HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 3.1Item 3.1
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS November 6, 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: Debbie Pedro, AICP, Planning Director �Q
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 Laymens 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.
INIM81114419M
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. Co -
location will be structurally possible with the proposed treepole and is required per
conditions of approval.
AT&T Wireless
26410 Duval Way
November 6, 2009
Page 2 of 9
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 carvers (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 6).
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 REQUIREMENTS
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 most 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 as 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
November 6, 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 meeting and expressed their concerns
about the project. The issues discussed are listed below:
• The wireless treepole will reduce their property values
• There we 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
As of this date, the Town has received written correspondence from three neighbors
opposing the project. The letters are included as Attachments 8, 9 & 10.
CEOA STATUS
Consistent with Wireless Communications Facilities Policy #5 and in conformance with
CEQA requirements, staff has prepared an Initial Study/Mifigated 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 #3)
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.
ATTACHMENTS
I. 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
AT&T Wireless
26410 Duval Way
November 6, 2008
Page 4 of 9
5. AT&T Wireless 3-5 Year Antenna Master Plan (2 -pages)
6. TRK Engineering -RF Report May 2008
7. AT&T invitation to Neighbors -September 10, 2008
8. Letters from Fritz and Cathy Mueller, 26075 Duval Way dated September 1 and
September 29, 2008
9. Letters from Al and Mary Jackson, 26088 Duval Way dated September 1 and
October 2, 2008
10. Letter from Joanne and Art Sobel, 26066 Duval Way dated September 28, 2008
11. Development Plans and Photo Simulations (Commission only)
AT&T Wireless
26410 Duval Way
November 6, 2008
Page 5 of 9
ATTACHMENT 1
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
PLANNING:
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 must 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 carver, 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 ofplans for building plan check.
AT&T Wireless
26410 Duval Way
November 6, 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 carred onto
public streets.
9. After installation of the pole and prior to scheduling a final 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 feral 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
tofinal 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 final 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
November 6, 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
November 6, 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
November 6, 2008
Page 8 of 9
ATTACHMENT 2
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 near 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 he 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
November 6, 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 Tide: 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, APN#175-48-057
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
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one
impact that is a 'Potentially Significant impact' as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
QAesthetics ❑ Agriculture Resources
❑ Air Quality
❑ Biological Resources ❑ Cultural Resources
❑ Geology/Soils
❑ Hazards & Hazardous ❑ Hydrology / Water Quality
❑ Land Use / Planning
Materials
❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Noise
❑ Population / Housing
❑ Public Services ❑ Recreation
❑ Tramportation/fraffic
❑ Utilities / Service Systems ❑ Mandatory Findings of ftruficance
This Initial study has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Information and
conclusions in the Initial Study are based upon staffresearch and the Town's General Plan and Municipal Code.
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE ❑
DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a
significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added
to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required ❑
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the envuonmem, but at least one effect 1)
bas been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been
addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a L]"potentially significant impact" or " potentially significant unless mitigated.' An ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT
be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately ❑
in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that
earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
Si ature.�& � "�
gn Date: S [ember 17 2008
Debbie Pedro, AICP, Planning Director
2
1. 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 area?
❑
❑
❑
Q
❑
❑
❑
Q
❑
Q
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
Q
IMPACT:
The project consists of a 65 foot ml] treepole and a 300 square foot 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 with
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 anemias. A sample of all colors and materials must 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
D. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES
Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Familand), as shown on the ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural me?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contact?
c) Involve other changes in the existing Q
environment which, due to their location or ❑ ❑ ❑
nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, 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
4
III. AER 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 air ❑ ❑ ❑
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 ❑ ❑ ❑
standard (including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations? ❑ ❑ ❑
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a ❑ ❑ ❑ 0
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 trips 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
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,
❑
❑
❑
z
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, veinal
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
❑
❑
Q
ordinances protecting biological resources,
❑
such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
❑
❑
❑
Q
Community Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
Discussion: The proposed heepole and ground equipment will have no foreseeable impact on Biological Resources as
defined above. The site is currently developed with a church facility and parking 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 ❑ ❑ Q
significance of a historical resource as defined El
in'15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the ❑ ❑ Q
significance of an archaeological resource ❑
pursuant to'15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique ❑ ❑ ❑
paleontological resource or site or unique ❑
geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including ❑ ❑ ❑ 0
those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Discussion: The Church Building is listed in the Town of Los Altos Hills General Plan as a Historic Structine. However, the
building has not been recognized per California Public Resources Code Section 5020.1 (k) (required by section V(a) above).
The proposed pole 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
8
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOE S — Would the project:
a) Expose people Or structures to potential
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
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
❑
❑
❑
0
liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
❑
❑
❑
0
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss
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
❑
❑
❑
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
(1994), creating substantial risks to life or
❑
❑
❑
0
property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
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
❑
❑
❑ Q
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
❑
❑ Q
foreseeable upset and accident conditions
❑
involving the release of hazardous materials
into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
❑
❑
❑ Q
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
❑
❑
❑ Q
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 bas not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport
❑
❑
❑ Q
or public use airport, would the project result
in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
t) 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
❑
❑ Q
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
Q
fires, including where wildlands are adjacent
L)
El
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
forseeable 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
VDI 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
table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-
❑ ❑
❑ 0
existing nearby wells would drop to a level
which would not support existing land was 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
❑ ❑
❑ Q
manner which would result in substantial erosion
or siltation on- or oft -site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, or
❑ ❑
❑ Q
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
El❑
❑ Q
stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted nmoff+
0 Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
❑ ❑
❑
g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard
area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard
❑ ❑
❑
Boundary or Flood Insurance Rale Map or other
flood hazard delineation map?
h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area
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?
11
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
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING—
Would
LANNINGWould the project:
a) Physically divide an established
community? ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
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, ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
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 ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
conservation plan?
Discussion: The proposed treepole and ground equipment will not physically divide a community. The newest 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 plan, 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?
f) 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
❑
❑
❑
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?
❑
❑ ❑ 0
❑
❑
Q
❑
❑
2
❑
❑
0
❑
❑
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 ❑ Q
other recreational facilities such that ❑ ❑
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
❑
❑
Q
❑
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
❑
❑
county congestion management agency for
❑
Q
designated roads or highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns,
including either an increase in traffic levels or
❑
❑
❑
Q
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
❑
LI
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
Ll
Q
equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
❑
❑
❑
Q
J) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
❑
❑
❑
Q
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or
programs supporting alternative transportation
❑
❑
❑
Q
(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
RVI, UTIM ES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS—
Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements
❑
0
of the applicable Regional Water Quality ❑
❑
Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new
water or wastewater treatment facilities or
❑
❑
❑
expansion of existing facilities, the
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 bas 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
pemutted 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 flow 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
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 ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
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 ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Discussion: The proposed project, as nutigated, 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 ofplans for
buildingplan check.
Mitigation Monitoring Program
Responsible Must Be
Mitigation Measure Department Completed By, Done
1. Tree Pole Installation Planning Building Plan Check
Source List:
1. Field Inspection
2. Project Plans
3. Planner's knowledge of the Area
4. Los Altos 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. State Department Fish and Game CNDDP Map
11. Geotechnical and Seismic Hazard Zones Map of Los Altos Hills, Cotton Shires and Associates, Dec -2004
12. DTSC Hazardous Waste and Substance Sites 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(b)(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(l) 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.
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
■
X.
mf
Iv
l 4
FAr ..
1
i "
Y
Attachment 6
ENGINEERING
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION (FCC)
COMPLIANCE STUDY ON
RADIOFREQUENCY
ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS EXPOSURE
Prepared for:
aw
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. 1
Page 1
SITE DESCRIPTION:
Carrier•
AT&T
Address:
26410 Duval Wa , Los Altos, CA 94022
f�Site
of Service:
PCS
1900 MHz GSM &UMTS, 850 M[iz GSM &UMTS
Antenna :
Kathrein 742266
Numher of Antennas:
12 4 per sector
Sectors:
30°, 260°, 140°
M mum Power.
500 W =!mum ERP .,echo! .sector
Antenna Height:
56't (Radiation cenrerAGL
lame 1. A Rt' 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.
CN3659-A St Lakes Church
4M May 30, 2008, pee 2
Page
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 we
shown in Table 2 and 3.
Carrier:
S [PCS
T of Service:
1900 MHz CDMA roadhomiPCS
Aateuua uaaH
3 1 r sector
Aateaua
EMS MTRR75-17-xxDPL2 ica/
Mazimum Power:
500 W ERP r sector /cd
Aateaoa Hei ht:
32't anon cemerAGL
Table 2. Sprmt rub to summary
Carrier:
T -Mobile
of Service:
1900MHz GSMBroadbnndMS
Aateaoa uaoti
3 l per sector
Aateaoa
Andrew CSH-6565A-R2
Mazimum Power:
500 WERP mimum ERP L techno[OV Persector, ical)
Aateaoa Hei ht:
27't OZaAanon mwerAGL
Table 3. T -Mobile RF summary
PROTOCOL:
This study, and the calculations performed therein, is based on OET Bulletin 65which 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 (MPE) LIMIT:
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 _ 33AF2ERP (I)
R'
Where: S= Power density [AIWIem1)
ERP = Effective radiated power M
R = Distance [in]
F = Relative field factor (relative numeric gain)
' Cleveland, Robert F, et al. Evaluating Compliance with FCC Guidelines for Hum Exuosure to Radiofrequency
Electro_ mnenc Fields. OET Bulletin 65, Edition 97-01, August 1997.
CN3659-A St. Lukes Church
NE May 30, 2008, Rev. 1
Page 3
Scenario 1: Standing near the facilities
The RF exposure level of a six-foot tall person standing close to the facilities is evaluated. For the
worst-case scenario, we assume that the antennas of all carriers are transmitting the maximum number
of channels at the same time, with each channel at its maximum power level. In addition, the azimuths
of the antennas are assumed to be in the direction of the studied location. Please refer to scenario 1 in
appendix A for the complete geometry and analysis. The highest RF exposure level is found to be
approximately 29' from the proposed monopine. The calculations of maximum power density are
summarized in Table 4.
Service
Max. ERP
e
R m
S (pW/cm'
WE %
AT&T GSM 850
500 W
-25 dB
0.0032
17.6
0.1725
0.0297
AT&T GSM 1900
500 W
-22 dB
0.0063
17.6
0.3397
0.0340
AT&T UMTS 850
500 W
-25 dB
0.0032
17.6
0.1725
0.0297
AT&T UMTS 1900
500 W
-22 dB
0.0063
17.6
0.3397
0.0340
T -Mobile
500 W
-15 dB
0.0316
10.9
4.4581
0.4458
Sprint
500 W
-20 dB
0.0100
11.8
1.1913
0.1191
Total
0.6923
Table 4. Worst-case predicted power density values for scenario 1.
The Maximum Permissible Exposure (WE) limit for 1900 MHz facilities for eneml
population/uncontrolled exposure is 1000 pW/cm' and 580 gW/cm' for 850 MHz facilitiesp. The
maximum cumulative power density for the AT&T antennas and the existing antennas is calculated to
be 0.69% of the MPE limit.
Scenario 2: Nearby Rooftops
There are church buildings and low density residential buildings in the surrounding area. The RF
exposure levels on the nearby rooftops we evaluated. We assume again, all antennas within a sector
are transmitting with maximum power level. Please refer to scenario 2 in appendix A for the analysis.
The calculations for the maximum possible power density are shown in Table 5.
Service
Ma ERP
R m
S W/cm'
MPE %
AT&T GSM 850
500 W
-10 dB
0.1000
55.6
0.5404
0.0932
AT&T GSM 1900
500 W
-15 dB
0.0316
55.6
0.1708
0.0171
AT&T UMTS 850
500 W
-10 dB
0.1000
55.6
0.5404
0.0932
AT&T UMTS 1900
500 W
-15 d13
0.031
55.6
0.1708
0.0171
T -Mobile
500 W
-3 dB
0.5012
6.1
224.9406
22.4941
Sprint
500 W
-1 dB
0.7943
26.0
19.6830
1.9683
Total
24.6830
Table 5. Worst-case predicted power density values for scenario 2.
The maximum cumulative power density for the AT&T antennas and the existing antennas is
calculated to be 24.7% of the MPE limit.
Ibid., Page 67.
' Ibid., Page 67.
4 CN3659-A St. Lukes Church
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.
FES a
�✓" N 16650
EXP. 1P/31/n0
4 l..tltl
T<Fcmtc 1 30, 2GO Y
ry"` s �
0 C Lt
Sei Yuen Sylvan Wong, PE
California PE Reg. No. E 16850
APPENDIX A
F 'S MAXSMN PEFINHW 9LE EXPOSURE (MPE) LIMIT:
Equation 10 fmm Bullebl 65 a repredume Gera ea egdilan 1:
Mo.
S_33.4F2ERP S - PP.<rden.in luwi�21
ERP =E9oWIe radiated goner CM
R2 R . Drsmnre Im7
F =Rola6da Sold fador(rela0.e numerk gain)
Scenafb 1: Sonning Near no Facility
The hgOa d exposure lace6on at gnmM tram nrt entenre
6=H,.Wr0(6) Rolando Field Fog ale
Re =- F2= 10 ° (n feral of pada, density)
person's MIBM(Ha)= 6R
At 9= ]5•, Me eimnama laonon at amuM from ba moaaaii.e
MnAaa PmNdx
Heigh
Heigh
Hr.O
Max.
ERP
•.Ngle
BAT&T
F'
Ra(ml
S(,Wcd2)AMPEHao
GSM 050
Sem
50.00
500.0
B=
]5 35
dB(
0.0032)
15.B
0.2148
AT&T GSM 1900
$6.00
50.00
00.0
9=
]5 -18
tlB (
0.0150)
158
1,096
AT&T UMTS 850
5600
50.00
500.0
e=
T5 25
tlB (
0.0032)
150
02148AT&T
UMTB 19M
5500
$g.W
500.0
e=
]5 -18
dB(
OO1W )
158
1.05%Tg0
2299T-MOOge
21.00
500.0
0=
5] -25
tlB (
0.0032)
Tit
0.92]0200
26.00
500.0
e=
6] -22
dB (
0.0063)
B9
13223
A19. expo sure lo®tlm at,.ntl
M1ainthemont aii
4
A
S
Total
Service Prevka
Hoff
Hao
HapM
Ha,R
Mac
ERP
Mpk
e
F2
Rdm)
S (,Waist)
MPE%
AT&T GSM 850
S6A0
SOw
500.0
G=
60 -25
tlB (
0.0032 )
17.6
0.1]25
0.0297
ATBT GBM t900
56.00
50.00
500.0
6=
80 -22
dB (
0.0083)
1],8
0.339]
0.0310
AT&T UM_850
55.00
50.00
500.0
0=
on -25
tlB (
0.0032)
17.6
0.1]25
0.0297
AT&TUMT51900
58.00
00.00
500.0
9=
an -22
dB (
Oduw )
176
0,3397
0.0340
T.dMie
27.00
21.00
500.0
B •
H -15
d8 (
00316 )
10.9
4.581
0.4458
SpIM
ZOO
26.00
SW.O
6=
42 -20
dB (
0.0100 )
11.8
11813
0.1191
TOhI
0.6923
Servka PmvNer
Haight
Hall
Haight
HN
Mac
ERP
Npy _
a
--
F.
.2)ID.12D
AT&T GBM 050
H.oO
Sam
000.0
B=
IS -16
tlB (
0.0159)M]6
AT&TGSMIWO
56.00
50,00
500.0
9�
45 -22
dB (
0.000J )63
AT&T UMTS BW
N01)
5000
500.0
B=
IS dB
dB(
O.p159)56]6ATBT
j2l.GD.W7B
UMTS 1900
56.00
50.00
SW.O
9�
IS -22
tlB (
OWW
2299T-MOOge
9.00
21.OD
Wa.0
B=
b -10
tlB (
001585]Sigma
MOO
26.00
SW0
6=
2T -18
dB
00251
202
taJ
4 = e] ft
Me• %•,iM expo6um laroaonnBmum nom ore rov,r.,Hrrry
Mac
ERP
MOM
e55.00
FxRdm)
S(PWmp2)
AT&T GSM 650
AT&T GSM 1900
AT&T UMTS 050
AT&T UMTS 1900
TMOMM
6p6m
Height
H011
KOO
56.00
5600
WOO
9.00
MOD
H"M
W, ft
50.DO
50.00
50.00
5000
21,00
MOO
Mex.
ERP
500.0
SW.O
500.0
5000
SDD.D
500.0
MqM
e
e= 30 -2<I
B= % -10
e= 30 1-20
e= 30 -10
e• 11 -t5
9= 1i -16
Fx
La( 0.0100)
dB( 0.0156 )
a0 ( 0.5100 )
tlB ( 0.0156)
aB ( 0.0316)
tl0 ( 0.0251 )
Rdm)
30.5
00.5
%.5
005
92
2T6
T0M1
S(DWM^2)
0.1]96
02&46
Oti98
02096
0.]169
0.5515
MPE%
00310
0.0284
00319
00264
0.0]15
0.0553
02155
Ate= 15- vveex wmlw ww-ll
Mac
ERP
MOM
e55.00
FxRdm)
S(PWmp2)
MPE%
HepM
HOMM
Mac
A w
9=
Fx
Rdm)
3(PW Z)
MPE%
Snviro Pm9Mar
HOft
Hl. fl
ERP
e
ERP
E P
e=
9
-M
aB ( 0.0063)
216
02%3
58.00
SD.00
500.0
e=
15
-11
tlB ( D.07%
500
0.3823
00059
AT&T GSM 850
009]9o
AT&T GBM 1900
500.0
9=
15
-20
tle l 0.0100)
58.9
0.0101
00010
AT&TGSM1900
56.00
50.00
%.00
50.00
5000
6•
25
-10
tlB ( 0.0083)
%.B
IM05Ot231
%.00
5100
5000
e=
15
-11
tlB ( 0.0,91)
50.9
0.9822
00059
ATflT UMT$fiW
0.0209
T-M003n
500.0
e-
15
-20
aB ( 00100)
%.8
O.OIBt
0.0018
AT&T UMTS 1900
50.00
5000
3200
25.00
500.0
6=
40 '
30
aB ( O.Dt00 )
12.9
1,0%i
21.00
21.00
500.0
e=
6
-1
aB 1 0.]000 )
56.9
4.di2
D.1 47
T-MaMM
32.00
26.00
$OD.O
B=
0
-10
aB ( O.tOOD)
9.5062
0.5506
Spall
Tohl
Tt
0.5967
Ale= 10',Me expoaum louSon nOmuna
ftpm Bw mmap'vie
Lv
• 281 ft
He1pM
HegM
Mac
Ne
Fx
Rdm)
S(PWe(2)
MPE%
Smbe Pmv'vler I
Haft
Hv.ft
ERP
e
AT&TGSM8w
%.00
50.00
500.0
9=
10
-11
tlB ( 0.0]94)
8].B
0O
O.OR]
AT&T GSM 1900
58.00
5000
500.0
,
10
-1B
aB ( O.Ot%)
0>.8
0.0312
0.0094
AT&TUMTB 050
%.00
00.00
500.0
e=
0.0]94)
e].0
0.1M0
0.029]
AT&T UMTS 1900
50.00
50.00
500.0
e=
10
-t5
aB ( 0.0150)
8].e
0.0312
0.00N
T_M
9.00
21.00
5000
9=
4
0
ae ( 1.000()
%.]
22222
D.=
9200
26.00
500.0
e=
5
-1
tlB ( 09961 )
%.6
(.%20
0.0%2
BpMA
Tpy1
D.9i86
Ate= 40'.MO expOsum losFS elpmuM M1om lM fiappGe Lv • 31 ft
Ate• 3D•,Mee¢oeum lou6vn MpmuxM imm tla aleePe 4 % ft
Ate- ts',Me expOaum leratlOn atOroSna M1pm MOflppOM b = 100 ft
Ate= 10 •,Me expasu2laalivn etOmuM fmm Oro aleOpla Lr = 119 ft
1 (on n mono Ootn tlm mvnOpire 4• SO ft
Ate= 45 ,ffhs rnum w 9
n HeM18 HOIp01
Haft Ho,ft
Mac
ERP
MOM
e55.00
FxRdm)
S(PWmp2)
MPE%
He9M
HeMM
9=
Angle
-13
Fx
21.6
2)
MPE%
SMvoa Piwitler
Heft
H9.ft
ERP
E P
e=
9
-M
aB ( 0.0063)
216
02%3
0.0225
AT&T GSM%0
50.00
50,0
500.0
e=
25
-32
tlB 1 0.0061 )00149
21.6
0.5575
009]9o
AT&T GBM 1900
5,00
5000
WOO
500.0
6-.25
15
-18
tlB (001")0.0239
21.6
M12o
0.123621.00
AT&T UMTB 050
%.00
50.00
5000
6•
25
-10
tlB ( 0.0083)
%.B
IM05Ot231
0.0139
AT&T UM(519W
MOD
5D.00
500.0
e=
25
B
-t0
tlB (001M
31.5
T01M
1.0620
0.0209
T-M003n
9.00
21.00
500.0
e=
%'
-20
a6 ( 0.0100)
0.1018
ByjM
3200
25.00
500.0
6=
40 '
30
aB ( O.Dt00 )
12.9
1,0%i
0.109]
Total
0.999
Ate- ts',Me expOaum leratlOn atOroSna M1pm MOflppOM b = 100 ft
Ate= 10 •,Me expasu2laalivn etOmuM fmm Oro aleOpla Lr = 119 ft
1 (on n mono Ootn tlm mvnOpire 4• SO ft
Ate= 45 ,ffhs rnum w 9
n HeM18 HOIp01
Haft Ho,ft
Mac
ERP
MOM
e55.00
FxRdm)
S(PWmp2)
MPE%
50.00
5000
9=
45
-13
tlB ( 0.0150)
21.6
0.50]0
0.09]9
-0
%.00
50.00
500.0
e=
45
-M
aB ( 0.0063)
216
02%3
0.0225
MG
%.00
50.00
MO
9•
45
-10
tlB ( 001%)
21.6
0.5575
009]9o
56.00
50.00
5000
e=
15
-22
aB ( 00003)
21.6
0.2%J
0.123621.00
21.00
WOO
e•
10'
-10
aB ( 0.1000 )
%.B
IM05Ot231
9200
26.00
WOO
9=
15
-12
aB ( 0.0631 )
31.5
T01M
1.0620
0.1062
0.47D3
20(3
SOenado 2: Nearby BulldingORooftope
4 =Hpxkn^(6)
P FH,- b'
RNM FM Fa A1r al
N
F1= f0 ° Mkmdpoatt dma8y)
pemdak WgM(H.)= BR
On.. W6Uing
Buldng M1Om ikege,
Buildinn fmm mnnvim
b= 15ftetG= /9•
b = BOftme = tt
Semen Piwider
Height
He, ft
Heg01
Hp, R
Mac
ERP
Ale
B
F'
Rp(m)
S WM9nm2)
MPE%
ATBTGSM 850
56.00
N.00
5000
e=
11 -11
dB(
0.0799 )
65.2
0.3116
0.053]
ATBTGSM 1900
5600
91.00
500.0
G=
11 -18
dB (
00158 )
65.2
0.0620
0.0082
ATBT UMi5850
5800
11.00
SOO.o
B=
tt .11
tlB (
00]94)
65.2
03116
0.053]
AT6T UML61900
58-0
41.00
500.0
8=
11 - -18
tlB (
00158)
852
0-820
0.0062
T -Malde
2].00
12.00
500.0
0=
11 -10
d0 (
0.1000 )
10]
48013
0.9801
BPdnt
MOO
17.60
500.0
G=
49 ' -22
dB (
0.0063 )
6.9
2.2
0 Y203
1.95e3
Trial
Told
0.0202
BUWiy(mm flagpole, b = 85ftat6 = 3
Buldi,g .te.M , b= 20 R M G= 0
8u1dimM1 mnmoin= l_ _ _
Servim PiOvitler
MepM
He,R
HtlpM
Hp.a
Mac
ERP
Mille
B
Ha
•
Rp(m)
S (p'AOml2)
MPE%
AT&T GSM 860
56.00
29-0
5000
G=
a -10
dB (
0.1000)
55.0
OSIOt
00932
ATE) GSM 1900
58.00
29.00
500.0
G=
9 -15
dB (
0-316 )
55.8
017oB
0.01]1
AT&T UMTS 850
55.00
29.00
500.0
B=
9 - -10
dB (
0.1000 )
55.8
0.5104
0.0932
AT&TUMT51900
56.00
28.00
500.0
G.
9 -15
OB (
00316 )
55.6
01700
0.01]1
Madle
T-.00
27
OM
00.0
e=
0 - S
dB (
0.5012 )
8.1
221.9108
22.4911
SpdM
32.00
500
500.0
G=
3 -1
dB (
0.]913 )
26.0
196830
1.95e3
Told
246830
_.. __. n- I
Buldng Gam flagpole, b 150ftM6- 4'
Sulding ftarn steeple, 4 = 200ftate = 2
Buldim M1ommO im_ le = ...rw =
Garvie Pnwider
HegM
Ho,ft
HeyM
Np,ft
ERP
Mex.ft4-
Fa
Rv(m)
S (,"m)
MPE%
AT&T GSM850
56.00
]500
500-
d8
0.5012 ) 110.3
0.600/
0.118)
AT&T GSM 1900
56-0
35.00
500.0
dB(
0.1000 ) 110.3
0.13]3
00137
ATBTUMTS050
WOO
35.00
500.0
dB (
0.5012 ) 110.3
0.6881
0.118]
AT&T UWS 1900
56.00
3500
500.0
dB (
0.1000) H02
0.13]3
0.013]
T-Ma6Ae
2].00
600
500.0
dB (
1-W0 ) 61.0
4A699
0//BB
GpMd
3200
11.00
SBBo
dB (
05310 ) 45.9
50126
0.5013
ekl
12149
3N]
aftt
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
moo
a - qPo
sM1 \
A r
�k e°
v
r
Ip�ipaa:�ia ��
oW Gz
w
fill 11111 1
E iLG 1111 iii
� �E �� i §€ 3€ pigs" �p€E pip �€ li� �aF €� ii '?'•Q' _ ®.6.a. � i� 6 �
d�s�
iRi €E SE! I=$
a `
�
p i @ i aa gg�py;€ Ise i ji $' ` ¢ t 6'
i e N
6ilia iii�D ELi,111111111!jill"'!
21
1L
fill
�;
B
€ F r y
-
Attachment 7
e at&t
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 16'"
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
Fritz & Cathy Mueller
Los Altos Hills
Planning Commission, Town of Los Altos Hills
M%10
Dear Members of the Planning Commission:
Attachment 8
SEP 2 9 2006
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
We are writing to urge the Planning Commission to reject the site development
permit for the proposed cell phone antenna at 26410 Duval Way. We live across
the street from this property and our reason for objecting to this permit is that
Duval Way already has 4 cell phone antenna installed on 3 poles. The close
proximity of all these antenna to our property is detrimental to property values. I
wrote a letter several weeks ago that is attached so I will not repeat the
arguments in that letter. In this letter I will address specific points made in the
town staffs recommendation to approve the permit.
The staff stated on page 2 that the location is consistent with the town's wireless
communications facilities policy. Attachment 4 of the staff report lists the
priorities for choosing a location. The problem with the priority list is that it is
being treated as a law that must be followed in spite of any extenuating
circumstances. In this case there are some clear problems not addressed in the
staff report.
The first problem is that the phone company did not consider alternative locations.
They are trying to fill a coverage gap between the little league ball field and
Foothill College. They did not even consider locations further North that are
closer to the center of the coverage gap such as LaBarranca Ct. Is it too much to
ask that they look at all the reasonable alternatives?
The second problem is the town's interpretation of the wireless policy priorities.
Several months ago I asked the town staff if we could consider rewording the
wireless communications facility policy to acknowledge that continuous
adherence to the priorities leads to the unfair practice of overloading a single
neighborhood with too many antenna. The answer I got was that the priority list
was only intended to guide policy, it is not the law. The obvious implication is
that other factors should be considered.
The problem now is that the policy is being treated as the primary justification for
the recommended location despite objections of the neighbors, the unfairness of
collocation taken to the extreme and the less than optimal location on Duval Way.
All of these points seem like the types of factors that should be considered.
It is irrational to use the same language from wireless policy to support opposite
positions on the same issue for the same antenna. A priority list cannot be both
the justification for the location and viewed as only a guideline that does not need
to be followed in all cases. Since it is just a guideline I believe the Planning
Commission should consider the arguments for selecting a different location and
make the decision that makes the most sense and protects property values.
Finally, I have heard arguments made that property values do not go down when
you are located next to multiple antenna. This argument seems absurd when
you consider that the phone company must pay a property owner to put an
antenna on their lot. The phone company pays because nobody would want an
antenna on their property, it lowers the property value. The payment makes up
for that lost value. The person who lives across the street however gets no
compensation in spite of their close proximity so their property value simply goes
down. On a more personal level just ask yourself if you wish that the house next
to yours had three antenna.
Sincerely,
Fritz & Cathy Mueller
Fritz & Cathy Mueller
Los Altos Hills
RECEIVED
2008
Planning Commission, Town of Los Altos Hills TO OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
9/1/08
Dear Members of the Planning Commission:
We are writing to urge the Planning Commission to reject the site development
permit for the proposed cell phone antenna at 26410 Duval Way. Our reason for
objecting to this permit is that Duval Way already has 4 cell phone antenna
installed on 3 poles. The close proximity of all these antenna to our property is
detrimental to property values. It is an accepted fact that everyone wants cell
phone coverage from their house but we would contend that nobody wants to live
next to the maximum number of antenna possible. In the case of Duval Way, we
are unfairly burdened by these antennas. The following points summarize my
reasons:
• The residents of Duval Way don't benefit from more antenna, we already
have 4 other cellular services to choose from and don't need a fifth next to our
house.
• Anyone within range of Duval Way also has the same 4 cellular services to
choose from.
• We learned at a recent planning commission meeting that once an antenna is
installed it remains FOREVER and there is nothing the residents or town can
do unless the phone company wants to remove the antenna. This was the
position presented by the town staff. This means that any decision made on
this issue must be considered as permanent, not subject to the time limits of
the permit.
• This antenna is intended for the benefit of the phone company first and
foremost. If the residents interests were important then the phone company
would accept moving the antenna to another location that might be less
optimal but still provides coverage without further burdening Duval Way.
• The church site is a single lot surrounded by residential lots. It is being turned
into an industrial facility that I don't think is consistent with its surroundings.
Unfortunately this is not a win-win situation. The first one or two antennas in our
neighborhood could be considered win-win because the phone companies got
the location they wanted and the residents got excellent cell phone coverage
from their home. Now that we are looking at a fifth and possibly sixth antenna
(the AT&T proposal has a provision for an additional carrier) it has become a win -
lose scenario. You are being asked to choose between fellow residents and the
phone company and I urge you to side with the residents and ask the phone
company to find a different location away from Duval Way. If you would not want
to live in a house surround by five or six antenna then we ask that you not force
that on us.
F� thy
Attachment 9
Planning Director
Planning Commission TOWN OF IDS ALTOS HILLS
Town of Los Altos Hills September 28, 2008
Cc: Mayor and all Town Council Members
Subject: Application by A T & T for a wireless telecommunications facility at
26410 Duval Way
Dear Ms. Pedro,
This letter is a follow-up to our letter of August 30,2008. In that letter, we outlined
some of the history of Duval Way residents' experience with the Town's approval
of "cell" towers impacting our homes. Our history goes back further than that. We
were promised sound reducing shrubbery along highway 280; what we got was
essentially what grew naturally at random. Adobe Creek, which runs alongside
Josepha Lane has been used as a dumping ground by Foothill College and is so
overgrown that in a rainy year it overflows and floods Josepha Lane. We were
fortunate in that when we organized to protest the re-routing of the Loop Road by
Foothill College directly past our homes, they listened, reviewed the plan, and
accepted changes using pedestrian over -crossings and leaving the Loop Road as is.
As our previous letter noted, we have been unsuccessful three previous times
regarding cell towers, which we feel directly affect our property values. Now here
we are again! We are a small neighborhood of less than a dozen homes with no
particularly prominent homeowners and little or no political "clout". If the
Planning Commission and the Town Council doesn't look out for our interests,
who will?
The Staff Report to the Planning Commission submittal, as presently worded,
states that approval of the Permit will have "Less than significant impact with
mitigation incorporated". We highly disagree since it is the visual impact with
which we are concerned. Title 10 of the Municipal Code, Paragraph 10-2.702
states that "height restrictions may be required on ....highly visible lots". We
contend that, as the lot in question is on the comer of Robleda Road and Duval
Way, sloping toward Robleda, it qualifies as a "highly visible lot". Further, the
"mature evergreen trees", described as screening the site, are Monterey Pines and
are so mature that they are in the process of dying! They are more than 35 years
old and have not been maintained. In fact the Town recognizes this in their offer to
remove dead pines that may become a Ere hazard. There is no requirement for
AT&T to replace these as they die. Additionally, the "tree" cell tower will be
approximately twice the height of these trees.
Also, Attachment 2, paragraph 4, of the Staff Report states that, "The site does not
adversely affect the abutting property or the use thereof." We disagree with this
also. If the site is viewed from the home on the abutting property, the tree pole
will dominate their view to the northwest. Pictures included in the various reports
to date are from the opposite direction or from across the 280 freeway.
Another item for your consideration is that this is a "Designated Landmark" of the
Town. Although this designation may not be recognized by the State, it has been
so acknowledged by the Town Council. The Municipal code, Section 10-2.702 (a)
requires, "minimizing .... the impairment of scenic views from the site". The view
from the church toward the northwest is the same as described in the previous
paragraph.
Finally, before the Council approves this permit, we believe there should be a
period wherein a "siting" pole of the appropriate size is placed on the property at
the "trees" location as is required at other building sites in the town.
If, in spite of our objections, a permit is issued, we request that a requirement be
added that AT&T replace any and all screening trees that die or are removed be
replaced by trees of equivalent size. Further, that the trees and any and all
landscaping included in this project be maintained in perpetuity.
Respectfully,
Al & Mary Jackson (et al)
RECEIVGD
Planning Director SEP 0 12009
Planning Commission
Town of Los Altos Hills TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS August 30, 2008
Cc: Mayor and all Town Council Members
Subject: Application by A T & T for a wireless telecommunications facility at
26410 Duval Way
Dear Ms. Pedro,
I am writing once again on behalf of the residents of Duval Way to plead with the
Planning Commission and the Town Council to reject an application for yet
another "cell" tower on Duval Way!
Let me begin with a brief history of our lack of success at having any influence
whatsoever on the Towns approval of previous cell towers/antennas affecting the
environment of, and potentially, the value of our homes, property and continued
defacement of a historical building (pictures to be provided).
• Beginning in 2001 we protested the expansion of use of a large, ugly tower,
which had been erected in 1993 with, apparently no permits of any kind on
the campus of Foothill College. We followed up with Santa Clara County,
the Trustees of the Foothill/ De Anza College Board, The State of California
through Chancellor Harris's office and determined that local municipalities
were the permitting authority for any permits of construction. We lost.
• Next, we protested the installation of antennas in the steeple of the church at
26410 Duval Way. We lost.
• In spite of the Towns assurances that approval of the steeple antenna would
not set a precedence for future antennas on the site and that "Duval Way has
enough", an application for another antenna (a very bulky flagpole which,
irregularly flies a flag) was approved on the church property closest to Duval
Way. We opposed that application. A air We lost.
• We were again assured that the flagpole would be the last. Now we are
faced with the new, subject application by A T & T for a 65 -foot tall fake
tree carrying six antennae near the comer of Duval Way and Robleda Rd. In
addition, the A T & T drawings indicate the provision for "future carrier
antennas".
It appears that unless something more formal is done, the Town's assurances have
little or no value. Should we resort to legal action to gain the Town's attention?
Consider the following:
*The church is a Town Historical feature. A 65 -foot fake tree on such a small cul
de sac is a major addition to the current eye sore beside this Church facing Duval
Way. This site affects every neighbor. We will bring pictures to show the council
if the hearing is rescheduled and we have the needed time to process the pictures.
*No one resides on the property so the parishioners are essentially unaffected.
*While the church presumably receives income from each of the antenna
companies, it is a tax-exempt organization (as is Foothill College) so who benefits?
Finally, Notice of the public hearing by the Planning Commission, dated August
22"d was received by residents on Duval Way on the 25`s or 26t° of August,
advising us of a meeting date of September 4, 2008, giving us a little more than a
week to prepare. This, for a project which has been underway since at least the
beginning of April 2008, according to drawings supplied to residents by A T & T.
Our first request, therefore, is that Agenda Item 3.3 of the Planning Commission
Public Hearing of September 4 be rescheduled to a later date to allow the residents
of Duval Way time to review the implications of the application, our possible
options and to prepare presentation(s) for the Commission and Councils
consideration.
Respectfully,
Al & Mary Jackson (et all
Attachment 10
. Dc!umentI
9/27/2008
Joanne 6 Art Sobel
LOS Altos Hi11s,CA
September 28,2008
Debbie Pedro
E'lanning Director
Planning Commission
Sown of Los Altos Hills
Dear Ms. Pedro and Planning Commission:
We are requesting that the Planning Commission and the Town of Los Altos Hills consider
the objections to adding additional cell towers on Duval Way.
There already is an antenna installed in the church's steeple. At the time of
installation, residents were told that the steeple antenna would be all of the antenna
installations. However, another antenna was installed on the church property which is
highly visible to everyone using the street.
Currently, AT & T has applied for another wireless facility (treepole) at the same church
location. Despite covered in fake tree form, it would still looks like another utility
pole.
Duval way is a residential street which deserves consideration and protection from
coutmercial interests. Alternate sites for additonal telecommunication antennas should be
made. The church steeple may also be remodeled for additional equipment. However, the
Duval
lia'ion of larger poles should only be allowed on other Property sites away from
} Our street has already had its share of antennas.
S i n c e r e l
Joanel
Art Sobel
1
RECEIVED
SEP 2 � 200d
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS