HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 3.33.3
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS September 4, 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 4139 -08 -CUP -IS -ND.
FROM: Brian Froelich, AICP, Associate Planner'Ui=
APPROVED BY: Debbie Pedro, AICP, Planning Director-vk
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 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.
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.
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 on site would collectively comply with the FCC's current prevailing
AT&T Wireless
26410 Duval Way
September 4, 2008
Page 2 of 7
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 Bam. The
pole is required to be clad with a material resembling tree bark in texture and contain
sufficient artificial vegetation to resemble a healthy mature pine and screen all antennas.
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 is 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 it is proposed on a quasi -public facility site, which is a priority for
wireless service location. Visual impacts are minimized by the design of the pole and
existing mature pine trees that screen the location of 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.
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 you 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).
NEIGHBORHOOD OUTREACH
The applicant has sent a mailing notice and plan diagram to neighbors within 500 feet of
the church site and invited feedback (Attachment #7). As of the writing of this report, one
neighbor has contacted Town Hall inquiring about the proposal. The neighbor expressed
concerns with the number of carriers on site.
AT&T Wireless
26410 Duval Way
September 4, 2008
Page 3 of 7
CEOASTATUS
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 #3)
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.
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 Policy
5. AT&T Wireless 3-5 Year Antenna Master Plan (2 -pages)
6. TRK Engineering -RF Report May 2008
7. AT&T mailing to Neighbors -August 26, 2008
8. Development Plans and Photo Simulations (Commission only)
AT&T Wireless
26410 Duval Way
September 4, 2008
Page 4 of 7
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
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. Landscape screening of the equipment enclosure may be required by the Planning
Department prior to final inspection, if determined to be necessary.
6. 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 ofplans for building plan check.
AT&T Wireless
26410 Duval Way
September 4, 2008
Page 5 of 7
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. The applicant is required to water sweep roads if soil material is carried onto
public streets.
ENGINEERING:
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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 ofplans for building plan check.
CONDITION NUMBERS 4, 6, AND 13 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 you from the approval date (until
September 4, 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
September 4, 2008
Page 6 of 7
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. 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 farthest 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 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 a 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.
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
AT&T Wireless
26410 Duval Way
September 4, 2008
Page 7 of
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 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 -07 -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 I -Tills, 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. hderstate 280 is approximately 200 feet to the East.
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required: Santa Clara County Fire Department
ENVIItONMENTAL 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.
Aesthetics ❑ 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 ❑ Transportation/Traffic
❑ Utilities / Service Systems ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance
This Initial study has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Information and
conclusions in the Initial Study are based upon staff research and the Town's General Plan and Municipal Code.
DETERAUNATION
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 ease 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 environment, but at least one effect 1)
has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been
described on attached sheets, if the effect is a
LJ
by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as
"potentially impact" or " significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL
significant potentially
but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
IMPACT REPORT is required,
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT
effects (a) have been analyzed adequately
be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant
an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that
L3in
earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
Signature: Date: August 13 2006
Debbie Pedro, AICP, Planning Director
2
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, aad 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?
IMPACT:
The project consists of a 65 foot tall treepole and a 300 square foot ground equipment nclosure. The installation of a neepo e
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 pint residential d" histoncr is
s" ier nthefeet
Space Element of the
location. The Los Altos Hills General Plan naway from the proposed
otes ,important
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 rnatutartmente pine ataior
screen all antennas. A sample of all colors and materials must be reviewed and approved by the Planning Dep P
to acceptance of plans for building plan check. The mono pine will also accommodate a collocated carder 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 (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 ❑ ❑ ❑
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract?
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
III. AIR 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 a 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
0
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 ❑
❑ ❑ d
substantial number of people?
The treepole and ground equipment will have no foreseeable impact on Air Quality. Maintenance of the
Discussion: proposed
facility requires one or two vehicle trips per month for regular maintenance. Construction phase vehicle trips will be below
disruption is with the proposal. All vehicles
thresholds of significance and only minor grading/preparatory ground
associated
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,
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, vernal
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?
D 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
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
FFAj
1
01
Discussion: The proposed treepole and ground equipment will have no foreseeable impact DuBiological 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
significance of a historical resource as defused ❑ ❑ ❑
in'15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource ❑ ❑ ❑ 0
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 ❑ ❑ ❑ ID
those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Discussion: The proposed treepole and ground equipment will have no foreseeable impact on Cultural Resources as defined
in Title 14; Chapter 3; Article 5; Section 15064.5 of the California Environmental Quality Act. No listed historical buildings
are located in the vicinity (within 500 of the proposed site and no known archeological resources exist on the subject
property.
Sources:
5,16
VL GEOLOGY AND SODS -- 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.
it) Strong seismic ground shaking?
❑
❑
❑
0
iii) Seismic -related ground faihue, including
❑
❑
❑
liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
❑
❑
❑
Q
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
❑
❑
❑
2
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
❑
❑
❑
10
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
foreseeable upset and accident conditions ❑ ❑ ❑ 0
involving the release of hazardous materials
into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
Q,
❑
❑
❑
0
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile
Sip- j!)AAOI'L7�'�'�HYB
of an existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a
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
foreseeable upset and accident conditions ❑ ❑ ❑ 0
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
❑
❑
❑
0
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?
0 For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project result in a safety
❑
❑
❑
Z
hazard for people residing or working in the
project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency response
❑
❑
❑
2
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
❑
❑
❑
Z
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 Government Code 65962.5.
Sources: 12
10
VIII HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY—
Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
❑
❑
❑
0
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-
❑
❑
❑
Q
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
❑
❑
❑
Q
manner which would result in substantial erosion
or siltation on- or off-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
❑
❑
❑
0
stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources ofpolluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
❑
❑
❑
0
g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard
area as trapped on a federal Flood Hazard
❑
❑
❑
0
Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other
flood hazard delineation map?
h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area
structures which would impede or redirect flood
❑
❑
❑
0
flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant
risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding,
❑
❑
❑
0
including flooding as a result of the failure of a
levee or dam?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
❑
❑
❑
Q
Discussion: The proposed treepole and ground equipment will have no foreseeable impact on Hydrology and Water Quality
as defined above.
Sources:
2, 10, 13
a
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING --
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established
community? ❑ ❑ ❑
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
ntitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural community ❑ ❑ ❑ 0
conservation plan?
Discussion: The proposed treepole 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
Gemal 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
region and the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a
locally -important mineral resource recovery ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
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:
14
XI. NOISE—Would the project result in
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of
noise levels in excess of standards established ❑ ❑ ❑
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 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0
groundbome noise levels?
e) A substantial permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity ❑ ❑ ❑ 0
above levels existing without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic
increase in ambient noise levels in the project ❑ ❑ 0 ❑
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 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0
or public use airport, would the project expose
people residing or working in the project area
to excessive noise levels?
H For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project expose people ❑ ❑ ❑ Z
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
CritCn"1
XI. NOISE—Would the project result in
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of
noise levels in excess of standards established ❑ ❑ ❑
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 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0
groundbome noise levels?
e) A substantial permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity ❑ ❑ ❑ 0
above levels existing without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic
increase in ambient noise levels in the project ❑ ❑ 0 ❑
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 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0
or public use airport, would the project expose
people residing or working in the project area
to excessive noise levels?
H For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project expose people ❑ ❑ ❑ Z
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
XIL 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
indirectly (for example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
housing, necessitating the construction of ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
replacement housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of replacement ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
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 ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
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?
❑
❑
❑
0
Police protection?
❑
❑
❑
Q
Schools?
❑
❑
❑
0
Parks?
❑
❑
❑
10
Other public facilities?
❑
❑
❑
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
t 3
4
Crifeto#
v
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 ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
Discussion: The proposed tieepole 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 ❑
❑ ❑
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 ❑
❑ ❑
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 ❑
❑ ❑
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑
❑ ❑ Q
t) Result in inadequate parking capacity? ❑
❑ ❑
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or
programs supporting alternative transportation ❑
❑ ❑ El
(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
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS—
Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements
of the applicable Regional Water Quality
❑
❑
❑ 0
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
❑
❑
❑ z
existing facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available in
serve the project from existing entitlements
❑
❑
❑ 0
and resources, or are new or expanded
entitlements needed?
e) Result in a detemunation by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may serve
the project that it has adequate capacity to
❑
❑
❑ Q
serve the project's projected demand in
addition to the provider's existing
commitments?
t) Be served by a landfill with sufficient
permitted capacity to accommodate the
❑
❑
❑ 0
project's solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local
❑
❑
❑ Q
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 ❑ ❑ ❑ 2
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 ❑ ❑ ❑
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 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Discussion: The proposed project, as rrutigated, 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:
1. 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
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, Conon 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
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT
A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
NAME AND ADDRESS OF PROJECT SPONSOR:
Phillip Thomas for AT&T Wireless, 4420 Rosewood Drive, Pleasanton, CA 94588
LOCATION OF PROJECT: The project is located at the southwest comer of Robleda Road
and Duval Way, 26410 Duval Way, Los Altos Hills, CA 94022, APN#17548-057
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 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.
In accordance with Section 15072 (a) of the California Code of Regulations, notice is hereby
given of the Town's intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project listed above.
The Town of Los Altos Hills has completed a review of the proposed project, and on the basis of
an Initial Study, has determined that the project will not have a significant effect upon the
environment. The Town has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study that are
available for public review at Town Hall, 26379 Fremont Road, Los Altos Hills California,
94022.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: Begins on August 13, 2008 and ends on September 4, 2008.
Persons having comments concerning this project, including objections to the basis of
determination set forth in the Initial Study/Negative Declaration, are invited to famish their
comments summarizing the specific and factual basis for thein comments, in writing to: Town of
Los Altos Hills Planning Department, 26379 Fremont Road, Los Altos Hills, CA 94022,
Attention: Brian Froelich or email to bfroelich@losaltoshills.ca.gov. Comments on the
Mitigated Negative Declaration must be received no later than 5:00 p.m. on September 4,
2008.
Testimony at future public hearings may be limited to those issues submitted in writing by 5:00
PM the day the comment period closes. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21177, any
legal challenge to the adoption of the proposed Initial Study/Negative Declaration will be limited
to those issues presented to the Town during the public comment period described above.
PUBLIC HEARING: The Planning Commission will review the proposed Mitigated Negative
Declaration and Initial Study for this project at its regular meeting on September 4 2008 at 7:00
pm. The City Council will review and consider adoption of the proposed Negative Declaration
and Initial Study for this project at its regular meeting on October 9 2008 at 6:30 pm. Both
hearings will be held at Town Hall 26379 Fremont Road, Los Altos Hills, California 94022.
The project area is not any of the lists enumerated under Section 65962.5 of the Government
Code including, but not limited to lists of hazardous waste facilities, land designated as hazardous
waste property, and hazardous waste disposal sites, and the information included in the
Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement required under subsection (f) of that section.
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
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
■
f.
T
k+
olfai
71
''�
1` 4L4
q'iI
Attachment 6
jK
ENGINEERING
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION (FCC)
COMPLIANCE STUDY ON
RADIO FREQUENCY
ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS EXPOSURE
Prepared for:
aw
CN3659-A
ST. LUKES CHURCH
26410 DUVAL WAY
LOS ALTOS, CA
94022
MAY 30/08, REV.1
ENGMFFMiN6
CN3659-A St. Lukes Church
May 30, 2008, Rev. I
Page 1
Carrier:
AT&T
Site Address:
26410 Duval Way, Los Alms, CA 94022
Typeof dPCS Service
roadban:
1900 MHz GSM & UMTS, 850 MHz GSM & UMTS
Antenna :
Kathrein 742 266
Number of Antennas:
12 4 per sector
Sectors:
30°, 2600, 1400
Maximum Power:
500 W (Maximum ERP rtechnoto r sector
Antenna Height:
56't(Ra&adon centerAGL)
fable 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.
CN3659-A St. Lukes Church
May 30, 2008, Rev. 1
Page 2
In the same church property, there are also two existing wireless facilities. T -Mobile has three
directional antemas 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 Quantity:
3 1 per sector
Antenna :
EMS MTRR75-17-xxDPL2(typical)
Maximum Power:
500 W ERP per sector(typical)
Antenna Hei ht:
32't (Radlaaon center AGL)
Table 2. Sprint PCS RE 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 EPPper technologyper seam,, wal)
Antenna Hei ht:
27'f RadiationcemerAGL)
Table 3. T -Mobile RE 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 IMPE) 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 _ 33AF'ERP (1)
R'
Where: S = Power density [,UWlcm2j
ERP = Effective radiated power [R'J
R = Distance [m]
F— Relative field factor (relative numeric gain)
'Cleveland, Robert F, et al. Evaluating Compliance with FCC Guidelines for Humor Exposure to Radiofreauenov
Elegtromaenetic Fields OET Bulletin 65, Edition 97-01, August 1997.
Scenario 1: Standing near the facilities
CN3659-A St Lakes Church
May 30, 2008, Rev. 1
Page 3
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
Fa
R m
S W/cm'
MPE %
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 general
population/uncontrolled exposure is 1000 pW/cm' and 580 RW/cm- for 850 MHz facilities . The
maximum cumulative power density for the AT&T antennas and the existing antennas is calculated to
be 0.69% of the NTE 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
Max. 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 dB
0.0316
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 WE limit.
21bid., page 67.
31bid., page 67.
CN3659-A St. Lakes Church '
May 30, 2008, Rev. I
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. Tberefore, 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 occupationaVcontrolled 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.
p FESS/p4
NSYIV,q�9l
J� oyz
N 16850 czi
/ x EXP. 1V31InD *
qT �fCTP1GPUPI�Q' IfiI30, UO
OFCA 1f
Sei Yuen Sylvan Wong, PE
California PE Reg. No. E 16850
APPENDIX A
FGG'S MAXIMM nitMSSIBLE EXPOSURE (li MMT:
Equa6m 10 tmn Bulb6n 65 N repmducad tiara as equation 1:
Wada
33AF2 S=PaxwdaaRYUuwm'1
S_
ERP = Etedwa mdbbd porer [N9
R2 R=o'atmce jm)
F=Relelive Eddf w(mlahe numeno pain)
Seenarlo 1: Standing N., TM Fa.11ty
1Te Bioneat egxsum locatim et ground fmm Me antenna
L, =Hoxtuf'(B) Relative FieW Fa= at
Ro = ane � y F2 = 10 ° (in term rf prover tlenahy)
Ixaonl Might (Hrd= 6ft
ME= 75 ° Me axposum to Wn M gmmd ftom Me mmopne Lr = 13 ft
Sanica PlpWer
Hei9M
Haft
Haight
Hip, ft
M¢
ERP
Angle
B
Fa
F'
R,(m)
S(,.Wm )
MPE%
GSM 850
5800
50.00
500.0
B=
75 •
35
OB (
0.0032)
156
0.21/8
003]0
GSMl W
WOO
W.W
5000
B=
75'
-16
dB (
00158)
150
1,05%
0.1060
UMTS BW
IT&T
5600
W,W
500.0
B=
75
-25
dB (
00032 )
15.8
0.21/6
0.037D
UM 1900
56.00
50.m
500,0
0-
]5 '
-18
OB (
0.0158 )
15.0
10598
DADSO
Gb
2].00
21.00
5000
B=
5] =
Q5
S (
0.0032 )
)8
062]6
O.m2B
B
3200.
26.00
0000
S=
63 •
-22
dB (
00063 )
8.9
1.3M3
DAM
0.1191
Tobt
DA7%
Tewl
TOW
05110
29 ft
$armee PmvMOr
Her9M
Hat
HegM
Heft
Max
ERP
Anglo
B
Fa
F'
Re(m)
Rpjm)
S(Y1Mm2)
MPE%
AT&T GSM BW
58.00
50.00
500.0
B=
60 1
-25
tlB (
0.0032)
176
0.1725
00297
AT&T GSM 1900
SB.W
50.00
500.0
0=
W
-22
d0 (
Om63 )
17.6
0.3397
D.03/0
AT&T UMTS BW
50.00
W.00
5000
B=
W
-25
tlB (
00032)
17.6
01725
0.0297
AT&T UM 1900
55.00
W.00
500.0
B=
W •
-2Z
tlB (
0.0009)
176
0.3997
00340
T -Mo Ila
P.00
21.00
500.0
B=
36
-15
dB (
00318)
109
/4501
OH50
Sgint
32.00
25.00
5000
Ba
42
-20
dB (
0.010 )
11.0
1.1913
0.1191
Tobt
DA7%
TOW
06923
me exposum laep0n npmund nom ma mwppro b = W ft
Seneca P1axder
Height
Haft
HNOM
Maxb
ERP
B
Fa
Re(m)
B(YW/cm2)
MPE%
&T G
AT&T &50
00.00
5 50.000
DD
Sm
0�
6 5 -16
dS(
00150 )
218
O.W]6
O.W]9
AT&T GSM 1900
58.00
50.00
SW.0
B=
4 • -22
tlB (
OOm3 )
216
02283
0.0226
AT&T UM15850
56.00
50.00
5000
B=
45 • -18
dB (
00150)
21.8
O.W78
O.W79
AT&T UM 1900
W OO
50.00
500.0
0=
45 -22
dB (
000J ) 0
21.9
O.Y16J
D0226
TAkAoa
27.00
2100
SWO
B=
23 -18
dB (
0.0150 )
WE
0,96A
0.0966
SPmd
32.0
2800
5000
B-
27 -16
dB (
00251 )
17.2
14202
0.1420
Tobt
DA7%
Sema Pmvitler
H�ft
Hp. pft
RP
6le
F2
F.
Rs(m)
St--)
MPE%
AT&T GSM 850
58.00
w
500.0
B=
30 -20
tlB(
0.0100 )
30.5
0.1]96
00310
AT&T GSM 1900
56.00
`A00
500.0
le=
30 -1B
UB (
0.0150 )
30.5
0.2030
00204
AT&T U&1TS BM
5800
5000
500.0
B=
30 -%
dB (
O.D1W )
WS
0.1]96
0.0310
AT&T UMLS I9WMOD
878
M.W
500.0
B=
30 4B
dB (
0.0158 )
305
02030
0.0204
T-MOLie
2]OD
21 W
SW 0
B=
1/ -15
OB (
O.O3t8 )
Z).2
0.]149
00]15
Sprin(
32.00
26_DO
5000
B=
1] -t6
tl8 (
0.0251 )
R]6
0.5515
0.0552
9
.to
d6 (
0.1007 I0.0506
WA
O.MM
0.0002
Td l
0.2/55
Serviw PvuMer
HepM
Hu,ft
th�N
Hr.fl
Meic
ERP
Mme
B
F.
Rdml
S (PVBon2)
MPE%
AT&T GSM 850
56.00
50.00
6W,O
16=
15
-11
dB (
0 0]94 )
509 1
0 38M 1
0.0059
AT&T GSM 1900
56.00
5000
5000
B=
15
-20
dB(
00100)R
07.0
O.OM2
0.0040
M UMT5850
N.
5000
500.0
B=
15
-1t
d6 (
0.0]94)00659
878
01720
0.029]
AT&T UMT519W
MM
50-M
500.0
B=
15
-2O
tlB (
0.0100)007/8
07.0
0.%42
O.wm
T-MOWe
27.00
2t Op
500.0
B=
6
-t
EB(
0.]943 I0.40/]
M.]
22222
02222
som
3zM
i5.00
s00.o
9=
9
.to
d6 (
0.1007 I0.0506
WA
O.MM
0.0002
Tobi
Tool
0,5%7
Ate= 10•.Me exooaum ldrafnn etpmuM fmm Me marooine 6 =284 ft
Service PmMer
�ft
�ft
ERP
BM
F2
Rp(m)
SWWB )
MPE%
AT&T GSM 050
56.03
%.00
SOD.O
0=
10
-11
tlB(
0.V%)
87B
0.172D
0.0297
AT&TGWlM
50.00
W,w
5000
B=
10
-18
dB (
0.0150)
07.0
O.OM2
O.WM
AT&T UMTSM
5600
07.03
5%.0
e=
10
-11
dB(
007M )
878
01720
0.029]
AT&T U& 19W
5500
WN
I
5%.0
G=
10
-15
dB (
0.01M )
07.0
0.%42
O.wm
T -Ma
v
2100
500.0
e=
4 '
0
dB (
1.%00)
M.]
22222
02222
som
3200
26.00
M00
8=
5
A
dB (
D.AB1 )
WA
O.MM
0.0002
Tobi
Tool
D.N.
At B= 40°,Meexpmureko atpmundM1 Mefleppde b = 31 R
Ate= 30°,tlre expwum loaYon alpmuM tmm be stege b M fl
A19= 11- IM evmxun lmaMn atamunE lrtm tla mmoune Le = 107 fl
Servim Piwider
HepM
Haft
HeigM
Heft
Mez
ERP
Mph
B
P2
Rd.)
S (pMHa01')
MPE%
AT&T GM 850
56.00
SO.W
SW.O
G=
25
-22
dB (
0.0083)
98.1 I
D.OB%
00139
AT&T GSM IM
M.W
07.00
SW.O
e=
25
-18
dB (
0.0150)
W.1
02028
00203
AT&T UMTS SM
56.00
M.00
5MO
B=
25
-22
dB (
0 M )
M.1
O.M%
00139
AT&T UMT519W
M.W
07.00
5070
B=
M
48
d6 (
0.0158 1
W.1
D.2020
00203
T -M
27.W
2100
M0.0
8=
39 -20
OB(
001W )
12.8
1.017/
0.1010
SpdM
32W
26.07
SW.O
B=
40' -20
d8(
001W )
12.3
1M6]
0.1097
Tobi
D.2799
MB= 15° b 100 fl
me. 10 °,Me exwwmlou0pn elpmuM Bom Ne shape b=119ft
MG= 45'.Me exCownlo2Don tlOmuntlfmm Me mompne Is = 50 fl
Service P.N
HegM
Heft
Mu.
ERP
All*
B
Ps
Rdm)
S (p'WO )
MPE%
AT&T GSM BW
5000
SW.O
B=
45
-18
dB (
00158)
216
0.50]6
O.W]9
AT&T GSM 1%
W.W
5W0
B=
45
-22
dB (
00073)
216
0.2263
0.0226
AT&T UWS MW.W
fl27.M
5W.0
B=
45
-10
dB (
0.0150 )
216
O.M]6
00979
AT&T UM]S 1907W.W
5W.0
B=
45
-22
dB (
00063)
21.6
0.2203
0.0226
T -M
21W
5wo
B=
10' -10
dB (
OA" I
%0
12305
0.1231spill
26.W
507.0
B=
15 -12
dB (
00091 I
315
1.W20
0.1062
Trial
04]03
2oF3
6celuriD 2: Really Bu1WIn94Roefil
Lag=HpXdn�(6)
sslp a Field Fadof 0e
N
f - t0 ° Cnlmm of wA�dentliv)
pMaenh Oegld(Ha)= Be
Gn namst wild,
Building hgm flagpole, b
Bidding hent eMeple, 4
Baidm hcm.-ia. I.a
15ftale = 49
wftale 11
J1011 etfl = 11 N. a
Sella pnu
HeyM
Haft
He.RB
He4MMle49
Rag
awe
F=
F'
Re(m)
IWm)
BIWy/un21
MPE%
AT&T GSM 050
56.00
41.00
6=
9 -10
11
-11
dB (
0.07%
65.2
0.3116
00537
AT&T GBM 19W
56.00
4100
9 -15
de (
it
-10
dB (
0.0150)
652
0.0620
0.0062
AT&T UMTS 850
56.00
41.0011
a(
0.1000 J
55.6
-11
dB (
ON%
651
0.3116
0.053]AT&T
UMT81900
56.00
41.00
00916)
55.6
11
-10
tlB 1
0.0156 )
652
0.0620
0.W62
TAksbas
P.W
12.0011
-224.9406
1
224941
-10
dB �
0.1000)
167
48013
0.4801
SPMd
3200
1100
196830
19663
49 '
-22
dB (
00063
6.9
2.2034
0.2203
Tglal1
24,6830
Total
00202
...u mng
Building ryem flagpole, b = Neste = 3
Building from steeple, 4 = 20fia16 = 0 '
Building hem au=mm. 6 = 100 rte's = 9 H. Jt e
P1°
ht
igM1
H.011
H
Rag
Ms
F=
Re(m)
S (pWA )
MPE%
AT&T GSM 850
56.00
29.00
500.0
6=
9 -10
tlB 1
0.1000 )
556
0.5104
00932
AT&T GBM 1900
5600
29.00
5000
B=
9 -15
de (
00316)
55.8
O1]OB
0.01]1
AT&T UMTS 850
56.00
2900
500.0
B=
9 -10
a(
0.1000 J
55.6
05104
0.0938
AT&T UMTS 1900
56.00
29.00
500.0
B=
8 -t5
tlB (
00916)
55.6
O.t]O6
001]1
T-alo0fle
2100
OW
500.0
6=
0 -3
dB (
0.5012)
-224.9406
1
224941
SP
32.00
500
500.0
9=
3 -1
d8 (
0.1913 )
26.0
196830
19663
Tglal1
24,6830
vn wn au ¢u wV�uVmry
Balding lmm flagpole, 4 = Mftate = 4
Bustling from steeple, b= 2DO ft M e= 2
%nidi-u.,m....,m.. I- = -n-
Ss,heepnendes
HOW
H., It
Haim
Haft
M.
ERP
"ie
B
Rp(m) I
S (,a-)MPE%
AT&TGSM850
56.00
35.00
500.0
9-
6 °
3
18 (
0.5012) 1103
0.6004
0.118]
AT&T GSM 1900
5600
35.00
500.0
B=
6
-10
dB (
0.1000 ) 110.3
0.1373
0.013]
AT&T UIM BW
5300
3500
500.0
B=
5
43
dB (
0.5012 ) 110.3
0.68"
0.1107
AT&T UWS 1900
55.00
3500
W0.0
9=
6
-10
de(
0.1000 ) 110.3
DAM
0.0137
T-MUde
2]00
600
500.0
e=
2
0
dB (
1.65W ) 610
d40W
D.M00
Spend
3200
H.W
503.0
G=
4
-2
del
0.6310) 459
5.0126
OW13
Total
1.2140
9 o1J
Attachment 7
at&t
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
19010
118�8�8161
!P Ela°
i
0
ppe
09910
6
c
91990
BIBd816181
��8�616189
1111�9�981
IIII�IIIBI
1111�9�961
118161869
81816�B�B9
8�8�818�86
1111699969
1111191969
1111191999
1111999911
1111999911
1111999911
'1111999911
1111999911
111199911
!P Ela°
i
0
ppe
�
6
c
j 4 9S
Mill
lie
SRL
�
r.�§§®�|
|����)`�|k�
9,0+