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