HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-05-14 - AGENDA REPORTS - MC 10 138 APPEAL ATT WIRELESS (2)Agenda Item: 12
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
AGENDA REPORT
PUBLIC HEARING City Manager Approval:
Item to be presented by: Jeff Hogan
DATE: May 14, 2013
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF MASTER CASE NO. 10-138, CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT 10-013 FOR AN AT&T WIRELESS FACILITY
LOCATED OFF POPPY MEADOW DRIVE
DEPARTMENT: Community Development
RECOMMENDED ACTION
City Council conduct a public hearing, deny the appeal and affirm the Planning Commission's
approval, approving Master Case 10-138, Conditional Use Permit 10-013 to allow for the
construction of a wireless telecommunications facility adjacent to an existing water tank located
at APN 2854-006-900 subject to the attached Conditions of Approval (Exhibit A).
On November 10, 2010, AT&T Mobility (applicant) submitted a Conditional Use Permit
application to install a wireless telecommunications facility directly adjacent to two existing
Newhall Water District water tanks, in the community of Canyon Country. The subject property
is located between Poppy Meadow Drive and Narcissus Crest Avenue within an existing
single-family residential area.
The project proposal includes two 44' tall monopoles to house three panel antennas, in addition
to eight equipment cabinets, two GPS/91.1 antennas, and all other associated auxiliary equipment
to be located within with an eight foot tall split -faced masonry wall enclosure measuring
approximately 33'-6" x 20'. The monopoles will be located within 5 horizontal feet of the tanks,
one located to the southeast side of the water tanks and the other to the northwest. All of the
equipment will be located within the existing fenced area surrounding the tanks and will be
painted to match the water tanks.
After the project was submitted, staff requested the applicant hold a community meeting for this
Adopter -Pg --c V,)--,)�
project and a second similar project proposed near Mammoth Lane to address any community
concerns or questions. The applicant held a meeting on March 24, 2011; a total of eleven people
signed into the meeting, and the applicant addressed questions about noise, construction impacts,
signal interference, health effects, and the desire to move the facilities to another location.
On June 21, 2011, a duly noticed Planning Commission hearing was held on the item. Three
community members spoke against the project, citing concerns with property values, views,
radiation from the equipment, and noise. After consideration of the staff report and recommend-
ation, applicant comments and public testimony, the Planning Commission voted to approve the
project.
On July 6, 2011, Councilmember Marsha McLean submitted a letter of appeal for the project, on
behalf of the surrounding community, to the City Council for further consideration. She also
requested the applicant conduct a second meeting with the community in an attempt to resolve
any concerns prior to the City Council hearing.
On February 25, 2013, the applicant held a second community meeting with property owners
near the project site. Eight members of the community attended the meeting. The concerns raised
at this meeting included health effects, property value impacts, and a desire to move the project
to another location further from homes. Due to constraints mentioned below, no resolution came
from the meeting.
ANALYSIS
Aesthetics
The existing Unified Development Code (UDC) requires that wireless facilities be located in a
stealth manner and near existing structures to limit the proliferation of stand-alone cellular
facilities. The wireless facility is proposed to be located directly adjacent to the existing water
tanks, within an existing fenced area. The proposed monopoles would be painted to match the
existing water tanks. With the water tanks heights measuring 47'-3" and 49'-2", the monopoles
will not exceed the height of the tanks and, therefore, will have minimal visual impacts to
surrounding properties.
Noise
The closest residential structure to the wireless facility is approximately 215 feet. A noise study
was conducted and concluded that the project site would not exceed the current average ambient
noise levels at the project's property line.
Health and Safety
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 requires the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
to prescribe and make effective regulations governing the environmental effects of radio
frequency (U) emissions for telecommunication facilities. Furthermore, local jurisdictions are
preempted by the Federal Communications Commission under the Federal Telecommunications
Act of' 1996 from making decisions based on environmental and health effects related to radio
frequency emissions from wireless telecommunications facilities. The proposed project would
2
operate in compliance with these regulations.
Gap in Coverage
Federal law limits a local jurisdiction's ability to interfere with a wireless provider's attempts to
eliminate significant gaps in coverage. Once a significant gap in coverage is identified, the courts
have found that the local jurisdiction must approve the least intrusive means of providing
services within the gap in coverage. Courts have further determined that generally multiple sites
are more intrusive than single sites.
The area around the proposed wireless facility is topographically challenged with a series of
hillside and low line valley areas. The applicant has provided a map showing a significant gap in
coverage in this area. In response to community concern, the applicant has looked at finding
other ways to fill the necessary gap in coverage; however, due to the challenging topography, the
alternatives would require multiple new wireless facilities in more intrusive locations, such as
residential backyards. In addition, any alternate locations would not meet the aesthetic
requirements of the UDC. Accordingly, the Planning Commission determined that the proposed
location serves as the best and least intrusive site for installing a wireless facility that would
remedy the applicant's gap in coverage.
Conclusion
With the approval of this Conditional Use Permit, the applicant will meet all the requirements of
the Unified Development Code, including those relating to aesthetics and noise. In addition, the
applicant has demonstrated a significant gap in service coverage, and has shown the proposed
wireless facility to be the least intrusive means to fill that service gap. Thus, staff recommends
approval of the proposed project.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this project.
ATTACHMENTS
Resolution
Conditions of Approval
Aerial Photo
Site Plan
Visual Simulation
Coverage Justification Map
Planning Commission Staff Report available in the City Clerk's Reading File
Planning Commission Resolution P11-13 available in the City Clerk's Reading File
Zoning Map available in the City Clerk's Reading File
Community Meeting Synopsis available in the City Clerk's Reading File
CEQA Notice of Exemption available in the City Clerk's Reading File
Noise Analysis available in the City Clerk's Reading File
RESOLUTION 13-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DENYING
AN APPEAL, AND AFFIRMING THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF
MASTER CASE NUMBER 10-138, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 10-013,
TO ALLOW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A WIRELESS FACILITY WITHIN
THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. FINDINGS OF FACT. The City Council does hereby make the following findings
of fact:
a. An application for Master Case 10-138 (Conditional Use Permit 10-013) was filed by
AT&T Mobility (the "applicant") with the City of Santa Clarita on November 10, 2010.
The property for which this application was filed is located at APN 2854-006-900;
b. The application was deemed complete on March 25, 2011;
C. The General Plan designation of the site is Open Space (OS) and the zoning designation
of the project site is Residential Suburban (RS);
d. The project proposal includes two 44' tall monopoles to house three panel antennas, in
addition to eight equipment cabinets, two GPS/911 antennas, and all other associated
auxiliary equipment to be located within with an 8' tall split -faced masonry wall
enclosure measuring approximately 33'-6" x 20%
e. The subject property is bounded on the west and south by the residential uses, to the north
by vacant land and single-family residential, and to the east by vacant land;
f. On June 21, 2011, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing,
considered staff presentation, staff report, applicant presentation and public testimony
on the proposal and approved Master Case 10-138, Conditional Use Permit 10-013, for
the installation of a wireless telecommunication facility with a 5-0 vote;
g. On July 6, 2011, Councilmember Marsha McLean submitted a letter of appeal of the
project to the City Council for further consideration; and
h. The City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on this issue commencing on
May 14, 2013, at 6:00 p.m. at City Hall, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, and
considered the staff presentation, agenda report, the applicant presentation, and public
testimony on the proposed project.
SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) FINDINGS.
Based upon the foregoing facts and findings, the City Council further finds and determines as
follows:
a. Notice of Exemption for the project was prepared in compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA);
b. The project is exempt per Article 19: CATERGORICAL Exemptions, Section 15301:
Existing Facilities, of the California Environmental Quality Act as a Class 1 Exemption;
C. The location of the documents and other materials, which constitute the record of
proceedings upon which the decision of the City Council is based on, is Master Case
10-138 (Conditional Use Permit 10-013) project file within the Community Development
Department and is in the custody of the Director of Community Development; and
d. The City Council, based upon the findings set forth above, herby finds the Notice of
Exemption for this project has been prepared in compliance with CEQA.
SECTION 3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS. Based upon the foregoing facts and
findings for Master Case 10-138, the City Council hereby determines as follows:
a. That the proposed location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed
use is in accordance with the purpose of this development code, the purpose of the zone
in which the site is located, the Santa Clarita General Plan, and the development policies
and standards of the City;
The proposed location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed use are
in accordance with the purpose of the City's development code, the purpose of the zone
in which the site is located, the General Plan and the development policies and standards
of the City. Specifically, the proposed project is consistent with policy 4.4.4 of the Land
Use Element of the General Plan which dictates that the City protect and enhance public
utility facilities as necessary to maintain the safety, reliability, integrity, and security of
essential public service systems for all Valley residents.
In addition, the proposed project complies with the City's Wireless Communication
Ordinance, Section 17.17.040.N of the Unified Development Code because, although the
antennas would be visible from the adjacent neighborhood, they have been designed to be
integrated with the design of the existing tanks and would be finished with like textures
and colors to appear as part of the structure. The facility would be unmanned and would
not increase pedestrian or vehicular traffic and would have no affect on circulation
patterns in the area.
ID
The proposed project would not have a negative impact on the physical character of the
Newhall Water District tanks or surrounding neighborhood as the project is designed to
blend into the existing structures with matching materials, colors and textures and has
proven to have no noise impacts or other adverse impacts to the project site or adjacent
properties. As a public amenity, the facility would increase wireless telecommunication
coverage in the Canyon Country area leading to improved wireless reception.
b. That the location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed use would
be compatible with and would not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to
adjacent uses, residents, buildings, structures, or natural resources, with consideration
given to:
(1) Harmony in scale, bulk, coverage, and density;
The proposed wireless telecommunication facility would be located adjacent to
existing Newhall Water District tanks. The antennas would be mounted to poles
adjacent to the tanks with materials and colors that would blend in with the
overall existing tanks in terms of texture and color. All auxiliary equipment
would be located within a decorative masonry block wall shelter and would be
completely screened from view. The proposed facility would not significantly
change the scale, bulk, coverage, or density of the existing tower.
(2) The availability ofpublic facilities, services and utilities,
The project site is located in a developed portion of the City that is served by
public facilities, services, and utilities. The site is unmanned; therefore, the
proposed project is not anticipated to generate significant additional demand on
public facilities, services, and utilities. Therefore, the proposed project would not
create a significant demand for additional utilities.
(3) The harmful effect, if any, upon desirable neighborhood character;
The wireless facility would not create harmful effects or change the character of
the surrounding neighborhood. The facility would be visible to the public from
the adjacent neighborhood; however, the antennas would be designed with
materials and colors that match the existing tanks in terms of texture and color.
Auxiliary equipment would be located within an enclosed equipment shelter and
would be completely screened from view. The split faced block material would be
consistent with the surrounding environment in terms of color.
The proposed equipment shelter is an open-air facility and would not require air
conditioning equipment to be installed. The project would not increase the level of
ambient noise in the area. A noise study was provided and demonstrates no net
increase in the. existing'ambient noise levels of the surrounding neighborhood.
II
(4) The generation of traffic and the capacity and physical character ofsurrounding
streets;
The proposed wireless facility would be unmanned and thus would not generate
traffic nor impact the physical character or capacity of surrounding streets. The
wireless facility would not change the nature or use of the existing Newhall Water
District tanks, nor would it affect any of the current or future uses of the subject
property.
(5) The suitability of the site for the type and intensity of use or development which is
proposed;
This project is proposed directly adjacent to Newhall Water District tanks. The
subject tanks are approximately 47'-3" and 49'-2" tall and the proposed poles are
44' high. The site is located at APN 2854-006-900. The proposed wireless facility
is suitable for this location based on:
(1) Zoning, this is Residential Suburban in the Unified Development Code,
and Open Space in the General Plan,
(2) Existing land use, which are Newhall Water District tanks, and
(3) Type and intensity of development on the site, which are existing 47'-3"
and 49'-2" tall water tanks.
Other wireless telecommunications facilities have been approved and constructed
within similar locations in the past. The wireless telecommunication facility
would be installed on poles directly adjacent to the existing water tanks and will
be screened from the public to the fullest extent possible in construction materials,
textures and colors will match the architecture and finish of the existing structure.
(6) The adverse significant effect, if any, upon environmental quality and natural
resources which cannot be mitigated unless the approving authority adopts a
statement of overriding considerations; and
The wireless telecommunication facility would be located directly adjacent to
existing Newhall Water District tanks and adjacent to an existing residential area
in a developed section of the City and would have no significant effect upon the
environment or natural resources.
C. That the proposed location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed
use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be
detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties
or improvements in the vicinity;
The proposed wireless facility would be installed directly adjacent to existing Newhall
Water District tanks and would match the existing tanks in terms of architecture, color
and finish. The auxiliary equipment would be located within an enclosed equipment
4
shelter and would be completely screened from view by a split faced block wall. The
wireless telecommunications facility would not be detrimental to the public's health,
safety, or welfare, nor would it be materially injurious to properties or improvements in
the vicinity.
d. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of City of
Santa Clarita Unified Development Code, except for an approved variance or
adjustment.
The approval of a Conditional Use Permit for this project together with the Conditions of
Approval is consistent with the City's Unified Development Code and General Plan
which encourage wireless facilities to be co -located on existing structures. This project
does not require a variance or adjustment.
SECTION 4. Based upon the findings of fact, the staff report (including staff report and
materials from the Planning Commission hearings), written correspondence and oral testimony
presented at the appeal hearing, the City Council does hereby deny the appeal, affirming the
Planning Commission decision on the project approving Master Case No. 10-138 and its
associated entitlements, including Conditional Use Permit 10-013, subject to the Conditions of
Approval (Exhibit A).
SECTION 5. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 14th day of May 2013
MAYOR
ATTEST:
INTERIM CITY CLERK
DATE:
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss.
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA)
I, Armine Chaparyan, Interim City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita at a
regular meeting thereof, held on the 14th day of May 2013, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
INTERIM CITY CLERK
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
MASTER CASE 10-138
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 10-013
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
GENERAL CONDITIONS
GCI. The approval of this project shall expire if the approved use is not commenced within two
(2) years from the date of conditional approval, unless it is extended in accordance with
the terms and provisions of the City of Santa Clarita's Unified Development Code
(UDC).
GC2. To the extent the use approved with this project is a different use than previously
approved for the property, the prior approval shall be terminated along with any
associated vested rights to such use, unless such prior approved use is still in operation,
or is still within the initial pre -commencement approval period. Once commenced, any
discontinuation of the use approved with this project for a continuous period of one
hundred eighty (180) calendar days or more shall terminate the approval of this use along
with any associated vested rights to such use. The pre-existing legal use shall not be re-
established or resumedafter the one hundred eighty (180) day period. Discontinuation
shall include cessation of a use regardless of intent to resume.
GC3. The applicant shall be responsible for notifying the Director of Community Development
in writing of any change in ownership, designation of a new engineer, or change in the
status of the developer, within 30 days of said change.
GC4. Unless otherwise apparent from the context, the term "applicant" shall include the
applicant and any other persons, corporation, or other entity making use of this grant.
The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Santa Clarita, its
agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City or
its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this
project, including any related environmental approvals. In the event the City becomes
aware of any such claim, action, or proceeding, the City shall promptly notify the
applicant, or if the city fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the applicant shall not
thereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City. Nothing
contained in this Condition prohibits the City from participating in the defense of any
claim, action, or proceeding, if both the following occur: 1) the City bears its own
attorney's fees and costs; and 2) the City defends the action in good faith. The applicant
shall not be required to pay or perform any settlement unless the settlement is approved
by the applicant.
GCS. The property shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the
approvals granted by the City. Any modifications shall be subject to further review by
the City.
lu
Conditions of Approval — Exhibit A
Resolution P11-13
,Master Case No. 10-138, Conditional Use Permit No. 10-013
Page 2 of a
GC6. This grant shall not be effective for any purpose until the permittee and the owner of the
property involved (if other than the permittee) have filed with the Director of Community
Development, their affidavit (Acceptance Form) stating that they are aware of, and agree
to accept, all of the conditions of this grant.
GC7. Details shown on the site plan are not necessarily approved. Any details which are
inconsistent with the requirements of state or local ordinances, general conditions of
approval, or City policies and not modified by this permit must be specifically approved
in writing.
GC8. It is further declared and made a condition of this permit that if any condition hereof is
violated, or if any law, statute, or ordinance is violated, the City may commence
proceedings to revoke this approval.
PLANNING DIVSION
PLI. The applicant has received approval to install an unmanned wireless telecommunications
facility on an existing Newhall Water District property located at APN 2854-006-900 in
the City of Santa Clarita, including three (3) panel antennas on two (2) new poles, one (1)
20' x 33'-6" equipment shelter with an eight foot high masonry wall, and two (2)
GPS/91 I antennas located within the proposed equipment shelter
PI -2. The facility shall be constructed as follows: three (3) panel antennas on two (2) new
poles, one (1) 20' x 33'-6" equipment shelter with eight foot high masonry wall, and two
(2) GPS/91 1 antennas on equipment shelter per the approved site plan, design drawings
and specifications. Any change in size, location or configuration shall be subject to the
review of the Director of Community Development, and may require approval of the
Planning Commission.
PI -3. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall comply with all applicable
regulations and fees of affected agencies including the Los Angeles County Fire
Department.
PI -4. All requirements of the Unified Development Code (UDC) and specific zoning for the
subject property shall be complied with unless set forth in this permit and shown on the
approved site plan.
PL5. The wireless telecommunications facility and antennas shall be designed to appear as an
integral part of the existing structures, shall be located to minimize visual impacts and
consistent with the approved site plan and visual simulations on file with the City of
Santa Clarita's Planning Division.
PL6. All antennas shall meet the minimum siting distances to habitable structures required for
compliance with Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulations and standards
Conditions ojApproval — Exhibit A
Resolution P11-13
Master Case No. 10-138, Conditional Use Perini( A'o. 10-013
Page 3 of J
governing the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions.
PL7. The proposed wireless communication facility shall conform to all standards and
guidelines of the City's UDC including sub -section 17.17.040 (Wireless Communication
Facilities).
PL8. The telecommunications facility shall not bear any signs or advertising devices other than
certification, warning, or required signage. All required seals and signage shall be
obscured by building and screening design when, and as much as, possible.
PL9. All wire or cable necessary for operation of the facility including reception shall be
adequately screened from public view as part of construction.
PLIO. The wireless telecommunications facility shall not restrict access to any existing antenna
or potential future antenna location which could be used either by the permitee or by
another provider.
PLl I. The applicant is required to obtain a building permit prior to the construction of the
proposed facility and is required to meet all requirements set forth by the City of Santa
Clarita Building and Safety Division.
PL12. Necessary equipment for the proposed project shall be located in a locked or otherwise
secured area that is not accessible to unauthorized persons. All wireless
telecommunication facilities shall be designed to prevent unauthorized climbing.
PL13. if the antenna and equipment becomes inoperative or are abandoned for six months, the
applicant shall dismantle and remove the facility no later than ninety (90) days after that
six-month period.
PL14. The operation of the facility shall not cause interference with any electrical equipment in
the surrounding neighborhoods, including television, radio, telephone or computer use,
nor may the antenna create harmful interference between any other telecommunication
facilities, including City -owned communication facilities.
PL15. All wireless facilities shall comply with City adopted noise standards. All equipment,
including accessory equipment shall comply with the City's noise standards as set forth
in the City's noise ordinance. If necessary, equipment shall be replaced or modified with
noise dampening materials or techniques to come into compliance with City standards.
BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION
BSI. Projects submitted for plan review shall comply with the 2007 California Building,
Mechanical, Plumbing Codes, and Electrical Code, the 2008 California Energy Code, and
the 2008 City of Santa Clarita amendments to the California codes. A copy of the City
12
Conditions of Approval — L•'xhibit A
Resolution PI1-13
,Master Case No. 10-138, Conditional Use Permit No. 10-013
Page > of a
amendments is available at the Building and Safety public counter and on our website at
wwwsanta-clarit i.coni.
BS2. The applicant shall obtain a Certificate of Occupancy prior to the building or structure
being used or occupied.
BS3. The building shall be properly maintained, so as to not fall out of compliance, create a
hazard, nor restrict accessibility access.
BS4. All buildings, fences, retaining walls and other structures, shall be setback from the
adjacent ascending or descending slopes per section 1805.3 CBC
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
ESI. All tenant improvement projects valuated greater than $100,000 must comply with the
City's Construction and Demolition Materials (C&D) Recycling Ordinance.
ES2. The project shall comply with the City's Construction and Demolition Materials
Recycling Ordinance and the following:
a) A Construction and Demolition Materials Management Plan (C&DMMP) must be
prepared and approved by the Environmental Services Division prior to obtaining any
grading or building permits.
b) A minimum of 50% of the entire project's inert (dirt, rock, bricks, etc.) waste and
50% of the remaining C&D waste must be recycled or reused rather than disposing in
a landfill.
c) A deposit of 3% of the estimated total project cost or $25,000, whichever is less, is
required. The full deposit will be returned to the applicant upon proving that 50% of
the inert and remaining C&D waste was recycled or reused.
ES3. All projects within the City that are not self -hauling their waste materials must use one of
the City's franchised haulers for temporary and roll -off bin collection services. Please
contact Environmental Services staff at 661-286-4098 for a complete list of franchised
haulers in the City.
s:\cd\current\!2010\10.138 (cup 10-0 1 3)\pl ann ing commission\coa.doc
0
iw,�i�1��.►,,I11#�:A'+!.:�����1�)�.11�1►1►ri.
i
^�s s,k� y c A!�•a Jf�! ���i ,: �.� �b� *.�lri►r Uiiill -
�Af l � ��l�rrllllJil p
Jt .
r. r*T' - � * •• fait �; i��C�.a� � .�w�m -46-
its-
7,4
46-sKf•v� aN� r4r�r �•ra"1';'
?ih ,4 ► •� y r r +»`T)�8�. �• •ro �� •4rd�F.J•'ar �i�. s:� ff
)r Mir ai • f _ _, �'� '•` L0�.0 ,s
is
10
d
SIN y 1
R � _..,fit%��.' •� :.(��� r �,, .;fig ?t�3�'�� a tea' •
cab �J►� ,< � �' �'v �` ,'►'+ ..,,,� •�� +. e h
fit
044
TA
phi-. r .i'.. * t a A� ,i►�� �� ...� ''
fir'+,�, � ;� •,� ►'4` � �' y ry,..
'.vim a + �• ��#.' 'e
M' TT fry Kir,' Sci• ��7� � �.
fir •�I! f
07 -) y
r kyr a ♦ i�+�- tf �
U
4=J
m
�
|¢2
�
Wo-
"a¢j@@3 �F
ade � �tt$,¢,yAy$e®®i�F•♦
ii
v
d A§8 R53
f�-d
E6F� •i§u�F��i§�'Ay�ga iFf
!'i�p'
[�, i
YY+ $6
'�3
i'iid�l?4ii1•"A�°�
'sf
[i 44F@
«i
111 6Qrr
±�ljio,iifAi'��
�i7
ai
ie45
°P Add BPsi
1 S p
@t
,�1��� Sid°pj��Yf
§p iff11M:: Y€g ,, a ,Q,
P�W
pFe d4dd
!� RRRRI
%4 IiiliB`t�dpiiBF$R:si
Q i. fE :1.
psi
g § :ad! e ,lri 'a 'gid d ig,fQFdRz$;S;ef
pd�d, R 4ie � �a(19'ii�� �•� �t�d�i��`�i,�@�;��
(aa p Q yy j.e��e y3pp 99 p F a
R6x�i
r;§���a i$:L P :� 4 r16i j98i16cdd�S:s R a !s 19RFii. �isd64s!�°FSR.:
s
`3S ab` i e
Fl—
11 1A a¢9,@ C Y 11 1
:p E gI I I I I
@ p€ 98Y@ G
Ing
19 0 C ¢p Ye
EEg SS 9
4 e 1;11,1;1 E
5 F r 25 e¢g aY � Cw Y� A i N ))` § 6 � �¢
°r931G 1: 1gg•t 9i¢e5p
988 0909.99990 969G 9999 f�E9
00 O 000 O 000 O ®@®O®00
g31
9�
Q
b
€, 000 Q4 00
aGJ,
'lip
f a
� s
Jill��'i gra gaiI c'M
g p¢
3 P 6 s::s89fGss 4'W 4
a
F
3
aab
I-
pC»� q=
o 0 0
00 0
Am
A
0�
R
S
-
Q
6 .
OO
'
r
-
a
a
a
s
m
l
V
m
V Y
v �
1 NA
3
3 0
0 -0
M
m Cu
a)
T
~ a Q
O d 0
0 a
r^ a un
ro o i
0LO
3
J 0)
z u N
z
Q N
a v v
E E -�o
0 m -0
z z
Cu Cu Cu
Y Y :Ll
Ln Ln N
ad
T
fu
..i411bi&
0
W
O
0
n
m
0 N
O
N
L v
0
a
0
I— a`
n
00
CIO
H
O1
a
U
N
0 3 0
0 0
m v
v �
� a
a a-
9 L o
n 0 a
M 0_ N
O Ln
Zm
U N
Z
v ..
-� O1 N
E E U
Z Z Q
Y Y_ Y
Ln V) un
V%'Q
fu v1
3 3
3 O
o
m a!
Q) Z>
:2 >
9 Q Q
CL O
r O a
m a U.)m i
O 3 Ln
J 0)
Z v N
Z "
W ..
v v
E E -"o
m -o
Z Z Q
a) aJ QJ
:t:: Y
Ul un Ln
06
�yU
06
�v
9
OR
..
�D
co
n
J 00
U M
%�, TA
n 01
M
M �
O W
J J
Z W
W
Z
> Q
Wo
O
3
�o
a� c
E
W
>
oa
as
a
U LA
s>. Ln
Gl LT
to N
M
0
N
ai
N
`m
II,
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN:
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
A Public Hearing will be held before the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita in the
City Hall Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, I" Floor, Santa Clarita,
California, on the 10 day of May, 2013, at or after 6:00 p.m. to deny the appeal and
affirm the Planning Commission's approval, approving Master Case 10-138 (Conditional
Use Permit 10-013) to allow the applicant, AT&T, to install and operate an unmanned,
wireless telecommunication facility.
The project consists of three (3) panel antennas on two (2) new poles, one (1) twelve foot
by twenty foot equipment shelter with eight foot high masonry wall, and two (2)
GPS/911 antennas to be located on the equipment shelter. The property is located at
29515 Poppy Meadow in the Residential Suburban (RS) zone.
Proponents, opponents and any interested persons may appear and be heard on this matter
at that time. Further information may be obtained by contacting the Community
Development Department, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302, Santa Clarita, CA
91355; (661) 255-4330, Jason Killebrew, Assistant Planner I.
If you wish to challenge this action in court, you may be limited to raising only those
issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in
written correspondence delivered to the City Council, at, or prior to, the public hearing.
Dated: April 22, 2013
Armind Chaparyan
Interim City Clerk
Publish Date: April 23, 2013
sAcd\cu=nW2010\I0-138 (cup 10-013)\cc noticcAoc
2t
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
STAFF REPORT
MASTER CASE NO. 10-138
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 10-013
DATE: June 21, 2011
TO: Chairperson Burkhart and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Lisa M. Webber, AICP, Planning Manager
CASE PLANNER: Raymond Barragan, Assistant Planner I
APPLICANT: AT&T Mobility
LOCATION: APN 2854-006-900
REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to allow for the
installation and operation of a wireless telecommunication facility on an
existing Newhall Water District property. The project consists of three (3)
panel antennas on two (2) new poles, one (1) 20' x 33'-6" equipment
shelter with an eight foot high masonry wall, and two (2) GPS/911
antennas located within the proposed equipment shelter. The property is
located at APN 2854-006-900 in the Residential Suburban (RS) zone.
BACKGROUND
On November 10, 2010, AT&T Mobility (applicant) submitted an application for a Conditional
Use Permit to install a wireless telecommunications facility at an existing Newhall Water District
property improved with two existing water tanks. The project was deemed complete on March
25, 2011, following a community meeting conducted by the applicant at the direction of City
staff.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The subject property consists of two (2) Newhall Water District water tanks. The applicant's
submittal includes the proposed installation and operation of a wireless telecommunications
facility adjacent to the subject existing water tanks in the community of Canyon Country. The
project consists of three (3) panel antennas on two (2) new poles, one (1) 20' x 33'-6" equipment
shelter with eight foot high masonry wall, and two (2) GPS/911 antennas within the proposed
equipment shelter. The three proposed antennas will be installed on two (2) proposed poles at a
height of forty-four feet and will be concealed behind transparent radomes that will be painted to
match the existing water tanks.
Master Case 10-138
June 11, 2011
Page 2 of 4
The auxiliary equipment would be housed within an eight -foot high, masonry wall equipment
enclosure, located adjacent to the water tanks. The proposed equipment shelter would be
constructed of split -face block wall that will be painted to match the surrounding environment.
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION AND ZONING
The Unified Development Code (UDC) requires approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for
wireless communications facilities proposed to be erected or installed in a residential zone and
above 35 feet in height. The City's Wireless Communication Ordinance encourages that wireless
facilities use stealth design, as well as existing structures to limit the proliferation of stand alone
wireless facilities. The proposed antennas would be installed in the Residential Suburban (RS)
zone and above 35 feet. The proposed project would be integrated into the existing water tanks in
terms of finish and color to blend into the existing tanks, and would not negatively impact the
physical character of the tanks, or cause any other adverse significant effects to the site or
adjacent properties. Supporting ground -mounted equipment cabinets would be located within a
proposed split faced block wall enclosure. With approval of the CUP and the associated
conditions of approval, the wireless telecommunication facility will comply with the UDC,
General Plan, and the City's Wireless Communication Ordinance.
The subject property is bounded to the south and west by residential uses, to the north by vacant
land and residential uses, and east by vacant land.
ANALYSIS
Land Use
Newhall Water District Tanks
Vacant Land/Single Family
Residential
Single Family Residential
Single Family Residential
Vacant Land
The proposed antennas would be installed at a height of 41' and 44' on proposed poles in a
residential zone and adjacent to two (2) existing water tanks that have an overall height of 47'
and 49' feet in a residential zone. In addition, UDC Section 17.17.040.N.3 lists development
requirements that pertain to wireless communication facilities. These requirements encourage
wireless facilities to be located on existing structures, using screening methods to conceal the
equipment from public view. The proposed project is consistent with this section because the
project is designed to match the existing structure and places all ground -mounted equipment in a
decorative enclosure and is not visually or physically obtrusive. The subject project is the first
wireless facility proposed at the subject property.
Additionally, the Public Services, Facilities and Utilities Element of General Plan policy 1.12
dictates that the City work with responsible agencies to ensure the provision of sufficient and
General Plan
Zoniniz
Project
RS
RS
North
RS
RS
South
RL
RL
West
RL
RL
East
RS
RS
ANALYSIS
Land Use
Newhall Water District Tanks
Vacant Land/Single Family
Residential
Single Family Residential
Single Family Residential
Vacant Land
The proposed antennas would be installed at a height of 41' and 44' on proposed poles in a
residential zone and adjacent to two (2) existing water tanks that have an overall height of 47'
and 49' feet in a residential zone. In addition, UDC Section 17.17.040.N.3 lists development
requirements that pertain to wireless communication facilities. These requirements encourage
wireless facilities to be located on existing structures, using screening methods to conceal the
equipment from public view. The proposed project is consistent with this section because the
project is designed to match the existing structure and places all ground -mounted equipment in a
decorative enclosure and is not visually or physically obtrusive. The subject project is the first
wireless facility proposed at the subject property.
Additionally, the Public Services, Facilities and Utilities Element of General Plan policy 1.12
dictates that the City work with responsible agencies to ensure the provision of sufficient and
Master Case 10-138
June 21, 2011
Page 3 of 4
continued telecommunications service. As proposed, the project would improve the City's
cellular coverage and service.
Noise
The applicant provided staff with an analysis regarding noise for the equipment cabinets that are
proposed adjacent to the water tanks. The analysis took into account the proposed block wall
surrounding the equipment enclosure when determining noise impacts. Additionally, the
proposed equipment enclosure is an "open-air" enclosure which would not require additional
cooling systems; therefore, the project would not generate an increase in ambient noise levels.
The noise generated by the project would not exceed the limits identified in Section 11.44.040 of
the Santa Clarita Municipal Code of 55 decibels. Furthermore, according to the analysis, the
proposed project would not exceed the current average ambient noise at the site, which is 45.7
decibels during day -time hours and 40.6 decibels at night. The closest residential structure is
approximately 250 feet away from the proposed ground -mounted equipment.
With approval of a Conditional Use Permit, together with the conditions of approval, the wireless
telecommunication facility, as proposed, would comply with the UDC, General Plan, and the
City's Wireless Communication Ordinance.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION REGULATIONS
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 requires the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
to prescribe and make effective regulations governing the environmental effects of radio
frequency (RF) emissions for telecommunication facilities. Local jurisdictions are preempted by
the Federal Communications Commission under the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996
from making decisions based on environmental and health effects related to radio frequency
emissions from wireless telecommunications facilities. The proposed project would operate in
compliance with these regulations. Therefore, no potential hazard to the public's health or safety
would result from radio frequency emissions relative to the proposed wireless
telecommunication facility.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS
This project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Article 19,
Section 15301: Existing Facilities, Class 1. Class I exemptions include the minor alteration of
existing private structures involving a negligible or no expansion of existing use. Additions to
existing structures are exempt provided that the addition would not result in an increase of more
than 50 percent of the floor area or 2,500 square feet, whichever is less. The proposed project
does not exceed these thresholds. It would require the addition of three antennas and an
approximate 600 square foot equipment enclosure adjacent to the existing water tanks.
Master Care 10-138
June 21, 2011
Page 4 of 4
PUBLIC COMMENT
As required by the Unified Development Code, all property owners within a 1,000 -foot radius of
the subject property were notified of the public hearing by mail. A public notice was placed in a
local newspaper (The Signal) on May 31, 2011, and a sign was posted at the site on June 6, 2011,
for a public hearing on June 21, 2011. To date, the Community Development Department has
received no correspondence in response to this proposal.
In addition to the legal noticing requirements, staff required the applicant to conduct a
community meeting to discuss the project with the surrounding property owners. A synopsis, as
prepared by the applicant, is attached to the staff report.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission:
Adopt Resolution PI1-13, approving Master Case 10-138, Conditional Use Permit 10-013 to
allow for the construction of a wireless telecommunications facility adjacent to an existing water
tank located at APN 2854-006-900 subject to the attached Conditions of Approval (Exhibit A).
ATTACHMENTS
Resolution P11-13
Conditions of Approval (Exhibit A)
Aerial Map
Zoning Map
Site Plan
Visual Simulations
Community Meeting Synopsis
SACMCURREN71!20ION 10-138 (CUP 10-013)\Planning Commission\10-138 Staff Reportdoc
RESOLUTION NO PI 1-13
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA APPROVING MASTER CASE 10-138, CONSISTING OF
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 10-013, TO ALLOW THE INSTALLATION AND
OPERATION OF A WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITY ADJACENT TO
NEWHALL WATER DISTRICT TANKS AT ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER 2854-006-900,
ZONED RESIDENTIAL SUBURBAN (RS), IN THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DOES HEREBY
RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. FINDINGS OF FACT. The Planning Commission does hereby make the
following findings of fact:
a. An application for Master Case 10-138 (Conditional Use Permit 10-013) was filed by
AT&T Mobility (the "applicant") with the City of Santa Clarita on November 10, 2010.
The property for which this application was filed is located at APN 2854-006-900;
b. The application was deemed complete on March 25, 2011;
C. The General Plan and zoning designation of the project site is RS (Residential Suburban);
d. The project proposes the installation of a wireless telecommunication facility consisting
of three (3) panel antennas on two (2) new poles, one (1) 20' x 33'-6" equipment shelter
with eight foot high masonry walls, and two (2) GPS/911 antennas mounted inside of the
equipment shelter that would house radio equipment cabinets and miscellaneous
electrical cabinets;
e. The subject property is bounded on the west and south by the residential uses, to the
north by vacant land and single-family residential, and to the east by vacant land;
On May 31, 2011, a public hearing was duly noticed for the Planning Commission
meeting for June 21, 2011, at 6:00 P.M. at City Hall Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia
Boulevard, Santa Clarita; and
g. At this hearing, the Planning Commission considered the staff report, staff presentation,
applicant presentation and any public testimony.
SECTION 2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS. Based on the foregoing facts and
findings for Master Case 10-138, the Planning Commission hereby determines as follows:
a. That the proposed location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed
use is in accordance with the purpose of this development code, the purpose of the zone
in which the site is located, the Santa Clarita General Plan, and the development policies
Resolution Pl 1-13
Master Case 10-138
Page 2 of 6
and standards of the City;
The proposed location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed use are
in accordance with the purpose of the City's development code, the purpose of the zone
in which the site is located, the General Plan and the development policies and standards
of the City. Specifically, the proposed project is consistent with policy 1.12 of the Public
Services, Facilities and Utilities Element of the General Plan which dictates that the City
works with responsible agencies to ensure the provision of sufficient and continued
telecommunications service.
In addition, the proposed project complies with the City's Wireless Communication
Ordinance, Section 17.17.040.N of the Unified Development Code because, although the
antennas would be visible from the adjacent neighborhood, they have been designed to be
integrated with the design of the existing tanks and would be finished with like textures
and colors to appear as part of the structure. The facility would be unmanned and would
not increase pedestrian or vehicular traffic and would have no affect on circulation
patterns in the area.
The project would be in keeping with the kinds of uses and services that are envisioned
for Residential Suburban (RS) zone. The proposed project would not have a negative
impact on the physical character of the Newhall Water District tanks or surrounding
neighborhood and would not have any other adverse impacts to the project site or
adjacent properties. As a public amenity, the facility would increase wireless
telecommunication coverage in the Canyon Country area leading to improved wireless
reception.
b. That the location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed use would
be compatible with and would not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to
adjacent uses, residents, buildings, structures, or natural resources, with consideration
given to:
(1) Harmony in scale, bulk coverage, and density;
The proposed wireless telecommunication facility would be located adjacent to
existing Newhall Water District tanks. The antennas would be mounted to poles
adjacent to the tanks with materials and colors that would blend in with the
overall existing tanks in terms of texture and color. All auxiliary equipment
would be located within a decorative masonry block wall shelter and would be
completely screened from view. The proposed facility would not significantly
change the scale, bulk, coverage, or density of the existing tower.
(2) The availability ofpublic facilities, services and utilities;
The project site is located in a developed portion of the City that is served by
public facilities, services, and utilities. The site is unmanned; therefore, the
Resolution P11-13
Master Case 10-138
Page 3 of 6
proposed project is not anticipated to generate significant additional demand on
public facilities, services, and utilities. Therefore, the proposed project would not
create a significant demand for additional utilities.
(3) The harmful effect, if any, upon desirable neighborhood character;
The wireless facility would not create harmful effects or change the character of
the surrounding neighborhood. The facility would be visible to the public from
the adjacent neighborhood; however, the antennas would be designed with
materials and colors that match the existing tanks in terms of texture and color.
Auxiliary equipment would be located within an enclosed equipment shelter and
would be completely screened from view. The split faced block material would be
consistent with the surrounding environment in terms of color.
The proposed equipment shelter is an open-air facility and would not require
additional air conditioning equipment to be installed. The project would not
increase the level of ambient noise in the area. A noise study was provided and
demonstrates no net increase in the existing ambient noise levels of the
surrounding neighborhood.
(4) The generation of traffic and the capacity and physical character of surrounding
streets;
The proposed wireless facility would be unmanned and thus would not generate
traffic nor impact the physical character or capacity of surrounding streets. The
wireless facility would not change the nature or use of the existing Newhall Water
District tanks, nor would it affect any of the current or future uses of the subject
property.
(5) The suitability of the site for the type and intensity of use or development which is
proposed;
This project is proposed directly adjacent to Newhall Water District tanks. The
subject tanks have a height of 47'-3" and 49'-2" and the proposed poles are 41'
and 44' high. The site is located at APN 2854-006-900. The proposed wireless
facility is suitable for this location based on:
(1) Zoning, which is Residential Suburban,
(2) Existing land use, which are Newhall Water District tanks, and
(3) Type and intensity of development on the site, which are existing 47'-3"
and 49'-2" tall water tanks.
Other wireless telecommunications facilities have been approved at similar
locations in the past. The wireless telecommunication facility would be installed
on poles directly adjacent to the existing water tanks and will be screened from
the public to the fullest extent possible in construction materials, textures and
Resolution P11-13
Master Case 10-138
Page 4 of 6
colors will match the architecture and finish of the existing structure.
(6) The adverse significant effect, if any, upon environmental quality and natural
resources which cannot be mitigated unless the approving authority adopts a
statement of overriding considerations; and
The wireless telecommunication facility would be located directly adjacent to an
existing Newhall Water District tanks and adjacent to an existing residential area
in a developed section of the City and would have no significant effect upon the
environment or natural resources.
C. That the proposed location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed
use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be
detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties
or improvements in the vicinity;
The proposed wireless facility would be installed directly adjacent to existing Newhall
Water District tanks and would match the existing tanks in terms of architecture, color
and finish. The auxiliary equipment would be located within an enclosed equipment
shelter and would be completely screened from view by a split faced block wall. The
wireless telecommunications facility would not be detrimental to the public's health,
safety, or welfare, nor would it be materially injurious to properties or improvements in
the vicinity.
CL That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of City of
Santa Clarita Unified Development Code, except for an approved variance or
adjustment.
The approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for this project together with the
Conditions of Approval is consistent with the City's Unified Development Code and
General Plan which encourage wireless facilities to be co -located on existing equipment.
This project does not require a variance.
SECTION 3. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDINGS. Based upon
the Notice of Exemption prepared for the project, the Planning Commission further finds and
determines as follows:
a. A Notice of Exemption for this project was prepared in compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA);
b. This project is exempt per Article 19: Categorical Exemptions, Section 15301: Existing
Facilities, of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as a Class I Exemption
consisting of the minor alteration of an existing structure;
C. The location of the documents and other material which constitutes the record of
Resolution P11-13
Master Case 10-138
Page 5 of 6
proceedings upon which the decision of the Planning Commission is the Master Case 10-
138 project file within the Community Development Department and is in the custody of
the Director of Community Development; and
d. The Planning Commission, based upon the findings set forth above, hereby finds the
Notice of Exemption for this project has been prepared in compliance with CEQA.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of
Santa Clarita, California, as follows:
Approves Master Case No. 10-138, Conditional Use Permit No. 10-013, to allow for the
construction of wireless telecommunications antennas and equipment directly adjacent to
existing Newhall Water District tanks located at (APN: 2854-006-900), subject to the
attached Conditions of Approval (Exhibit A).
Resolution P11-13
Master Case 10-138
Page 6 of 6
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 21 st day of June, 2011.
CHAIRPERSON BURKHART
PLANNING COMMISSION
0000& I9
LISA M. WEBBER, SECRETARY
PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
I, Lisa M. Webber, Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Santa Clarita, do
hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of
the City of Santa Clarita at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 21" day of June, 2011, by the
following vote of the Planning Commission:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSION SECRETARY
S:\CD\CURRENT\12010\10-138 (CUP 10-013)\Planning Commission\10-138 Resolution.doc
§s!$(
q§|
cc
§ coLLJ
cr
��¥
cn
/ 7c
00 N
CN
\
wm
_
<
z
K�
3w
zIr-
�
2
*
�
|Lcl
\
��
�
ƒ
- }�
e at&t
March 25, 2011
Subject: Neighborhood Informal Presentation - AT&T Mobility Facility Proposals
MC#10-117 - 29251 Mammoth Lane
MC#10-138 - 29515 Poppy Meadow Street
Honorable Planning Commissioners,
On Thursday, March 24, 2011, a part of the AT&T Mobility development team met with interested neighbors at
Canyon Country Park. The neighbors responded to an invitation to the meeting to discuss the two proposed
facility locations noted above. The meeting ran from the noticed start time of 6:00pm to just before 8:00pm.
Eleven people signed the attendance sheet, but there may have been a few in attendance that did not.
The meeting began by outlining the efforts of AT&T to fill gaps in coverage that have been identified by our
engineers in these two neighborhoods. Additionally, the many challenges that AT&T must overcome to ensure
satisfactory signal quality in a region with such varied terrain — and how these facilities solve them — were
presented.
The bulk of the evening was spent answering questions. During this informal dialogue, the two locations were
presented using the drawings and photo -simulations made available to the Planning Commission. The general
direction of the questions dealt with clarifying the exact extent of the facilities (number of antennas, number of
poles, their location, the equipment location and size, etc.).
In addition, the neighbors asked about the following:
• What noise will the facilities create? Originally, the Poppy Meadow site was proposed to include housing
the equipment inside a pre fabricated shelter "box" which necessitates using two A/C units. Because of the
concern that the city has over air conditioning noise in residential areas, this site has been re -designed to
use equipment that does not need to be in a shelter and does not need air conditioning units. Therefore, no
noise will be generated from this site. The Mammoth Lane facility was never designed for use of a shelter,
so no noise will be generated from this location either.
■ Will there be impacts from the construction? There will be a number of trucks and other equipment that will
need to enter the site to dig holes and install the replacement/new poles, as well as pour concrete for the
equipment slab. As these installations are very small compared to most construction work, the impacts will
be small and short-lived.
• Will there be interference with my (other carrier) signal? The FCC provides the limitations by way of the
license AT&T must operate under for all of their sites. That includes not interfering with the signal of other
licensee carriers and other FCC -regulated licensees such as broadcast radio and television stations.
• I don't care what the site looks like, but what about the potential health effects of these sites near our homes
— has this been studied? The FCC by its licensing creates a maximum energy limit past which none of these
kinds of sites must go. Network -wide, AT&T operates at about one-tenth that FCC limit. Also understand
that many parts of our modern world involve generating radio energy in much the same way as wireless
telephone facilities including television and radio broadcasting, home network routers, cell phones, smart
devices, cordless phones, satellite television and radio, and baby monitors.
■ Why can't there just be one site way up on the ridge behind us instead of the two sites close to us? Because
of the technical needs of the network and the nature of the technology, the terrain in the area will not allow
for one far -away site to have sufficient signal quality to cover the gaps in these neighborhoods. These two
sites prevent interference, dropped calls, "static", and unsuccessful E911 calls (which make up over 50% of
911 calls nationwide).
The general impression given by those in attendance was that the design was appropriate and the facilities will
not have a significant effect on the neighborhoods.
NOTICE OF EXEMPTION
TO:
[x] County Clerk, County of Los Angeles
12400 Imperial Highway, Room 2001
Norwalk, CA 90650
[ ] Office of Planning and Research
1400 Tenth Street, Room 121
Sacramento, CA 95814
FROM:
City of Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
APPLICATION: Master Case 10-138, Conditional Use Permit 10-013
PROJECT LOCATION: Newhall County Water District tank property (APN 2854-
006-900)
PROJECT APPLICANT: AT&T Mobility
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to allow
for the installation and operation of a wireless telecommunication facility on an existing Newhall
Water District property that houses two water tanks. The project proposal includes two 44'
tall monopoles to house three panel antennas, in addition to eight equipment cabinets,
two GPS/911 antennas and all other associated auxiliary equipment to be located within
with an 8' tall split -faced masonry wall enclosure measuring approximately 33'x 20'. The
property is located at APN 2854-006-900 in the Residential Suburban (RS) zone and the General
Plan Open Space (OS) zone.
This is to advise that the City of Santa Clarita City Council has approved the above described
project on May 14, 2013 and has found the project is EXEMPT from the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
The EXEMPT STATUS of the project is listed under Article 19 CATEGORICAL
EXEMPTIONS; the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
under Article 19 Categorical Exemptions, Section 15301.
Jessica Frank, Associate Planner
City of Santa Clarita Community Development Department
23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
(661)255-4330
Date
AT&T Outdoor Equipment Cabinet
Noise Analysis for
The Poppy Meadow Cell Site
City of Santa Clarita
Project #516001-0200
May 4, 2011
Prepared For:
Black & Veatch Corporation
12750 Center Court Drive #330
Cerritos, CA 90703
Prepared By:
Fred Greve, P. E.
Keith Turner
Mestre Greve Associates
Division of Landrum & Brown
27812 El Lazo Road
Laguna Niguel, CA 92677
949-349-0671
MW�6/� Mestre Greve Associates
Division of Landrum & Brown
AT&T Outdoor Equipment Cabinet
Noise Analysis for
The Poppy Meadow Cell Site
City of Santa Clarita
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Poppy Meadow Cell Site
Project #516001-0200
This report addresses the potential noise impacts at the project property line, and at the nearest
residential areas, from the AT&T outdoor equipment cabinets planned for use at the Poppy
Meadow Cell Site. The project is located at 29515 Poppy Meadow, in the City of Santa Clarita as
shown in Exhibit 1. The site plan is shown in Exhibit 2.
The site plan has been revised due to a change of equipment at the project site. The original noise
study (MGA Project #516001-0100) addressed the noise levels of two wall -mounted HVAC
units that were planned for use on an equipment shelter at the site. Outdoor equipment cabinets
were not planned for use at that time. An installation of eight (8) new AT&T outdoor equipment
cabinets is now planned for use at the site. The new equipment will be installed at the southeast
comer of the water tank site. The equipment lease area will be as close as 90 feet from the
nearest property line to the southwest, and about 220 feet from the nearest residential observer to
the southwest. This analysis will determine the potential noise levels at the property line of the
project site, and at the adjacent residential locations to the site. Noise levels at the adjacent
properties will then be compared to the City of Santa Clarita Noise Ordinance limits.
2.0 BACKGROUND ON NOISE
Sound is technically described in terms of the loudness (amplitude) of the sound and frequency
(pitch) of the sound. The standard unit of measurement of the loudness of sound is the decibel
(dB). Decibels are based on the logarithmic scale. The logarithmic scale compresses the wide
range in sound pressure levels to a more usable range of numbers in a manner similar to the
Richter scale used to measure earthquakes. In terms of human response to noise, a sound 10 dB
higher than another is judged to be twice as loud; and 20 dB higher four times as loud; and so
forth. Everyday sounds normally range from 30 dB (very quiet) to 100 dB (very loud).
Since the human ear is not equally sensitive to sound at all frequencies, a special frequency -
dependent rating scale has been devised to relate noise to human sensitivity. The A -weighted
decibel scale (dBA) performs this compensation by discriminating against frequencies in a
manner approximating the sensitivity of the human ear. Community noise levels are measured in
terms of the "A -weighted decibel," abbreviated dBA. Exhibit 3 provides examples of various
noises and their typical A -weighted noise level.
Page 1 of 9
Mary
n rxx texxl.� F,'
r f„
Exhibit 1
NU3MestreGreve Associates Vicinity Map
Division of Landrum & Brown
M�J/Qp Mastro Greve Associates
�7 Division of Landrum & Brown
Exhibit 2
Site Plan
0 dBA Outdoor Indoor
h. threshold of hearing (0 d8A)
Iq)��
20 rustling of leaves (20 dBA) whispering at 5 feet (20 d8A)
J
40 quiet residential area (40 cIBAt
I�))� refrigerator (50 dBA)
60
air -conditioner at 100 feet (60 dBA) sewing machine (60 dBA)
normal conversation (60 to 6S dBA)
(\(U1 dishwasher (55-70 dBA)
car at 25 feet at 65 mph (77 dBA) living room music or N (70 -75 dBA)
ME
diesel truck at 50 feet at 40 mph (84 dBA) garbage disposal (80 dBA)
propeller airplane flyover at 1000 feet ( 88 dBA) ringing telephone (80 dBA)
(/\nU motorcycle at 25 feet (90 dBA) vacuum cleaner (60-85 dBA)
lawnmower (96 dBA) shouted conversation (90 dBA)
backhoe at 50 feet (75-95 dBA)
[tell]
snowmobile (100 d8A)
pile driver at 50 feet (90-105 dBA)
1 car horn (I 10 dBA) baby crying on shoulder ( 110 dBA)
rock concert (110 dBA)
leaf blower (11 0 dBA)
120
ambulance siren (120 dBA)
!� stock car races ( 130 dBA)
jackhammer (130 dBA)
140
SW1Ce& league rgr rhe WFa Ul lkamg, w W.org
Hwdb. kaf nose a=L Mcr M11, tataa byLrll 1q 6, 1919
Maaala M. by Merere Ge 4ssgoarcs
MEBWstre Greve Associates
Division of Landrum & Brown
Exhibit 3
Typical Noise Levels
JWLEu Mestre Greve Associates
Division of Landrum & Brown
Poppy Meadow Cell Site
Project #516001-0200
Several rating scales have been developed for measurement of community noise. They are
designed to account for the known health effects of noise on people. A number of noise scales
have been developed of which one of the most predominate noise scales is the Equivalent Noise
Level (Leq). Leq is the sound level corresponding to a steady-state sound level containing the
same total energy as a time -varying signal over a given sample period. Leq is the "energy"
average noise level during the time period of the sample. Leq can be measured for any time
period, but is typically measured for 1 hour. This 1 -hour noise level can also be referred to as
the Hourly Noise Level (HNL), the energy average of all the events and background noise levels
that occur during that time period.
Sound levels decrease as a function of distance from the source as a result of wave divergence,
atmospheric absorption and ground attenuation. As the sound wave travels away from the
source, the sound energy is dispersed over a greater area, thereby dispersing the sound power of
the wave. Intervening topography or sound walls can also have a substantial effect on the
effective perceived noise levels.
Noise has been defined as unwanted sound and it is known to have several adverse effects on
people. From these known effects of noise, criteria have been established to help protect the
public health and safety and prevent disruption of certain human activities. This criteria is based
on such known impacts of noise on people as hearing loss, speech interference, sleep
interference, physiological responses and annoyance. Each of these potential noise impacts on
people are briefly discussed in the following narratives:
HEARING LOSS is not a concern in community noise situations of this type.
The potential for noise induced hearing loss is more commonly associated with
occupational noise exposures in heavy industry or very noisy work environments.
Noise levels in neighborhoods, even in very noisy airport environs, are not
sufficiently loud to cause hearing loss.
SPEECH INTERFERENCE is one of the primary concerns in environmental
noise problems. Normal conversational speech is in the range of 60 to 65 dBA
and any noise in this range or louder may interfere with speech. There are
specific methods of describing speech interference as a function of distance
between speaker and listener and voice level.
SLEEP INTERFERENCE is a major noise concern for traffic noise. Sleep
disturbance studies have identified interior noise levels that have the potential to
cause sleep disturbance. Note that sleep disturbance does not necessarily mean
awakening from sleep, but can refer to altering the pattern and stages of sleep.
Page 2 of 9
muffMestreGreve Associates Poppy Meadow Cell Site
Division of Landrum & Brown Project 0516001-0200
PHYSIOLOGICAL RESPONSES are those measurable effects of noise on
people that are realized as changes in pulse rate, blood pressure, etc. While such
effects can be induced and observed, the extent is not known to which these
physiological responses cause harm or are signs of harm.
ANNOYANCE is the most difficult of all noise responses to describe.
Annoyance is a very individual characteristic and can vary widely from person to
person. What one person considers tolerable can be quite unbearable to another
of equal hearing capability.
3.0 CITY OF SANTA CLARITA NOISE CRITERIA
3.1 Noise Ordinance
Noise ordinances are designed to protect adjacent noise -sensitive land uses from non -
transportation related noise sources (e.g., manufacturing facilities, music, mechanical equipment,
and activities on private property). To control these types of non -transportation related noise,
many communities have developed noise ordinances.
Section 11.44.040 of the City of Santa Clarita Noise Ordinance (Noise Limits) states "It shall be
unlawful for any person within the City to produce or cause or allow to be produced noise which
is received on property occupied by another person within the designated region, in excess of the
following levels." See Table 1 and 2 below for the applicable limits.
Table 1
TABLE OF APPLICABLE LIMITS
Region
Time of Day Noise Level, (dBA, Leq)
Residential Zone
Day
65
Residential Zone
Night
55
Commercial and Manufacturing
Day
80
Commercial and Manufacturing
Night
70
Page 3 of 9
Mestre Greve Associates
Division of Landrum & Brown
Table 2
CORRECTION TO NOISE LIMITS
Noise Condition
Poppy Meadow Cell Site
Project #516001-0200
Correction (in dB)
Repetitive impulsive noise -5
Steady whine, screech or hum -5
The following corrections apply to day only:
Noise occurring more than 5 but less than 15 minutes +5
Noise occurring more than I but less than 5 minutes +10
Noise occurring less than I minute per hour +20
The ordinance also states "At the boundary between a residential property and commercial
manufacturing property, the noise level of the quieter zone shall be used. The noise emanating
from the HVAC equipment can be considered as a steady hum while in operation. Therefore, an
adjustment of -5 dB will be applied to the noise ordinance criteria. Based on the above noise
ordinance criteria, the noise levels from equipment at the site are not to exceed 50 dBA during
the nighttime hours.
3.2 Wireless Facility Requirements
In Section 17.17.040 of Chapter 17.17 of the City's municipal code, the code states, "Within
residential zones, sound proofing measures shall be used to reduce noise caused by the operation
of wireless facilities and all accessory equipment to a level which would have a no -net increase
in ambient noise level." Consequently, the strictest interpretation of the municipal code for the
City of Santa Clarita specifies that the equipment at the site may not exceed the ambient noise
levels at the sites property line.
4.0 AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS
Some city and county noise ordinances allow that an adjustment be made to the noise ordinance
criteria based upon the ambient noise levels at the noise receptors being impacted by the site.
Ambient noise is the background noise of the surrounding environment. Daytime ambient noise
measurements were taken at the site on July 12, 2010 from 1:14 pm to 2:39 pm. Nighttime noise
measurements were taken on July 12, 2010 from 10:00 pm to 11:05 pm. The results of these
measurements are presented below in Table 3. The noise monitor used for the measurements was
a BrQel & Kja'r Type 2236 sound level meter, with a Type 4188 1/2" electret condenser
microphone.. The measurement system was calibrated before and after the measurements with a
Briiel & Kjmr Type 4231 sound level calibrator with calibration traceable to the National
Institute of Standards and Technology. Weather conditions were also noted during the
measurement period.
Page 4 of 9
'- Daytime temperature: 81 % humidity: 37%, wind Speed: 9 mph, direction: SSW
Nighttime temperature: 63% humidity: 64%, wind Speed: 0 mph
Site 1 was located next to the planned AT&T equipment shelter, just outside the chain link fence
at the southeast comer of the water tank facility. Residential areas could clearly be seen from this
location. The Leq was 48.3 dBA during the daytime noise measurement at Site 1. The Lmin
(lowest noise level observed during the measurement period) was 41.6 dBA. The Lmax (loudest
noise level during the measurement) was 61.8 dBA. The Lmax was due to a warning beeper on a
City truck as it was backing up to leave the site at about 1:30 pm. The Leq was 43.5 dBA for the
nighttime noise measurement at Site 1. The nighttime Lmin was 40.3 dBA. The nighttime Lmax
was 55.2 dBA and was due to a barking dog from 10:01 to 10:02 pm.
Site 2 was located at the first access gate leading to the water tank facility. The noise meter was
located between two residential homes near the backyards. For the daytime noise measurements,
the Leq at Site 1 was 46.8 dBA. The Lmin at Site 2 was 38.4 dBA. The Lmax was 61.8 dBA.
The Lmax was due to a helicopter flyover at about 2:00 pm. The Leq at night as Site 2 was 40.9
dBA. The nighttime Lmin was 33.3 dBA. The nighttime Lmax was 56.0 dBA and was due to
two separate sprinkler systems running simultaneously at the two nearby residences.
Site 3 was located at the end of the cul-de-sac on Narcissus Crest Avenue, very close to the
foothills. The noise meter was located between to residential homes. The daytime Leq for the
noise measurements at Site 3 was 422 dBA. The Lmin at Site 3 was 31.2 dBA. The Lmax was
55.8 dBA. The Lmax was due to a small plane flying in the vicinity at about 2:32 pm. The Leq at
night as Site 3 was 37.5 dBA. The nighttime Lmin was 31.3 dBA. The nighttime Lmax was 53.5
dBA and was due to a dog barking around 11:01 pm. Site 3 was the quietest of all the noise
measurements locations. These noise levels are typical for a suburban area at night. See Exhibit 4
for the ambient noise measurement location.
Page 5 of 9
Mestre Greve Associates
Poppy Meadow Cell Site
-oh/��
-B
of Landrum & Brown
Project #516001-0200
Table 3
SUMMARY OF AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS
(dBA, Leq)
SITE
Time
Leq
Lmax
Lmin
L2
L8
L25
L50
DAYTIME:
Site 1
1:14 to 1:34 pm
483
61.8
41.6
54.0
51.0
48.0
46.5
Site 2
1:42 to 2:02 pm
468
57.4
38.4
52.5
50.0
47.0
45.0
Site 3
2:19 to 2:39 pm
42.2
55.8
31.2
50.0
46.0
42.0
39.0
NIGHTTIME:
Site 1
10:00 to 10:15 pm
43.5
552
40.3
47.5
45.0
43.5
43.0
Site 2
10:22 to 10:37 pm
403
56.0
33.3
48.0
44.0
40.5
38.5
Site 3
10:50 to 11:05 pm
375
53.5
31.3
43.0
40.0
37.0
35.0
'- Daytime temperature: 81 % humidity: 37%, wind Speed: 9 mph, direction: SSW
Nighttime temperature: 63% humidity: 64%, wind Speed: 0 mph
Site 1 was located next to the planned AT&T equipment shelter, just outside the chain link fence
at the southeast comer of the water tank facility. Residential areas could clearly be seen from this
location. The Leq was 48.3 dBA during the daytime noise measurement at Site 1. The Lmin
(lowest noise level observed during the measurement period) was 41.6 dBA. The Lmax (loudest
noise level during the measurement) was 61.8 dBA. The Lmax was due to a warning beeper on a
City truck as it was backing up to leave the site at about 1:30 pm. The Leq was 43.5 dBA for the
nighttime noise measurement at Site 1. The nighttime Lmin was 40.3 dBA. The nighttime Lmax
was 55.2 dBA and was due to a barking dog from 10:01 to 10:02 pm.
Site 2 was located at the first access gate leading to the water tank facility. The noise meter was
located between two residential homes near the backyards. For the daytime noise measurements,
the Leq at Site 1 was 46.8 dBA. The Lmin at Site 2 was 38.4 dBA. The Lmax was 61.8 dBA.
The Lmax was due to a helicopter flyover at about 2:00 pm. The Leq at night as Site 2 was 40.9
dBA. The nighttime Lmin was 33.3 dBA. The nighttime Lmax was 56.0 dBA and was due to
two separate sprinkler systems running simultaneously at the two nearby residences.
Site 3 was located at the end of the cul-de-sac on Narcissus Crest Avenue, very close to the
foothills. The noise meter was located between to residential homes. The daytime Leq for the
noise measurements at Site 3 was 422 dBA. The Lmin at Site 3 was 31.2 dBA. The Lmax was
55.8 dBA. The Lmax was due to a small plane flying in the vicinity at about 2:32 pm. The Leq at
night as Site 3 was 37.5 dBA. The nighttime Lmin was 31.3 dBA. The nighttime Lmax was 53.5
dBA and was due to a dog barking around 11:01 pm. Site 3 was the quietest of all the noise
measurements locations. These noise levels are typical for a suburban area at night. See Exhibit 4
for the ambient noise measurement location.
Page 5 of 9
k,t
U
lot
� .i
Exhibit 4
Mestre Greve Associates Noise Measurement Locations
Division of Landrum & Brown
MHMestre Greve Associates
Division of Landrum & Brown
5.0 POTENTIAL NOISE LEVELS
Poppy Meadow Cell Site
Project #516001-0200
According to the latest site plans (dated March 17, 2011) provided by AT&T, eight (8) new
AT&T outdoor equipment cabinets are planned for use at the site. Manufacturer noise level data
for the cabinets is attached in the appendix of this report. The manufacturer source data
demonstrates that these units will produce a sound pressure level of about 35 dBA at a distance
of 79 feet from the front side of each cabinet. The noise levels from the cabinets vary from the
front, back, left, and right sides. See Table 4 below for the noise levels for one cabinet.
Table 4
NOISE DATA FOR AT&T EQUIPMENT CABINETS
DISTANCE IN FEET FROM UNIT (dBA, at 30'C)
Reference
Noise Level
Front Back
(feet from unit) (feet from unit)
Left Side Right Side
(feet from unit) (feet from unit)
35 dBA 79 30 49 52
Exhibit 5 shows the outdoor equipment cabinet locations and the adjacent properties. On the
exhibit we show the line of sight from the equipment cabinets to the nearest southwest property
line, as well as to all nearby potentially impacted residential areas. The equipment cabinets
impacting an observer at the sites southwest property line can be considered the worst-case
location because this is the nearest noise sensitive area to the site, in accordance with the City of
Santa Clarita Noise Ordinance. The exhibit shows that an observer at the nearest southwest
property line will be located approximately 90 feet from the planned AT&T equipment cabinets.
The closest residential observer to the southwest will be located about 220 feet from the
equipment cabinets.
All noise levels from all equipment at the site are cumulative. If two noise sources of the same
decibel level are summed together the resulting noise level will be about 3 dB louder. Likewise,
the noise level would be about 4.7 dB louder for 3 pieces of equipment generating the same
source noise level output. We must take all noise sources from all equipment at the site into
consideration. Therefore, the total noise levels of all eight (8) AT&T equipment cabinets will be
44 dBA at a distance of 79 feet for all property line observers north and south of the project site.
The distance from the AT&T equipment cabinets to each observer is shown in Table 5 below.
Page 6 of 9
WMestre Greve Associates
Division of Landrum & Brown
Exhibit 5
Distance From Equipment
M��/� Mestre Greve Associates
°�3' Division of Landrum & Brown
Poppy Meadow Cell Site
Project #516001-0200
Table 5
DISTANCE FROM AT&T EQUIPMENT CABINETS TO OBSERVERS (in feet)
Southwest Southwest West North
Property Line Property Line Residential Area Residential Area Residential Area
AT&T Cabinets 90 220 360 280
The front side of each equipment cabinet will face toward the northeast and southwest property
lines. Noise levels for the AT&T outdoor equipment cabinets will be 35 dBA at a distance of 79
feet from the front side of each cabinet. Since the cabinets are situated in two rows of four, the
first row of cabinets will shield the second row of cabinets in all cases. The first row of cabinets
in each situation will provide at least 3 dB of noise reduction from the second row.
Calculations were based on the assumption that all equipment at the site would operate
continuously. This represents the worst-case scenario. Using the data presented above, the
AT&T outdoor equipment cabinet noise levels were projected at the southwest property line, and
to the nearby residential areas potentially impacted by the site. The resulting projected noise
levels at each property line are shown below in Table 6.
Table 6
SUMMARY OF UNMITIGATED NOISE LEVELS (FOR EACH RECEPTOR) Leq, dBA
Southwest Southwest West North Noise
Property Line Property Line Residential Residential Residential Ordinance
Cabinets 38 30 26 28 50.0
The noise levels in Table 6 above are well below the required nighttime noise standard of 50
dBA. Therefore, noise mitigation will not be required to meet the City's nighttime noise
ordinance criteria of 50 dBA. The data used to determine these noise levels is shown in the
appendix.
Page 7 of 9
Mestre Greve Associates Poppy Meadow Cell Site
Division of Landrum & Brown Project #516001-0200
In Section 17.17.040 of Chapter 17.17 of the City's municipal code, the code states, "Within
residential zones, sound proofing measures shall be used to reduce noise caused by the operation
of wireless facilities and all accessory equipment to a level which would have a no -net increase
in ambient noise level." Consequently, the strictest interpretation of the municipal code for the
City of Santa Clarita specifies that the equipment at the site may not exceed the ambient noise
levels at the sites property line. The ambient noise levels were summed with the outdoor
equipment cabinet noise levels. The results indicate that in order to meet the requirements of
Section 17.17.040 of Chapter 17 of the City's municipal code, mitigation will be required to
insure that the noise levels from the equipment yield a no net increase to the ambient noise levels
at the sites property line, and at the nearest residential areas. A barrier will be required.
Plans provided by AT&T show that an 8 -foot CMU wall will completely surround the 615
square -foot lease area. This wall is not required in order to meet the City's noise ordinance
criteria. However, in order to meet the requirements of Section 17.17.040 of the City's municipal
code the site must be completely enclosed with a masonry wall. The wall shall be a minimum of
8 -feet in height (as shown in Exhibit 6). Any access gate must maintain a surface density of at
least 3.5 pounds per square foot. This can typically be achieved by using 1 1/2" plywood or
heavy gauge metal. The gate must close snugly or must overlap at the point of closure. The gap
at the bottom of the gate shall be kept to a minimum (i.e. less than 3/4"). Using these mitigation
measures, the resulting noise levels are shown below in Table 7. See the appendix the data used
to determine the noise levels from equipment at the site at each property line.
Table 7
SUMMARY OF MITIGATED NOISE LEVELS (FOR EACH RECEPTOR), dBA
Southwest Southwest West North
Property Line Property Line Residential Area Residential Area Residential Area
Equipment Cabinets 24 17 16 15
Ambient Noise Levels 44 44 41 38
Total Noise Levels 44 44 41 38
(With Ambient Noise)
The results indicate that with the mitigation measures presented above, there will be a no net
increase to the ambient noise levels at all property lines at the site.
Page 8 of 9
gRRiE�r - .
w
411
z
*ACCESS GATE MUST BE SOUND ATTENUATING a
m
N
8 FO O
NOISE BARRIER REQUIRED IN ORDER OTBgRR�FR
TO MEET SECTION 17.17.040 OF
THE CITIES MUNICIPAL CODE
Exhibit 6
Noise Barrier Exhibit
WVW Division of Landrum & Bmwn
Mestre Greve Associates Poppy Meadow Cell Site
Division of Landrum & Brown Project #516001-0200
APPENDIX
AT&T Outdoor Equipment Cabinet
Noise Level Calculations
Page 9 of 9
RBS Pwud DeS riplion
Table 9 Sound Pressure Levels for an RBS against a Wall, with Combined Climate Unit
Temp.
Sound
Pressure
Level,
dBA
Calculated Distance In Metres, Each Direction
Without Sound Hood
With Sound Hood
Front
Left Right
Front
Left
Right
200
35
28
20 21
13
14
15
40
15
11 12
7
7
8
50
4
3 3
2
2
2
60
<1
<1 <1
<1
<1
<1
25'
35
35
25 26
12
12
13
40
19
13 14
6
7j
7
50
6
4 4
1
2
2
60
1
<1 <1
<1
<1
<1
30°
35
25
14 16
9
10
11
40
14
8 9
5
5
8
50
4
2 2
1
1
1
60
<1
<1 <1
<1
<1
<1
14 1291156112A 7010001 Uen E 2008-05-14
NZ Levels CABS NEW S PL 042511.xls
"Poppy Meadow", City of Santa Clarita
Black & Veatch - Jeremy Siegel
PROJECT #516001-0200
FRED / KEITH T; May 2011
CASE 1- FREE STANDING RBS AT&T
(with Combined Climate Unit)
South Prop Line
REFERENCE DISTANCE 79 (FRONT SIDE
REFERENCE LEVEL 35.0
(35 dBA each)
dB / DOUBLING OF DISTANCE 6
dB / DECADE OF DISTANCE 20
RECEIVER DISTANCE 90
SOUND LEVEL 339
NOISE STANDARD (day) is 65 dBA
-5 dB for steady whine, screech, or hum
NOISE STANDARD (night) is 55 dBA
-5 dB for steady whine, screech, or hum
NZ Levels CABS NEW S PL 042511.xis
"Poppy Meadow", City of Santa Clarita
Black & Veatch - Jeremy Siegel
PROJECT #516001-0200
FRED / KEITH T, May 2011
CASE 1- FREE STANDING RBS AT&T
(with Combined Climate Unit)
South Prop Line
REFERENCE DISTANCE 30 BACK SIDE
REFERENCE LEVEL 35.0 0
(35 dBA each)
dB / DOUBLING OF DISTANCE 6
dB / DECADE OF DISTANCE 20
RECEIVER DISTANCE 90
SOUND LEVEL 25.5
NOISE STANDARD (day) is 65 dBA
-5 dB for steady whine, screech, or hum
NOISE STANDARD (night) is 55 dBA
-5 dB for steady whine, screech, or hum
"Poppy Meadow", City of Santa Clarita
Black & Veatch - Jeremy Siegel
PROJECT #516001-0200
FRED / KEITH T; May 2011
FRONT SIDE:
BACK SIDE:
South PL
33.9
33.9
33.9
33.9
Shiedling from other Cabinets 3 dB
Total NZ Levels 369 dB
25.5
25.5
25.5
25.5
Shiedling from other Cabinets dB
Total NZ Levels 31.5 dB
SLOW OF FRONT & BACK SIDES. 38.0 dB @ 90 FEET
NZ Levels CABS NEW S Res 042511.xls
"Poppy Meadow", City of Santa Clarita
Black & Veatch - Jeremy Siegel
PROJECT #516001-0200
FRED / KEITH T; May 2011
C:kSE 1- FREE STANDING RBS AT&T
(with Combined Climate Unit)
Southern Residence
ERENCE DISTANCE 79
REFERENCE LEVEL 35.1
dB / DOUBLING OF DISTANCE 6
dB / DECADE OF DISTANCE 20
RECEIVER DISTANCE 220
SOUND LEVEL 26.1
NOISE STANDARD (day) is 65 dBA
-5 dB for steady whine, screech, or hum
NOISE STANDARD (night) is 55 dBA
-5 dB for steady whine, screech, or hum
RONT SIDE
(35 dBA each)
NZ Levels CABS NEW S Res 042511.xls
"Poppy Meadow", City of Santa Clarita
Black & Veatch - Jeremy Siegel
PROJECT #516001-0200
FRED / KEITH T; May 2011
CASE 1- FREE STANDING RBS AT&T
(with Combined Climate Unit)
Southern Residence
REFERENCE DISTANCE 30
REFERENCE LEVEL 35.0
dB / DOUBLING OF DISTANCE 6
dB / DECADE OF DISTANCE 20
RECEIVER DISTANCE 220
SOUND LEVEL 17.7
NOISE STANDARD (day) is 65 dBA
-5 dB for steady whine, screech, or hum
NOISE STANDARD (night) is 55 dBA
-5 dB for steady whine, screech, or hum
BACK SIDE
(35 dBA each)
"Poppy Meadow", City of Santa Clarita
Black & Veatch - Jeremy Siegel
PROJECT #516001-0200
FRED / KEITH T; May 2011
FRONT SIDE:
BACK SIDE:
Southern Residence
26.1
26.1
26.1
26.1
Shiedling from other Cabinets 3 dB
Total NZ Levels 29.1 dB
17.7
17.7
17.7
17.7
Shiedling from other Cabinets dB
Total NZ Levels 23.7 dB
SUM OFFROIYr&BACKSIDES. • 30.2 dB @220 feet
NZ Levels CABS NEW W Res 042511.x1s
"Poppy Meadow", City of Santa Clarita
Black & Veatch - Jeremy Siegel
PROJECT #516001-0200
FRED / KEITH T; May 2011
CASE 1- FREE STANDING RBS AT&T
(with Combined Climate Unit)
Western Residence
REFERENCE DISTANCE 79
REFERENCE LEVEL 35.1
dB / DOUBLING OF DISTANCE 6
dB / DECADE OF DISTANCE 20
RECEIVER DISTANCE 360
SOUND LEVEL 21.8
NOISE STANDARD (day) is 65 dBA
-5 dB for steady whine, screech, or hum
NOISE STANDARD (night) is 55 dBA
-5 dB for steady whine, screech, or hum
FRONT SIDE
(35 dBA each)
NZ Levels CABS NEW W Res 042511.xls
"Poppy Meadow", City of Santa Clarita
Black & Veatch - Jeremy Siegel
PROJECT #516001-0200
FRED / KEITH T; May 2011
CASE 1- FREE STANDING RBS AT&T
(with Combined Climate Unit)
Western Residence
REFERENCE DISTANCE 30 111iACK SIDE
REFERENCE LEVEL 35.0
(35 dBA each)
dB / DOUBLING OF DISTANCE 6
dB / DECADE OF DISTANCE 20
RECEIVER DISTANCE 360
SOUND LEVEL 13.4
NOISE STANDARD (day) is 65 dBA
-5 dB for steady whine, screech, or hum
NOISE STANDARD (night) is 55 dBA
-5 dB for steady whine, screech, or hum
"Poppy Meadow", City of Santa Clarita
Black & Veatch - Jeremy Siegel
PROJECT #516001-0200
FRED / KEITH T; May 2011
FRONT SIDE:
BACK SIDE:
West Residence
21.8
21.8
21.8
21.8
Shiedling from other Cabinets 3 dB
Total NZ Levels 24.8 dB
13.4
13.4
13.4
13.4
Shiedling from other Cabinets dB
Total NZ Levels 19.4 dB
AN OFFRONr& RACKSIDES.
25.9 dB 0360 feet
NZ Levels CABS NEW N Res 042511.xis
"Poppy Meadow", City of Santa Clarita
Black & Veatch - Jeremy Siegel
PROJECT #516001-0200
FRED / KEITH T; May 2011
OBSERVER #1
CASE 1- FREE STANDING RBS AT&T
(with Combined Climate Unit)
Northern Residence
REFERENCE DISTANCE 79
REFERENCE LEVEL 35.0
dB / DOUBLING OF DISTANCE 6
dB / DECADE OF DISTANCE 20
RECEIVER DISTANCE 280
SOUND LEVEL 24.0
NOISE STANDARD (day) is 65 dBA
-5 dB for steady whine, screech, or hum
NOISE STANDARD (night) is 55 dBA
-5 dB for steady whine, screech, or hum
RONT SIDE
(35 dBA each)
NZ Levels CABS NEW N Res 042511.xls
"Poppy Meadow", City of Santa Clarita
Black & Veatch - Jeremy Siegel
PROJECT #516001-0200
FRED / KEITH T; May 2011
CASE 1- FREE STANDING RBS AT&T
(with Combined Climate Unit)
Northern Residence
REFERENCE DISTANCE 30 BACKSIDE
REFERENCE LEVEL 35.0
(35 dBA each)
dB / DOUBLING OF DISTANCE 6
dB / DECADE OF DISTANCE 20
RECEIVER DISTANCE 280
SOUND LEVEL 15.6
NOISE STANDARD (day) is 65 dBA
-5 dB for steady whine, screech, or hum
NOISE STANDARD (night) is 55 dBA
-5 dB for steady whine, screech, or hum
"Poppy Meadow", City of Santa Clarita
Black & Veatch - Jeremy Siegel
PROJECT #516001-0200
FRED / KEITH T; May 2011
FRONT SIDE:
BACK SIDE:
Northern Residence
24.0
24.0
24.0
24.0
Shiedling from other Cabinets 3 dB
Total NZ Levels 27.0 dB
15.6
15.6
15.6
15.6
Shiedling from other Cabinets dB
Total NZ Levels 21.6 dB
AN OFFROW&A4CKSOES.• 28.1 dB @360 feet
MGPoPoYMEIMW WeiEP iMIR W511
9a0: R
'Igry 9YW'. �♦n �: wu �:nn:' B:IPoBEP gRpalpN WORPBP@i, MW BOa
BiY•\Lxl.lo.m�. �iet.i I�UpYb:6Sq
vaaEcralwol.P,m
nmlmixe 9m �^: i
EvnIWeEXmon PB591a dB M yq y
A W ep
GNyf n iG e!L Pen EeN i W H W
Rda Lrvtl el F _ A W A
PON. SiOE � � N AA
A eE{
elY nwlWeOben RBBita eB1 tl M i A! eb i
N W
Octal IEaI e.IS&tr6n
IYIa a0 Ne BIIJ(BOE
raBwa r.e as mleneE ra oar aar a:... m9... w B.Rr r9da 9..a Bml
w maea: n o...eell rew w u. ar.w ea.Een R9almoo aa�
la740 1 10 18740 .0
11740
05
MG PoGGYMEAW W WATEP T.W N M2511
$ONMm Pask4
BPoNf Mulw', eSry MSun deiu GPpIER PPEpICIpX WOPpNEET.YgM 9WPCE
FAOIFL! I51� �•� WI Ypeb: SaSM
FRED/IFS[HC1 blll
IArW a•e s..xr 1 dM r aw.o r u K,n u 7•
p au w as
astir sob IEQ atesm EW» x axa s1 w
m AlA ca
Xp1«INHrFe' yA FP'JNT6GIE ]F apT n
- IG asb N F
f8 aµ f6 6
eo ass se a
sol«�.m ole Eaber Pesnm uz 1 eeA r zx.o 51r ac a2.a a a
•o a e
CIFwI MF--J(FG) 9.isexv Eam
wwl.vMrsoeACN siDB
zoo
e«6 of spurt. spurt. Sovm DTM bra aH.m oe...w owwr w.0 esnm wwl...l mY
Wt Ewtlbn H Ewolbn TO WNI 1WII FYrrbn M H Peb�Hm
SoulMm naWbrm/FNCAT SIOECABINE]B
uNNnranm tnAo . rano to tnaa rtoo nesa s a. oo zea sDo
AmObnl Norse tevN p5
SUM p,]
SwIM1n PesebCN SIDFCABINE]5
UNNIMM,TEIITEO 10>10 • 19]B.o 1 18740 YNQ 17850 5 a.0 00 23.7 5p(
Pmden Naw levN p.5
$autlum PeswhMl / f%AVF $IOF W &NEi$
MRINpEp 10)sU . 10I6.0 10 t3]0.0 M. 1)95.0 5 LO 133 tSs 5G:1
AmpkMNdn bvP' tl5
4NY p.5 •0
$mm�0rem Poebencef BACK 51DECA&NET$
MMUATEO 10]00 A 10]00 1 10)IG 200 1)950 5 9. 150 07 ,G f
AIM/eM Npsa lerel
SUN U5 00
n.s te.e Mmyabe�.nl«aame.0
ns Amle AnHnM'.
G.o
MP POPPYMEAW W WAIEHTAHK01]511
WeaIAn IMfIWru
'Pop/ Abtlw'. Ciry N ]nY [lui u
N6Veep!-hlemy SiO�l
1ROIfLi I51YO1Lif0
FAFDIKHTHT: OLVAII
Ca lA1YIM8 Erkkson RBB]108
/0.8
I 0BA ELL,OJ
IM
GOaI
P
bpJ
(PO)
BIS ae6it
aaLlW kl]b'
aoIL
FPJNTsgE
MH
O4
Ea n M M
Oa LM1o10 Erkeaon flB9 ]1p6
nBA
1 9100 M1lt
M4
I 0M tl
LrnkalR rp
Wp
IPOI
B15Bq Fxn
W. LWBIFi
NglSaMpk'n/FR TypE METS
BACK ]ILE
Baee ol5ource
Sourte
Saurce OWrce
Beed
OM Tn
pyYM Opk�w. WYI
pYMt
Wa Lwtl
041
b9 Elerellon
W
Elwtlbn To N1t1
MH
O4
Ea n M M
Re]xlkn
nBA
NglSaMpk'n/FR TypE METS
UMOOpAM IB14.1
1
1878.0 10
10]10
94.0
18'-00 5 0.0
00
y10
SC!`
Am6reNMYx Lewl
f08
9UM
<10
w.sl MSOarrce/Ba CK $IOECABUJETS
UNMf00ATEO 10710
<
10]80 1
IW10
9N.0
10W0 5 0.
00
190
AindeM Nlx lcnl
i08
8W
W.B
910
194
Su 0 mY9 4nke
1"
940 wmngal4 Mmom Artoenp
41.0
AMwAnd�ll.
as
MP PWPV MEADOW W. aTER TINN O.E511
NPYMn Rern�w
BMYn' CShIXam!]Nu B.BRIFA PPEBIC.IW WOIINWEET,PdMI9WBt[
e vaa.x.q'aw+ Ir aNtr: sasw
FRaPLi M1L®
IPE0�6EOW1,0 PII
llYwaFBb•YIRNTM Y).0 • MRS IS YO y y5
x sw u u
c+ilNn . r sw � s�ar[a x a•s a w
>o as u
wrlwwm uo EPpHrapF y aax u
w a•P s. z
w z•b a •
m xa PP
- _ I�.was E.Maamwml Iwn r aao Iw a P+ x a
AS a•s
C.NCM Ntl AISbYFin
Nair L.Vn OOP f•a BXK BIDE
a.xMRou,e. Bwuaa 9ouw OYnip ra MAID OMnw IXwvw WO
Mln 1bYe lwn
Int Ebnbn M EInnM� IDNM Wr OlawYn FMwbn M M NY.fr. pB/.
90
Ela Sum WMv yen Mr
41.5 IMngxni (wee MMenU
r.• wow wawm�
SFIR.aia 18740 . 1414.0 10 lID.. 'N00 VN.O 5 la 112 lab
NwNI WMw �« .1.
W AMD 1.14. O lam. 1 18110 Ero .)aa2 5
nmaam� L -a