.02 U-2005-14 T-Mobile
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM
Application:
U-2005-14
Agenda Date: November 27, 2007
Applicant (8):
Property Owner:
Property Location:
Dayna Aguirre, Sutro Consulting (for T-Mobile)
Pacific Rim Park LLC
20041 Bollinger Road (Pacific Rim Shopping Center)
APPLICATION SUMMARY
Use permit to erect a 32-foot tall, monopole with three panel antennas and an
equipment shelter for wireless phone service.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the use permit, file no. U-
2005-14, in accordance with the model resolution.
PROJECT DATA
Site Area: 2.70 acres (shopping center is 4.56 acres)
General Plan Land Use Designation: Commercial/Residential
Zoning: P(CG) Planned Development - General Commercial
Existing Land Use: Shopping Center
Height of Antennas: 32 feet
Maximum Antenna Height Allowed: 55 feet
Height of Adjacent Building: 22 feet, 8 inches
Distance to Nearest Residential Property: 80 feet (in San Jose across Bollinger Road)
Required Setback to Residential: 50 feet
Environmental Determination:
Categorical Exemption, Section 15303: New
Construction or Conversion of Small Structures
BACKGROUND:
On December 13, 2005, the Planning Commission considered a use permit application
for a 35-foot tall wireless communications monopole proposed to be located behind an
existing grocery store in the Pacific Rim Center. The application was denied on a 5-0
vote (Exhibit A) because of the inadequacy of the landscaping needed to screen the
monopole.
The applicant subsequently appealed the denial decision to City Council, who, on
March 7, 2006, remanded the project back to the Planning Commission to review
alternative monopole designs.
:.)-1
File No. U-2005-14
Page 2
November 27,2007
DISCUSSION
The applicant has proposed two alternative monopole designs, labeled Alternative A
and Alternative B. Alternative A is the applicant's preference and the subject of this
application. If Alternative A is approved, the applicant will withdraw Alternative B,
which was submitted under a different application that is not ready to be heard by the
Planning Commission (see discussion below).
Alternative A
Description:
This alternative consists of the replacement of the existing light pole on Bollinger Road
next to the rear driveway for Pacific Rim Center with a monopole capable of carrying
both the light arm and the antennas, which are mounted in a 5-foot tall radome on top
of a 27-foot pole (Exhibit B: photosimulations). All cabling will be placed underground
and connected to the base equipment shelter located behind the shopping center
building. The shelter is small enough not to obstruct the rear driveway access. As
depicted in the aerial photograph, the monopole is setback 80 feet from San Jose
residential, 434 feet from Blaney A venue residential and 460 feet from La Roda Drive
residential. The ordinance-required setback is a minimum of 50 feet from a residential
property line.
. Monopole location
Previous proposed monopole location (denied)
:J.-;}
File No. U-2005-14
Page 3
November 27, 2007
The Wireless Master Plan suggests the use of other existing vertical structures, such as
power/telephone poles and electroliers (Le., light poles) to elevate antennas. Many of
these structures were not designed to accommodate antennas, so the City allows
wireless companies to fabricate suitable replacement structures (Exhibit C). The design
guideline is "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. A replacement public structure will need approval of the City Public Works
Department. A replacement structure should accommodate internalized cable runs."
The applicant has been working concurrently with the Department of Public Works to
address its requirements and will be applying for an encroachment permit/lease
agreement if the use permit is approved by the Planning Commission. The proposed
facility meets Public Works standards.
The pole has a uniform diameter of 20 inches. Other man-made vertical structures in
the vicinity have the following diameters and characteristics:
Vertical Structure
Li ht Pole
Li ht/Traffic Si al Pole
Wooden Power Pole
Base. Diameter
7.5 inches
11.5 inches
12.5 inches
Other Characteristics
T a ers in diameter to to
Slight taper to diameter to top
Nota er to diameter
The standard configuration of three antennas in the radome provides near 360 degree
wireless phone coverage and has a minimum diameter of 20 inches. The applicant
states that the pole itself could be reduced in diameter, but not the radome top. Staff's
visual preference is having a uniform diameter pole and radome, rather than a top-
heavy pole with a large top and slender pole.
Landscape Screening:
Staff has conditioned the approval with a requirement to replace two of the three
Bollinger Road street trees fronting the shopping center to improve the visual screening.
These two existing trees were planted 10 years ago and have not thrived. Staff is
recommending 24" box trees with a minimum 8-foot height.
RF Emissions:
The applicant has commissioned a report prepared by radio engineers, Hammett &
Edison to assess the radio frequency radiation levels against federal safety standards for
exposure (Exhibit D). The public exposure limit set by the federal government for
personal communication services, like T-Mobile, is 1.00 microwatt per centimeter
squared. The calculated maximum ambient RF exposure for a person anywhere at
ground level is 0.0065 m W / cm2 , which is 0.65 % of the applicable public exposure limit.
On the roof of the adjacent commercial building, the maximum exposure limit is 4.7%,
and 2.0% of the public exposure limit at the second floor elevation of any nearby
d.~3
File No. U-2005-14
Page 4
November 27,2007
residence. Since the RF emission levels fall far below federal safety standards, the
Commission's decision on the project must not be based on RF emission concerns as
prescribed by federal law.
Equipment Noise:
The applicant commissioned the preparation of a sound prediction report for the base
equipment to be used at the cell site (Exhibit E). The equipment will be sited about 30
feet away from a common property line shared with a church. The maximum ambient
noise level for the three equipment cabinets with the air conditioning running is
53.9 dB (A) (no traffic noise). The calculated level is below the City noise standard of
60dB(A) for a commercial property line. Note that measured ambient noise that
includes drive-by Bollinger Road traffic was measured up to 63.3 dB(A).
Alternative B
Description:
This cell site design alternative involves the mounting of three antennas within a
radome on top of an existing wooden telephone pole at the southerly terminus of La
Roda Drive. Cabling will run down the side of the pole before it is placed underground
to a base equipment enclosure to be located on the Pacific Rim Center property (Exhibit
F). The base equipment will be enclosed by a 6-foot tall masonry wall that will be
planted out with ivy to discourage graffiti.
Under this alternative, the commercial antennas would be set back less than 50 from a
residential property line, which is prohibited without a variance by the City's wireless
communication facilities ordinance. T-Mobile asserts that it has rights under the State
public utility code (Section 7901) that preempt local regulations. A recent court decision
tends to support T-Mobile's position (Exhibit G).
An application for Alternative Design B is on file (DIR-2007-03) but is not being
pursued by the applicant while the current application is being reviewed.
Alternative B is the applicant's less preferred alternative because the pole is shorter in
height and farther from the population base T-mobile wants to serve. The applicant
intends to withdraw DIR-2007-03 if Alternative A (file no. U-2005-14) is approved.
Submitted by: Colin Jung, Senior Planner ~s::::. n
Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Developm~
ENCLOSURES
Model Resolution of Approval
Exhibit A: Planning Commission Resolution No. 6343
Exhibit B: Photosimulations of light/monopole
Exhibit C: Excerpt from the Siting and Design Guidelines of the Wireless Facilities Master Plan (p. 25)
Exhibit D: RF Exposure Report for 20041 Bollinger Road prepared by Hammett & Edison and dated
09/06/07.
Exhibit E: Sound Prediction Report for T-Mobile Site No. SF14949 dated 9/17/07
;(4-
U-2005-14
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
RESOLUTION NO.
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
APPROVING A USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PERSONAL
WIRELESS SERVICE FACILITY CONSISTING OF THREE PCS PANEL ANTENNAS
MOUNTED ON A 32 FOOT TALL FABRICATED LIGHT/MONOPOLE
AND ANCILLARY EQUIPMENT CABINETS LOCATED IN A FENCED ENCLOSURE
AT 20041 BOLLINGER ROAD, APN 369-34-052
SECTION I: FINDINGS
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for a
Use Permit, as described in Section II of this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural
Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more
public hearings on this matter; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application;
and has satisfied the following requirements:
1) The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or inJUrIOUS to
property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health,
safety, general welfare, or convenience;
2) The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the
Cupertino Wireless Facilities Master Plan, Comprehensive General Plan and the purpose
of this title.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence
submitted in this matter, the application for Use Permit is hereby approved, subject to the
conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on Page 2 thereof; and
That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this resolution
are based and contained in the public hearing record concerning Application No. U-2005-14
as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of November 27, 2007 and
are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.
;2 --(p
Resolution No.
Page 2
U-2005-14
November 27, 2007
SECTION II: PROTECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.:
Applicant:
Property Owner:
Location:
U-2005-14
Dayna Aguirre, Sutro Consulting (for T-Mobile)
Pacific Rim Park, LLC
20041 Bollinger Road
SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPT.
1. APPROVED EXHIBITS
Approval is based on Exhibits titled: "SF14949 TIN-TIN MARKET", consisting of 6
sheets labeled Tl, T-2, A-I through A-4 dated 8/17/07, except as may be amended by
the conditions contained in this resolution.
2. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT APPROV AL
The applicant shall secure an encroachment permit and other necessary approvals from
the public works department to locate the light/monopole in the public right-of-way.
3. ABANDONMENT
If after installation, the aerial is not used for its permitted purpose for a continuous
period of 18 months, said antennae and associated facilities shall be removed. The
applicant shall bear the entire cost of demolition and removal.
4. EXPIRATION DATE
This use permit shall expire ten (10) years after the effective date of the permit. The
applicant may apply for a renewal of the use permit at which time the Planning
Commission may review the state of wireless communication and camouflage
technologies to determine if the visual impact of the personal wireless facility can be
reduced.
5. LANDSCAPING
The applicant shall replace the two street trees east of the light/monopole with two
healthy, minimum 8-foot tall, 24-inch box trees of the same species or another species
approved by the Department of Public Works. Any irrigation system for the trees shall
be rehabilitated or added if one does not exist.
/)-7
U-2005-14
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
Exhibit A
RESOLUTION NO. 6343 (denial)
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
DENYING A USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PERSONAL
WIRELESS SERVICE FACILITY CONSISTING OF THREE PCS PANEL ANTENNAS
MOUNTED ON A 37 FOOT TALL TREEPOLE AND ANCILLARY EQUIPMENT
CABINETS LOCATED IN A FENCED ENCLOSURE AT 20041 BOLLINGER
ROAD, APN 369-34-052
SECTION I: FINDINGS
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for a
Use Permit, as described in Section II of this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural
Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Plam1ing Commission has held one or more
public hearings on this matter; and
WHEREAS, the project' s tr~e pole is inadequately screened and blended with natural
landscaping in accordance with adopted sighting and design guidelines and is considered
visually obtrusive in its environmental context. The project is thus inconsistent with the
City's Wireless Facilities Master Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence
submitted in this matter, the application for Use Permit is not approved; and
That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this resolution
are based and contained in the public hearing record concerning Application No. U-2005-14
as set forth in the Minutes of the Plam1ing Commission Meeting of October 25, 2005 and
December 13, 2005 and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.
SECTION II: PROTECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.:
Applicant:
Property Owner:
Location:
U-2005-14
William Stephens (for T-Mobile)
Pacific Rim Park, LLC
20041 Bollinger Road
~-~
Exhibit C
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
light standard pole in a
shopping center off
Highway 680, Pleasanton,
CA.)
25
d-/3
T-Mobile. Proposed Base Station (Site No. SF14949B)
20041 Bollinger Road · Cupertino, California
Exhibit 0
Statement of Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers
The firm of Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers, has been retained on behalf of T-Mobile,
a personal wireless telecommunications carrier, to evaluate the base station (Site No. SF14949B)
proposed to be located at 20041 Bollinger Road in Cupertino, California, for compliance with
appropriate guidelines limiting human exposure to radio frequency ("RF") electromagnetic fields.
Prevailing Exposure Standards
The U.S. Congress requires that the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") evaluate its
actions for possible significant impact on the environment. In Docket 93-62, effective October 15,
1997, the FCC adopted the human exposure limits for field strength and power density recommended
in Report No. 86, "Biological Effects and Exposure Criteria for Radiofrequency Electromagnetic
Fields," published in 1986 by the Congressionally chartered National Council on Radiation Protection
and Measurements ("NCRP"). Separate limits apply for occupational and public exposure conditions,
with the latter limits generally five times more restrictive. The more recent standard, developed by the
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers and approved as American National Standard
ANSI/IEEE C95.1-2006, "Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency
Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz," includes similar exposure limits. A summary of the
FCC's exposure limits is shown in Figure 1. These limits apply for continuous exposures and are
intended to provide a prudent margin of safety for all persons, regardless of age, gender, size, or
health.
The most restrictive FCC limit for exposures of unlimited duration to radio frequency energy for
several personal wireless services are as follows:
Personal Wireless Service
Personal Communication ("PCS")
Cellular Telephone
Specialized Mobile Radio
[most restrictive frequency range]
Aoorox. Frequencv
1,950 MHz
870
855
30-300
Occuoational Limit
5.00 mW/cm2
2.90
2.85
1.00
Public Limit
1.00 m W/cm2
0.58
0.57
0.20
General Facility Requirements
Base stations typically consist of two distinct parts: the electronic transceivers (also called "radios" or
"channels") that are connected to the traditional wired telephone lines, and the passive antennas that
send the wireless signals created by the radios out to be received by individual subscriber units. The
transceivers are often located at ground level and are connected to the antennas by coaxial cables
about 1 inch thick. Because of the short wavelength of the frequencies assigned by the FCC for
wireless services, the antennas require line-of-sight paths for their signals to propagate well and so are
- ~.E
HAMMETT & EDISON, INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
SAN FRANCISCO
TM14949596.3
Page 1 of3
~~/4
T-Mobile. Proposed Base Station (Site No. SF14949B)
20041 Bollinger Road · Cupertino, California
installed at some height above ground. The antennas are designed to concentrate their energy toward
the horizon, with very little energy wasted toward the sky or the ground. Along with the low power of
such facilities, this means that it is generally not possible for exposure conditions to approach the
maximum permissible exposure limits without being physically very near the antennas.
Computer Modeling Method
The FCC provides direction for determining compliance in its Office of Engineering and Technology
Bulletin No. 65, "Evaluating Compliance with FCC-Specified Guidelines for Human Exposure to
Radio Frequency Radiation," dated August 1997. Figure 2 attached describes the calculation
methodologies, reflecting the facts that a directional antenna's radiation pattern is not fully formed at
locations very close by (the "near-field" effect) and that at greater distances the power level from an
energy source decreases with the square of the distance from it (the "inverse square law"). The
conservative nature of this method for evaluating exposure conditions has been verified by numerous
field tests.
Site and Facility Description
Based upon information provided by T-Mobile, including drawings by MSA Architecture and
Planning, Inc., dated August 17, 2007, it is proposed to mount three RFS Model APXI6DWV-
16DWV directional panel antennas at the top of a 32-foot light pole to replace an existing pole located
near the Tin Tin Market at 20041 Bollinger Road in Cupertino. The antennas would mounted at an
effective height of about 291/2 feet above ground and would be oriented with up to 20 downtilt at
about 1200 spacing, to provide service in all directions. The maximum effective radiated power in any
direction would be 2,400 watts, representing six channels operating simultaneously at 400 watts each.
There are reported no other wireless telecommunications base stations located nearby.
Study Results
For a person anywhere at ground, the maximum ambient RF exposure level due to the proposed
T-Mobile operation is calculated to be 0.0065 m W/cm2, which is 0.65% of the applicable public
exposure limit. The maximum calculated level on the roof of the adjacent commercial building is
4.7% and the maximum calculated level at the second-floor elevation of any nearby residence would
be 2.0% ofthe public exposure limit. It should be noted that these results include several "worst-case"
assumptions and therefore are expected to overstate actual power density levels.
Recommended Mitigation Measures
Due to their mounting location, the T-Mobile antennas are not accessible to the general public, and so
no mitigation measures are necessary to comply with the FCC public exposure guidelines. To prevent
HAMMETT & EDISON, INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
SAN FRANCISCO
TM 14949596.3
Page 2 of3
J-/S
T-Mobile. Proposed Base Station (Site No. SF14949B)
20041 Bollinger Road · Cupertino, California
occupational exposures in excess of the FCC guidelines, no access within 3 feet directly in front of the
T-Mobile antennas themselves, such as might occur during maintenance work on the light or pole,
should be allowed while the base station is in operation, unless other measures can be demonstrated to
ensure that occupational protection requirements are met. Posting explanatory warning signs' at the
antennas and/or on the pole below the antennas, such that the signs would be readily visible from any
angle of approach to persons who might need to work within that distance, would be sufficient to meet
FCC-adopted guidelines.
Conclusion
Based on the information and analysis above, it is the undersigned's professional opinion that the base
station proposed by T-Mobile at 20041 Bollinger Road in Cupertino, California, will comply with the
prevailing standards for limiting public exposure to radio frequency energy and, therefore, will not for
this reason cause a significant impact on the environment. The highest calculated level in publicly
accessible areas is much less than the prevailing standards allow for exposures of unlimited duration.
This finding is consistent with measurements of actual exposure conditions taken at other operating
base stations. Posting of explanatory signs is recommended to establish compliance with occupational
exposure limitations.
Authorship
The undersigned author of this statement is a qualified Professional Engineer, holding California
Registration Nos. E-13026 and M-20676, which expire on June 30, 2009. This work has been carried
out by him or under his direction, and all statements are true and correct of his own knowledge except,
where noted, when data has been supplied by others, which data he believes to be correct.
September 6, 2007
~
tt, P.E.
...
· Warning signs should comply with OET-65 color, symbol, and content recommendations. Contact information
should be provided (e.g., a telephone number) to arrange for access to restricted areas. The selection of language(s)
is not an engineering matter, and guidance from the landlord, local zoning or health authority, or appropriate
professionals may be required.
H
HAMMETT & EDISON, INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
SAN FRANCISCO
TM 14949596.3
Page 3 of3
c2 -I fp
FCC Radio Frequency Protection Guide
The U.S. Congress required(1996 Telecom Act) the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC")
to adopt a nationwide human exposure standard to ensure that its licensees do not, cumulatively, have
a significant impact on the environment. The FCC adopted the limits from Report No. 86, "Biological
Effects and Exposure Criteria for Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields," published in 1986 by the
Congressionally chartered National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements ("NCRP").
Separate limits apply for occupational and public exposure conditions, with the latter limits generally
five times more restrictive. The more recent standard, developed by the Institute of Electrical and
Electronics Engineers and approved as American National Standard ANSI/IEEE C95.1-2006, "Safety
Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to
300 GHz," includes similar limits. These limits apply for continuous exposures from all sources and
are intended to provide a prudent margin of safety for all persons, regardless of age, gender, size, or
health.
As shown in the table and chart below, separate limits apply for occupational and public exposure
conditions, with the latter limits (in italics and/or dashed) up to five times more restrictive:
10 100 103
Frequency (MHz)
Higher levels are allowed for short periods oftime, such that total exposure levels averaged over six or
thirty minutes, for occupational or public settings, respectively, do not exceed the limits, and higher
levels also are allowed for exposures to small areas, such that the spatially averaged levels do not
exceed the limits. However, neither of these allowances is incorporated in the conservative calculation
formulas in the FCC Office of Engineering and Technology Bulletin No. 65 (August 1997) for
projecting field levels. Hammett & Edison has built those formulas into a proprietary program that
calculates, at each location on an arbitrary rectangular grid, the total expected power density from any
number of individual radio sources. The program allows for the description of buildings and uneven
terrain, if required to obtain more accurate projections.
HAMMETT & EDISON, INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
SAN FRANCISCO
Frequency
Applicable
Range
(MHz)
0.3 - 1.34
1.34- 3.0
3.0 - 30
30 - 300
300 - 1,500
1,500 - 100,000
,.-"
.... p"'a
Q) .- U
~ ~--
o a.l ~
0...0 a
'-"
1000
100
10
1
0.1
~,--
it';~
Electromagnetic Fields (f is frequency of emission in MHz)
Electric Magnetic Equivalent Far-Field
Field Strength Field Strength Power Density
(Vim) (Aim) (mW/cm2)
614 614 1.63 1.63 100 100
614 823.8/1 1.63 2.19/1 100 180//
1842/f 823.8/1 4.89/f 2.19/1 900lf 180//
61.4 27.5 0.163 0.0729 1.0 0.2
3.54.Jf 1.5* Vf/l06 ..Jj/238 fl300 f/1500
137 61.4 0.364 0.163 5.0 1. 0
./ Occupational Exposure
/ PCS
Cell
____I
-
0.1
104
105
FCC Guidelines
Figure 1
J.-Il
RFRCALC ™ Calculation Methodology
Assessment by Calculation of Compliance with FCC Exposure Guidelines
The U.S. Congress required (1996 Telecom Act) the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") to
adopt a nationwide human exposure standard to ensure that its licensees do not, cumulatively, have a
significant impact on the environment. The maximum permissible exposure limits adopted by the FCC
(see Figure 1) apply for continuous exposures from all sources and are intended to provide a prudent
margin of safety for all persons, regardless of age, gender, size, or health. Higher levels are allowed for
short periods of time, such that total exposure levels averaged over six or thirty minutes, for
occupational or public settings, respectively, do not exceed the limits.
Near Field.
Prediction methods have been developed for the near field zone of panel (directional) and whip
(omnidirectional) antennas, typical at wireless telecommunications base stations, as well as dish
(aperture) antennas, typically used for microwave links. The antenna patterns are not fully formed in
the near field at these antennas, and the FCC Office of Engineering and Technology Bulletin No. 65
(August 1997) gives suitable formulas for calculating power density within such zones.
F 1 h. d . S 180 x 0.1 x2Pnet , l'n mW/cm2,
or a pane or w Ip antenna, power enslty = I'
8BW Jr X D x h
0.lx16x1JxPnet
:rt x h2
and for an aperture antenna, maximum power density Smax =
in mW Icm2
, I',
where SBW = half-power beamwidth of the antenna, in degrees, and
Pnet = net power input to the antenna, in watts,
D = distance from antenna, in meters,
h = aperture height of the antenna, in meters, and
11 = aperture efficiency (unitless, typically 0.5-0.8).
The factor of 0.1 in the numerators converts to the desired units of power density.
Far Field.
OET-65 gives this formula for calculating power density in the far field of an individual RF source:
Power density S = 2.56 x 1.64 x 100 x RFp2 x ERP in mW/cm2
4 x Jr X D2 ' ,
where ERP = total ERP (all polarizations), in kilowatts,
RFF = relative field factor at the direction to the actual point of calculation, and
D = distance from the center of radiation to the point of calculation, in meters.
The factor of 2.56 accounts for the increase in power density due to ground reflection, assuming a
reflection coefficient of 1.6 (1.6 x 1.6 = 2.56). The factor of 1.64 is the gain of a half-wave dipole
relative to an isotropic radiator. The factor of 100 in the numerator converts to the desired units of
power density. This formula has been built into a'proprietary program that calculates, at each location
on an arbitrary rectangular grid, the total expected power density from any number of individual
radiation sources. The program also allows for the description of uneven terrain in the vicinity, to
obtain more accurate projections.
HE
HAMMETT & EDISON, INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
SAN FRANCISCO
Methodology
Figure 2
J-/S
Exhibit E
Sound Prediction Report
"Tin Tin Market"
20041 Bollinger Road
Cupertino, Ca. 95014
T-Mobile Site No. SF 14949
September 17, 2007
Background: Matthew Runte! recorded sound levels at an existing telecommunications
site located at the Windemere Parkway Fire Station, Contra Costa County, California.
The measured levels are listed in the following table.
RBS 2106 (BTS
Measured Sound Levels
Sound level with
fan running and
air conditioner
o
61.2 dB A
Sound level
with air
conditioner
runnin
74.2 dB(A)
Location
Three new Ericsson RBS 2106 (or equivalent sound producing) equipment cabinets are
proposed for installation at 20041 Bollinger Road, Cupertino, Ca. 95014. The new
cabinets will be installed approximately 30' from the nearest property line.
Ambient levels at the site were measured on 09/20/2007 at approximately 12:15 PM.
The measured ambient levels are listed in the following table.
Location Measurement Notes
Proposed Cabinet 67.2 dB(A) Existing equipment
Location contributes to this
sound level.
Property Line, West of 52.0 up to 63.3 dB(A) Traffic on Bollinger
Cabinet Location Road contributes to
this sound level.
Bollinger Road, South 51.2 - 74.3 dB(A) Sound level varies
of proposed Site with traffic
I Report prepared by Lexia Corporation
Page 1 of 4
c1-1 q
The table below shows the calculated levels at distances of 10',20', and 30' from three
RBS 2106 equipment cabinets.
CALCULATED SOUND LEVELS
Distance Sound level
contribution from
three RES 2106
equipment
cabinets with air
conditioner
I 0 feet
20 feet
30 feet (Nearest
Pro e Line)
Conclusion:
At the nearest property line, the maximum calculated sound level
is below the measured ambient level of 52.0 dB(A). The combined
maximum calculated and ambient level at the property line with
three equipment cabinets operating (assume HV AC on and a "no
traffic" condition) is 53.9 dB(Al
Report prepared by:
--I .
J1ftv;\~7 Ill"~-.....
Matthew Runte, PE
Registered Electrical Engineer
California License #E015450
Lexia Corporation
P.O. Box 4055
Walnut Creek, Ca. 94596
(925) 286-876 I
Attachment: appendix "A" Typical Noise Levels
2 Calculation does not take into account reflections or attenuation.
Page 2 of 4
d.-do
Appendix" A"
Typical Noise Levels
Environmental Noise
Weakest sound heard OdB
Normal conversation (3-5') 60- 70dB
felephone dial tone 80dB
City Traffic (inside car) 85dB
frain whistle at 500' 90dB
Subway train at 200' 95dB
Level at which sustained exposure may result in 90 - 95dB
hearing loss
Power mower 107 dB
Power saw 110dB
Pain begins 125dB
Pneumatic riveter at 4' 125dB
Jet engine at 100' 140dB
Death of hearing tissue 180dB
Loudest sound possible 194dB
OSHA Daily Permissible Noise Level Exposure
Hours per day Sound level
8 90dB
6 92dB
4 95dB
3 97dB
2 100dB
1.5 102dB
I 105dB
.5 110dB
.25 or less 115dB
Perceptions of Increases in Decibel Level
Imperceptible Chal1ge IdB
Barely Perceptible Change 3dB
Clearly Noticeable Change 5dB
About Twice as Loud 10dB
About Four Times as Loud ~OdB
Sound Levels of Music
Page 3 of 4
;!"'dl
Normal piano practice 60 -70dB
Fortissimo Singer, 3' 70dB
Chamber music, small auditorium 75 - 85dB
Piano Fortissimo 84 - 103dB
Violin 82 - 92dB
Cello 85 -111dB
Oboe 95-112dB
Flute 92 -103dB
Piccolo 90 -1 06dB
Clarinet 85-114dB
French horn 90 - 106dB
Trombone 85-114dB
Tympani & bass drum 106dB
Walkman on 5/10 94dB
Symphonic music peak 120 - 137dB
Amplifier rock, 4-6' 120dB
Rock music peak 150dB
NOTES:
. One-third of the total power of a 75-piece orchestra comes from the bass drum.
. High frequency sounds of 2-4,000 Hz are the most damaging. The uppermost
octave of the piccolo is 2,048-4,096 Hz.
. Aging causes gradual hearing loss, mostly in the high frequencies.
. Speech reception is not seriously impaired until there is about 30 dB loss; by that
time severe damage may have occurred.
. Hypertension and various psychological difficulties can be related to noise
exposure.
. The incidence of hearing loss in classical musicians has been estimated at 4-43%,
in rock musicians 13-30%.
Statistics for the Decibel (Loudness) Comparison Chart were taken from a study by
Marshall Chasin, M.Sc., Aud(C), F AAA, Centre for Human Performance & Health,
Ontario, Canada. There were some conflicting readings and, in many cases, authors did
not specify at what distance the readings were taken or what the musician was actually
playing. In general, when there were several readings, the higher one was chosen.
Page 4 of 4
.;( -J'J..
r
PROJECT TEAM
ARCHITECT:
CONSULTANT'S NAME
ADDRESS
CITY, STATE. ZIP
CONTACT:
PHONE:
APPROVALS
APPROVED BY:
O.P.E. lOPs:
LEASING:
RF:
ZONING:
CONSTRUCTION:
POWER/ TELCO:
MSA ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, INC.
20B UTAH STREET, SUITE 310
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103
ROBERT ZEHM
(415) 503-1363
INITIALS:
~OMNIPOINT
DBA n-,
FLOOR
1855 GATEWAY BLVD 9TH
CONCORD, CA. 94520
SF 14949
TIN TIN MARKET
VICINITY MAP
Y;ll:a:QO!~
C."i
'"
-
0';---. ---.,-
P:::-j1it~ bl
.,l
.!
-=-,i
-. -. - - . . - .-
~' ... ~ui~U~~;'
(f)
o -
m
:c. CI.&IySt
::::I ~-_._-..=:-:
"
u ~lddC"n..\.':.)l'
en -.'
~
,l(lhf: I'
, '--
..0
.,:f;-r-
2'
l -
CiOlIt"nflon St
'"
..
,~ ~ ~" C'., 1::1""
tjOI!.n 0 ~
, i: :'::::~' . ,; r ;~'
',. i ~ . -, . fI , c < _ ..0:>"
c - , - . ~. '.<.f.. '":::'
'- ''-. 'I;;!rr.;c.". ", ""
". - "", .. ~~:H' Q c-
~ '::," ,!:::'r,~S!:~,:"~~, ,C
~
f~II;:., ~~J~y'
, .
P<l':l.t ;:
5
\'i.:r-',"::o ~
Rila ~d::.'
~
F'hytll~ .....f-
er---' 2~O '~~~~'ff--
1il::![Kl~ "r~hoo! ~'::::''''=:::--
t "" n C H' '": -,',I;~"
C~l..1:ill;:..~ i.>;UII'C~" i"
P at: -=~
'D20D4 ~~v'TEQ '.
DIRECTIONS TO SITE FROM OMNIPOINT
DATE:
DIRECTIONS FROM T -MOBILE OFFICE:
1. START AT 1 B55 GATEWAY BLVD - GO <0.1 MI
2. TURN RIGHT ON CLAYTON - GO 0.2 MI
3. BEAR RIGHT ONTO CA-242 SOUTH - GO 0.9 MI
4. TAKE THE OAKLAND/SAN JOSE AVE EXIT ONTO 1-680 SOUTH - GO 37.5 MI
5. TAKE THE MISSION BLVD EXIT ONTO MISSION BLVD, WEST TOWARD WARM SPRINGS DlST - GO
1.3 MI
6. TAKE LEFT RAMP ONTO I-SSO SOUTH TOWARD SAN JOSE - GO 12.4 MI
7. TAKE THE 1-280 EXIT TOWARD SAN FRANCISCO - GO 4.4 MI
B. TAKE THE WOLFE ROAD EXIT - GO 0.3 MI
9, TURN LEFT ON N. WOLFE RD - GO 0.6 MI
10. N. WOLFE RD BECOMES MILLER AVE - GO 0.9 MI
11. TURN RIGHT ON BOWNGER RD - GO 0.5 MI
12. ARRIVE AT 20041 BOLLINGER RD. CUPERTINO, ON THE LEFT
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
THIS PROJECT CONSISTS OF THE INSTALLATION AND OPERATION OF ANTIENNAS AND
ASSOCIATIED EQUIPMENT FOR THE oMNIPOINT T -MOBILE TELECOMMUNICATIONS NETWORK.
I THE PROPOSED PROJECT ENTAILS:
I s' X 24'-6" LEASE AREA WITH (3) BTS CABINETS ON CONCRETE SLAB AT GROUND LEVEL I"
I INSTAULATloN OF 3 PANEL ANTIENNAS, 1 PER SECTOR, 3 SECTORS TOTAL, CONCEALED WITHIN A 2.
2'0 CYLINDER MOUNTED ON TOP OF (E) UTILITY POLE.
o COAX CABLE RUNS FROM BTS TO ANTIENNAS VIA CABLE TRAY.
. TIELEPHONE AND ELECTRICAL SERVICE FROM EXISTING SOURCES.
PROJECT SUMMARY
APPLICANT/LESSEE
oMNIPolNT T -MOBILE
1 B55 GATEWAY BLVD. 9TH FLOOR
CONCORD, CALIFORNIA 94520
PROPERTY OWNER:
PACIFIC RIM PARK, LLC.
5057 FOREST GLEN DRIVE
SAN JOSE, CA 95129
CONTACT: EUNICE CHAN
PHONE: (40B) 984-66B6
PROPERTY INFORMATION:
SITE NAME: TIN TIN MARKET
SITE NUMBER: SF 14949
SITE ADDRESS: 20041 BOLLINGER RD.
CUPERTINO, CA 95014-4532
GEODETIC COORDINATES:
NAD B3
LAT. 37' IS' 41.2" N
LONG. 122" 01' 27.2'" W
CONST, MANAGER:
GLENN BOSWELL
(916) 425-B773
PROJECT PLANNER:
BILL STIEPHENS
(510) 612-251'
SAC:
BILL WALTON
(925) 521-5572
A.P.N. 369-34-052
CURRENT ZONING: P (CG)
JURISDICTION: CITY OF CUPERTINO
HANDICAP REQUIREMENTS:
FACILITY IS UNMANNED AND NOT FOR HUMAN HABITATION. HANDICAPPED ACCESS
AND REOUIREMENTS NOT REQUIRED, IN ACCORDANCE WITH CALIFORNIA STATE
ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, PART 2, TITEL 24, SECTION 11D5B.42, EXCEPTION 1.
CODE COMPLIANCE
ALL WORK AND MATERIALS SHALL BE PERFORMED AND INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
CURRENT EDITIONS OF THE FOLLOWING CODES AS ADOPTED BY THE LOCAL GOVERNING
AUTHORITIES. NOTHING IN THESE PLANS IS TO BE CONSTRUCTED TO PERMIT WORK NOT
CONFORMING TO THESE CODES.
CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE CBC-2DDI
CALIFORNIA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE
(INCL TITLES 24 & 25) 2001
3. ANS!/EIA-222-F LIFE SAFETY CODE
4. NFPA-1D1-1997
5. CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CoOE CEC-20D1
6. CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE CMC-2DDl
7. CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE CPC-2DOI
8. LOCAL BUILDING CODE(S)
9. CITY AND/OR COUNTY ORDINANCES
SHEET INDEX
T - 1 TITLE SHEET
A-l OVERALL SITIE PLAN
A- 2 ANTENNA & EOUIPMENT LAYOUT
A-3 ELEVATIONS
RECEIVED
JAM 2 4 2067
BY~
Exhibit F
. C
5 0
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
~
R. ZEHM
MSA
'Architecture & Planning, Inc.
2DB Utah $tl'Nlf, Suite 31D
San Franc/scD, C. 941D3
41S.5D3.1363 fax415..Sr13.13fi2
Sana Ana San lJleQQ Sail Francisco
tlJUJW. msa-ap.com
""
o
o
....J
'-'-
"T"
>=
0">
00
~~
m~
>-- .
<(<(
",U
L.o.J
f-"
<(0
L?""
o
W")U
W")Z
roO
~U
f-
Z
~~
Z<
:p
o
W~
~
~ o~~
~ ~ <~z
0'\ ~~~5
-.:::t UJ",O
~ ~ 8~13.~
......-< -o:t: ...JOd
I Oz
~ ~r.LI",;::;::
(/) t:: ~ffi~
tZ:l :5c..(I'J
~ Na
~
~
SHEET TITLE:
TITLE SHEET
T-l
......
').-23
BQ
PROPOSED T -MOBILE PANEL ANTENNA~ CONCELAED
WITHIN A 2'~ CYLINDER MOUNTED ON (El UTIUTY POLE
PROPOSED T -MOBILE
PROJECT AR~ SEE 1/A-2
:1:4-03' DIS"
"'Net f:-Ro
Iv! "<Nittvtv",
R-1
PROPOSED POWER AND
TELCO OVERHEAD
(E) JOINT POLE
(PROPOSED T -MOBILE
POWER/TELCO P.O.C,)
1/'1
\ I
I I
I I
I \
I I
I I
I I
I I
~ I I
~ I I
[I I
I I
I I
I I
\ I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
\ I
I I
I I
I I
------ , --J I
-----~-----~~
~
PROPOSED T-MOBILE-:::i
U.G. POWER AND C:
TELCO ROUTE f$
(APPROX. 210') &
ff
/2
;{
o
""
~
'<('
~
~
b'
~
~
~
Q
(El s' HT. WALL
w
z
~
~
c::
w
a.
o
c::
a.
(E) 10' PG&E EASEMENT
(E) ACCESS DRIVE
""-~~-~._~
p:::'-'~-."..
'/TOPtR'::;" ,
LINt
------
------
------
------
~
~
------
------
~
~
------
------
R-1
------
------
(SAN
JOSE)
~
------ ' ~
lJ 0 LLllI r - ------ , -----------
~ V G .€ l? ------ - ------
l? 04D ------
SCALE: 1/32"=1'-0.
OVERALL SITE PLAN
~
>-
~
~
~
Z
~
~
CO
R-1
m
,. ISSUE STATUS "..,
L:; DATE DESCRIPTION REV
1 OS/26/05 90~ ZONING A
2 06/29/05 , DOl: ZONING A
3 08/26/05 , OO~ ZONING REV, S
4 10/14/05 , DOl: ZONING REV.2 C
5 , 0/23/05 , DOl: ZONING REV,3 0
DRAWN BY: AU
.... CHECKED BY: R. ZEHM.....
,... """IIIIl
MSA
Architl!cture & Phznning, Inc.
2DB Utah stTl!8t, Sufteo 310
San Fram:;5co, C.941D3
415.5D3.1363 fu415.5D3.13li2
Santa AnI San DIego San Francisco
www. msa-ap.com
.... .....
,... """IIIIl
~ .....
0::: ""'Ill
0
0
-'
u..
::r:
I-
0'>
0
ON
>'"
-'....
(DO'>
~<i
;s:U
w
I- -
",,0
<..00:::
0
",U
",2:
coD
_U
f-
Z
~~
Z'"
:2:5
0
~I .....
....
,.. ""IIIl
~
~ N
r/:l !it{;l~
0'\ r/:l 0" Z
~ o::;! ~
'<:j- ",00
~ 0'\ o W~U
'<:j- ~ ~..:~
.......... :3~5
2; I p;jOzU
~ E-< "';::..:
VJ. ~ :;oc~
~ rn~~~
U
2;
~
... .....
SHEET TITLE:
OVERALL SITE PLAN
A-1
1IIIl.... ..IIIIl
.. -eJ. -:;;t.f
~
SECTOR 'c'
AZIMUTH 2400
TRUE NORTH
ANTENNA LAYOUT
SCALE: 1 "= 1'-0"
NOT USED
SCALE: 3/2"= "-0"
l'
SECTOR 'A'
AZIMUTH 00
TRUE NORTH
PROPOSED T -MOBILE PANEL
ANTENNAS CONCEALED WITHIN
A 2'\Z CYLINDER MOUNTED
ON (E) UTILITY POLE
(El UTILITY POLE
'-
SECTOR 'B'
AZIMUTH 1200
TRUE NORTH
IE) BUILDING
PROPOSED T -MOBILE EQUIPMENT
CABINETS MOUNTED ON A CoNC,
SLAB AT GROUND LEVEL,
SEE 3/A-2
PROPOSED T -MOBILE GPS
ANTENNA MOUNTED TO EXTERIOR
BUILDING WALL
<
.11l!
~tO <( _
r w n
.ven I
Ni:?j;;.
--'
'"
I
':.0-
;.,
I
':.0-
;.,
I
':.0-
;,.
I
;.,
'"
I
.0
<0
I
a
.<0
I
"0
io
I
"0
EQUIPMENT LAYOUT
SCALE: 1/2"= 1'-0"
s
r PROPOSED T-M08ILE POWER
AND TELCO ROUTE MOUNTED
ON EXTERIOR BUILDING WALL
'"
"
~
BTS
21D9
~~~...~S:-:.
. . ,....... -.
.: '~";'.,-'.. ..
~--. .~ -~,. l
. .~-. \". :'".>. ....\;-'- ,.:. .
".,," :-. \:"r,
'. '{ :'L ,~<,,(>:/' ;'-.
I ,-~ .~..: ",-.". .~r -'..
1 \,. ',',::,:.":..:.; 1.,&"..1
I ) ,,~~..::I..
~ I ".,. ','}j':
"00 ! ;2'if;~v
_.... ,,, ,_ -1-. .
i'.... '"::: ~ ~ <~-..~~, ~;. >f/
I '''',,'' !-
I " ',""~'~_'~.l~ .1......
~ I .', '~/" -.-:
I 'v 1. "'--
.2..1.lli1 I ..;,.':-----Y\(<;
i'" .,' -:':" ,,/,j~)"-
I ^/",.. :," ..'~', ". J
r~~~~~~~..),:j >~:
I " ',~~-.'; :"_
~ I __" ')1"-:
I "."'- v-F""
2109 10' ':-V-'\~-
,;~; . /J/~i,r::}:
'\. , ..'... ;, .1
" '? l. ;"1
'- v~!.;_.;. ;;1
~.-~.' ..-.-:
~ ,- ~O:E~ - ~- Q 6~ .':~,/
-'
:. -.'!,
:..... ..... .~
s'
LEASE AREA
(El BUILDING WALL
4it
PROPOSED T-MOBILE
CONCRETE SLAB
PROPOSED T-MoBILE
24'-6" X S' LEASE AREA
PROPOSED 6' HT.
CMU WALL
PROPOSED T -MOBILE
COAX CABLE ROUTE
WITHIN 5' EASEMENT
~
PROPOSED 3' WIDE
ACCESS DOOR
PROPOSED T-MOBILE
POWER/TELCO CABINETS
AND METER MOUNTED
ON UTILITY RACK
~..
S
IlAC7K1C NORTH .
ISSUE STATUS
fC, DAlE DESCRIPTION
1 OS/26/05 90" ZONING
2 06/29/05 100" ZONING
3 08/26/05 100" ZONING REV.
4 10/14/05 100l'; ZONING REV.2
5 10/23/05 100" ZONING REV.3
REV
A
A
8
C
o
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
~
R. ZEH~
MSA
'Architecture & Planning, In..
20B lJt;Jh Straet, Suite 310
S.n Franclscc, C. 94103
415.503.1363 taz 415.5DJ.1362
SantB Ans San OJego Sail Fnlnclsco
www.msa-ap.com
0::
o
o
---'
u..
;=
m
o
ON
><n
---'~
mm
~<i
:;::U
w
~ci
(.?o::
o
<nU
<nZ
roO
_U
~
Z
~~
z'"
2!g]
o
~I
~
~
~
~
~
~
0\
"<':t"
0\
"<':t"
...........
I
~
U)
<ZI
<ZI
ga
o
~
~
t-<
Uj
N
~i6~
O::!Z
"'~:::l
",00
UJ~U
Cl<l:~
S ':5
B~o
[OJ::'''
~",>-
VL!.JZ
o a.":
~::lCf.l
()
SHEET TITLE:
ANTENNA & EQUIPMENT
LAYOUT
A-2
-J. -:2 5
(El 22' -6" HT. BUILDING
PROPOSED T -MOBILE GPS
ANTENNA MOUNTED TO
EXTERIOR BUILDING WALL
(El OVERHEAD
PROPOSED T -MOBILE EQUIPMENT
CABINETS MOUNTED ON CONCRETE
SLAB WITHIN A 6' HT. CMU WALL
ENCLOSURE AT GROUND LEVEL
-I 1-1
.'<.~~~~'::'~S'</..VAV/,'(<\.V7
SCALE: 3/16"= l' -0"
EAST ELEVATION
PROPOSED T -MOBILE EQUIPMENT
CABINETS MOUNTED ON CONCRETE
SLAB WITHIN A 6' HT. CMU WALL
ENCLOSURE AT GROUND LEVEL
PROPOSED 6' HT. CMU WALL
PROPOSED T -MOBILE 3' WIDE
ACCESS DODR
PROPDSED T -MOBILE GPS
ANTENNA MOUNTED TO
EXTERIOR BUILDING WALL
/ (El 22' -6" HT. BUILDING
.....---Q:lP====c;;l
-I'
.,' I
e
i:;-....~
T
-.;
">;->0~);>/~4Y'),.)'?:,~V;,\);.-_y~y);y,.'>-i0i0~~-::';'Y;:>,?'>/> '
'~~~~~~.0~'y,~.,<.,',/. .v," " .
/,V<<'<;(~~,<<':<{(~/' - .'
SCALE: 3/16"=1'-0"
NORTH ELEVATION @ EQUIPMENT
FINISH GRADE
PROPOSED T -MOBILE PANEL
ANTENNAS CONCEALED WITHIN A
2'0 cYliNDER MOUNTED ON TOP
OF (El 30' HIGH UTiliTY POLE
(El UTiliTY POLE
(El g' CMU WALL
\
'i! ANTENNA RAD CENTER
~ :1:35'-0" A.G.L.
'i! ANTENNA RAD CENTER
:1:33'-0" A.G.L
. Y,>,;Y...?i>")';i>':>-'Y,>'Y~>-'y,>-.y-^y;;.'y?'y). '^7>--Y')'>>'~;;>;:YJy^,,"-Y~"""
<'\.~~~'~~~~~%~0,"%-'~v-<~<Yg.(,,/,
. "Y/'>-~~'-,.;:'l.<<:<<<:<<<:<y'/' /'-
''\,~,,}.."\.>-0..'',''''''.'
PROPOSED T -MOBILE PANEL
ANTENNAS CONCEALED WITHIN A
2'0 CYLINDER MOUNTED ON TOP
OF (El 30' HIGH UTiliTY POLE
(E) OVERHEAD
PROPOSED T -MOBILE GPS
ANTENNA MOUNTED TO
EXTERIOR BUILDING WALL
PROPOSED T -MOBILE
6' HT. CMU WALL
(BEHIND)
(El UTiliTY POLE
FINISH GRADE
\
"n---
:i~J:;
t~!l1
'i! ANTENNA RAD CENTER
~ :1:35'-0" A.G.L.
'i! ANT~NN~ RAO CENTER
:1:33 -0 A.G.L.
- y/~....';Z....~)>>,.w,.~~-i-....~~~0;;~;i;0.>~:~~";;'~>.%'Yh>:?>'-
~%~~%~ ":'<<<<<~'<~~<'-"-<' ., /, N-<..~,~,,<<'.
'("/."~~~~,,~,(:/p'
SCALE: 3/16"= "-0"
NORTH ELEVATION @ POLE
(El 22'-6" HT. BUILDING
(E) g' HT CMU WALL
FINISH GRADE
ISSUE STATUS
DATE DESCRIPTION REI
, OS/26/05 90", ZONING A
2 06/29/05 'O~ ZONING A
3 08/26/05 100"' ZONING REV. B
4 10/14/05 100"' ZONING REV.2 C
5 '0/23/05 lOOll ZONING REV.3 0
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
AU
R. ZEHM
MSA
Architecture & Plannin.g, Ine.
208 UtlIh Su..t" SuI,. 31D
San F11Jnd5CO, C. 94103
415.503.1363 tax 415.503.1362
Sanf2 Ana San Diego Sail Francisco
WUIW. rnsa..a.p.cDm
n::
o
o
-'
L.....
"'T'"
;:::
m
o
ON
>""
-' ..,.
COm
?;:-i
:;;::u
LJ
~ci
on::
o
""u
""z:
roO
_u
I-
Z
O~
9:~
z<
215
o
WlI
~
~ '
U)~~~
o"z
0-, ~ 0:05
~ ffi~u
~ ~ B ~~~
........... <I:: 6~d
~ I ~ "';::<
~ E--o ~o:!z
U) U) o~<
~ ~Bm
~
~
SHEET TITLE:
ELEVATIONS
A-3
~ -:l(p
FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SPRINT PCS ASSETS, L.L.C., a
Delaware limited liability
company, wholly-owned by SPRINT
TELEPHONY PCS, L.P., a Delaware
limited partnership,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
V.
CITY OF LA CANADA FLINTRIDGE, a
public entity; STEPHEN A. DEL
GUERCIO, in his official capacity as
Mayor of the City of La Canada
F1intridge; LAURA OLHASSO, in her
official capacity as Mayor Pro
Tern of the City of La Cafiada
F1intridge; ANTHONY J.
PORTANTINO, in his official
capacity as Council Member of
the City of La Cafiada F1intridge;
GREGORY BROWN, in his official
capacity as Council Member of
the City of La Cafiada F1intridge;
DAVID A. SPENCE, in his official
capacity as Council Member of
the City of La Cafiada F1intridge,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 05-55014
D.C. No.
CV-03-00039-DOC
OPINION
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
David O. Carter, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted
October 19, 2005-Pasadena, California
733
Exhibit G
d,c21
736 SPRINT PCS V. LA CANADA FLlNTRIDGE
Scott J. Grossberg, Cihigoyenetche, Grossberg & Clouse,
Rancho Cucamonga, California, argued the cause for the
appellees. Richard R. Clouse, Amy von Kelsch-Berk, and
Angelica Arias were on the brief.
OPINION
O'SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judge:
This case requires us to determine whether a city can, con-
sistent with California and federal law, deny a telecommuni-
cations company a permit to construct and to install a wireless
antenna based on aesthetic considerations.
I
Sprint PCS is a wireless telecommunications company
seeking to install two wireless telecommunications facilities
in the city of La Canada Flintridge ("the City"). The City
denied Sprint's applications to install these wireless facilities,
finding that they would obstruct the rights-of-way and would
have a deleterious aesthetic impact on the neighborhood. The
City rejected Sprint's applications pursuant to its local wire-
less ordinance, which authorized the City to deny permit
applications, inter alia, on aesthetic grounds. After the City
denied two of Sprint's five applications, Sprint brought two
actions against the City--one for each permit application
denied-alleging violations of the federal Telecommunica-
tions Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56 (codified
as amended in scattered sections of 15, 18, & 47 U. S. C.)
("Telecom Act"), and the California Public Utilities Code,
Cal. Pub. Util. Code SS 7901, 7901.1 ("Utilities Code"). The
district court determined that there was not substantial evi-
dence supporting the City's finding that Sprint's facilities
:would obstruct the rights-of-way. The district court, however,
found that there was substantial evidence supporting the aes-
!).. -30
SPRINT PCS v. LA CANADA FLINTRIDGE 737
thetic rationale for denying the permit. Sprint appeals from
the grant of summary judgment in favor of the City upholding
the permit denials based on aesthetic impact, arguing the deni-
als violate state lavv.
II
In October 2001, the City enacted an ordinance setting
forth four criteria that applicants for a Public Right-of-Way
Above Ground Construction permit ("permit") must satisfy.
According to Ordinance 324, "An Urgency Ordinance of the
City Council of the City of La Caiiada Flintridge Adopting a
Moratorium on the Issuance of Any Demolition, Grading,
Utility, Excavation or Other Permits Relating to Above-
Ground Structures Along City Public Rights-of-Way"
("Ordinance 324"), those criteria are:
(1) The proposed above-ground structure does not
obstruct access for pedestrians, nor block vievv
[sic] of vehicles, pedestrians or bicyclists;
(2) The proposed above-ground structure is com-
patible vvith existing above-ground structures
along the public right-of-vvay, and does not
result in an over-concentration of above-ground
structures along the public right-of-vvay;
(3) The proposed above-ground structure preserves
the existing character of the surrounding neigh-
borhood, and minimizes public vievvs of the
above-ground structure; and
(4) The proposed above-ground structure does not
result in a negative aesthetic impact on the pub-
lic right-of-vvay or the surrounding neighbor-
hood.
Criteria (2), (3) and (4) are aesthetic, or non-functional.
~ '31
738 SPRINT PCS v. LA CANADA FLINTRlDGE
Sprint applied for five permits shortly after the City enacted
its Ordinance. The City granted two of the permit applica-
tions, Sprint withdrew one application, and the City rejected
two of the applications which are the bases for Sprint's com-
plaint.
Sprint intended to construct a wireless facility along Figue-
roa Street, and applied for a permit in December, 2001, and
for a second wireless telecommunications facility along
Descanso Drive in July, 2002. After a variety of appeals
through the City Public Works and Traffic Commission,
Sprint ended up in the City Council, which held hearings and
denied Sprint's applications. As to the Figueroa Street appli-
cation, the City Council based its denial on findings that: (1)
the facility "will significantly damage the existing character
of the neighborhood and result in a negative aesthetic impact
on the right-of-way"; (2) "[t]he proposed Project will change
the character of the neighborhood and will result in a negative
aesthetic impact on the public right-of-way"; (3) "[t]he anten-
nas will negatively impact the residence's views and the char-
acter of the neighborhood"; and (4) the antennas are
"unsightly." The City also found that the proposed facility
would obstruct access to the public right-of-way, but the dis-
trict court found that this ground was not supported by sub-
stantial evidence-a finding that the City does not challenge.
As for the Descanso Drive telecommunications facility
installation permit, the. City Council found that the proposed
facility did not satisfy criteria (2), (3), and (4) of the City
Moratorium. Specifically, the City Council found that: (1) the
facility did not meet the second criterion because the above-
ground structures would result in "over-concentration" of the
structures; (2) the facility did not meet the third criterion,
because the facility is "out-of-character for the neighbor-
hood"; and (3) the facility did not ineet the fourth criterion
because the facility would "draw attention in a negative aes-
thetic manner along the street."
~ -?;:;}
SPRlNT PCS V. LA CANADA FLINTRIDGE 739
The district court found that the City's findings as to the
second criterion of the Ordinance were not supported by sub-
stantial evidence, but that the findings as to the third and
fourth aesthetic criteria were supported by substantial evi-
dence. The City does not challenge the district court's ruling
as to the second criterion.
The district court ordered the actions for the Figueroa
Street facility and the Descanso Drive facility consolidated.
Ruling on cross-motions for summary judgment, the district
court ruled against Sprint on two of its critical claims. The
parties thereafter consented to dismissal of Sprint's remaining
claims, and the district court entered summary judgment for
the City.
III
A
The interpretation of the statutory provisions of the Tele-
com Act and the Utilities Code presents questions of law
which receive de novo review. Carson Harbor Vill., Ltd. v.
Unocal Corp., 270 F.3d 863, 870 (9th Cir. 2001) (en banc).
However, if this Court reviews the evidence relied upon by
the City in denying the permits, the City must satisfy the sub-
stantial evidence standard. See 47 U.S.C. S 332(c)(7)(B)(iii).
We have described the substantial evidence standard as "def-
erentia1." See MetroPCS, Inc. v. City & County of San Fran-
cisco, 400 F.3d 715, 725 (9th Cir. 2005); see also id. at 723
(holding that "substantial evidence" implies "the traditional
standard used for judicial review of agency decisions") (inter-
nal quotation omitted).
B
1
[1] The Telecom Act requires that the City's permit denials
be supported by substantial evidence. Specifically, 47 U.S.C.
J--g3
740 SPRINT PCS V. LA CANADA FLINTRIDGE
S 332(c)(7)(B)(iii) states that "[a]ny decision by a State or
local government or instrumentality thereof to deny a request
to place, construct, or modify personal wireless service facili-
ties shall be in writing and supported by substantial evidence
contained in a written record."
[2] The interpretation of "substantial evidence" in the con-
text of the Telecom Act was the focus of extended analysis in
MetroPCS, which held that "the substantial evidence inquiry
does not require incorporation of the substantive federal stan-
dards imposed by the [Telecom Act]." 400 F.3d at 723.
Rather, courts should consider whether the denial is based on
"substantial evidence in the context of applicable state and
loeallaw." Id. at 724. Consequently, the Telecom Act" 'does
not affect or encroach upon the substantive standards to be
applied under established principles of state and local law.' "
Id. (quoting Cellular Tel. Co. v. Town of Oyster Bay, 166 F.3d
490, 494 (2d Cir. 1999); see also id. (concluding that the sub-
stantial evidence standard "does not create a substantive fed-
eral limitation upon local land use regulatory power"))
(internal quotation omitted). MetroPCS accords with the deci-
sions of other circuits in this respect. See id. at 723 (noting
that "there appears to be universal agreement among the cir-
cuits as to the substantive content of [the substantial evidence]
requirement"); see, e.g., Preferred Sites, LLC v. Troup
County, 296 F.3d 1210, 1219 (lith Cir. 2002); Oyster Bay,
166 F.3d at 494.
The substantial evidence standard is "essentially 'deferen-
tial,''' and courts may not "'engage in [their] own fact-
finding nor supplant [a city's] reasonable determinations.' "
MetroPCS, 400 F.3d at 725 (quoting Oyster Bay, 166 F.3d at
494) (first alteration in original). Substantial evidence implies
"less than a preponderance, but more than a scintilla of evi-
dence." MetroPCS, 400 F.3d at 725 (internal quotation omit-
ted).
[3] Thus, to be valid, the grounds for denial must receive
at least some weight under state law. If not, the denial is
~-34-
SPRINT PCS V. LA CANADA FLINTRIDGE 741
deemed "invalid even before the application of the [Telecom
Act's] federal standards." MetroPCS, 400 F.3d at 724.
2
The relevant state law includes Utilities Code S 7901,
which states:
Telegraph or telephone corporations may construct
lines of telegraph or telephone lines along and upon
any public road or highway, along or across any of
the waters or lands within this State, and may erect
poles, posts, piers, or abutments for supporting the
insulators, wires, and other necessary fixtures of
their lines, in such manner and at such points as not
to incommode the public use of the road or highway
or interrupt the navigation of the waters.
Cal. Pub. Util. Code S 7901 (2005).
The California Supreme Court described the effect of Cali-
fornia Civil Code ("Civil Code") S 536, the predecessor stat-
ute to S 7901, on local regulations: "[T]he right and obligation
to construct and maintain telephone lines has become a matter
of state concern. For this reason, the city cannot today exclude
telephone lines from the streets upon the theory that 'it is a
municipal affair.' " Pac. Tel. & Tel. Co. v. City & County of
San Francisco, 336 P.3d 514, 519 (1959). Similarly, the
authority to proscribe regulations under Civil Code S 536 on
the basis of "incommode" was narrow. See Pacific Tel. & Tel.
Co. v. City & County of San Francisco, 17 Cal. Rptr. 687, 694
(Cal. Ct. App. 1961) (interpreting "incommode" to mean the
prevention of "unreasonable obstruction of the public use").
In 1991, the California state legislature adopted
S 7901.1 ( a), which reads in relevant part: It is the intent of the
Legislature, consistent with Section 7901, that municipalities
shall have the right to exercise reasonable control as to the
~-36
742 SPRINT PCS V. LA CANADA FLINTRIDGE
time, place, and manner in which roads, highways, and water-
ways are accessed. CaI. Pub. UtiI. Code S 7901. 1 (a) (2005).
3
Article XI, S 7 of the California Constitution states that a
"county or city may make and enforce within its limits all
local, police, sanitary, and other ordinances and regulations
not in conflict with general laws." A local law that "dupli-
cates, contradicts, or enters an area fully occupied by general
law, either expressly or by legislative implication" will be
preempted by the state law. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. City
of Lodi, 302 F.3d 928, 941 (9th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation
omitted); Tily B., Inc. v. City of Newport Beach, 81 CaI. Rptr.
2d 6, 18 (CaI. Ct. App. 1998) (In California, "[s]tate law pre-
empts local legislation if an ordinance duplicates, contradicts,
or enters an area fully occupied by the general laws, either.
expressly or by implication."). Therefore, if Utilities Code
SS 7901 and 7901.1 apply, they may preempt the local ordi-
nance.
[4] Section 7901 gives telephone companies broad author-
ity to construct telephone lines and other fixtures "in such
manner and at such points as not to incommode the public use
of the road or highway or interrupt the navigation of the
waters." By the plain text of the statute, the only substantive
restriction on telephone companies is that they may not "in-
commode the public use" of roads. It is possible that
extremely severe aesthetic objections could conceivably
incommode the use of the roads. See 7 The Oxford English
Dictionary 806 (Oxford University Press, 2d ed., 1989)
(defining "incommode" as "[t]o subject to inconvenience or
discomfort; to trouble, annoy, molest, embarrass, inconve-
nience"). An extraordinarily unattractive wireless antenna
might, for example, cause such visual blight that motorists are
uncomfortable using the roads. Counsel for the City posited,
during oral argument, that an unattractive wireless structure
could cause "discomfort."
~-~
SPRINT PCS V. LA CANADA FLINTRIDGE 743
[5] However, the most natural reading of ~ 7901 grants
broad authority to telephone companies to install necessary
wires and fixtures, so long as they do not interfere with public
use of the roads. The text focuses on the function of the road
-its "use," not its enjoyment. Based solely on ~ 7901, it is
unlikely that local authorities could deny permits based on
aesthetics without an independent justification rooted in inter-
ference with the function of the road.
[6] Section 7901, however, has been modified by ~ 7901.1.
Two provisions determine the extent of local regulatory
authority under ~ 7901.1: first, the breadth of "time, place,
and manner," and second, the meaning of "are accessed."
The phrase "time, place, and manner" seems to expand
local regulatory authority beyond the "incommode" standard
in the earlier ~ 7901. Despite some legislative history, of
which the district court took judicial notice, that portrays
~ 7901.1 as merely "c1arify[ing]" the law, the plain text indi-
cates that this provision expands municipal authority.' April
24, 1995, Statement for SB 621 to Cal. Sen. Energy, Utilities
and Communications Comm. (S. 1994-95 Reg. Sess.). Specif-
ically, "incommode" refers to the disruption of the reasonable
use of the road. While the authority to restrict building based
on "time, place, and manner" gives cities more authority to
determine what constitutes a reasonable use of the road, this
language does not seem to enhance greatly the City's regula-
tory latitude--certainly not to the extent necessary to engage
in aesthetic regulation.
[7] A regulation of appearance could conceivably be con-
sidered a regulation of the "manner" in which telephone com-
panies use public roads. However, this seems to stretch the
lSome legislative history accords with this reading as well. See, e.g.,
Analysis of SB 621, Cal. Sen. Rules Comm., Office of Senate Floor Anal-
yses (S. 1994-95 Reg. Sess.) ("This bill is intended to bolster the cities'
abilities with regard to construction management." (emphasis added)).
~-31
744 SPRINT PCS v. LA CANADA FLINTRIDGE
word "manner," which, coupled with "time" and "place," can-
not be read so broadly. More importantly, the City's reading
is illogical when coupled with the "are accessed" language
that follows. Section 7901.1 only gives cities the authority to
regulate the manner is which roads "are accessed," not the
authority to regulate the manner in which telephone compa-
nies affect the road's appearance. The better reading of "time,
place, and manner" does not expand the City's authority far
enough to include aesthetic regulation.
[8] Further, the "are accessed" language restricts local
authority: cities may only regulate the way in which roads
"are accessed," not the way they appear. As with 9 7901, the
regulatory power is functional, and does not extend to aesthet-
ics. In sum, under Utilities Code 997901 and 7901.1, local
regulators retain no authority to deny permits based on aes-
thetics.
The City, however, cites cases holding that aesthetics can
properly be considered substantial evidence. See, e.g.,
Omnipoint Corp. v. Zoning Hearing Ed. of Pine Grove Twp.,
181 F.3d 403, 409 (3d Cir. 1999) (noting that aesthetic con-
siderations, as opposed to alleged health effects, are proper
evidence under 47 U.S.C. 9332(c)(7)(B)(iii)); Aegerter v.
City of Delafield, 174 F.3d 886, 891 (7th Cir. 1999) ("Nothing
in the Telecommunications Act forbids local authorities from
applying general and nondiscriminatory standards derived
from their zoning codes, and we note that aesthetic harmony
is a prominent goal underlying almost every such code.").
However, whether aesthetic evidence can be a used to support
a permit denial in the abstract is not at issue-the issue is sim-
ply whether a city can consider such evidence consistent with
California law. Under Utilities Code S9 7901 and 7901.1, they
cannot.
4
Section 332(c)(7)(A) of the Telecom Act provides that
"[ e ]xcept as provided in this paragraph, nothing in this Chap-
~-3e
SPRINT PCS v. LA CANADA FLINTRIDGE 745
ter shall limit or affect the authority of a State or local govern-
ment or instrumentality thereof over decisions regarding the
placement, construction, and modification of personal wire-
less service facilities." 47 U.S.C. S 332(c)(7)(A).
[9] If the local ordinance is valid under the Telecom Act,
despite being invalid under state law, see supra III.B.3, then
the Telecom Act effectively provides a measure of sovereign
authority to cities, which their own state constitutions and
statutes deny them. The language of subsection (c)(7)(A),
however, does not imply that local law should be valid to the
exclusion of state law, but merely that local law itself may not
be ignored. Thus, if the local law itself is invalid-for exam-
ple, because it conflicts with state law-then subsection
(c)(7)(A) will not save it. If the Telecom Act intended to grant
such authority to local laws--even those that are preempted
by state laws-it might have preserved the authority of "State
and local govemment[s]," rather than the disjunctive.
Further, the City argues that the plain language of the
statute-preserving the authority of "State or local
govemment"-mandates City autonomy. Under this reading
of the statutory text, the Telecom Act does not limit state rules
or local rules. Thus, since there is a local rule, whether or not
valid, the Telecom Act must recognize it, goes the argument.
Weare not persuaded. The disjunctive language implies
that state or local authority is preserved, not that both are nec-
essarily preserved regardless of other constraints. Further,
even if we followed the City's argument and held that the lan-
guage of subsection (c)(7)(A) preserves local authority, there
is no local authority here in the first place-state law has
already preempted local authority. The "state or local govern-
ment" language, in context, affirms preexisting authority-
"nothing in this chapter shall limit or affect the authority"-it
is not a positive grant of authority where none rightly exists.
The City's reading ignores the plain statutory mandate that
"nothing. . . shall. . . affect the authority," since the Telecom
J. -51
746 SPRINT PCS V. LA CANADA FLINTRIDGE
Act would affect local authority by expanding local regulatory
power.
Given that the plain language of the statute is clear, it is not
necessary to address public policy arguments. In any event,
public policy also supports this interpretation. The City's
proffered interpretation uses the Telecom Act to grant broad
regulatory authority to cities or municipalities that would oth-
erwise be constrained by state law. In other words, the City's
reading of the "State or local government" language would set
cities free to regulate to the extent of their traditional police
power. This result would be antithetical to the purpose of the
Telecom Act, whose goal is "to promote competition and
higher quality in American telecommunications services and
to 'encourage the rapid deployment of new telecommunica-
tions technologies.' " City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams,
125 S. Ct. 1453, 1455 (2005) (quoting the Telecom Act).
C
[10] The Telecom Act requires permit denials be supported
by substantial evidence. 47 V.S.C. S 332(c)(7)(B)(iii) (2005).
Because the City overstepped its regulatory authority under
state law, its wireless ordinance is invalid, and no evidence
supports the City's permit denial. The district court's conclu-
sion that substantial evidence supported the City's permit
denials must be reversed.
IV
In light of our disposition of this case, we need not reach
Sprint's additional claims that the city discriminated against
it in violation of 47 V.S.C. S 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(I).
REVERSED.
d - t/fJ
City of La Cafiada Flintridge
Plan Wireless
~,
Kreines & Kreines
Home
Issues ..v
Technologies
The Trouble with
Towers
Lawsuits
Questioning the
industry
Fiscal Realities
Right-ot-Way
What Can Be Done ..v
Helping
Government
Helping
Communities
Send us Your
Leases
Newsletter
About Us
Contents
Page 1 of 4
Plan Wireless
Home> Lawsuits> City of La
Canada Flintridge
Lawsuiq;. ..v
Sprint PCS v. City of
La Canada Flintridge:
A Right-of-Way Case
.!:IQ.!:J_Q..Ky'~,..NJ..
City ot La Canada Flintridge
Sprint v. Ontario
Sprinr~..ApP~!I1
Penn Township, PA
Metro PCS v. San Francisco
.H.Q:!:::IQ:KY~.8.~m.a..n..g~g
AI.b~m!lJ1QGQ
AT&T v. Carlsbad
VoiceStI~!ImJ(,S.tGIQi:>..c
PrQP~rt:yRj9ht~.!I~$Yb~Ja.n.tjglJ;Ylc:l.~nc~
Update in San Diego
La Cafiada Flintridge is an up-
scale city with an above-average
per household education
(CalTech and the Jet Propulsion
Lab are right there). The City
has a bright staff. The City
knows how to negotiate with
applicants with difficult projects
and usually finds a middle ground where everyone is satisfied if not happy.
So, how did this case make it to the Ninth Circuit of the U.S. Court of
Appeals and why did the court reverse a district court?
Facts
La Caftada Flintridge is a hilly, tree-lined city where Sprint tried to introduce
cell sites into residential neighborhoods. Since Sprint has successfully used
the right-of-way for this purpose elsewhere, the carrier:
applied for five permits shortly after the City enacted its
Ordinance. The City granted two of the permit applications,
Sprint withdrew one application, and the City rejected two of
the applications which are the bases for Sprint's complaint.
The City of La Caftada Flintridge saw these applications coming and quickly
passed
Ordinance 324, "An Urgency Ordinance of the City Council
of the City of La Canada Flintridge Adopting a Moratorium
on the Issuance of Any Demolition, Grading, Utility,
Excavation or Other Permits Relating to Above-Ground
Structures Along City Public Rights-of- Way"
All but one of the standards (called "criteria" in the Ordinance) were
aesthetic in nature. The U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California, Southern Division found that the City of La Cafiada Flintridge
had substantial evidence to deny the two cell sites on some - but not all - of
the aesthetic standards.
http://www.planwireless.com!cofappls.htm
;)-4/
1/5/2007
City of La Cafiada Flintridge
Page 2 of 4
Local Decision Must Have Weight Under State Law
Sprint contended that the use of the right-of-way cannot be denied "telephone
corporations" under the aesthetic provisions of Ordinance 324. The three-
judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court agreed, citing California's Public
Utilities Code Section 7901 as follows:
Telegraph or telephone corporations may construct lines of
telegraph or telephone lines along and upon any public road
or highway, along or across any of the waters or lands within
this State, and may erect poles, posts, piers, or abutments for
supporting the insulators, wires, and other necessary fixtures
of their lines, in such manner and at such points as not to
incommode the public use of the road or highway or interrupt
the navigation of the waters.
The Ninth Circuit judges repeated previous definitions of "substantial
evidence" and found that a city's "grounds for denial must receive at lease
some weight under state law." Since Sprint was denied on grounds
unpermitted by Section 7901 of the California Public Utilities Code, a
question arises as to whether the City of La Canada Flintridge actually had
substantial evidence.
Time, Place and Manner
Further, Section 7901 had been amended years ago by Section 7901.1 "to
determine the extent of local regulatory authority under S 7901.1: first, the
breadth of 'time, place, and manner,' and second, the meaning of 'are
accessed' ."
The City of La Cafiada Flintridge hoped that aesthetic considerations fell
under the "time, place and manner," provision but the three-judge panel felt
otherwise:
While the authority to restrict building based on "time, place,
and manner" gives cities more authority to determine what
constitutes a reasonable use of the road, this language does
not seem to enhance greatly the City's regulatory latitude-
certainly not to the extent necessary to engage in aesthetic
regulation.
The meaning of "are accessed," reasoned the Ninth Circuit, has to do with
using the street, not the way it looks. Since the District Court said the City
could deny and the Ninth Circuit said it can't, the denials were reversed.
There were no instructions to the litigants as to what to do next.
Monday .Morning Quarterbacking
. It is easy for Plan Wireless to identify what went wrong from whom and by
whom in this case.' Scott Grossberg, special attorney for the City of La
http://www.planwireless.com/cofappls.htm
d. -1 :l
1/5/2007
City of La Cafiada Flintridge
Page 3 of 4
Cafiada Flintridge, told the La Canada Valley Sun:
I would have expected to see a direction to go back to the
district court; and, there's no timing included [in the
wording). We're trying to figure out what the court wants.
To Plan Wireless, it appears obvious what the Court wants: a better ordinance
that has nothing to do with the right-of-way, but rather the use ofland.
Plan Wireless believes some problems with the Ordinance were:
. Passing an "urgency ordinance." This signals to the carrier that a city is
reacting rather than planning. To the carriers, this is a sign of weakness.
. Basing a denial on right-of-way standards. It's clear in the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 that a local government should use
zoning and land use controls, not right-of-way standards, to regulate
personal wireless service facilities.
. Relying heavily, if not solely, on aesthetics to deny an application.
. Not showing Sprint that there were alternatives to its proposed cell sites,
even in 2001.
No one should have allowed the court to reach as far as calling Sprint a
"telephone corporation." Under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Sprint
is a carrier of personal wireless services, not a Local Exchange Carrier (LEC)
nor a Competitive LEC (CLEC) nor an independent LEC (ILEC). The
California Public Utilities Code was written years before wireless was in the
public domain and the Code should never have been applied in this case.
The attorney for Sprint told the La Canada Valley Sun:
We have a gap in coverage that we are trying to fill ... We
didn't have any other way to take care of the gap in our
coverage so we had to go to court.
But, Sprint did have an alternative and it's called DAS (see photo on page
2). Sprint is using DAS in other localities as we write this article and the
City of La Cafiada Flintridge may have gone along with it, had the City
known to ask for it.
Quarterbacking Next Season
There is inevitably talk of going to the U.S. Supreme Court with a City of La
Cafiada Flintridge appeal.
The new U.S. Supreme Court may be tilted toward state's rights. Since the
interpretation of a state statute is at issue here, the new U.S. Supreme Court
would probably uphold the Ninth Circuit decision.
http://www.planwireless.com/cofappls.htm
d. -tf3
1/5/2007
City of La Cafiada Flintridge
Page 4 of4
It is time for local governments to learn from this decision. Require
alternatives be studied and shown to be unreasonable. Plan, don't react.
Don't use the term "aesthetics" and avoid aesthetic standards unless they are
paired with demonstrable impacts such as "property values." Keep zoning
within districts or zones, not peculiar to the right-of-way (if your zoning
ordinance does not cover rights-of-way, including rights-of-way within
districts is your fIrst order of business).
If you need some ideas for standards, give us a call.
To learn more. subscribe to the Plan Wireless newsletter...
... Too of
~
[ Home] [ Issues] [ Technoloqies ] [ The Trouble With "Towers" ] [ Lawsuits] [Questioning the Industrv] [ Fiscal Realities]
[ -'3m.!J1:9.f:.Wgy'] [Wbil!J;_'i!1..Be J;l-9lJ~] [H~[PIng..YJ;~.Y~m:lJ:n~!J1] [H.mJlli1gJ~.Qmmu nitil;!~] [Sltmt Us Y our Lease~] [~!1W.sJ~.nM] [Ab.9.!!t!J1!.]
[ Contents ]
Kreines & Kreines, Inc.
58 Paseo Mirasol, Tiburon, CA 94920
Phone: (415) 435-9214
Fax: (415) 435-1522
e-mail: mail({j)vlanv.;freless.com
_::I.
d-~t1-
http://www.planwireless.com/cofappls.htm
1/5/2007
~ Under
ground
ServIc. AI.
of Csntrol~orthem California
CALL: TOLL FREE
1-800-227-2600
TWO WORKING OAYS BEFORE YOU DIG
PROJ ECT TEAM
ARCHITECT:
CONSULTANTs NAME
ADDRESS
CITY, STArr, ZIP
CONTACT:
PHONE:
MSA ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, INC.
301 BTH STREET, SUITE 250
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103
ROBERT ZEHM
(415) 503-1363
UTIlITI ES- ELECTRICAL:
CONSULTANTs NAt.tE PACIFIC GAS AND ElECTRIC
PHONE: (BOO) 743-5000
UTIUTIES-TELEPHONE:
CONSULTANT'S NAt.tE SBC
PHONE: (BOO) 750-2355
APPROVALS
APPROVED BY:
INmALS:
O.P.E. jops:
LEASING:
RF:
ZONING:
CONSTRUCTION:
POWERj TELCO:
LANDLORD:
~OMNIPOINT
-
DBA
1855 GATEWAY BLVD 9TH FLOOR
CONCORD, CA. 94520
SF 14949
TIN TIN MARKET
VICINITY MAP
IY.itHOO'"
-'"
..
.::; ."-.--
.
o
o
~---_.--._- --
'--or -'-- - ....-
~ __ 5ui:sun C,
I.o'/tI'!1l,
. '.
~f,~ ~"'i1-~
orll"D,'
PollGifit,.~ Do!.
_-:m' :
'"
'(J)
g.:C::CC' .._...
..
:> ~~St
I~ ~-
ill> Cllfd en 'W~\'
~ ~ ~;;,;:;,,~"
.:S~
~:-~';::--=
Johnit\1 "" !-
?..:.!~t Cl-==._-:' ~ G"f~.f1~ ;, "J , '=< _
~'g ,-. l(l~t.n a o,E;I;&CIIW~OJi\o'
8" ..= ~'..
. OIling s: i s
'~~' '.'~{j \ ~ ~
:;Ji,.>.",. ~. a;_co
't ~ ~~"!/ - - ~
g ~ ~l' ~ ,.0 Q)
Oj~r.ndCln 51 ~ t/I :E "'~IJ ::l ~ ~
~ -:-.. _ J.. $'.. e- ! A, ,~
~!::: r'f.r ~ ~ ~a~'1J''::::::-
I~ - '''0 ""..,. '*.r'~ _...t:i:J N
'/loiI VI(;l)::J .r.. ~ ~ '~.
:.l ~;,;,.", ",,,'''-'" ,.",,:, ~~;\ I
_, ,~'c ''''''''''"'''' ", ","'""., ,~_ J
=1000ltI'Ho--- _...__ .___.;.-r-
1!I2005 hhClO! Inc:::=::-'::::---=-': . ~,':1 02004 N)l\VTEQ
DIRECTIONS TO SITE FROM OMNIPOINT
DATE:
DIRECTIONS FROt.1 T -MOBILE OffiCE:
1. START AT 1655 GATEWAY BLVD - GO <0.1 MI
2. TURN RIGHT ON CLAYTON - GO 0.2 MI
3. BEAR RIGHT ONTO CA-242 SOlITli - GO 0.9 MI
4. TAKE THE OAKLAND/SAN JOSE AVE EXIT ONTO 1-6BO SOUTH - GO 37.5 MI
5. TAKE THE MISSION BLVD EXIT ONTO MISSION BLVD. WEST TOWARD WARt.! SPRINGS DlST - GO
1.3 MI
6. TAKE LEFT RAMP ONTO 1-860 SOUTH TOWARD SAN JOSE - GO 12.4 MI
7. TAKE THE 1-2BO EXIT TOWARD SAN FRANCISCO - GO 4.4 MI
B. TAKE THE WOlFE ROAD EXIT - GO 0.3 t.11
9. TURN LEFT ON N. WOlfE RD - GO 0.6 MI
10. N. WOLFE RD BECOMES MillER AVE - GO 0.9 MI
11. TURN RIGHT ON. BOWNGER RD - GO 0.5 1.41
12. ARRIVE AT 20041 BOWNGER RD. CUPERTINO, ON THE LEFT
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
THIS PROJECT CONSISTS OF THE INSTAllATION AND OPERATION OF ANTENNAS AND
ASSOOATED EQUIPMENT FOR THE OMNIPOINT T -MOBILE TElECOt.tMUNICo\TIONS NETWORK.
· THE PROPOSED PROJECT ENTAILS:
INSTAllATION OF A UGHT POLE WITH 3 ANTENNAS I.4OUNTED \\lTHIN A 20'. RADOt.tE ON TOP
OF A 20' X 27' UGHT POLE
· INSTAllATION OF A PRE-FAB EQUIPI.4ENT SHElTER AT GROUND LEVEL
· COAX CABLE RUNS FROM B15 TO ANTENNAS VIA UNDERGROUND TRENCH.
· TELEPHONE AND ElECTRICAl SERVICE FRO'" EXISllNG SOURCES.
PROJ ECT SU M MARY
APPUCANT/LESSEE
OMNIPOINT T -MOBILE
1655 GATEWAY BLVD. 9TH FLOOR
CONCORD, CAUFORNIA 94520
PROPERTY OWNER:
PACIFIC RIM PARK, LLC.
5057 FOREST GLEN DRIVE
SAN JOSE, CA 95129
CONTACT: STIVEN CASERZA
PHONE: (406) 255-4163
PROPERTY INFORMATION:
SITE NAt.tE: TIN TIN MARKET
SrTE NUMBER: SF14949
SITE ADDRESS: 20041 BOWNGER RD.
CUPERTINO, CA 95014-4532
GEODETIC COORDINATES:
NAD B3
LAT. 3T lB' 41.2' N
LONG. 122" 01' 27.21' W
CONST. MANAGER:
TRIPLE t.1ANAGEt.tENT INC.
CONTACT: RON t.1AX
(707) 363-6379
PROJECT PLANNER:
DAYNA L AGUIRRE
(925) 546-7671
Et.tAJL: DAGUIRREOSUTROCONSULTING.COM
SAC:
RYAN CROWlEY
(415) 341-5301
Et.tAJL: RCRDWLEYOSUTROCONSULTING.COM
A.P .N. 369-34-052
CURRENT ZONING: P (CG)
JURISDICTION: CITY OF CUPERTINO
ACCESSIBLE REQUIREMENTS:
FACILITY IS UNt.tANNED AND NOT FOR HUt.tAN HABITATION. DISABlED ACCESS AND
REQUIREt.tENTS NOT REQUIRED, IN ACCORDANCE WITH CAUFORNIA STATE
.4DNINISIRA1NE CODE, PART 2, TITLE 2~, SECTION 11058.42, EXCEPTON 1.
CODE COMPUANCE
AlL WORK AND MATERIALS SHAll BE PERFORt.lED AND INSTAllED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
CURRENT EDITIONS OF THE FOllOWING CODES AS ADOPTED BY THE LOCAL GOVERNING
AUTHORITIES. NOTHING IN THESE PlANS IS TO BE CONSTRUCTED TO PERMIT WORK NOT
CONFORMING TO THESE CODES.
1. CAUFORNIA BUILDING CODE CBC-2oo1
2. CAUFORNIA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE
(INCL 11TUES 24 & 25) 2001
3. ANSIjElA-222-F UFE SAFETY CODE
4. NFPA-l01-1997
5. CAUFORNIA ElECTRiCAl CODE CEC-2001
6. CAUFORNIA MECHANiCAl CODE C"'C-2001
7. CAlJFORNIA PLUMBING CODE CPC-2001
8. LOCAl BUILDING CODE(S)
9. CITY AND/OR COUNTY ORDINANCES
GENERAL CONTRACTOR NOTES
ALL PLANS PRINTED ON 11 X 17 PAPER SIZE OR LESS ARE NOT TO
SCALE, EXCEPT PLANS ON 24X36 PAPER SIZE.
CONTRACTOR SI-Wl VERIFY AlL PlANS AND EXISTlNG DIMENSIONS AND CONDITIONS ON
THE JOB SITE AND SHAll I"'MEDlATElY NOTIFY THE ARCHITECT IN WRITING OF ANY
DISCREPANCIES BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH THE WORK DR BE RESPONSIBLE FOR SAt.tE.
DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS
SHEET INDEX
T-l
TITLE SHEET
T-2
ANTENNA SPEClFICo\TION
A-l
OVERALl SITE PLAN
A-2
PROJECT AREA PlAN, ANTENNA & EQUIPI.4ENT LAYOUT
A-3
ENlARGED PlANS AT ANTENNA LOCATION
A-4
ELEVATIONS
l4~Y\ ~
,..- ISSUE S-:-A TUS ...,
L:,. DA TE DESCRIPllON REV.
- 10/2J/05 looll: ZONING REV.J J
11/07/06 100ll: ZONING REV.4 4
11/16/06 looll: ZONING REV.5 5
- 02/08/07 looll: ZONING REV.6 6
- OJ/1J/07 100:; ZONING REV.7 7
- OJ/27/07 looll: ZONING REV.8 8
- 04/05/07 100:; ZONING REV.9 9
- OS/21/07 100ll: ZONING REV.! 10
- 08/17 07 PLANNING C~I\ITS. 11
DRAM-l BY: AU US
CHEO<ED BY: R. ZEHM
MSA
l~aPkurnlng, me.
301 ",. SIrnf. Suite 2SO
.!an Ft.nclKG, c" 1U1D3
415.50113G fu:'415.5D3.1454
SanD AM San Diego 8M
.........
IIIUIUI. mMI-ap.com
~
~
~
~
~
ProdUd Data Sheet APX16DWV-16DWV-S-E-A20
Optimize" Panel Dual Polarized Antenna equipped with (2) AISG 2.0 ACU motors I ~
Product Description
A combination of two X-PoIam:ed antennas In a single radome, th;~ pJir of variable tdt
anl;nnaS provides exceptlor,al suppression of ail upper sidelobes a1 alldo.,,",tlft angles It also
f~a! IJI~,' j VJ',]", downtilt rar,,~~ Th,:, antenl"la IS optimized for perf'-Wiur,,-~ aue-s" the entire
AN~ fr'fqlJ'fiCY b21"lC (1710-2 1::;~ ,,11Hz) The antenna comes pre-conn'i':l'?C wit-, two a i1te I"lna
cc.mr.TO' !Jrllb. ,:.t.CU)
Features/Benefits
· Variable electrical downtilt - provides enhanced precision in controlling intercell
interference. The tilt is infield adjustable 0-10 <leg.
· High Suppression of all Upper Siclelobes (Typically <-2OcIB).
· Gain tracking - difference between AWS UL (1710-1755 MHz) and Dl
(2110-2155 MHz) <ldB.
· Two X-Polarised panels in a single radome.
· Azimuth horizontal beamwidth difference <4cIeg between AWS Ul (1710-1755 MHz)
and Dl {2110-2155 MHz}
· Low profile for low visual impact.
· Dual polarization; Broadband design.
· Includes (2) AISG 2.0 Compatible ACU-A20-N antenna control units
~
ANTENNA CONFIGURATION TABLE
ANTENNA ANTENNA COAXIAl CABLE ELECTRICAL MECHANICAL ANTENNA
SECTOR AZIMUTH MAKE/MODEL CABLE SIZE DOWNTILT DOWNTlLT RAD
LENGTH CENTER
SECTOR O' RFS :1:140' 1-S/S"1Il PER RF PER RF 29'-S":I:
A APX16DWV-S-E-A20 ENGINEER ENGINEER
SECTOR 120" RFS :1:140' 1 -S/S"1Il PER RF PER RF 1 29'-S":I:
B APX16DWV-S-E-A20 ENGINEER ENGINEER
SECTOR 240' RFS :1:'140' l-S/S"1Il PER RF PER RF 1 29'-S":!:
C APX16DWV-S-E-A20 ENGINEER ENGINEER
.t:lQIE;,
THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE MUST BE VERIFIED BY THE
Technical Specifications
Mechankal Specifications
RatP.d Wind Sp""d, krrvh (mph)
Survival Wind Sp""d, kmlh (mph)
Max Wind loadina Area, m' (It')
M"xlTnurn Th'U,l i'il R"ted Wind, N ObI)
rr,)r, t Thrw;t ~ Rat~d Wind, N (Ibf)
P ~tlef:t-Jr Md tlt'Hdl
F.datlna E!~m""t Material
F.adome Mat"",aI
Cvnn~ct,)( Tvpo:
((..nn('cit)( l iJCltl(.n
Mount TY]:.~
Mounong HardwJr,:
~w-"C:-~VI131'~ kr::; Otil
p.,rk:n..: ['Im,~n,,;,~![":,,;. ~~:V'I~~', mm (in!
O,ef3j~h"m(it;-- -- ...-
Cjim~r:';l"n~. H:..:'N:.(, mm ~~\
5hll)~~;;;' W"!~:ir~tk;(lli)" -- ---
25 {55}
0:'
"
~
"
<5
Electrical 5pecifications
Fr~quenC'l Ran '~_1.I1:'i;___ 1710-2170
Antenna Tyc'~ Panel DU3 PolarIZed
Electncal Dc.\'l1 Tilt Opt,"" Vanabl~
Gain, <$1 (dE-dl 134(163)
Electrical Do:.wntilt. &.q 0-10,0-10
Hor~ontal EeaffiWldU' d~g .. . 65 . _
VS\NR ---- - -- ----.- -- ---<1~;-1.-----____n___- -.-.-
VertiGli Beamwidth, clea 5.9 107.7
1;t Llpc,er Slde'obe SuppresSIon, d> '" 18 (tyo,call'I > 20)
Upper S,cle1obe SuppreSSIon. cB ,. 1 g all (tvpic;11y > 20)
Polarization Dual 001 +f450
Fronr-To-!l,yI, R.;t,,' .'if >26 (lVpically 28)
tv1axll-:1um P","'V-:f input, W 300
IS"-JI.atlon l:Jf'twp;:>n Fen':. .::E > 30
LJg-,tnrn'~ F,,:'I~com Dir~ct Ground
3rj Ord.r 1":1I'..~]J~1 d"I'T!-2~ ,. 19.) (155 Tvpical) __.___
Vertical Pattern
!';
""
...
c:
.;;
;;:
"
::::1
~:
~i
~! . ThlSdolj ISPfC"51OI".aland >>Jb)O<t 10 chang<' Horizontal Pattern
~[ RFS The Clear Choice™ I APX16DWV-16DWV-5-E-AlO I Print Date: 21.2,2007
PI"",,,, visit 'IS on the Inremet at hrtp'/lwvJWrfsworld.<om Radio FreqUfmc:y Systems
'0
'"
E
-=
m
c:
g
~j
~i
sl
:i:1
;1
~I
il
a
;;
160 (100)
200 (125l
064(66)
787 (177)
787 (1 iT)
Aluminum
Bra;s
Fiberala~
(4)7-i6C'IN Femal~
Bottom
Downtilt Kit w/~<issor Kjt
DJ'M4Q-2 + APM40-E2
. -----1E-I4t17f---..-
1 '50 x.12'-J ~ 260 ((';1 x 155 x 1,.,1
~_~_.__.._____.~ _m___.
14i I~I X -:?, 7:.; 80 (55 '1 x 1 j 3 x ? 1 ~)
~- -------_._.-_._-~._--_._._,_._----------.
ISSUE STATUS
t::,. DATE DESCRIPllON REY.I
- 0/23/05 1~ ZONING REV,3 3
- 11/07/06 100110 ZONING REV,4 4
- 1/1S/06 100110 ZONING REV,5 5
- 2/08/07 100110 ZONING REV,S S
- 03/13/07 100110 ZONING REV,7 7
- OJ/27/07 100110 ZONING REV,8 8
- 04/05/07 100110 ZONING REV,9 9
OS/21/07 1~ ZONING REV.! 10
108/17/07 PLANNING COt.tt.tTS. "
DRAWN BY: AU!US
CHECKED BY: R ZEHl.1
MSA
'.Arc:Jattet:twy 45.PT1uanfAjj, Inc.
3#1 ... _ ........
SM FAlnclKa, Ca ....,0$
415.5D3.13G fa 415.!iD3.1454
SIlnta Ana San DIego San
..........
IIII&i'UI. mMI-op~com
a::
8
-l
u..
::c
I-
0>
s;?;j
-lL{)
CD~
~<
[5u
':;;:6
c.::>0::
o
It)U
It)Z
CXlO
~U
I-
z
~E-t
Z<
::a:~
o
W/I
~
~ "
U) Q[;l~
(3"l'z
0"\ U) l>:;!::J
-.:t" ~ffi~8
~ ~ Cl ~~~
...... < 5~u
~ ~ ~ ~~~
(/"J Cij ~ ~ ~
~ ~aU)
~
~
SHEET llTLE:
ANTENNA
SPECIFICATION
T-2
NOTE:
NEW POLE BY T -MOBILE TO MEET
PUBLIC WORKS SPECIFICATIONS.
OVERALL SITE PLAN
I
I
,.-------...,
I PROPOSED T -MOBILE I I
PROJECT AREA, SEE 1/A-2 - - - - -1
'--______....J --
BQ
(E) UTILITY POLE
R-1
""-
R-1
I
I
I
I
~Ul
...J : I
~ i
~ .' i
n:: ,
n. I
I
i
I I
i I
! i
, I
Ii
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
~I
~I
~I
I
I
I~
I~
I~
I~
Ij
I~
1m
J
I
I
I
I
I
~ I
----- I
(1(. O. "fr)- - ------ ---J
(E) 10' PG&:E EASEMENT
(E) 5' HT. WALL
APN:
369-34-052
(E) UTILITY POLE
(PROPOSED T -MOBILE
POWER &: TELCO P.O.C.)
l.U
~I
...J,
~I
Q.
OJ
IE
:;::--' r----
-
PROPOSED T -MOBILE
U.G. POWER & TELCO
CONDUITS ROUTE
(APPROX. 35')
-
PROPOSED T-MOeHZ u.G.~..,
COAX ROUTE WITHIN A "'5"-... I
WIDE EASEMENT (APPROX. \ ~ _ ,____
140') ...J- ~.:.. _
\ -----
......-
-
(E) UNHEALTHY TREES IN CENTER -
MEDIAN TO BE REPLACED WITH
HEALTHIER TREES OF THE SAME
SPECIES BY T-MOBILE, TYP. OF
(3) TOTAl
---- - --!-...
1-__ I"'f-____
I - ""- ,.; _ ______
@ /)0 LLl~G -______~
1 Jj; l? ______
,-, R -1 1(OA./J
(SAN
JOSE)
o 10' 20'
40'
60' I 1
,.. ISSUE STATUS ""'lIl
^ DATE DESCRIPllON REV
- 10/23/05 100l!: ZONING REV.3 3
- 11/07/06 100l!: ZONING REV.4 4
- 11116/06 100l!: ZONING REV.S 5
- 02/06/07 100l!: ZONING REV.S S
- 03/13/07 100l!: ZONING REV.7 7
- 03/27/07 100l!: ZONING REV.6 6
- 04/05/07 100l!: ZONING REV.9 9
- OS/21/07 100l!: ZONING REV.lt 10
- 06/17/07 PlANNING COIotMTS. l'
DRAWN BY: AU!\.IS
... CHECKED BY: R. ZEHM....
,.. ""'IIIl
MSA
~&P_hrg, bu:.
>>1 lilt ~ Suit. 250
s.n Ftartclae4. C. fM,1OJ
~1$.5D3.13S3 fD415.$D3.1454
s.nQ Ami San DIqa San
F~_
IUlVrA msa-ap.CDm
.... .....
,.. ~
.... ...oIIl
,... 0::: ~
0
g
LL..
:c
I-
0>
0
ON
::;L()
CD~
~<
~u
~ci
<.:>0:::
0
L()U
L()Z
coO
~U
....
Z
~~
z<
:E1!l
0
~ ~
-oOI1IIl
""'IIIl
~
~ N
r:n CGl~
r:n 15"
-< ~ ~ n:::t~
n::~O
::E 0"'1 Cl W Cl tJ
"'=T ~~~~
..--< ::l 0' :S
~ ~ ~ g~~
(/J. t:: - 0:: f-
~ U"Jg~~
N::J'"
tJ
~
~
.... ....IIIl
SHEET llllE:
OVERALL SITE PLAN
A-1
... --oIIl
(E) UGHT POLE TO BE REPLACED
WITH PROPOSED T -MOBILE 20" X
27' -0" HT. LIGHT POLE
~
SECTOR 'C'
AZIMUTH 2400
NOTE:
NEW POLE BY T -MOBILE TO MEEr
PUBLIC WORKS SPECIFICATIONS.
ANTENNA PLAN
PROPOSED T -MOBILE
GPS ANTENNA MOUNTED
ON BUILDING ROOF
PROPOSED 6'~ REMOVABLE
BOLLARDS, (4) TOTAL
r~
\
\
PROPOSED T -MOBILE ~
PRE-FABRICATED EQUIPMENT\
SHELTER AT GROUND LEVEL'
90
<1-
PROPOSED 10' WIDE
DOUBLE SWING CORNER
ACCESS GATE
PROPOSED 6' HT.
CHAINLlNK FENCE
WITH WOODEN
SLATS
(E) ROOF OVERHANG
o
EQUIPMENT LAYOUT PLAN
..
o
t SECTOR 'A'
AZIMUTH 00
PROPOSED T -MOBILE PANEL ANTENNAS
(3) TOTAL, MOUNTED WITHIN A 20"1ll x
5' HT. RADOME ON TOP OF A NEW 20"
X 27'-0' HT. UGHT POLE (TOTAL POLE
HT. W/RADOME = 32' A.G.L)
~
SECTOR 'B'
AZIMUTH 1200
(E) UNHEALTHY TREES IN CENTER
MEDIAN TO BE REPLACED WITH
HEALTHIER TREES OF THE SAME SPECIES
BY T-MOBILE. lYP. OF (3) TOTAL (TO
BE DETERMINED)
SCALE
3/+'.1'-0'
-- "2
o e" l'
eE) 3' WIDE DOOR
PROPOSED 3' WIDE
ACCESS GATE
PROPOSED T -MOBILE
POWER PANEL
~
"'=
0/'"
~I.LJ
g
...J
"
I
I
: I
PROPOSED T -MOBILE PRE-FABRICATED
EQUIPMENT SHELTER AT GROUND LEVEL
n---__ I r----~
'I --I ---___ / \
JIlL ~-- ----~-----~
L : -7f---~ -------! \
-1----- i ___/______
I -,____ /
(E) JOINT POLE : ______:-____-/
(PROPOSED T-MOBILE I I I ~ I
POWER & TELCO -: I
P.o.c.) I
I
i
I
I
I
!
I
'~
I 1
i A-4
I
I
~l I
I
I
:J I
~I w
I z
0:: I I :J
~l I I ~
I
I r;;
I a.
, 0
Q:
I I a.
I I e
I
I I 0
I I I
I
I I 10
I , ;;
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
!
I
I
I
II
PROPOSED T -MOBILE
U.G. POWER & TELCO
CONDUIT ROUTE
WITHIN A 5' WIDE
UTILfTY EASEMENT
(APPROX. 35')
------- - --- EJDt.lJ""~~
--....... - --- f\'O-4D
---------
+'13
PROJECT AREA PLAN
I
,-'
I ,-.,..-
I I
I I
: ! 0
I I
: ! 0
I I
I I
I I
I ,
I /
, /
, ,
, /
I ,
I I
I I
, I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I /
I I
, I
, I
I /
, I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
/ I
I I
, ,
, I
, I
f I
\ l..
\ -
"-
---
(E) WETHERHEADS
(E) ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT
eE) BOLlLARD, lYP.
(E) BUILDING
'l'"//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////.
PROPOSED T -MOBILE PANEL
ANTENNAS (3) TOTAL. MOUNTED
WITHIN A 20"1ll x 5' HT. RADOME
ON TOP OF A NEW 20" X 27'-0"
HT. LIGHT POLE (TOTAL POLE HT.
W/RADOME = 32' A.G.L)
-----
-----
-----
~
-----
ISSUE STATUS
t::,. DAlE DESCRIPTION REV.
1 O/2J/05 1~ ZONING REV.3 3
- 11/07/06 100ll: ZONING REV.+ +
- 11/16/06 100l': ZONING REV.5 5
- 02/0e/07 l00l': ZONING REV.S S
- 03/13/07 l00l': ZONING REV.7 7
- 03/27/07 l00l': ZONING REV.e 6
- 0+/05/07 l00l': ZONING REV.9 9
- OS/21/07 10011 ZONING REV.l 10
- 06/17/07 PLANNING COIIII1S. 11
DRAI\tol BY: AUj\)S
CHECKED BY: R. ZEHt.l
MSA
'~ <II pkuiiiing, me.
3011t1r StrNt, S. 25D
San~c.."'1D'
415.5tJ3.1313 ,.. 4f5.5lJ3. 1454
Smta AM San""'o 8m
F_
U1IIIlI1. lIUIG~t:om
0:::
o
g
u...
::I:
I-
OJ
o
ON
::;Lr)
met
>- .
~c:3
~ci
<;>0:::
o
Lr)U
Lr)Z
a:> 0
~U
I-
Z
~~
Z<
:Ei5
o
~
~
~ .
~ !i!~~
~o..z
~ ~ ffi~8
~ ~ ~ ~~.~
~ 5~c.J
~ ~ ~ ~~~
tZ2 -"W<(
tI') 8o..CJ)
~ Na
~
SHEET TIlLE:
PROJECT AREA PlAN
ANTENNA & EQUIPMENT
LAYOUT
A-2
....
"....
-.........
~
,
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
,
,
I
I
I
1
1
I
I
1
(Ei BUILDING
PROPOSED T-MOBILE
COAX ROUTE WITHIN A 5'
WIDE EASEMENT (:1:140')
,
"'-""1
~
NEW POLE BY T -MOBILE TO MEET
PUBLIC WORKS SPECIFICATIONS.
PROPOSED T -MOBILE PANEL ANTENNAS (3)
TOTAL, MOUNTED WITHIN A 20"' x 5' HT.
RADOME ON TOP OF A NEW 20" X 27'-0"
HT. LIGHT POLE (TOTAL POLE HT. W/RADOME
~G.L)
~
I
LLL _ _ ...
\E3T
I
I
I
~ I
~ ,-------~
(E) UNHEALTHY TREES IN CENTER
MEDIAN TO BE REPLACED WITH
HEALTHIER TREES OF THE SAME
SPECIES BY T -MOBILE, TYP. OF
(3) TOTAL (TO BE DETERMINED)
~
(E) CONC.
CURB
~ ~..'''ROPCl?l'y
~~
(E) UNHEALTHY TREES IN CENTER
MEDIAN TO BE REPLACED WITH
HEALTHIER TREES OF THE SAME
SPECIES BY T-MOBILE, TYP. OF
(3) TOTAL (TO BE DETERMINED)
~
~
---
---
---
---
--- ~O'-'-I^,G~IT IT
~'-?~D mow
---~
~
~
~
~
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
-.........
ENLARGED PLAN AT NEW ANTENNA LOCATION
0~~~~,11
ISSUE STATUS
t:,. DAlE DESCRIPTION REV
10/23/05 1= ZONING REV.3 3
11/07/06 '00ll ZONING REV.4 4
11/16/06 100ll: ZONING REV"5 5
02/06/07 100ll: 20NING REV.6 6
03/13/07 100ll: ZONING REV.7 7
- '03/27/07 1= ZONING REV"6 6
04/05/07 100ll: ZONING REV.9 9
- OS/21/07 100ll: ZONING REV.1 10
- 06/17/07 PLANNING COMM1S. "
DRAWN BY: AU;\'/S
CHECKED BY: R. ZEHM
MSA
'.Arc:hiUctJuy '" Plannin{i In<:.
3M "" Street, SuIte 2SIJ
s., F~ C. 841'"
415.503.1363 fa' 415..5C3. 1454
Santa Ana san DIego &11
F"'II~co
WIIIfII. 1I&$tZ~.com
cr:
o
o
-J
'-'-
:r:
t-
en
~~
-JLI)
00....
'"
>- .
i5~
!;;;:ci
<.:>cr:
o
LOU
Ll)Z
coO
~U
I-
z
~E-4
z<
:2:8
o
~{I
E-t
~ ~ ~~~
0"\ ~~~~
'<:j- ~ffi~8
~ ~ ~~~.~
~ o~u
25 ~ ~~~~
en t;jg~~
E-t Ni3
~
SHEET TIlLE:
ENLARGED PLAN AT
ANTENNA LOCATION
A-3
I~
NEW POLE BY T -MOBILE TO MEET
PUBLIC WORKS SPECIFICATIONS.
NORTH ELEVATION
(E) UTIUlY POLE WITH
TRANSFORMER (PROPOSED
T -MOBILE POWER & TELCO
P.O.C.)
(E) WALL
WEST ELEVATION
f-;
~ r/.l !ii!;,;~
0"\ r/.l 0" z
< ~ a::!:J
""" 0:::50
~ 0"\ c:::l w",u
""" ~ Cl<<
O!':ua:
,......., ::: 0:5
~ I
~ ~ OzU
~ "''' <
VJ. t;j :;ffi~
f-; 8c..<
"':Jell
u
ijll1fif11l[lfil1ll]ilTii" II ~
f-;
PROPOSED T-MOBILE PANEL ANTENNAS
(3) TOTAL, MOUNTED WITHIN A 20"11 x
5' HT. RADOME ON TOP OF A NEW 20"
X 27'-0" HT. LIGHT POLE (TOTAL POLE
HT. W/RADOME = 32' A.G.L)
(E) BUILDING
$ TOP OF POLE/3 ANTENNAS
:t:32' A.G.L ~.
$ ANTENNA RAD CENTER
:t:29'-B A.G.L
PROPOSED T -MOBILE GPS
ANTENNA MOUNTED ON
(E) BUILDING WALL
...... . ......... .......:,."...,.............. ...,..;....:.. .............. .........\.".-tl-I~III-I~III ~I.I-I.III.~-IIIIIII~
i:.:...;-:::).:.~.~:::'..~~ -',~:~:~ ;.~~:.~~.~.~~.>;.~~~:~:~~>~..;\.~.~.~;~::~~e~~:~.~~~~.:;~'~,~.;';:,~::.~~'~..~~~~:t~:;~~~~~~~'~:~~~\~~::~:~~):; ! I i I! III
,.,.............,... '. .... :::.;......,.:....,...., 'n.'....'..:......., ',,","'_"V" .. .......:.......,..,....,. 111,/.1111 H
}I~~~~:I~~j~~,f~~l~1~1~~1~~it~~ "'"" ,~,
I
i'
'I
'111
III!I I
(E) UNHEALTHY TREES IN CENTER
MEDIAN TO BE REPLACED WITH
HEALTHIER TREES OF THE SAME
SPECIES BY T-M0BILE, TYP. OF
(3) TOTAL (TO BE DETERMINED)
(E) PLANTER
I
i
I
.i :1111 11111111111
!I:I "li.UJ.l!
PROPOSED 6' HT' CHAIN LINK
FENCE WITH WOODEN SLATS
W/ 10' WIDE DOUBLE SWING
CORNER ACCESS GATE
PROPOSED 6"11 REMOVABLE
BOLLARDS, (4) TOTAL
ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT
PROPOSED T -MOBILE PRE-FABRICATED
EQUIPMENT SHELTER AT GROUND LEVEL
(E) LANDSCAPE
~~~.11
NOTE:
NEW POLE BY T -MOBILE TO MEET
PUBLIC WORKS SPECIFICATIONS.
PROPOSED T-MOBILE PANEL ANTENNAS
(3) TOTAL, MOUNTED WITHIN A 2o"\ll x
5' HT. RADOME ON TOP OF A NEW 20.
X 27'-0" HT. LIGHT POLE (TOTAL POLE
HT. W/RADOME = 32' AG.L)
$ TOP OF POLE/3 ANTENNAS
:1:32' A.G.L ~
$ ANTENNA RAD CENTER
:t:29' -8 A.G.L
[(E) UNHEALTHY TREES IN CENTER
MEDIAN TO BE REPLACED WITH
HEALTHIER TREES OF THE SAME
. SPECIES BY T-MOBILE, TYP. OF
(3) TOTAL (TO BE DETERMINED)
Il'i~~,,"
(E) LIGHT STANDARD
TO REMAIN
(E) BUILDING
(E) BOLLARD
I/;
t1
If
If
(E) DRIVEWAY
If
If
FINISH GRADE
~--~
o l' 2' 6' 10' I 2
ISSUE STATUS
~ DA 1E DESCRIPTION REV
- 10/23/05 lOOll: ZONING REV.3 3
11/07 05 100ll: ZONING REV.4 4
"/16/06 100ll: ZONING REV.5 5
02/08/07 '00:10 ZONING REV.S S
03/13/07 '00ll; ZONING REV.7 7
03/27/07 ,00ll; ZONING REV.8 8
04/05/07 lOOll: ZONING REV.9 9
OS/21/07 lOOll: ZONING REV.! 10
08/17/07 PLANNING COMM1S. l'
DRA\\III BY: AU/lIS
CHECKED BY: R. ZEHM
MSA
'~&I PTruuzing, Ine.
3tH 11th Shet, S.... 2511
San Fr.nc/sca, Ca ""03
..15..5t11138J .4,5..5D3.1454
__ _~ Son
F..._
IPIPIP. ma:z-ap.eom
0:::
o
o
Li
:r:
......
m
o
ON
::;L()
D:l~
?i<
[5U
!;to
cO:::
o
L()U
L()Z
coO
~U
I-
z
~E-t
Z..
:EEl
o
~
SHEET TIlLE:
ELEVATIONS
A-4