impacts are foreseeable. Drainage form the proposed installation will be minor sheet flaw to adjacent soil. Sources: 1,2,5 20 XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE — Would the project: a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining ❑ ❑ ❑ 10 levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable' means that the incremental effects of a project ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on ❑ ❑ ❑ human beings, either directly or indirectly? Discussion: The proposed project, as mitigated, will not result in a negative impact to the environment, wildlife, plant or historical resource. The project does not have any foreseeable cumulative impacts and human exposure standards for radio frequency will comply with FCC standards. Sources: 1-21 21 MITIGATION MEASURES INCLUDED IN THE PROJECT TO AVOID POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS: I. The tree pole shall be clad with a material resembling tree bark in texture and shall be an earth tone color with a reflectivity value not greater than 40%. The mono -pine shall contain sufficient artificial vegetation to resemble a healthy mature pine and to screen all antennas. A sample of all colors and materials must be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department prior to acceptance of plans for buddingplan check. Mitieation Monitoring Program Responsible Must Be Mitieation Measure Department Completed BY: Done 1. Tree Pale Installation Planning Building Plan Check Source List 1. Field Inspection 2. Project Plans 3. Planner's Knowledge of the Area 4. Los Alms Hills Land Use and Zoning Map 5. Los Altos Hills General Plan 6. Los Altos Hills Municipal Code 7. Assessor's Maps, Office of County Assessor, Santa Clara County, 2007-2008 8. State Department of Conservation, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program 9. BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines: Assessing the Air Quality Impacts of Projects and Plans, December 1999 10. Stam Department Fish and Game CNDDP Map 11. Geotechnical and Seismic Haaard Zones Map of Los Altos Hills, Cotton Shires and Associates, Dec¢004 12. DTSC Hazardous Waste and Substance Sims List, California Environmental Protection Agency 13. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Rate Map, Los Altos Hills, January 2, 1980 14. Sanitary Sewer Map, Town of Los Altos Hills Engineering Department 15. CEQA Guidelines, 2008 16. Google Earth Exhibit List: 1. Project plan 22 Attachment 4 TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS Policy Re: Wireless Communications Facilities Code Sections Section 10-1.703(h)(2) of the Zoning Ordinance allows service uses, including "communications facilities", to be permitted in the Town if a Conditional Use Permit is granted by the Planning Commission and City Council. Section 10-1.1107(1) of the Code outlines findings which must be made to approve a use permit, including the proper location of the use or facility relative to others in the vicinity, the adequacy of the site to accommodate the use, and that the facility or use will not have an adverse effect on adjacent properties. Intent: The purpose of this policy is to outline the desired criteria for siting of wireless communications facilities, generally including monopoles, related antennas, and equipment shelters. As the Town's land use is virtually entirely residential, wireless communication facilities will be most appropriately located on public or institutional sites existing within the Town. Collocation, location on or near existing buildings, and landscape screening will be desired to minimize the visual impacts of the facilities on neighbors and the public. Policies: - 1. Priorities for Siting. Wireless communication facilities shall generally be located on properties with priority as follows: a) Town -owned properties; b) Foothill College; c) water tanks; d) other public or quasi -public facilities, such as schools or churches; and e) residential properties of at least ten (10) acres. 2. Siting on Residential Parcels. Wireless communication facilities may be permitted on properties used for residential purposes or vacant parcels intended for residential use if the residential property owner provides written consent and significant visual impacts are mitigated. 3. Collocation. Collocation of wireless communication facilities with other facilities is encouraged to the maximum extent feasible, as long as the collocation is technologically compatible and does not substantially increase visual impacts. The Town will generally require as a condition of approval for any conditional use permit that the applicant permit collocation of other facilities, subject to technological constraints and Town review. Policy Re: Wireless Communications Facilities page 2 3a. Applications for collocation on an existing wireless communications facility shall be subject to an administrative review provided that the following requirement is met: The collocated antennas and ground equipment shall be mounted or installed within an existing tower, building, or structure where the physical appearance of the existing facility is not altered to accommodate the additional antennas and equipment. 4. Landscape Screening and Color. Landscape screening shall be required by the Town to minimize the visual impacts of wireless communication facilities. Poles, antennas, and equipment buildings should be painted to blend with the surrounding environment and/or buildings to further minimize visual impacts. 5. Environmental Review. A Negative Declaration will typically be prepared for review of proposed wireless communication facilities, with special attention to the visual impacts of the facilities. Categorical exemptions may be used where facilities are collocated with or would be minimal additions to existing structures, with negligible additional visual impact. 6. Antenna Master Plans. Any applicant for a wireless communication facility site shall submit applications, to the best of their knowledge, for all sites anticipated to be required by the carrier for a three (3) to five (5) year period, and the requests shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council as a master plan application. 7. Term of Permits and Abandonment of Sites. Conditional use permits for wireless communication facilities shall be established for periods not to exceed five (5) years, at which time renewal of the permit must be requested by the applicant. More frequent review of the operation of the permit may be made a condition of approval. Approval will also require a written agreement from the applicant that, should the use be discontinued by the carrier, all facilities will be removed not later than ninety (90) days after discontinuance of the use or abandonment. Such a provision shall also be included in any lease with the Town for use of Town lands for wireless communications facilities. The Town may require bonding or other surety to assure the removal of such facilities. 8. Wireless communication firms shall, at the time of application for permits, demonstrate efforts which have been made to inform neighboring residents of the proposed facilities, such as conducting meetings, or mailing fact sheets and/or letters, etc. to neighbors. 9. The Planning Director is authorized to reduce or waive permit fees for any wireless communications facility that is proven to expand wireless coverage in the Town and is structurally capable of co -location. Policy Re: Wireless Communications Facilities page 3 10. The Planning Director is authorized to administratively approve portable wireless communications facilities also known as cell on wheels or COWS on certain properties as specified in Policy #1 on a temporary basis. Approved by City Council: August 21, 1996 Amended September 15, 2005 Amended October 12, 2006 16 Lilt Attachment 6 ftlEERING FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION (FCC) COMPLIANCE STUDY ON RADIO FREQUENCY ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS EXPOSURE Prepared for: tat&t CN3659-A ST. LUKES CHURCH 26410 DUVAL WAY LOS ALTOS, CA 94022 MAY 30/08, REV. 1 CN3659-A St. Lukes Church May 30, 2008, Rev. I Page I Carrier: AT&T Site Address: 26410 Duval Way, Los Altos, CA 94022 Typeof Service: 1900 roamiand PCS MHz GSM & UMTS, 850 MHz GSM & UMTS Antenna e: Kathrein 742 266 Number of Antennas: 12 4 per sector Sectors: 30', 260°, 140° Maximum Power: 500W =imam EPPperrechuol rsecror Antenna Hei ht: 56't (Radiation ceme AGL) Table 1. AT&T RF Summary AT&T proposes to construct a personal wireless services facility inside the church property at the above address (Figure 1). It will consist of a 59' monopine with twelve (six proposed and six future) directional antennas. Three outdoor equipment cabinets will be installed on grade. The compound will be enclosed with a 7' high wood fence and gate. Access to the facility is restricted to authorized personnel. 4%9—CN3659-A SL Lukes Church t.„....... May 30, 2008, Rev. 1 Page 2 In the same church property, there are also two existing wireless facilities. T -Mobile has three directional antennas installed inside the church steeple. Sprint PCS has directional antennas installed inside a 35' flag pole on the east side of the property. The RF summaries for the existing facilities are shown in Table 2 and 3. Carrier: Sprint PCS Type of Service: 1900 MHz CDMA (Broadband PCS Antenna uanti: 3 N per sector Antenna e: EMS MTRR75-17-xxDPL2 (typical) Maximum Power: 500 W ERP per sector itypicaU Antenna Height: 32'± (Radiation cemerAGL Table 2. Sprint PCS RF summary Carrier: T -Mobile Type of Service: 1900MHz GSM (Broadband PCS) Antenna Quantity: 3 1 per sector Antenna e: Andrew CSH-6565A-R2 Maximum Power: 500 W ERP (Maximum ERP pertechnolo per sector,typical) Antenna Height: 27't Radiation center AGL Table 3. I -Mobile RF summary PROTOCOL: This study, and the calculations performed therein, is based on OET Bulletin 651 which adopts ANSI C95.1-1992 and NCRP standards. In particular, equation 10 from section 2 of the guideline is used as a model (in conjunction with known antenna radiation patterns) for calculating the power density at different points of interest. This information will be used to judge the RF exposure level incident upon the general population, and any employee present in the area. It should be noted that ground reflection of RF waves has been taken into account. FCC'S MAXIMUM PERMISSIBLE EXPOSURE iMPEI LUMT: In order to evaluate the RF exposure level, the power densities at different locations of interest have been examined. Equation 10 from Bulletin 65 is reproduced here as equation 1: S _ 33.4F'ERP a) R' Where: S = Power density [pW/cm1] ERP = Effective radiated power [W] R = Distance [m] F= Relative fieldfactor (relative numeric gain) ' Cleveland Robert F, et al. Evaluating Compliarwe with FCC guidelines for Human E"Osate to RadiofreauC,,e Elecuomametic Fields OET Bulletin 65, Edition 97-01, August 1997. CN3659-A St. Lukes Church s NEFp G May 30, 2008, Rev. 1 Page 4 There is a relatively low level of RF energy directed either above or below the horizontal plane of the antennas, and there are no locations in the surrounding areas near the compound that will have RF exposure levels close to the WE limit. Conclusion: Under "worst-case" conditions, the calculations shown above predict that the maximum possible RF exposure is 24.7% of the WE limit. There will be less RF exposure on the ground level or nearby buildings as a person moves away from the site. Therefore, the proposed AT&T facility in co -location with existing Sprint PCS and T -Mobile facilities will comply with the general population/uncontrolled limit. FCC COMPLIANCE: Only trained persons will be permitted to access the facilities and the antennas. They will be made fully aware of the potential for RF exposure and can choose to exercise control over their exposure that is within the occupational/controlled limits which is 5 times higher than the uncontrolled limits. The general population/uncontrolled exposure near the facilities, including persons on the ground level, in nearby open areas, and inside or on existing nearby buildings will have RF exposure much lower than the "worst-case" scenario, which is only a small percentage of the WE limit. ESSI 4 x J,,SYLVgN�� 16850 yzj EXP. 12/31/ *lyJ<ECIA1GP Pa�Q' IfiV30, 26DY OF AL1F Sei Yuen Sylvan Wong, PE California PE Reg. No. E 16850 APPENDIX A FOGS MA hill PERMISSIBLE EXPOSURE (MPE) LIMIT: EquaWn tO Rom BullaSn 65 is repoEu Mr0 as Wuaon 1'. lMma: S_33.4F2ERP s =Pp density LvW1='l ERP = E� nEu1M Y r[Wf R2 R=DlMamn[mj F = Relaliae find fa=r(Ma8ve numeric Dan) Scenad0l: Standing Naar TB1 Facllisy T shighestexpoauraba nalgm iARom Meantenna LrRelal6,e Field Fa= ale 0 Rv = ynF • y2 F1= 10 ° (In leen of power density) ,aeon's Iro19M(Hx)= 6B AIB= 75-, Me exposum loaBon at gmund fmm th monopine Lv = 13 R SsM PmNOer H.Vt H'A HagM HP.ft Mu ERP Alple B F7 Rdm) 5(P'ABom2) MPE% AT&T GSM 850 56.00 W,W 5W.0 G= 5' -25 dB ( 0.0032) 15.8 0.2146 00370 AT&T GSM 19M 56.00 50.00 5W 0 G= 5' -18 dB( 0.0150) 15.8 105% 0.1060 AT&T UMTS 8W 50.00 5000 5W.0 WERPe 5 ' 45 dB ( 0.0032) 15.8 02148 00370 AT&T UMn 150 56.00 5.00 SW.O G• 5' -18 dB( 0015B ) 15.8 10598 OAD60 T4 blle T7.M 21.5 SMO G= 57 ' -25 dB ( 00032) 7.6 0.92]6 0.0920 Spdnl 32.5 26.5 51A.0 G= 3 -22 dB ( 0.0063 ) 8.9 1.3223 0.1322 TOMI 0.5110 Ale= 60',Meexpaumloaeonatgmundfmmftmompim Ir = n ft Saha Pmaider Heim Heft Heigh HP.ft Mu ERP Alple B F' Rdm) 5 (JW ) MPE% AT&T GSM BW %.W 50.00 5W.0 G= W -25 dB( O.WM 17.6 0.1725 j 0.0297 AT&TGSM 10M %.M 5.M 5W 0 G= W -22 dB ( 0.OM3) 17.6 03397 00340 AT&T UMn 65 56.M W.M 5W.0 G= GO -25 dB( O.W32) 17.6 0.1725 0.D297 ATLTULfn 150 %.W W.W SW.O G• 6D -22 dB( 0.00&9) 17.6 0.3397 0.0310 T-Mabb 27.W 2100 SMO G= 36 -15 dB ( 00316) 10.9 14561 0"So SgIM 32.W m.M 51A.0 G= 42 ' -20 dB ( 0.01W ) 11.8 1.1913 0.1191 TOMI 0.8023 Ale= 45',Me expaum lortlion at ground fmm Me mompim b = 50 R Service P er HegM Heft HBy01 HP, ft Max ERP mess B F' Rdm) S (Y91Fa2) MPE% AT&T GSM 850 5.00 5.M 5W.0 B= 45' -18 dB( 0.0150 ) 216 0%78 0,0979 AT&T GSM 1900 WOO 50.00 5M0 G= 45 -22 dB( 0,OM3 ) 21.6 0.2263 00226 AT&T UMT68M %.W W.M 5W.0 G= 45 -18 dB ( 0.0158 ) 21.6 0.%76 O.MTB ATBTUMT519W %.W SO.W 5W.0 9= 45 -22 tlB ( O.M53 ) 216 0Y 0.0226 T -M w 2TW 21.W 5W.0 6= 23 -18 dB ( 0.0160) 16.5 0.%57 0.09f5 SpdM 32.W m.M 5M.0 e= 27 -16 dB ( 00251 ) 17.2 1.4202 DA4n Trial 04786 1N3 Saanarlo 2: Nearby BvlldingWRen " Lp =Hpx%K'(8) Ft. =[F Rets Fiats Fedor rtB F1= 101° gn termdpwmtlensgy) penOn§be19M(Ho. eft Gn�d Mu g Buitli, ftom ftagpde, Bulging M1Om sleege. R�nitlimlmmmmm��.0 Lp = 15ftdG= 49• b= 60ftat8= 11• Bernet PmVMM HegM HegM Hr, ft Mv.MA"Haft ERPFt A a B F1 = Rp(m) Rdm) S (ylMrm2) MPE% ;TT GSM 850 56.00 4100 500.0 -10 tlB ( gB ( 0.0]94)85.2 0.5401 0.]116 0.053] AT&TGSMIM 5800 41.00 500.0 -15 dB ( tlB( 0.0155) 65.2 00820 00062 AT&TUMTB850 SB.oO 4100 5000 -10 gB ( tlB ( O.W84 J 65.2 0.]118 0.053] 56.0 2900 IM WSW.O d5 S=3 tlB ( gB( 0.0158 J 65.2 00620 00082Y1.00 27.00 0.00 12W 500.5 J e9 ( aB ( 0.1000 ) 18,9 4.W13 OASD1 32.OD 2001]00 500.0 5000OB -1 M ( ( D.OD69 ) 8.9 23034 01203 0.5013 TW l TOMI 24.6830 09202 BUWtli, ft. Ngpde, Lp = 85ftM8 • 3 ' Bind"ftoma ,I,, b - 20ftdB = 0 ° aetema xm, m „ . Bernet Pmviger Heigle Hag Heigh Hp, ft Max ERP A a B F1 = Rp(m) S (y'AMan2) MPE% AT&T GGM 850 56.00 29.00 5000 35.00 -10 tlB ( OdWO) 55.8 0.5401 0.0932 AT&TGSM1900 58.00 2900 500.0 35.0 -15 dB ( 0.0316 J 55.6 0.1708 0.0171 AT&T UMTS 850 MOD 29.00 SOD.O 3500 -10 gB ( 0.1000 J 55.6 0.5404 00932 AT&TU61T51990 56.0 2900 500.0 35.0 d5 S=3 tlB ( 0.0318) 55.6 0.908 001]1 T-- 27.00 0.00 500.0 6.0 J e9 ( 0.5012) 6.1 224.9406 22.4941 Bpmft 32.OD 5.00 500.0 11.0 -1 M ( O.T 3 J 28.0 19.8830 1.8683 128 0.5013 TW l 24.6830 Bulging Oom Bftgpd , b = 150ftMe = 4 Bulgbq Bom aleplq b = 200 ft.t B = 2 B.M. Som i. _ 3MJ Fi*M Haft HeigM Haft Mu ERP Al B F' = Ycm27 MPE% AT&T GSM 850 56.0 35.00 500.0 -8-6 J d8 -(0.5012 84 0.1187 AT&T GBM 1900 58.0 35.0 500.0 B• 6 -10 dB ( 0.1000) 3]3 0.01]] AT&T UMTS No 56.00 3500 500.0 8= e a gB( 0.5012 664 MT�il.2149 0.118] AT&T UMTS 19M 56.00 35.0 SOO.D B= 8 -10 dB ( 0.1000) 73 00137 T-Mob6e 27.0 6.0 500.0 B= 2 0 6B ( 1.0000 J 80 0."n BPeM 32.00 11.0 Mo.O 8= • -2 tlB ( 08310) 128 0.5013 1.2149 3MJ aW August 26, 2008 RE: Proposed AT & T Communications Facility St Lukes Church 26410 Duval Way Dear Resident: AT & T has filed an application with the City of Los Altos Hills for a wireless telecommunications facility at 26410 Duval Way. The facility will consist of a 65' tree -pole with five radio equipment cabinets at the base. The facility will be located on the north side of the Church off Duval way. If you would like additional information or have questions or comments regarding this project, I can be reached directly at (925) 330-5749. Regards, Phillip Thomas AT & T Representative BjB3Bli�l�€�� `Aa BB��Bc�B a 4 B'9t,B 9 �mii Rg 6 �� 6 eS� �!a �'i�A F`� �•i ti gpF��� a�@ �;i ;�£ 6a !' 9a ! 9' !' 4p e p !' E' 9E !P R� � ii 9 F€ if � �'� €it e��� €� a �slp €E -, sE=a &.[it 6 @ � `p! F g4 3 !gI z` p 8!S [3 4 E F,' a 1 €FB € F`'B4i°9: 6.9.{a a!'A .. N gggg €4 � il5F [r[*N �:� F D YE.a •. • Attachment? aw September 10, 2008 RE: Proposed AT & T Communications Facility St. Lukes Church 26410 Duval Way Dear Resident: AT & T has filed an application with the City of Los Altos Hills for a wireless telecommunications facility (treepole) at 26410 Duval Way. An AT&T representative will be at Los Altos Hills, Town Hall on Tuesday, September 16th at 7pm to discuss the project and address any questions or concerns. Los Altos Hills, Town Hall City Council Chambers 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 If you cannot attend or would like information prior to the meeting, please feel free to contact me directly at (925) 330-5749. Regards, Phillip Thomas AT & T Representative