Presentation Notes Wireless Communications Presentation Notes
For TIC Commission, June 1, 2016
Pre-Planning Era
Several stand alone cell towers were approved by the City in the late 1970's. These facilities
were located next to the freeways in industrialized areas and generated no controversy. No
further cell site development activity occurred during the 1980's through the early 1990's
Early-Planning Era
Cell site development activity accelerated rapidly starting in 1995 through the late 1990's. City
staff was ill-prepared for the flurry of applications and basically winged it during review.
Fortunately, all of the proposals were on buildings along heavily trafficked streets and generated
no controversy. Staff and Planning Commission were learning as each development application
was approved. By late 1996, staff slapped together a Wireless Communications Facilities
Zoning Ordinance that memorialized everything that staff had learned up until that time. The
City's ham radio antenna ordinance was cannibalized for this new wireless facilities ordinance.
Wireless Planning Matures
Continuing growth in the number of cell sites proposed in the City in the early 2000's, including
controversial proposals, catalyzes the City into funding a master plan for wireless facilities.
Around this time TIC Commissioners were taking an active interest in wireless planning issues
by attending public hearings and sometimes testifying at them. The City Council tasked the
Planning Division, TICC and a Wireless Planning Consultant to develop a master plan for
wireless communication facilities, which was drafted and approved by the City in late 2003,
which turned out to be the very first master plan in the nation.
By 2007, TICC decides to take a more proactive and supportive role to improve wireless
communications coverage in the City. An extensive on-line survey was conducted by TICC in
July 2007. The survey findings were reported to the City Council by September that year. As a
result, TICC was directed to work with City Staff to develop a plan to remedy the cell coverage
problems. This was done by rewriting the early Wireless Communications Facilities Ordinance
to conform it to the Master Plan in 2009. New areas in the City were opened up for cell site
facilities: parks, schools, residential hillside areas, existing utility poles in residential areas and
common interest lands in planned residential areas. This ordinance rewrite also gave TICC a
formal role in the cell site review process. A subcommittee of TICC members provides early
technical input to staff on all cell site applications scheduled for public hearing and also provides
its technical expertise at public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council.
__ J
Wireless Planning into the Future
New state laws, federal legislation and FCC rule making continue to strip authority over wireless
facilities away from cities and other local agencies. Staff is reviewing these new rules in
consultation with the City Attorney in order to update the City's planning documents and
planning procedures.
Colin Jung
Associate Planner
4
19.136.010
CHAPTER 19.136: WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES
Section
19.136.010 Purpose. in conformance with the provisions of this chapter and other
19.136.020 Applicability of regulations. applicable provisions of this title.
19.136.030 Site locations. (Ord. 2085, §2(part), 2011; Ord. 2038 (part), 2009; Ord.
19.136.040 General site development 1736, (part), 1996; Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992)
regulations.
19.136.050 Specific site development 19.136.030 Site Locations.
regulations. A. Residential and Home Occupation Aerials.
19.136.060 Design and site review. 1. Aerials intended for the private use of onsite
19.136.070 Application requirements. residents and guests and for home occupation purposes are
19.136.080 Permitting procedures and conditions allowed on all residentially zoned and used properties.
of approval. B. Commercial, Office, Industrial, Public Utility
19.136.090 Height exceptions-Findings. Aerials.
19.136.100 Appeals 1. Aerials intended for commercial, office,
industrial and public use are prohibited on residentially
zoned and used properties, except the RHS zoning district.
19.136.010 Purpose. Aerials may also be allowed on common-interest areas of
This chapter establishes regulations pertaining to the residential or mixed-use planned development zoned
location, siting, development, design and permitting of properties subject to homeowner association approval, in
wireless communications facilities for all zones existing in accord with the permit requirements of Section 19.136.080.
this City in order to: 2. Such aerials may be allowed in all other zoning
A. Facilitate the development of a wireless districts pursuant to permitting procedures established under
communications infrastructure in the City for commercial, Section 19.136.080.
public and emergency uses, and 3. Such aerials are allowed on utility poles and
B. Protect the health, safety, welfare and aesthetic towers,regardless of the zoning district,as long as the aerial
concerns of the public. complies with Section 19.136.070(C).
(Ord. 2085, §2(part), 2011; Ord. 2038 (part), 2009; Ord. (Ord. 2085, §2(part), 2011; Ord. 2038 (part), 2009; Ord.
1736, (part), 1996; Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992) 1736, (part), 1996)
19.136.020 Applicability of Regulations. 19.136.040 General Site Development Regulations.
This chapter shall apply to all types of aerials and Provisions in Table 19.136.040 apply to all residential
associated facilities used for wireless communications, that and home occupation, commercial, office, industrial and
is, the transmitting and/or receiving of voice, data, video public utility aerials.
images and other information through the air via signals in
the radio and microwave frequency band. This includes [Table begins on next page.]
aerials for amateur radio, television, wireless modems,
cellular phones,enhanced specialized mobile radio(ESMR),
personal communications services (PCS), paging systems,
satellite communications and other wireless communication
technologies utilizing signals in the radio and microwave
frequency band. No wireless communication facility:
antennas, masts, towers and associated equipment shall be
hereafter erected, structurally altered or enlarged other than
2012 S-31 223
19.136.040 Cupertino-Zoning 224
A. Aerials Aerials shall not exceed a height of fifty-five feet above finished grade measured at the mast
base, unless otherwise provided in accordance with Section 19.136.050.
B. Antenna 1. An antenna consisting of a single vertical element not more than four inches in diameter
in lieu of a horizontal arrangement shall be exempt from the height restriction.
2. Antennas and/or guy wires shall not overlap adjoining properties and shall not encroach
upon an easement without the written consent of the owner of the easement which shall
be attached to the application for a building permit.
C. Masts and Towers 1. Wood towers shall not be erected.
2. The number of towers, and detached masts exceeding eight inches in diameter at the base
and thirty feet in height above ground level, shall be limited as follows:
Lot Size Maximum Number of Towers and Detached Masts
a. < 30,000 square feet One.
b. z 30,000 square feet Two.
Additional towers, and detached masts, above two, not
meeting the criteria stated in Section 19.136.040(C)(2)
require permits in accord with Section 19.136.080.
(Ord. 2085, § 2 (part), 2011)
19.136.050 Specific Site Development Regulations.
Table 19.136.050 sets forth the rules and regulations for the development of personal wireless communication facilities.
Table 19.136.050-Specific Site Development Regulations
A. Minimum Setbacks and Height Limits
1. Residential and Home Occupation Aerials
a. Aerials with panel or Shall comply with the setbacks and height limits for accessory
dish antennas of more structures.
than ten square feet
b. Masts and towers Shall be located at least ten feet to the rear of the front building
setback line and shall be set back at least six feet from any property
line.
2. Commercial, Office, Industrial, Public Utility Aerials
a. Aerials mounted on May extend six feet above the building parapet wall.
buildings that exceed An additional one foot of height is allowed for every ten feet that the
aerial height limits in aerial is setback from the parapet, to a maximum height of ten feet
Section 19.136.040 above the building parapet, before a height exception is required
2012 S-33
225 Wireless Communications Facilities 19.136.050
Table 19.136.050-Specific Site Development Regulations (Cont.)
A. Minimum Setbacks and Height Limits (Cont.)
b. Free-standing or Building Mounted Aerials
Location Non-residentially zoned property Residentially zoned
property
Type of Aerial
Detached Masts and Towers, 75 feet horizontally from residentially 75 feet horizontally from
except for utility poles and zoned property or a distance equal to residentially zoned
towers used as aerials one foot for every one foot of structure property or a distance
height, whichever is greater equal to one foot for every
one foot of structure
height, whichever is
greater
Building Mounted Aerials 75 feet horizontally from any 75 feet horizontally from
residentially zoned property any residentially zoned
property
c. Base Equipment Stations Shall comply with Chapter 19.100 and Chapter 10.48, Community
Noise Control
(Ord. 2085, § 2 (part), 2011)
19.136.060 Design and Site Review. K. Opportunities to develop context-appropriate,
For aerials requiring discretionary review,the primary artistically enhanced aerial designs;
review objectives are to ensure the goals of Section L. Screening of highly visible rooftop-mounted
19.136.010 are met and to blend the design of the aerial into aerials; and
the surrounding environment, or site the aerial in such a M. Balancing of aesthetic concerns with the need to
manner to minimize the visual intrusiveness of the structure provide a functional communications system.
or artistically enhance the appearance of the aerial. This (Ord. 2085, § 2(part), 2011; Ord. 2038 (part), 2009; Ord.
review may include, but not be limited to, the following 1736, (part), 1996)
criteria:
A. Gaps in coverage that would create emergency 19.136.070 Application Requirements.
communication problems; In addition to the standard application requirements in
B. Viability of alternative locations, such as Chapter 19.12, the applicant may be required to provide the
commercial, industrial, office, and public building sites; following additional materials:
C. Method of antenna-mounting, that is, A. If more than one aerial is planned in the City
wall-mounting, roof-mounting or a freestanding structure; within a year by a single communication service provider,
D. Colors, materials and textures to integrate the a master plan shall be prepared of all facilities that can be
aerial into the surrounding environment or building; reasonably foreseen, showing the proposed aerial sites and
E. Landscaping to screen the aerial; existing commercial, office, industrial and public utility
F. Proximity and visibility of the aerial to residential aerial locations within a one mile radius of the proposed
properties and public rights-of-way; sites. The purpose of this requirement is to identify
G. Dispersal of aerial locations to avoid visual opportunities for clustering, dispersal and collocation of
clutter; aerials to reduce visual intrusiveness;
H. Concentration of aerial locations to avoid visual B. Erection of a mock aerial,computer simulation or
clutter; sight-line elevations for all aerials to help assess the visual
I. Opportunities for collocation of aerials on existing effects; and
masts and towers where visual intrusiveness is reduced; C. Documentation that the technology and usage of
J. Design of the building or enclosure,which houses that technology meets Federal Communications Commission
the related base equipment and its compatibility with the adopted safety standards.
adjoining building architecture; (Ord. 2085, § 2 (part), 2011; Ord. 2038 (part), 2009; Ord.
1736, (part), 1996)
2012 S-33
19.136.080 Cupertino -Zoning 226
19.136.080 Permitting Procedures and Conditions of Approval.
Table 19.136.080 sets forth the permitting requirements for detached and building mounted aerials. All permits shall be
processed in accord with the requirements of Chapter 19.12.
Table 19.136.080: Permitting Procedures and Conditions of Approval
Type of Aerial Permit Required
A. In all zoning districts
1. Aerials that exceed maximum height limits Height Exception, except as otherwise provided in Section
19.136.050
2. Masts and Towers identified in 19.136.040 Development Permit approved by Planning Commission
(C)(2)(b)
B. In zoning districts that require design review, aerials that are:
1. Minimally visible to residential properties and Administrative Approval
public rights-of-way
2. Building mounted, and moderately visible to The Director of Community Development, in his or her
residential properties and public rights-of-way discretion, may refer an application to the Planning
Commission for review and approval
3. Detached and are moderately to highly visible Development Permit approved by Planning Commission
to residential properties and public
rights-of-way
4. Aerials located in the common-interest areas of Use Permit approved by Planning Commission
residential or mixed-use planned development
zones
C. Conditions of Approval
1. Collocation All commercial, office, industrial, and public utility aerial
mast and tower approvals shall be conditioned to allow
the collocation of aerials and related facilities of other
commercial, office, industrial, and public utility users
where appropriate and feasible.
2. Abandonment All City approvals for new aerials and modifications of
existing aerial approvals shall be conditioned to require
the removal of the aerial, its associated facilities and
restoration of the land to its former condition if the aerial
is not used for its permitted purpose for a period of
eighteen months. The property owner or applicant shall
bear the entire cost of demolition and land restoration.
D. Technology, Information and Communications The Approval Body, in its review, shall seek the technical
Commission consultation of the designated member or members of the
Technology, Information and Communications
Commission.
(Ord. 2085, § 2(part), 2011; Ord. 2038 (part), 2009; Ord. 1736, (part), 1996)
2012 S-31
227 Wireless Communications Facilities 19.136.090
19.136.090 Height Exception-Findings.
The Approval Body may grant the height exception
based upon all of the following findings:
1. That the literal enforcement of the provisions of
this chapter will result in restrictions inconsistent with the
spirit and intent of this chapter;
2. That granting of an exception will not result in a
condition that will be detrimental or injurious to property or
improvements in the vicinity and will not be materially
detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare;
•
3. That the exception to be granted will not result in
a hazardous condition for pedestrian and vehicular traffic.
(Ord. 2085, § 2(part), 2011)
19.136.100 Appeals.
The Approval Body's decision on the exception request
may be appealed in accord with the requirements of Chapter
19.12.
(Ord. 2085, §2(part), 2011; Ord. 2038(part), 2009; Ord.
1736, (part), 1996)
•
2012 S-31
Cupertino-Zoning ?28
VOLUME XXVII NO. 14 1 December 2007
G ELF ! g
, 1 ‘ --' i : , , ; ;., ,,, ri ; , -N
44,. ,,
-"ate..,..,... sc E ,. '``,''�.
41._,,,..0/7.,,,•..„,,,, / °( f
Or Ill,
' ur COPERTINO
jNII _
,„„„,....,,,,..:: , , ,
, _
Air- 'ImoC Winter Holiday Concert
Sunday,December 16,3 pm,Quinlan Community Center x
FREE,FESTIVE,FABULOUS Once again,the Cupertino Symphonic Band will
X present its festive Christmas program. — Continued on Page 2
( Serve the City
Cupertino residents are encouraged to apply for city commissions and committees with
openings in January 2008. On January 22 and 23,the City Council will interview
applicants for these groups:Audit Committee;Housing Commission and the Community
Development Block Grant(CDBG)Committee;Planning Commission;Parks and Rec- ;
reation Commission;Public Safety Commission;Senior Citizens Commission;and the
Technology,Information, and Communications Commission. — Continued on Page 2
Cellular Telephone Survey Results
This July,the Technology,Information,Computing,and Communications Commission
(TICC)conducted a web-based survey on wireless services in Cupertino.The survey asked
Continued on Page 10
4=IMIMIllill=1111MIMW
Community Crab Feed 2 Senior Programs 6
Valentine Art Show 2 Volunteer Opportunities 6
"Give an Experience" 2 Medicare Part D 6
Community Tree Lighting 3 The Better Part 6
"Weekend College Plus" 3 Roots 7
Marketplace Holiday Festival 3 Community Calendar 8-9
Sports Center Open House 3 Asian American Hero Award 10
Cupertino Library 4-5 Simply Safe 11-12
Children's Programs 4 Eco News 13-14
Adult,Teen and Family Programs 4 City Job Openings 15
Library Programs and Classes 5 Council Actions 15
Senior Center News 6 Welcome New Businesses 15 0',
2008 Membership Signup 6 City Meetings 167
4
,;...,',4
2-iniibliN L-8Erfes
_Survey Results Cont'd from Page 1 to Homestead.The DeAnza Blvd.result is
questions about residents'cell phone and wi fi surprising given the number of existing tow-
experience in the city.This article covers the ers in that area.
results relating to cell phones.A future Scene 7. 71 respondents wrote detailed comments
article will focus on the wi fi results. relating to cellular coverage.Of those com-
ments,all but one expressed concern about
received 614 unique responses from different poor cellular service at their locations and
addresses within the city.The responses were wanted coverage improved.
evenly distributed throughout all areas of the In September the TICC reported its findings to
city.The number of results and distribution the Cupertino City Council.Recognizing that
Imeant that we have very high confidence that there was a substantial problem with the quality
the results reflect the experiences and views of of cellular coverage in the city,the Council di-
the community as a whole. rected the TICC to work with city staff to develop i
The survey asked which cellular carriers resi-
a plan to remedy that problem.The TICC and
dents used,the quality of service,and probed city staff are actively exploring ways to improve
about concerns relating to the perceived safety coverage.We have had discussions with the key
0 and esthetics of cell phone towers.The survey carriers and have received several encouraging
also explored potential safety and security con- comments and ideas from residents.Look for a
cerns arising from poor cell phone service.This future Scene article on the plan when it is fin-
topic was in recognition of the growing trend to-
0fished.If you have ideas,comments,or questions
ward exclusive use of cellular phones as opposed about the survey,the results,or the plan under
to wired phones in the home.We also provided development,please email ticc@cupertino.org.
an opportunity for survey participants to note
specific locations of poor cellular coverage and Cupertino Resident Awarded
detailed comments on any other issue relating to Asian American Hero Award
cellular phones.
Significant Survey Results
1. Cellular usage in Cupertino is dominated by
i Verizon(44%)and AT&T(38%)Sprint(7%)
and T Mobile(6%)are next with all others n
I
less than 5%.
2. Approximately 50%of residents report
fair,poor,or non-existent cellular cover- 114,0
"9,<
age at their locations.We did not attempt to
quantify the exact meaning of those terms,
but based on detailed comments,it is very :"
f likely those respondents commonly experi
ence poor voice quality,dropped calls,and/
or non-connections. Six Asian American community members and
3. Approximately 10% of respondents ex- two organizations in Santa Clara County were
pressed severe to moderate concerns about recognized for their exemplary contribution and
the safety of cell phone towers. leadership at the Asian American Hero Awards,
4. Approximately 20% of respondents ex- presented by Santa Clara County Supervisor Liz
pressed severe to moderate concerns about Kniss.Conceived by her,the awards program
the esthetics of cell phone towers. acknowledges members of the Asian American
community for commitment to civic leader-
5. Approximately 15%of respondents ex- ship,the arts,education,and health and human
pressed severe to moderate concerns about services,as well as honoring outstanding com-
, safetyphone or security issues relating to poor cell munity organizations,families or teams.Hema
phone coverage. Alur-Kundargi of Cupertino was awarded in the
6. Approximately 25%of the respondents education category for her efforts to inform the
highlighted an area of particularly poor public about Indian traditions.She said that it is
I cellular coverage.Three locations stuck out always nice to be recognized for one's hard work.
in those responses—the Kennedy Middle "For me,it is like icing on the cake.This award
School/Monta Vista High School area,Foot- encourages me to continue what I'm doing-edu-
t' hill Boulevard from I-280 to Stevens Creek, cating people about Indian culture and promoting
and DeAnza Boulevard from Stevens Creek understanding between communities."
P
•
', uy%� �'3nNiaR�� a� / Wf f r •E
� y A� aU. v. c
ti
p r, �` ♦ • s x Yam"' *' i�` '.
� � a • # ' IP• ,,
, sh -x� � •. , „ c
zg. 14,44, Al, P`i
h
1.
u1jJ Ja1sriAT sarI!H M3 ssaRuNt
ouggiadnj Jo ATxj
11111
Date Resolution No. Action Taken
10/6/03 03-187 City Council adopts Wireless Facilities Master Plan,File No.CP-2000-09
The cover photograph depicts
antennas from five different
personal service wireless
facilities along State Highway
85 near Interstate Highway
280. In the foreground is a
monopole with one set of
antennas. There are two sets in
the treepole. There is another
antenna set in the background
next to the lattice tower and the
final set is mounted on the
lattice tower.
Acknowledgements
CITY COUNCIL
Michael Chang, Mayor
Sandra James,Vice Mayor
Patrick Kwok
Richard Lowenthal
Dolly Sandoval
PLANNING COMMISSION
Angela Chen, Chairperson
Charles Corr
Marty Miller
Taghi Saadati,Vice-Chairperson
Gilbert Wong
TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Ernest Tsui, Chairperson
Salvatore Algeri
Reginald Duhe
L. T. Guttadauro,Vice-Chairperson
Steve Ting
David Eggleston (emeritus)
STAFF
David W. Knapp, City Manager
Steve Piasecki,Director of Community Development
Ciddy Wordell, City Planner
Colin Jung, Senior Planner &Project Manager
Peter Gilli, Senior Planner
Ralph Qualls, Director of Public Works
CONSULTANT
Ted Kreines, AICP, Kreines &Kreines, Inc. - Wireless Planning Consultants
1
Table of Contents
Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION 3
Chapter 2. GOALS 4
Chapter 3. SUMMARY OF POLICIES 5
Chapter 4. BACKGROUND 7
Chapter 5. LOCATIONS&STRUCTURES 13
Chapter 6. SITING &DESIGN . 18
Chapter 7. HEALTH&SAFETY 27
Chapter 8. MONITORING 30
Chapter 9. IMPLEMENTATION .. 32
Chapter 10. GLOSSARY OF TERMS 35
2
Chapter 1. Introduction
Personal wireless services were first introduced in the region in the early 1980's.
The first hand-held equipment or cell phones were very heavy, and service was
unreliable and expensive. Consumer demand was small,but continued to grow
with continual technological innovation that reduced the size and weight of
phones, and improved the reliability and coverage of communications.
Increased competition from new companies entering the market have helped
drive down prices, making the phones and the cost of service more affordable for
the general public.
Rapid consumer acceptance and pervasive use of this communications
technology in the last decade have also meant a commensurate proliferation of
the personal wireless service facilities throughout this community and the
country that is often typified by the rectangular-shaped antennas mounted in
clusters on buildings, poles and towers. The rapid proliferation of these facilities
presents a unique challenge to Cupertino to protect community aesthetics and
promote safety.
Many communities throughout the United States have reacted to this
proliferation of personal wireless service facility applications by amending their
zoning ordinances to allow such facilities or creating new ordinances to regulate
their siting and design. The City of Cupertino took the later approach in 1996 by
adopting an ordinance that specifically regulated the siting and design of
personal wireless service facilities.
Since then new facility proposals have been reviewed on a case by case basis by
the City's Planning Commission with technical expertise provided by the
Telecommunications Commission. By 1999,it had become increasingly clear to
these City decision makers that the long-term impact on the City's visual
landscape through the growing accumulation of these facilities was not being
addressed. While the community continues to embrace wireless
communications, it will not do so at the cost of the community's appearance.
The City Council has endorsed the preparation of a Wireless Facilities Master
Plan and has provided funding for a consultant. The City has contracted with
the consulting firm of Kreines and Kreines to provide technical expertise on the
plan preparation.
This plan, by its nature,must rely on a technical jargon that will not be easily
understood by the layperson. Please refer to the glossary in the back of the
document for an explanation of the terms.
3
•
Chapter 2. Goals
• Protect community aesthetics and promote safety by planning for well-
sited and well-designed personal wireless service facilities that fit
unobtrusively in the Cupertino environment.
• Guide decision makers and City staff by providing a policy framework
and design guidance as they make decisions about these facilities.
• Educate the general public about personal wireless service facilities and
the community's design expectations in order to improve their
involvement and participation in the decision making process.
• Assist the wireless companies and their representatives with information
that facilitates their facility deployment process.
4
Chapter 3. Summary of Policies
Policy 4-1: Applicants shall use the best available camouflage techniques to reduce the
intrusive and obtrusive visual impacts ofpersonal wireless service facilities to the extent
possible.
Policy 5-1 : Preferred locations for personal wireless service facilities are on existing
buildings and structures.
Policy 5-2 : Only unobtrusive personal wireless service facilities shall be considered in
residential neighborhoods.
Policy 5-3 : Development of unobtrusive cell sites in surrounding communities shall be
encouraged.
Policy 6-1 :Personal wireless service facilities should be sited to avoid visually intrusive
impacts as viewed from the public right-of-way and from residential neighborhoods.
Policy 6-2 : Personal wireless service facilities shall be appropriately scaled to fit
harmoniously with the surrounding elements of the site and neighborhood.
Policy6-3 : Personal wireless service facilities shall be compatible with their
P
surroundings so that their shape, size, color, material, and texture blend with their
surroundings.
Policy 6-4: Monopoles with co-located antennas are preferred to single user monopoles if
they are less visually obtrusive than separate monopoles.
Policy 7-1 : The City reserves the right to require applicants to prepare radiofrequency
radiation assessments for personal wireless service facilities when the general public is in
reasonably close proximity to such a facility and to determine compliance with FCC
Guidelines.
Policy 7-2 : The City shall require a radiofrequency radiation assessment for the
following types of personal wireless service facilities:
• For building-mounted antennas when the building is designed for human
occupancy;
• For antennas mounted less than 10 meters (32.8 feet) above ground level;
• For all co-located antennas; (The concern is for cumulative emissions exceeding
the FCC Guidelines) and
• For residential deployment of personal wireless service facilities.
5
Policy 7-3: If a network of residential-based personal wireless service facilities is
proposed, a comprehensive RFR assessment shall be done for all proposed sites.
Policy 7-4: The City recognizes that it is the responsibility of the carriers to operate its
personal wireless service facilities within the adopted federal radio frequency radiation
exposure standards over the life of its facilities, regardless of whether the City requires the
preparation of a RFR assessment or not.
Policy 7-5: When mechanical ventilation, power generators or other sources of noise are
proposed in personal wireless service facilities, the City shall ascertain whether an
acoustical analysis is necessary to determine compliance with the City's Noise
Ordinance.
Policy 8-1: All personal wireless service facilities approved by the City will be
conditioned with a permit expiration date to create opportunities for the City and
applicant to check maintenance, check the level of radio frequency radiation emissions,
improve equipment and camouflage techniques when needed.
Policy 8-2:All personal wireless service facilities approved by the City shall be
conditioned with an abandonment provision providing for dismantling and removal of a
facility by the company and/or property owner.
6
Chapter 4. Background
Federal Regulatory Authority
Master planning for personal wireless service facilities must consider the
Telecommunications Act of 1996-a broad revision of the 1934 federal statute
governing telecommunications. It is important at the local government level
because it contains language that both preserves and limits the authority of local
government to regulate personal wireless service facilities.
Section 704(a)(7)(A) states:
Except as provided in this paragraph, nothing in this Act shall limit or affect the
authority of a State or local government or instrumentality thereof over decisions
regarding the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service
facilities.
This same section (704) also sets forth the limitations of that local authority:
- Shall not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally
equivalent services.
- Shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of
personal wireless services.
- Shall act on any request for authorization to place,construct, or modify
personal wireless service facilities within a reasonable period of time
after the request is filed.
- Shall put any decision to deny personal wireless service facilities into
writing, supported by substantial evidence contained in the written
record.
- Shall not regulate personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the
environmental effects of radio frequency emission to the extent that
such facilities comply with the Federal Communications Commission
Guidelines for such emissions.
Technology Overview
Wireless communications are transmitted through the air via radio waves of
various frequencies. Radiofrequency radiation is one of numerous types of
electromagnetic radiation. Cellular and Enhanced Specialized Mobile Radio
7
(ESMR) operate at frequencies between 800 and 900 megahertz (MHz), and
Personal Communications Systems (PCS) operate at the 1900 MHz band.
These three technologies function similarly in that their communications systems
consist of interconnected "cell sites" or geographic areas that cover a region. In
general, cell sites tend to be smaller in size and more numerous in the cities and
larger in size and less numerous in rural areas. This happens because cities have
more people (customers) than rural and outlying areas. As more people demand
wireless communications services,wireless systems will require additional
capacity to handle calls. Capacity is added when wireless companies:
1) Change technology from analog to digital,
2) Add more cell sites.
Currently, the wireless companies are offering voice communications, paging
and text messaging and are aggressively working to improve their offerings of
data and video communications and wireless internet services over their wireless
networks. To develop the capacity to handle this large amount of information,
companies must continue to develop new technologies and undoubtedly provide
more cell sites.
Each cell site within the system contains a set of transmitting and receiving
antennas that are mounted to the ground,building,monopole or lattice tower.
All calls placed with a wireless phone are transmitted by the phone to a cell site
antenna that is connected via a land-based line to a central computer switching
system. The central switch completes the call by connecting it to a conventional
phone through a land-based line or to another wireless phone through the
nearest antenna. When a wireless caller or receiver of a call is mobile, the call is
handed off from one cell site to another cell site as the user travels through one
cell site to another.
Community Issues
1. Height. A determining factor in the location, siting and design of a personal
wireless service facility is the height of the antennas. The dish and yagi antennas
are used for line of sight transmission, and the panel antennas propagate their
radio signals directionally. The height of the antennas is important for line of
sight and coverage. Buildings, hills and trees tend to attenuate signal strength
when they intervene into the signal path. At some point an attenuated signal
becomes so faint it cannot be used. Wireless companies often seek approval for
antenna heights that are above the obstructions. Other problems may occur
when the coverage area has varying topography,which makes line of sight
transmission difficult.
8
Personal wireless service facility antennas are often mounted on the roof of a
building if the building is of adequate height, that is, of at least 25 feet above
ground level (two stories). When the building is taller than 25 feet (three stories
minimum),the antennas may be side-mounted on the building wall. The
challenges occur when most of surrounding structures in a local area are low-
profile,one-story buildings and the wireless carrier must erect a new lattice
tower or monopole to mount the antennas and achieve the necessary height.
Such mounts can have obtrusive visual effects if not properly camouflaged in an
area of low-profile buildings.
�k `p
(Antennas mounted on a lattice tower. Site
located at De Anza College near Highway 85.)
2. Facility Proliferation. "How many personal wireless service facilities will be
built?" is a frequent question. To some degree the number of facilities will
depend on how popular wireless communications will be to the general
consumer, how many new companies enter the field,what types of additional
services will be offered by these companies,which affects the capacity of the cell
sites, and the willingness of the companies to invest in infrastructure.
As more personal wireless service facilities are added to increase capacity,each
facility may be shorter in height to serve a smaller area and avoid overlaps in
coverage with adjacent cell sites.
9
A. Consumer Demand-Most companies have already established their initial
network of cell sites (the Coverage Phase),which were designed to provide the
most coverage per facility and were established along highways and other major
transportation corridors. Most of these wireless companies have now entered a
Capacity Phase,where companies are infilling their service area with additional
facilities to fill"holes" in their coverage and add capacity to high demand areas.
Wireless communications continues to be extremelypopular with the general
p p
public. The FCC reports that there were 122.4 million wireless subscribers
nationwide at the end of 2001,up 54 percent from the end of 1999. In California,
wireless phones are even more popular with the total number of subscribers
soaring 76% to 15 million in the same time frame. In Cupertino,local high
technology companies have sought personal wireless service facility approval on
their own buildings in order to improve infra-building and inter-building
coverage for their own employees.
B. Number of Companies -There are at least eight wireless companies
operating personal wireless service facilities within the City boundaries. There
are two cellular companies, one enhanced specialized mobile radio company,
four PCS companies, and one paging company. Except for the paging company,
which operates one paging facility in the City, and one PCS company, which
shares facilities with another carrier, the other companies operate from 3 to 7
facilities within City boundaries.
C. Additional Future Services- Most of the companies envision expanding
the range of the services they offer over their wireless networks, going beyond
voice communications,paging and text messaging to include transmission of
larger quantities of data,video communications and even wireless internet
connections. The quantity of information the companies would like to transmit
far exceeds the capacity of their existing communications networks. New
technologies must be developed, including a much more highly distributed set of
personal wireless service facilities to make this vision a reality.
3. Visibility &Aesthetics. Many people find the personalwir 1 wireless service ce
facilities to be visually unattractive. City staff and wireless companies spend a
lot of time designing facilities that are well-camouflaged,but this is becoming a
more difficult task as the best sites (least visible) are already occupied with
facilities.
Cupertino has outstanding vistas. The primary one is the nearby western
foothills,which are largely in a natural state. A City priority is to beautify its
major transportation corridors by landscaping its medians and rights-of-way,
io
requiring significant private landscaping, and relating building design to the
public realm. The height and continued proliferation of facilities will likely make
them snore apparent to residents in the future and potentially create more
obtrusive visual impacts than ever before.
One strategy to reduce the proliferation of facilities is to require the co-location of
facilities on a single structure, such as, a lattice tower. There is,however, an
inherent tradeoff. Accommodating many facilities on a single structure reduces
proliferation,but often causes serious visual impacts. Many antennas and
equipment concentrated on one lattice tower tend to draw more attention than
the dispersal of less visible but more numerous facilities. An example of this is
the lattice tower on the De Anza College Campus.
Policy 4-1: Applicants shall use the best available camouflage techniques to reduce the
intrusive and obtrusive visual impacts of personal wireless service facilities to the extent
possible.
4. Facility Installation in Residential Areas. Personal wireless services are
increasingly moving toward home usage. If costs continue to decline,consumers
will continue to use their "cell" phone instead of their land line phones while at
home. A small, but growing number of subscribers have gone completely
wireless, abandoning their land lines. The wireless companies follow their
subscribers' phone usage. Ultimately, the facilities may serve every
neighborhood in the City. The deployment of personal wireless service facilities
in residential neighborhoods could have significant, obtrusive visual impacts if
not properly planned.
It appears in residential
for personal w ds, the best places
neighborhoo
wireless service
attached to light po facilities will be on to of or
les traffic signal
poles or other tall structures in the
public right-of-way.
v% d and Stanford Avenue,
(Personal wireless facility on a light pole at
Serra Boulevar
may,.-
Stanford, CA.)
11
1
In the past this was done with one company's
antennas placed on street lights,which have met
with no public objection. The company was a
wireless internet service. Even though the
Y an comP is now out of business, their abandoned
antennas continue to dot City streets. Another
company has bought the technology and plans
on reusing the antenna network.
ert
mac,
(Personal wireless facility at Swallow
Drive and Lorne Way, Sunnyvale, CA)
Other possible sites for residential deployment include: stadium light poles at
high schools, flag poles and light standards in parking lots at churches and other
non-residential uses in the neighborhoods.
12
Chapter 5. Locations & Structures
This section deals with the topic of the best locations and structures in the
community for personal wireless service facilities. The continuing demand for
personal wireless services throughout the community will escalate the
proliferation of facilities,perhaps even into the residential neighborhoods. At
risk are the visual qualities of this community: its natural vistas, the tree-lined
streets, the well-tended and attractive commercial and industrial areas. The key
challenge is to protect community aesthetics and promote safety, while
facilitating the use of this technology throughout the community.
It is not the purpose of this plan to encourage the location of every local personal
wireless service facility within the City's boundaries. There are numerous
nearby locations in the five cities and unincorporated areas that border
Cupertino that could serve equally as well or better as potential locations.
The best locations in the community for personal wireless facilities is a function
of the land use and the presence or absence of taller structures that can accept
antennas that will not be noticed. One of the overall goals is to locate facilities
and to site and design them so they are as unobtrusive as possible. In general,
non-residential locations are better than residential locations because such
facilities are less noticeable and more accepted by the public. Also facilities with
antennas mounted on existing structures are generally preferred to facilities with
antennas mounted on new structures. Antennas mounted on existing taller
structures are usually less noticeable because the structure is already part of the
City's visual landscape.
The City's preference order for locations of personal wireless service facilities is:
Most Preferred Least Preferred
Existing Structures in New Structures in Existing Structures in New Structures in
Non-Residential Areas Non-Residential Areas Residential Areas Residential Areas
Policy 5-1 : Preferred locations for personal wireless service facilities are on existing
buildings and structures.
1. Existing Structures in Non-Residential Locations. The following maps and
list describe the structures that have been used or may be potentially used for
personal wireless service facilities on non-residential lands. It is meant to be as
inclusive as possible, but there may be other opportunities that will be reviewed
on a case-by-case basis.
13
A. Privately-Owned Locations (Maps #1 & #3)
There are numerous taller structures on private non-residential property that
are candidate locations for personal wireless service facilities. All privately-
owned locations are depicted on Map #3, except for personal wireless service
monopoles,which are depicted on Map #1. There are two inappropriate
structures: 1) billboards--very large, off-site advertising signs, that are legal,
nonconforming structures not permitted to expand their use, and 2) flag poles
used for the display of the American and State flags. More appropriate taller
structures are described below:
• Taller Buildings: 2+ stories in height
• Parking Lot Light Standards (not mapped)
• Utility Structures: transmission towers,taller utility poles,private
water tanks
• P.G.&E. Service Center and Power Substations
• Pylon Signs (not billboards)
• Personal Wireless Service Monopoles
• Religious Institutions
• Historic Structures (e.g. wooden water tower)
B. Publicly-Owned Locations (Map #2)
City-owned Locations
The City of Cupertino owns numerous buildings, structures and properties
throughout the community that could be potentially used for personal
wireless service facilities. They include:
One and two story buildings that have yet to be built:
• Community Hall
• Library
Existing one story buildings:
• City Hall
• Sports Center
• Quinlan Community Center
• Park & Recreation Centers
• Service Center (Corporation yard has three facilities.)
14
Relatively undeveloped and vacant properties:
• Remnant properties along Mary Avenue and Highway 85
soundwall
• Parks
• Blackberry Farm Golf Course
Lands, such as lots and public rights of way that have other structures:
• Water tanks
• Traffic Signal Poles
• Electroliers (i.e., street lights)
• Public rights of way (a.k.a. streets)
Other Government-Owned Locations
Other locations owned by other government agencies may be suitable sites
for personal wireless service facilities. Each agency would decide whether its
properties would be available for lease for personal wireless service facilities.
Such facilities need permits from the City since these commercial personal
wireless service facilities do no relate directly to the government agency's
mission.
• Santa Clara County Fire Department fire stations
• Public School District properties (building mounts, parking lot light
standards, stadium light poles)
• De Anza College Campus
• Caltrans Rights-of-Way and Service Center
2. New Structures in Non-Residential Locations. There are many non-
residential locations that lack a suitable, mounting structure for a personal
wireless service facility. And in those instances,carriers, sometimes propose a
new lattice tower, monopole or other structure to elevate the antennas. Under
these circumstances, the personal wireless service facility should be located in an
area that has the least visual impact. In considering such a visible facility, all
alternative locations should be reviewed and the best available camouflage
techniques should be applied by the carrier to the facility. (See Siting and Design
Section of Plan).
Sometimes the most appropriate design solution may be "hiding the facility in
plain sight." This is accomplished by camouflaging the personal wireless service
facility with materials in colors, sizes,textures and proportions that blend into
the environment, without creating visual contradictions. This is discussed in
15
some detail in the Siting and Design Section. Possible custom-built structures to
house or mount personal wireless service facilities include:
• City gateway or neighborhood entry features
• Church steeples
• Building entry features
• Rooftop Chimneys
• Artificial trees (treepoles)
• Artificial Rocks
• Artificial Electroliers
• Artificial Power/Telephone poles
Because there are significant topographic differences in the City, there may be
hillside locations in the City where a ground-mounted personal wireless facility
will be technically feasible and considered unobtrusive. There are currently no
such facilities located in the City.
3. Existing Structures in Residential Locations. One of the largest challenges
facing this plan will be providing wireless communications coverage to
residential areas. There are large portions of the community that have poor to
non-existent coverage because of a lack of personal wireless service facilities in
these areas,which are located in the western, southern and eastern portions of
the City. These areas are predominantly residential in character and situated at a
significant distance from non-residential properties.
The plan assumes that future deployment of personal wireless service facilities in
residential areas will occur at low antennas heights. As such,the most
unobtrusive mounting structures will likely be existing street lights, traffic
signals and utility poles and towers. There will be facility opportunities at high
schools, churches and fire stations that are located in residential neighborhoods,
but these locations are few in comparison to the number of public utility
structures. Techniques to camouflage these facilities are discussed in the Siting
and Design section of this plan.
4. New Structures in Residential Locations. Obtrusive personal wireless service
facilities that are mounted on new lattice towers or monopoles are inappropriate
in residential neighborhoods. Much of Cupertino is developed with one and
two-story dwellings and these facilities could stand out in marked visual contrast
to their surroundings. If facilities in residential areas are to be considered, the
primary goal must be to preserve the visual integrity of the residential
neighborhood. Numerous techniques exist to make personal wireless service
facilities more compatible and unobtrusive in residential areas. They are
discussed in the Siting and Design section.
16
Policy 5-2 : Only unobtrusive personal wireless service facilities shall be considered in
residential neighborhoods.
5. Non-Cupertino Locations. The City of Cupertino is bordered by the cities of
Los Altos, Sunnyvale,Santa Clara,San Jose and Saratoga. In the west foothills,
Cupertino is surrounded by the unincorporated lands of Santa Clara County.
Each jurisdiction has buildings, taller structures and features, and property that
could accommodate a personal wireless service facility. In many cases, these
locations may be preferable to a Cupertino-based location if they are less
obtrusive to the surrounding area. Examples of locations include:
• Shopping centers in all surrounding cities,
• The quarries and lattice towers in the unincorporated west
foothills,
• The Hewlett Packard campus, water tank, hotel, office buildings,
hospital and lattice towers in Santa Clara along Highway 280,
• Lattice towers, Caltrans right-of-way, water tanks along Highways
85 and 280 in Sunnyvale,
• The Home Depot, office buildings, commercial buildings, high
school, and taller utility poles in San Jose,
• The taller utility poles along Prospect Road and hillside locations in
Saratoga.
Policy 5-3 : Development of unobtrusive cell sites in surrounding communities shall be
encouraged.
17
Chapter 6. Siting & Design
The previous plan section suggested the interdependence of location, siting and
design in determining appropriate places for personal wireless service facilities.
Some locations will be validated through siting and design,while other locations,
such as a substation, depend less on siting and design policies and guidelines.
Siting is the relationship of the personal wireless service facility to its site and
any structures on that site. Design is the arrangement of parts, details, form,
color, etc. to achieve a desired functionality and appearance. Functionality has to
do more with the adequacy of the cell site in the wireless company's grid of cell
sites. The wireless company is best able to determine the functionality of its cell
site. The City is more concerned with the appearance of the facility and how
well it fits into the overall context of the built environment. Sometimes the
objectives of functionality and appearance will conflict in the process of
designing a personal wireless service facility.
Policy 6-1 :Personal wireless service facilities should be sited to avoid visually intrusive
impacts as viewed from the public right-of-way and from residential neighborhoods.
Policy 6-2 : Personal wireless service facilities shall be appropriately scaled to fit
harmoniously with the surrounding elements of the site and neighborhood.
Policy 6-3 : Personal wireless service facilities shall be compatible with their
surroundings so that their shape, size, color, material, and texture blend with their
surroundings.
SITING AND DESIGN GUIDELINES
Specific siting and design guidance is provided for personal wireless service
facilities categorized by the type of equipment. In general the equipment should
be sited to blend in with their surroundings. The environmental context will
help dictate the best site and best camouflage technique(s) to use. This is not
intended to be an exhaustive survey of siting and design guidance. Wireless
companies are encouraged to provide creative solutions to facility siting and
design that meet the plan's goals.
18
• \\N--- ,
Homestead Rd
•
• a •
� a
�---- 1
f�
/
__.,.._
- • ' r _
7
. ,1
1 •
)1 _
I -.: \\N-___..Th ,
----r'''''.----
! Stevens Creek Bl*d • 1
• ., J il
• rA
LI, , .
• \ c
_ 1 I J �r` a •
I I Mc'Cleilan Rd —irr ______-____7 .
/ if/c/ a
ii,j, . ` u, >
-- -_
i •
p;....------"------...........r.
i ...,. ,.....___A , •
\'' K., I
*. Wireless Communications Facil ties
L_______-__._._.-__ �' Existing Facilities
Curr .e
f, Legend
., �— • Building mounted
• Monopole/Tower
• PG&E Pole Mount
1
1111 • PG&E Tower Mount
• I • Roof Mounted
• • Sports Field tight Mount
y - • Wilco Sign Mount
/; •-- A Tree Pole
/
•
40
\\. p e6 0 4aa t 509 Feet
j' a •
IPrepared by Phi Ghosh,Planning Department
r t. Last Updated/*member 1,2011
-4„..s, \q \---" s ;0
Homestead Rd
NN\NN.........416
MIill
-,,
ltk___ �"�- 280--'��
„... __1__riii,
II(
1\:\ ,
El N%*I
.,
/ Ih ..
,_
. „.._
- _ Stevens Creek Blvd (1
a
r U.
- '' 1 ill� L7 12
1 c oq,il d•
i f ;A. i tict'eilan R:f -� . IS
Cli
. 185 no i
(:::;) 72
) , a
0 ..
1
-0
..._..... .
,.., . „ ..,..
f, ,---1, .
, .
.,.,
IF
, !i_
Map#12
r 617 CANDIDATE LOCATIONS
tide' Public Sites
ttgend
U Pub(k Property
0 Sports.Field Light
i # Water Taal<
I !City Limits
i 'N. 1 I j Urban SerVice Area
("_ N ' 1000 0 tam 2000 Fees JO
ti�
Prepared by the Community Devekrrprnent Depaartrr
F..t Updated WI
November 25 2006 G 11 S
i
i t
�` f/ • Z c
-• ti, ••••••,• ..lb,••�rr .r.Vny:[eat Rd, •- -. .`. .
.___Nkfeir" ", "17
•
:r? l • •
�j '• • : • • � • • • • p p • 280 • • •
•INti • % ` Qc op •••` • • f
` IkliP 'Pro. •• 7 • • aoL 3 • •: n
c:
. • , I.'1:::•,
.40k 0
1,
,.
• • •
•
•
/ �.. • Q • • i7 J : '• • ••• • •• • ••••
moo Yh.• s •••• �� t\,
'- •
L� • ••� �_• --• ,: C ..k Blvd /•
�7_ 04 :i' D o cr, . C.
/ T •I• -•
: •• : �; .k [I.1. . . ••• •
Wit? �, : :"1 N2
Sit
ll
8 ... 7 urbir- ..n• =V31' ; • • reci * —•--- • •-•-•-
!. : •.
••
• I` I • •• i �• • • • ••
•
Q 85 •
•
0.1it
•
•
7 _
•
••
•
0 Q von
Map#3
a \; tetM.,
CANDIDATE LOCATIONS
iv
• Primate Sites
0
c __ .
Legend
> f + 0 6. Religious Building wu/steeple
t Ati Religious Building
I _ d- - .. : ... . • Utility Median Pole
0 . Utility Pole
r I
```( 0 i it-lit),Tower
r
Multiple Story Buildings
1 ; 2 stories
1 3 stories
1-1 4 stories
1 ] 6 stories
• .: 8 stories
•
EJ Quasi-Public Property
Substations
1 City Limits
j Urban Service Area
NN 1000 0 itxio 2000 feet
—Th__.....r `••• nolgion..- 1
•
Prepared by the Community De'.:eioi,ms.nt Department .e.
last Updated
May 14.3 i'G I s
1. Antennas
• Antennas near the ground in hilly locations should be screened by
existing vegetation. If vegetation is sparse, additional landscaping
may be planted that is similar to the surrounding vegetation or
native to the area.
• Antennas should be painted and textured to match the background
view or foreground view whichever will make the antennas less
obtrusive. If the background is the sky, the preference is a flat gray
color.
• Antennas may be screened with radio wave transparent materials
that have been designed and fabricated to match elements normally
viewed in the immediate environment.
• Typically the least obtrusive placement on a building is a flush
mounting on some roof-top equipment, structure,penthouse or
building wall. A secondary location is a central place on the roof
where the roofline can cut off angles of view, making the antennas
less visible. The least desirable roof mount is a vertical protrusion
at or near the parapet where the antennas are likely to be the most
visible.
• For lattice towers, the most successful antennas siting/design
solutions are: 1) the top hat design,where a short,rectangular
framework of steel is erected on top of the tower and the antennas
are mounted to this framework extension, and 2) the leg-mounted
design, where the antennas are mounted on the legs of the tower
above the ground level.
>4f
(Personal wireless
service facility using a
lattice tower at the
extension of California
Oak Way and the Union
Pacific Railroad tracks.)
should be vertically aligned with the pole and shall not exceed 20%
of the height of the pole.
2. Co-Located Antennas
Policy 6-4: Monopoles with co-located antennas are preferred to single user
monopoles if they are less visually obtrusive than separate monopoles.
• In general co-located antennas mounted on the same monopole,
lattice tower or building roof should be less visually obtrusive than
separate personal wireless service facilities.
• All of the siting and design guidelines applicable to a single set of
antennas apply to co-located antennas as well.
• Building rooftops suitable for numerous co-located antennas
should be retro-fitted with larger equipment screens or extensions
of the roof element that are architecturally compatible with the
building.
3. Cables
• Cable runs along the ground should generally be undergrounded
unless such undergrounding would adversely affect the health of
nearby mature trees.
• If the cable runs are located above ground, they should be
camouflaged from public view. Cables should not be routed along
exterior surfaces unless they are camouflaged with materials that
integrate with the design of the structure.
• In lattice towers,cables should be bundled together and routed
along the legs or cross members of the lattice tower.
T I
(Depicted are cables
enclosed in a conduit
that runs along the leg of
a lattice tower located
above the Monta
Vista electrical
substation in Cupertino,
it 11 ` CA.)
n b S.T P_
. 21
• Larger equipment cabinets should be sited in underground
vaults in the public right of way. The best locations are the street
and the sidewalk areas. general In the vaults should avoid
landscaped areas and street trees.
• Larger equipment cabinets should also be sited in the rear yards of
adjacent residences. Equipment cabinets should not be visible
above the fence line. Wireless companies will need to negotiate
land leases and easements with affected property owners.
5. Lattice Towers &Monopoles.
• New lattice towers are not allowed by the City because of their
obtrusiveness and because monopoles satisfactorily serve the same
purpose of elevating the antennas with fewer visual impacts.
• A monopole should be sited among other tall vertical structures or
elements to reduce its obtrusiveness, such as, among a cluster of
buildings, grove of trees, or within a power substation.
: :
(Slim line monopole among the
cedars. Note the cable trays to
" R . � ` the right are above ground to
a ,, better protect the tree roots.
tigt Monopole is located near the
s terminus of Portal Avenue at
" ''t 11114006. Highway 280, Cupertino, CA)
• Monopoles should be approximately the same or smaller
diameter as other vertical elements in the surrounding
environment. The"slim line" monopoles have dramatically
decreased the needed diameter of such poles,but co-location of
additional antennas is problematic.
23
Other Structure Mounts.
There is a host of other types of structures that are not buildings,lattice towers or
monopoles that may be suitable for elevating antennas and around which a
satisfactory personal wireless service facility can be built. This category includes:
power/telephone poles, electroliers,taller pylon signs (except billboards), golf
course net poles, etc. Some of these structures may not be structurally suitable to
carry such wireless facilities, so the City will allow the wireless companies to
fabricate suitable replacement structures. In other cases where a structure does
not exist,the City may allow wireless companies to design and fabricate a
custom-built facility that will fit into its surroundings. Additions or changes to
city-owned utility structures will require the review and approval of the City
Public Works Department.
6. Replacement Structures
• If the wireless company needs to fabricate a new structure to
replace one that is not suitable for antenna mounting, then the new
structure shall approximate the size, height, shape, colors and
dimensions of the existing structure in order to fit the new structure
into the visual landscape. Replacement public structures will need
the approval of the City Public Works Department.
• Replacement structures should accommodate internalized cable
runs.
(Personal wireless service
facility antenna/parking
.»», I : light standard pole in a
shopping center off
Highway 680,Pleasanton,
CA.)
n w c
tt
"1-i- :1',', e. A:', — '
. 'I . ,
25
While the City has no authority to regulate or enforce police powers on RFR, it
appears the City may review and monitor RFR for compliance with FCC
Guidelines. In fact the FCC Guide previously mentioned states:
"... this document recognizes that, as a practical matter, state and local governments
have a role to play in ensuring compliance with FCC's limits, and it provides guidance to
assist you in effectively fulfilling that role. The twin goals of this document are: (1) to
define and promote locally-adaptable procedures that will provide you, ..., with adequate
assurance of compliance, while (2) at the same time, avoiding the imposition of
unnecessary burdens on either the local government process or the FCC's licensees.
Review of RFR Emissions for Compliance with Federal Standards. As a
general rule, the applicant should bear the entire cost associated with measuring,
recording, reporting and monitoring RFR emissions associated with personal
wireless service facilities. Based on previous RFR reports, it is likely that most
facilities will not exceed FCC RFR Guidelines; however, the City should establish
some standards for assessment to ensure FCC Guidelines are meet.
Policy 7-1: The City reserves the right to require applicants to prepare radiofrequency
radiation assessments for personal wireless service facilities when the general public is in
reasonably close proximity to such a facility and to determine compliance with FCC
Guidelines.
Policy 7-2: The City shall require a radiofrequency radiation assessment for the following
types of personal wireless service facilities:
• For building-mounted antennas when the building is designed for human
occupancy;
• For antennas mounted less than 10 meters (32.8 feet) above ground level;
• For all co-located antennas; (The concern is for cumulative emissions exceeding
the FCC Guidelines) and
• For residential deployment of personal wireless service facilities.
potential exposure, as well as, actual
The RFR reporting must consider pexposure.
For example, a report that measures ground level RFR exposure of residents in
their homes may not take into account the potential of residents adding second
stories to their homes and possibly bringing themselves in closer proximity to the
transmitting antennas.
Policy 7-3 : If a network of residential-based personal wireless service facilities is
proposed, a comprehensive RFR assessment shall be done for all proposed sites.
27
Chapter 8. Monitoring
Wireless communications is a high growth industry subject to rapid innovation
and technological change. The City should keep abreast of the growth and
changes as wireless communications become even more pervasive and
integrated into society and our community life. In the future, how the
equipment functions, how it looks, and where it is located will probably change
and the City must prepare itself to react to change, set standards and plan for the
future infrastructure of wireless communication.
Since many personal wireless service facilities have been approved by the City
before the preparation of this master plan, many may not meet the City's current
guidelines and standards. Periodic review, if legally possible, would benefit the
City and the applicant if needed to update the installed equipment. Presently,
any modifications to a facilityrequire some type of Cityapproval.
Periodic reviews can be accomplished by placing an expiration date on the City's
discretionary approvals. The City permit will then need to be "renewed" after a
certain period of time by the applicant,which creates an opportunity for the City
and the applicant to check maintenance,make beneficial modifications,not only
because of advances in equipment technology, but also advances in
camouflaging techniques.
The City has been placing 5-year expiration dates on most facility approvals.
Some of these will expire in the next few years. Carriers are responsible for
monitoring the expiration dates of their City approvals and applying for time
extensions in a timely manner. The City has the right to revoke permits that
have expired and terminate the use. Staff should monitor its facility approvals to
ensure that future approvals are likewise conditioned and that expirations are
"caught" and re-permitted as necessary.
Policy 8-1 : All personal wireless service facilities approved by the City will be
conditioned with a permit expiration date to create opportunities for the City and
applicant to check maintenance, check the level of radio frequency radiation emissions,
improve equipment and camouflage techniques when needed.
In the event a company abandons its personal wireless service facility, the facility
should be dismantled and removed by the company and/or property owner.
Such a condition should be placed in City approvals for private property and in
City lease agreements for City-owned and leased properties.
29
Chapter 9. Implementation
BACKGROUND
This section of the plan addresses how this wireless facilities master plan will be
implemented by the City through its zoning ordinances,City lease agreements
and development standards. While all personal wireless service facilities will
require some sort of discretionary review and/or approval,the City will not be
overly burdensome from a regulation standpoint for well-designed and sited
facilities that meet the goals of this plan. Applicants can expect a"tiered permit
system" where the level of staff and public review of a facility proposal will
depend on how well a facility is camouflaged and how unobtrusive it is in
appearance to the viewing public. The necessity for a RFR report is a separate
issue. The RFR report's conclusions may affect the level of review. The Planning
Division staff is the main contact for most City approvals of personal wireless
service facilities.
Facility Development Permits
Simple Complex
Building Permit Only Director's Approval ASA/Design Approval Use Permit
(Staff (Planning Commission)
1. Building Permit Only.
Only a building permit is required for personal wireless service facilities that are
totally screened from any public view. The facility is able to use existing
structures to screen the equipment,or replace existing structures with ones
composed of radio transparent materials that are identical in appearance. While
Planning staff reviews these proposals for qualification,no separate planning
permit is required. To date,very few facilities have qualified for this minimum
level of review.
2. Director's Approval.
Also known as a Director's Minor Modification,this approval is executed by
Planning staff and the Community Development Director. No public hearing or
notice is required,but the decision is reviewed and may be appealed by anyone
during a 14 calendar-day appeal period. Typically, well-screened,building-
mounted or structured-mounted personal wireless facilities qualify for this level
of planning approval. A separate building permit is also required.
31
internally consistent with the Wireless Facilities Master Plan. Implementor:
Community Development Dept.
OTHER CITY ORDINANCES AND CITY POLICIES
As this master plan proposes the potential lease of all types of City property for
private purposes, a review of other City ordinances and policies regarding such
lease to private concerns is necessary to ensure that they are internally consistent
with the Wireless Facilities Master Plan and that appropriate levels of review are
built into the leasing process. Implementors: Community Development Dept.,
Public Works Dept. & City Attorney
LEASE AGREEMENTS
A lease to locate personal wireless service facilities on an existing City-owned
facility or structure is typically negotiated with Public Works Department staff
and approved or disapproved by the City Council at a public hearing. The level
of Planning Division involvement and public review depends on the
obtrusiveness of the facility. A building permit may also be required. An
example of this type of entitlement is the lease of City light standards to a
wireless company for its antenna boxes. Leases involving the construction of
new stand-alone facilities will probably require greater scrutiny. Model lease
agreements should be developed by the City to facilitate lease of public property
and structures for personal wireless service facilities and to protect City interests.
Coordination with affected departments, such as the Parks and Recreation Dept.
for City parklands, will be necessary to ensure their concerns are met. The City's
consultant has prepared a survey of lease rates to ascertain market rental rates
for such facilities. Implementor: Public Works Dept.
CITY STANDARD DETAILS
The City Public Works Department maintains standard specifications for all
public works structures. Some of the structures suggested in this plan, like traffic
signal poles and light poles, may not be physically or structurally suited to
accommodate a personal wireless service facility. These structures should be
evaluated by the wireless companies and the Public Works Department to
determine their suitability. An alternative design or standard may need to be
adopted to accommodate a residential deployment of personal service wireless
facilities. Implementors: Public Works Dept. & Wireless Companies.
33
•
They are typically 4-5 feet in height, 6-12 inches in width and 6-8
inches in depth.
Whip Antenna. This is an omni-directional antenna that appears as a
very thin,rod-like element,projecting up or down from its mount.
They are typically 2-6 inches in diameter and 1-18 feet in length.
- Yagi Antenna. This is a directional antenna designed to "see" one site.
It consists of a thin, rod-like element with half a dozen or more short
cross members mounted at right angles. This antenna is mounted in a
horizontal direction from its mount.
• Antenna Mount or Mount. This term refers to the antenna mounting
hardware and the structure, if any, that elevates the antennas above the
surrounding landscape,for example, a building,monopole, lattice tower, etc.
There are four (4) typical types of mounts:
- Ground-mount. Each antenna is fastened to a separate, short, thin rod
that is anchored to the ground. These installations would be typically
seen on foothill properties where the height of the hill provides the
elevation for the antennas.
Roof-mount. Antennas are mounted on the roof of a building.
✓ 7�//fi�''f
M
Side-mount. Antennas are mounted on the side of a bui•lding.
35
Horizontal Co-location of
Antennas
• ,$T .. Nam,,,
i.ka ti
145'
d_ v _ '"mac.�*' 1 roe Y �• Commercial Mobile Radio Services (CMRS). As defined by Section 704
of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, any of several technologies using
radio signals at various frequencies to send and receive voice, video and
data. These are considered"functionally equivalent services" by the
Telecommunications Act.
• Cross-polarized Antenna. Three panel antennas flush-mounted or
attached very close to a shaft.
• Design. The appearance of a personal wireless service facility, which
includes materials, colors and shape.
• Enhanced Specialized Mobile Radio (ESMR). Private land mobile radio
with telephone services. The local purveyor of this communications
technology is Nextel Communications.
• Environmental Assessment. The document required by the Federal
Communications Commission and the National Environmental Policy Act
when a personal wireless service facility is proposed in an area that may
be environmentally affected by the facility. The environmental
assessment must show how negative environmental impacts can be
mitigated.
• Equipment Cabinets. Personal wireless service facilities also include one
(1) or more small, enclosed structures, cabinets,boxes, sheds or
underground vaults near the base of the antenna mount. These structures
house power connections, emergency batteries,hardwire telephone
connections and sometimes ventilation equipment needed for the
operation of the facility. The equipment is connected to the antennas by
cable(s). The equipment is usually secured by an enclosing structure, such
37
• Panel Antenna. A flat surface antenna that is usually deployed in three
directional sectors and used to transmit and receive signals from that
sector only.
• Personal Communications Services (PCS). A form of radiotelephone
service capable of transmitting and receiving voice, data, text and video
messaging and which operates in the 1850-1900 MHz range.
• Personal Wireless Services. The Plan uses the definition found in Section
704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Unlicensed Wireless Services,
Common Carrier Wireless Exchange and Commercial Mobile Radio
Services, which includes: Cellular, Personal Communications Services
(PCS), Enhanced Specialized Mobile Radio,Specialized Mobile Radio and
Paging.
• Personal Wireless Service Facility. As defined in the
Telecommunications Act of 1996, a facility that is designed to provide
personal wireless services.
• Pylon Sign. A sign erected on a tall and substantial supporting structure,
but is not a billboard sign.
• Radio Frequency (RF) Engineer. Someone with a background in
electrical engineering who specializes in the study of radio frequencies.
RF engineers are licensed by the State as Professional Engineers.
• Radio Frequency Radiation (RFR). The emissions from personal wireless
service facilities that in excessive amounts can be harmful to humans.
• Search Ring. A generally circular geographic area of a specific radius that
a carrier uses to focus his search for a personal wireless service facility
location.
• Separation. The distance between one carrier's antenna array and another
carrier's antenna array. Separation may be horizontal or vertical.
• Siting. The method of placing a personal wireless service facility on a
specific site or property. The term differs from determining"location."
• Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR). A group of services serving dispatch
and data communication users,usually over a small geographic area.
SMR operates over several frequencies in the 800 to 900 MHz range.
• Telecommunications Act of 1996. This is a broad revision of the 1934
federal statute governing telecommunications. It is important at the local
government level because it contains language that both preserves and
limits the authority of local government to regulate personal wireless
service facilities.
• Unobtrusive. A term used to describe a personal wireless service facility
that is not visually dominating to its surroundings. These are usually
facilities mounted on buildings or other structures that are well-
camouflaged. This also describes facilities that are not as well
camouflaged, but do not visually stand-out because of placement, shape
39
1