The URL can be used to link to this page

DIR-2010-28b OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 C U P E RT I N O TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3223 • FAX: (408) 777-3366 April l 1, 2011 AMENDED (April 13 , 2011) Re: Petition for reconsideration for a personal wireless service facility at 11371 Bubb Road (continued from March 15) At its April 5, 2011 meeting, the Cupertino City Council adopted Resolution No. 11-054 denying the Petition for Reconsideration upholding Council's original decision. Please call the Community Development Department at 777-3308 if you have any questions. The decisi.on by tlxe City Council above described is final effective April S, 2011. The time within wl:ich judicial review must be souglzt is governed by §1096.6 of tlze California Code of Civil Procedure whicli is 90 days following t/ie above effective date. Sincerely, ��L�---` �� Grace Schmidt Deputy City Clerk encl: Resolution No. 11-054 cc: Ms. Dayna Aguirre Sutro Consultii�g 4166 Clarinbridge Circle Dublin, CA 94568 Mr. Shaul Berger 11371 Bubb Road Cu�ertino, CA 95014 PG&E 245 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94520 City Attorney Planning Department OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 � C U P E RT I N O TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3223 • FAX: (408) 777-3366 April 1 l, 2011 Re: Petition for reconsideration for a personal wireless service facility at 11371 Bubb Road (continued from March 15) At its April 5, 2011 meeting, the Cupertino City Council adopted Resolution No. 11-054 denying the Petition for Reconsideration upholding Council's original decision. Please call the Community Development Department at 777-3308 if you have any questions. Tlze decision by tlZe City Council above described is final effective February IS, 2011. Tlze time witlzin w/aiclz judicic�l review must be souglzt is governed by �1096.6 of t/ze California Code of Civil Procedure w/zic/z is 90 days following tlie above effective date. Sincerely, � �,,� �� Jr oxC Grace Schmidt Deputy City Clerk ezlcl: Resolution No. 11-054 cc: Ms. Dayna Aguirre Sutro Consulting 4166 Clarinbridge Circle Dublin, CA 94568 Mr. Shaul Berger 11371 Bubb Road Cupertino, CA 95014 PG&E 245 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94520 City Attorney Planning Department RESOLUTION NO. 11-054 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DENYING THE PETITION OF SHAUL BERGER SEEKING COUNCIL RECONSIDERATION OF ITS DECISION TO DENY AN APPEAL OF DIR-2010-28, A DIRECTOR'S MINOR MODIFICATION TO ALLOW A PERSONALWIRELESS SERVICE FACILITY ON AN EXISTING PG&E POLE AT 11371 BUBB ROAD WHEREAS, on November 29, 2010, the Cupertino City Council received a staff report and recommendation to deny an appeal of a Director's Minor Modification approval of a T-Mobile personal wireless service facility proposed on an existing PG&E pole at 11371 Bubb Road. WHEREAS, the Cupertino City Council held a public hearing and at the conclusion of the hearing denied the appeal filed by Shaul Berger on a 3-2 vote at its meeting of November 29, 2010, thus approving the project, DIR-2010-28, in accordance with Planning Commission Resolution No. 6616. WHEREAS, the Cuperti�io City Council's decision was within its discretion and made at a properly noticed public meeting. WHEREAS, Shaul Berger requested that the City Council reconsider its decision under the provisions of Section 2.08.096 of the City's municipal code; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered all relevant evidence presented by the parties at all hearings, including evidence presented at the April 5, 2011 reconsideration hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: 1. The petitioners' Reconsideration Petition is defective on its face in that it does not offer proof of facts as required by Municipal Code Section 2.08.096. 2. The petitioners did not provide new relevant evidence which in the exercise of reasonable diligence, could not have been produced at any earlier city hearing (See Municipal Code § 2.08.096B(1).) Evidence presented did not incontrovertibly prove that federal laws regarding maximum levels of radio frequency energy exposure would be violated. The City has required post-construction radio frequency energy monitoring to insur�� compliance with federal law. 3. The City Council did not exclude any evidence presented by the petitioners at any prior city hearing. (See Municipal Code § 2.08.096B(2).) 4. The petitioners have failed to present any evidence that the City Council failed to provide a fair hearing. (See Municipal Code § 2.08.096B(4).) RESOLUTION NO. 11-054 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DENYING THE PETITION OF SHAUL BERGER SEEKING COUNCIL RECONSIDERATION OF ITS DECISION TO DEl`1Y AN APPEAL OF DIR-2010-28, A DIRECTOR'S M1NOR MODIFICATION TO ALLOW A PERSONALWIRELESS SERVICE FACILITY ON AN EXISTING PG&E POLE AT 11371 BUBB ROAD WHEREAS, on November 29, 2010, the Cupertino City Council received a staff report and recommendation to deny an appeal of a Director's Minor Modification approval of a T-Mobile personal wireless service facility proposed on an existing PG&E pole at 11371 Bubb Road. WHEREAS, the Cupertino City Council held a public hearing and at the conclusion of the hearing denied the appeal filPd by Shaul Berger on a 3-2 vote at its meeting of November 29, 2010, thus approving the praject, DIR-2010-28, in accordance with Planning Commission Resolution No. 6616. WHEREAS, the Cuperti�io City Council's decision was within its discretion and made at a properly noticed public meeting. WHEREAS, Shaul Berger requested that the City Council reconsider its decision under the provisions of Section 2.08.096 of the City's municipal code; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered all relevant evidence presented by the parties at all hearings, including evidence presented at the April 5, 2011 reconsideration hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: 1. The petitioners' Reconsideration Petition is defective on its face in that it does not offer proof of facts as required by Municipal Code Section 2.08.096. 2. The petitioners did not provide new relevant evidence which in the exercise of reasonable diligence, could not have been produced at any earlier city hearing (See Municipal Code § 2.08.096B(1).) Evidence presented did not incontrovertibly prove that federal laws regarding inaximum levels of radio frequency energy exposure would be violated. The City has required post-con.�truction radio frequency energy monitoring to insure compliance with federal law. 3. The City Council did not exclude any evidence presented by the petitioners at any prior city hearing. (See Municipal Code § 2.08.096B(2).) 4. The petitioners have failed to present any evidence that the City Council failed to provide a fair hearing. (See Municipal Code § 2.08.096B(4).) Resolution No. 11-054 5. The petitioners have failed to demonstrate that the City Council abused its discretion by denying the appeal of a Director's approval (file no. DIR-2010-28) of a personal wireless service facility on an existing PG&E pole located at 11371 Bubb Road. (See Municipal Code § 2.08.096B(5).) Specifically, the City Council determines that: a. The City Council's decision is supported by findings of fact attached as Exhibit 1. b. The findings of fact related to the City Council's decision were supported by substantial evidence in the record of proceedings. 6. The petitioners' Petition for Reconsideration of the City Council's decision of Noveinber 29, 2010 is DENIED, thereby affirming the original decision. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 5�' day of April, 2011, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: Wong, Santoro, Mahoney, Wang NOES: Chang ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ATTEST: APPROVED: /s/Kimberly Smith /s/Gilbert Wong City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino � 2 Resolution No. 11-054 5. The petitioners have failed to demonstrate that the City Council abused its discretion by denying the appeal of a Director's approval (file no. DIR-2010-28) of a personal wireless service facility on an existing PG&E pole located at 11371 Bubb Road. (See Municipal Code § 2.08.096B(5).) Specifically, the City Council determines that: a. The City Council's decision is supported by findings of fact attached as Exhibit 1. b. The findings of fact related to the City Council's decision were supported by substantial evidence in the record of proceedings. 6. The petitioners' Petition for Reconsideration of the City Council's decision of Noveinber 29, 2010 is DENIED, thereby affirming the original decision. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this S th day of April, 2011, by the following vote: Vote Members of the Citv Council AYES: Wong, Santoro, Mahoney, Wang NOES: Chang ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ATTEST: APPROVED: /s/Kimberly Smith /s/Gilbert Wong City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino a 2 Resolution No. 11-054 EXHIBIT 1 CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS IN RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION Cupertino Municipal Code section 2.08.096 states: "A petition for reconsideration shall specify in detail each and every ground for reconsideration. Failure of a petition to specify any particular ground or grounds for reconsideration precludes that particular omitted ground or grounds from being raised or litigated in a subsequent judicial proceeding. The grounds for reconsideration are limited to the following: 1) An offer of new relevant evidence which, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, could not have been produced at any earlier city hearing. 2) An offer of relevant evidence which was improperly excluded at any prior city hearing. 3) Proof of facts which demonstrate that the City Council proceeded without, or in excess of its jurisdiction. 4) Proof of facts which demonstrate that the City Council failed to provide a fair hearing. 5) Proof of facts which demonstrate that the City Council abused its discretion by: a) Not proceeding in a manner required by law; and/or b) Rendering a decision which was not supported by findings of fact; and/or c) Rendering a decision in which the findings of fact were not supported by the evidence." Original Petition The petition for reconsideration consists of three pages accompanied by a petition with 31 signatories. Reconsideration of this item constitutes the third full hearing of this matter conducted by the City. As stated in the petition's introductory paragraphs, the petitioner has inade claiins for reconsideration under the above referenced criteria #2, #4, #Sb and #Sc. The petitioner submitted his radiation analysis on January 27, 2011, 49 days after the reconsideration petition was filed on December 9, 2010. The analysis is a claim for reconsideration under referenced criteria #1. The City's findings of fact on each of these criteria are set forth below. l. An offer of new relevant evidence which, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, could not have been produced at any earlier city hearing. J Finding: The offer of new relevant evidence by the petitioner could have been presented at the City Council appeal hearing of November 29, 2010 or with the reconsideration petition submitted on Deceinber 9, 2010, instead of 49 days later on January 27, 2011. Petition Res onse In the petitioner's analysis of power The applicant's radio frequency energy density, assumptions are made about the consultant finds the petitioner's methodology T-mobile equipment and power density is and calculations to be reasonable, except for calculated as a percentage of the Maximum an error in using the pro osed output ower 3 Resolution No. 11-054 EXHIBIT 1 CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS IN RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION Cupertino Municipal Code section 2.08.096 states: "A petition for reconsideration shall specify in detail each and every ground for reconsideration. Failure of a petition to specify any particular ground or grounds for reconsideration precludes that particular omitted ground or grounds from being raised or litigated in a subsequent judicial proceeding. The grounds for reconsideration are limited to the following: 1) An offer of new relevant evidence which, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, could not have been produced at any earlier city hearing. 2) An offer of relevant evidence which was improperly excluded at any prior city hearing. 3) Proof of facts which demonstrate that the City Council proceeded without, or in excess of its jurisdiction. 4) Proof of facts which demonstrate that the City Council failed to provide a fair hearing. 5) Proof of facts which demonstrate that the City Council abused its discretion by: a) Not proceeding in a manner required by law; and/or b) Rendering a decision which was not supported by findings of fact; and/or c) Rendering a decision in which the findings of fact were not supported by the evidence." Original Petition The petition for reconsideration consists of three pages accompanied by a petition with 31 signatories. Reconsideration of this item constitutes the third full hearing of this matter conducted by the City. As stated in the petition's introductory paragraphs, the petitioner has inade claiins for reconsideration under the above referenced criteria #2, #4, #Sb and #Sc. The petitioner submitted his radiation analysis on January 27, 2011, 49 days after the reconsideration petition was filed on December 9, 2010. The analysis is a claim for reconsideration under referenced criteria #1. The City's findings of fact on each of these criteria are set forth below. 1. An offer of new relevant evidence which, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, could not have been produced at any earlier city hearing. J Finding: 'I'he offer of new relevant evidence by the petitioner could have been presented at the City Council appeal hearing of November 29, 2010 or with the reconsideration petition submitted on Deceinber 9, 2010, instead of 49 days later on January 27, 2011. Petition Response In the petitioner's analysis of power The applicant's radio frequency energy density, assumptions are made about the consultant finds the petitioner's methodology T-mobile equipment and power density is and calculations to be reasonable, except for calculated as a percentage of the Maximum an error in using the proposed output ower 3 Resolution No. 11-054 Permissible Exposure (MPE) allowed by from the antenna as the output power from the the Federal Government for uncontrolled transmitter, which according to the consultant environments (1 milliwatt per centimeter makes all of the petitioner's results too high squared) There are three pages calculating by a factor of about 15 times (1500%). The power density 12 feet, 20 feet and 30 feet consultant also points out that the petitioner is from the antenna. The results show calculating the power density in front of the exposures of 632%, 227.5% and 101.1 % of antennas which are 44 feet in the air, instead the MPE. of where people might be present such as at ground level or in nearby buildings. The applicant attempted to contact the petitioner, providing additional technical specifications on the T-Mobile cell facility, but has not been able to meet with the petitioner. To remove any doubt as to the accuracy of the consultant's RF energy analysis, the City has also conditioned the approval to require post- construction RF monitoring to make certain the RF energy exposures are within federal standards. 2. An offer of relevant evidence which was improperly excluded at any prior City hearing: Findin�: The petitioner has offered no new relevant evidence that was excluded at any prior City meeting, nor has petitioner proven that any evidence was previously excluded by the City Council. The complaint is an opinion of the petitioner that has not been supported by any facts or evidence. Petition Response The petitioner alleges that his analysis The petitioner claimed at the Nov. 29, 2010 presented at the Nov. 29, 2010 meeting meeting, that his analysis of the calculated indicates that radio frequency (RF) energy energy levels at 12 feet from the antennas was exposure was more than 6 times higher than more than six times what was allowed by the approved government levels. The petitioner federal standard. The petitioner did not offer a further alleges that the Council voted on this copy of the analysis to the Council or staff. � project without checking these claims that the After the hearing, staff requested that the ,., RF energy exposure was higher than approved petitioner provide his analysis for the public government levels. record; the petitioner did not provide any . analysis to the City until 49 days after his reconsideration petitiori was filed, and 5 days before the reconsideration hearing. The City Council can only act on the facts and evidence on hand when its decision is rendered. The City has relied on a reputable firm, 4 Resolution No. 11-054 Permissible Exposure (MPE) allowed by from the antenna as the output power from the the Federal Government for uncontrolled transmitter, which according to the consultant environments (1 milliwatt per centimeter makes all of the petitioner's results too high squared) There are three pages calculating by a factor of about 15 times (1500%). The power density 12 feet, 20 feet and 30 feet consultant also points out that the petitioner is from the antenna. The results show calculating the power density in front of the exposures of 632%, 227.5% and 101.1% of antennas which are 44 feet in the air, instead the MPE. of where people might be present such as at ground level or in nearby buildings. The applicant attempted to contact the petitioner, providing additional technical specifications on the T-Mobile cell facility, but has not beeii able to meet with the petitioner. To remove any doubt as to the accuracy of the consultant's RF energy analysis, the City has also conditioned the approval to require post- construction RF monitoring to make certain the RF energy exposures are within federal standards. 2. An offer of relevant evidence which was improperly excluded at any prior City hearing: Findin�: The petitioner has offered no new relevant evidence that was excluded at any prior City meeting, nor has petitioner proven that any evidence was previously excluded by the City Council. The complaint is an opinion of tfie petitioner that has not been supported by any facts or evidence. Petition Response The petitioner alleges that his analysis The petitioner claimed at the Nov. 29, 2010 presented at the Nov. 29, 2010 meeting meeting, that his analysis of the calculated indicates that radio frequency (RF) energy energy levels at 12 feet from the antennas was exposure was more than 6 times higher than more than six times what was allowed by the approved government levels. The petitioner federal standard. The petitioner did not offer a further alleges that the Council voted on this copy of the analysis to the Council or staff. project without checking these claims that the�, After the hearing, staff requested that the RF energy exposure was higher than approved petitioner provide his analysis for the public government levels. record; the petitioner did not provide any . analysis to the City unti149 days after his reconsideration petitiori was filed, and 5 days before the reconsideration hearing. The City Council can only act on the facts and evidence on hand when its decision is rendered. The City has relied on a reputable firm, � 4 Resolution No. 11-054 Hammett & Edison, to prepare the RF energy analysis. Hammett & Edison have clarified that the RF energy at this site is well within the federal safety standards at a level of 0.0012 milliwatt per centimeter squared for all ground level exposures, and 0.0022 milliwatt per centimeter squared for second floor exposures of any nearby residence. To remove any doubt as to the accuracy of the � consultant's RF energy analysis, the City has also conditioned the approval to require post- construction RF monitoring to make certain the RF energy exposures are within federal standards. 4. Proof of facts which demonstrate that the City Council failed to provide a fair hearing: Findin�: The petitioner has not provided any proof of facts that demonstrate the Council failed to provide a fair hearing. To the contrary, a review of the hearing on November 29, 2010 shows that the Council heard lengthy testimony from the petitioner and neighborhood residents, as well as information presented by staff and the applicant. The Council asked questions and received responses before deliberating on the project. Petition Res onse The petitioner alleges that the City did not Since this project has been heard by both the provide a fair hearing because the Community Planning Commission and the City Council, Development Director did not convene a public any alleged processing flaw at the Director design review hearing before acting to approve level has been overcome at this point. At both the application. the Planning Commission and City Council hearings, the petitioner has had opportunities to review and influence the design of the wireless facility. The Director's approach was not based on a determination that the item would not be controversial; rather, the a Director determined that the placement of the s , wireless equipment on an existing utility pole constituted a minor design change to the appearance of the pole. The City's adopted Wireless Facilities Master Plan indicates that the Director's approval is the proper processing option for such a facility design. 5 Resolution No. 11-054 Hammett & Edison, to prepare the RF energy analysis. Hammett & Edison have clarified that the RF energy at this site is well within the federal safety standards at a level of 0.0012 milliwatt per centimeter squared for all ground level exposures, and 0.0022 milliwatt per centimeter squared for second floor exposures of any nearby residence. To remove any doubt as to the accuracy of the " consultant's RF energy analysis, the City has also conditioned the approval to require post- construction RF monitoring to make certain the RF energy exposures are within federal standards. 4. Proof of facts which demonstrate that the City Council failed to provide a fair hearing: Findin�: The petitioner has not provided any proof of facts that demonstrate the Council failed to provide a fair hearing. To the contrary, a review of the hearing on November 29, 2010 shows that the Council heaxd lengthy testimony from the petitioner and neighborhood residents, as well as information presented by staff and the applicant. The Council asked questions and received responses before deliberating on the project. Petition Res onse The petitioner alleges that the City did not Since this project has been heard by both the provide a fair hearing because the Community Planning Commission and the City Council, Developinent Director did not convene a public any alleged processing flaw at the Director design review hearing before acting to approve level has been overcome at this point. At both the application. the Planning Commission and City Council hearings, the petitioner has had opportunities to review and influence the design of the wireless facility. The Director's approach was not based on a determination that the item would not be controversial; rather, the , Director determined that the placement of the wireless equipment on an existing utility pole constituted a minor design change to the appearance of the pole. The City's adopted Wireless Facilities Master Plan indicates that the Director's approval is the proper processing option for such a facility design. 5 Resolution No. 11-054 5. Proof of facts which demonstrate that the City Council abused its discretion by: b) Rendering a decision which was not supported by �ndings of fact; and/or c) Rendering a decision in which the findings of fact were not supPorted by the evidence. Findin�: The petitioner has not provided any proof of facts that demonstrate the Council abused its discretion by rendering a decision which was not supported by findings of fact, or rendering a decision in which the findings of fact were not supported by the evidence. Petition Res onse The petitioner alleges that the City Council There is no requirement that the best solution never reviewed alternative cell site options that be found, only that a project is determined provide a better solution to all parties. The appropriate. The City's Wireless Facilities petitioner alleges that an alternative solution Master Plan expresses a design preference that involving a taller tower in a more remote wireless facilities in residential areas be sited location would provide better coverage and on existing utility towers and poles, rather collocation "savings" and result in a different than building new structures. Thus the decision. proposed site meets the requirements of the City's Wireless Facilities Master Plan. The City Council did discuss three alternative sites in its deliberations on November 29, 2010. One site was Linda Vista Parlc on a hill. This park was estimated to be about 3 /4 of a mile away and was felt to be too far away to provide good coverage to the Bubb Road area. The second suggested alternative was the proposed AT&T monopine at Results Way which had the potential to serve another carrier at a lower height on the pole. It was inappropriate to consider the Results Way site as an alternative because no decision on the project appeal had been granted by Nov. 29, 2010. The Council knew that the AT&T monopine was 19 feet lower than the ground to the south, so any T-Mobile collocated � antennas (at 46 feet, effectively 27 feet) ,, would be similar to two nearby T-Mobile facilities and too low in height and too far away (1+ mile) to provide cell coverage to southern Bubb Road. The third site alternative considered by the Council was the San Jose Water Company water storage facility at Regnart Road and Lindy Lane. This facility is a covered earthen 6 Resolution No. 11-054 5. Proof of facts which demonstrate that the City Council abused its discretion by: b) Rendering a decision which was not supported by �ndings of fact; and/or c) Rendering a decision in which the findings of fact were not supported by the evidence. Findin�: The petitioner has not provided any proof of facts that demonstrate the Council abused its discretion by rendering a decision which was not supported by findings of fact, or rendering a decision in which the findings of fact were not supported by the evidence. Petition Response The petitioner alleges that the City Council There is no requirement that the best solution never reviewed alternative cell site options that be found, only that a project is determined provide a better solution to all parties. The appropriate. The City's Wireless Facilities petitioner alleges that an alternative solution Master Plan expresses a design preference that involving a taller tower in a more remote wireless facilities in residential areas be sited location would provide better coverage and on existing utility towers and poles, rather collocation "savings" and result in a different than building new structures. Thus the decision. proposed site meets the requirements of the City's Wireless Facilities Master Plan. The City Council did discuss three alternative sites in its deliberations on November 29, 2010. One site was Linda Vista Parlc on a hill. This park was estimated to be about 3 /4 of a inile away and was felt to be too far away to provide good coverage to the Bubb Road area. The second suggested alternative was the proposed AT&T monopine at Results Way which had the potential to serve another carrier at a lower height on the pole. It was inappropriate to consider the Results Way site as an alternative because no decision on the project appeal had been granted by Nov. 29, 2010. The Council knew that the AT&T monopine was 19 feet lower than the ground to the south, so any T-Mobile collocated ante�nas (at 46 feet, effectively 27 feet) would be similar to two nearby T-Mobile facilities and too low in height and too far away (l+ mile) to provide cell coverage to southern Bubb Road. The third site alternative considered by the Council was the San Jose Water Company water storage facility at Regnart Road and Lindy Lane. This facility is a covered earthen 6 Resolution No. 11-054 reservoir. Staff indicated that the structure lacked height and a monopole would have to be built. The City Council rejected the concept of erecting a new, tall monopole cell site at the edge of the reservoir next to the existing houses. The petitioner alleges that T-Mobile could not This claim is immaterial to any basis for provide any information about the number of reconsideration. Also, the 1996 subscribers that would benefit from the Telecommunications Act, section proposed wireless facility. The Council 704(7)(B)(i)(I) prohibits any local decision- rendered a decision on this facility without making agency from unreasonably lalowing if there was any public benefit. discriminating among providers of functionally equivalent (personal wireless) services. The petitioner alleges that his analysis See City Response to Petitioner's claim under presented at the Nov. 29, 2010 meeting Municipal Code section 2.08.096(B)(1) and indicates that radio frequency (RF) energy (B)(2). exposure was more than 6 times higher than approved goverrunent levels. The petitioner further alleges that the Council voted on this project without checking these claims that the RF energy exposure was higher than approved government levels. J 7 Resolution No. 11-054 reservoir. Staff indicated that the structure lacked height and a monopole would have to be built. The City Council rejected the concept of erecting a new, tall monopole cell site at the edge of the reservoir next to the existing houses. The petitioner alleges that T-Mobile could not This claim is immaterial to any basis for provide any information about the number of reconsideration. Also, the 1996 subscribers that would benefit from the Telecommunications Act, section proposed wireless facility. The Council 704(7)(B)(i)(I) prohibits any local decision- rendered a decision on this facility without making agency from unreasonably knowing if there was any public benefit. discriminating among providers of functionally equivalent (personal wireless) services. The petitioner aileges that his analysis See City Response to Petitioner's claim under presented at the Nov. 29, 2010 meeting Municipal Code section 2.08.096(B)(1) and indicates that radio frequency (RF) energy (B)(2). exposure was more than 6 times higher than approved goverrunent levels. The petitioner further alleges that the Council voted on this project without checking these claims that the RF energy exposure was higher than approved government levels. �� 7 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 C U P E RT I N O TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3223 • FAX: (408) 777-3366 March 17, 2011 Re: Petition for reconsideration of the City Council's November 29, 2010 decision to deny an appeal of a Director's Approval for a personal wireless service facility at 11371 Bubb Road (continued from February 1) At its Maxch 15 meeting, the City Council continued this item to April 5 at the request of the appellant with the concurrence of the applicant. Sincerely, `� Grace Schmidt Deputy City Clerk cc: Ms. Dayna Aguirre Sutro Consulting 4166 Clarinbridge Circle Dublin, CA 94568 Mr. Shaul Berger 11371 Bubb Road Cupertino, CA 95014 PG&E 245 Market Street San Francisco, Ca. 94520 City Attorney Planning Department OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 C U P E RT 1 N O TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3223 • FAX: (408) 777-3366 To: Planning Department From: Grace Schmidt � Subject: Petition for reconsideration of the City Council's November 29, 2010 decision to deny an appeal of a Director's Approval for a personal wireless service facility at 11371 Bubb Road Date: February 4, 2011 On February 1 the City Council continued this item to March 15, 2011. � f� -�oC � - OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 C U P E RT I N O � TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3223 • FAX: {408) 777-3366 December 15. 2010 AMENDED HEARING DATE Re: Hearing on a petition by Shaul Berger for reconsideration of the City Council's November 29, 2010 decision to deny an appeal of a Director's Approval for a personal wireless service facility at 11371 Bubb Road At the conclusion of the hearing on the Petition for Reconsideration, the Council may: A. Adopt a resolution denying the Petition for Reconsideration, thereby affirming the original decision or B. Reverse or modify the November 29, 2010 Council decision The above stated item is scheduled for the FebruarY 1 2011 Citv Counci] meetin�. Council meets at 6:45 p.m., Council Chamber, Corninunity Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California. Interested parties are invited to attend and be heard. If you have any questions, please feel free to call our office at 777-3223. If you wish to challenge the City Council's action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Cupertino City Hall at, or prior to, the hearing. Sincerely, C� �� Grace Schmidt Deputy City Clerk cc: Ms. Dayna Aguirre Sutro Consulting 4166 Clarinbridge Circle Dublin, CA 94568 Mr. Shaul Berger 11371 Bubb Road Cupertino, CA 95014 Residents who signed petition City Attorney Planning Department �1� - I OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CITY HALL I 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 C U P E RT I N O TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3223 • FAX: (408) 777-3366 December 14. 2010 Re: Hearing on a petition by Shaul Berger for reconsideration of the City Council's l�TOVember 29, 2010 decision to den_y an appeal of a Director's Approval for a personal wireless service facility at 11371 Bubb Road At the conclusion of the hearing on the Petition for Reconsideration, the Council may: A. Adopt a resolution denying the Petition for Reconsideration, thereby affirming the original decision. or B. Reverse or modify the November 29, 2010 Council decision The above stated item is scheduled for the January 18 2011 City Council meeting. Council meets at 6:45 p.m. Council Chamber. Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino California. Interested parties are invited to attend and be heard. If you have any questions, please feel free to call our office at 777-3223. If you wish to challenge the City Council's action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Cupertino City Hall at. or prior to, the hearing. � Sincerely � ,, � /►f��,� � ! � v^v . � �? � Grace Schmidt Deputy City Clerk cc: Ms. Dayna Aguirre Sutro Consulting 4166 Clarinbridge Circle Dublin, CA 94568 Mr. Shaul Berger 113 71 Bubb Road Cupertino, CA 95014 Residents wl�o signed petition City Attorney Planning Department CITY OF �: UPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014, (408) 777-3308 To: Mayor and City Council member s Chairman and Planning Commissioners From: Approved by Aarti Shrivastava, �irector of Community Development � Prepared by Colin Jung, Senior Planner Date: September 7, 2010 Subject: Director's Minor Modification (DIR-2010-28) to allow the addition of a personal wireless service facility (microcell), consisting of three panel antennas and four associated equipment c�ibinets on an existing utility pole in the public right-of-way in front of 11371 Bu �b Road. Chapter 19.132 of the Cupertino Mitnicipal Code allows for administrative approval of minor changes in a pro: ect. The Director reports her decision to the City Council and Planning Commission and notices property owners within 1,000-foot radius iri time to allow any Council member, Planning Commissioner or membE r of the public to appeal the decision within fourteen calendar days. BACKGROUND The applicant, Dayna Aguirre, representing T-Mobile, is proposing to establish a personal wireless service facility (microcell) mounted on an existing utility pole located in the public right-of-way in front of 11371 Bubb Road. It consists of three panel antennas fastened by a bracket to the pow��r pole and four associated equipment cabinets mounted directly to the same pol�� (Attachment 1). Microcells are low-power personal wirele�s service facilities designed to serve a small area. In this particular case, this facility i;� designed to provide PCS telephone coverage to a small area around southern -3ubb Road and a portion of Rainbow Drive (Attachment 2). This facility falls under the recently adoptf�d, revised wireless communications facilities ordinance (CMC chapter 19.108) that perrr.its such facilities on utility poles, regardless of proximity to a residential property line �s long as the facility meets federal safety standards for radio frequency emissions. DIR-2010-28 Bubb Road ROW (in front of 11371 Bubb Road) Page 2 September 7, 2010 ., �,: � _ � --�,.� _ � � ��° ;� �� . �_ . . _ ; , � � � .� , � �� - , � � e � w .�.._. , �,,,.,,,,,, r ,, �^.. _, . _ r _ ' � _�:' °- :..�. � a ` .�: M�..., r�� ..+° 3`a,�r � �'� �1 ''� /� � �q � �� >; �•�. f �.....J-__�_ . . -,..' <. � • . f �„°' ,� : �' � �. � � " e z � , � �. .� �. ,.. . � � . _ � - . , , ,.,:" �.� ' =` ° A * . � - ;� .�- �`= `' � � ��•�� __ i � � R �� .A D �, . � ' ' � "'� � « . ` ` �� ''�' � � *� ' � �'�+� �"� ,,r,., �� .: - ..b: � � �' . � �.'�° _ . p- ,,. !�' ". ��, .,.. . � � "��` �� w � : �t,� . �� * � . �""• � ; � ,,. �' ��' �� 4 .P . ; � �-- f � + ` `r � �, , t , . �'i I ��,�,,,...� ,�� ; l � � - k � �� , +� � � ` } _ � ��# 4T � � � �; � . � � ` ,�' —�� F 7 !3� . �� R `� � � �� { . � � � w �! [+s�� r �t� , y , . �,•. Y' � '� � ,4 � `+�� k � � .fi � , tit � � � ' � � �!' � � �� r ..a� . p �'', tr �" �# kiJr �f C '�,� t „ ., � wl' °` ��"::�'' r, N , � ��-: � '� �I 'y.. ' � . �'Itl M � '�, +. A f.r . . K � � .a . + ,�, ` �� ,. � , � � , —: .� .�.._..�. �... ,.. ... r �z.', a i� � . ��' ` f' ,3�a � ,��- �, � . � � � .�� __._ '� � _ ,.:. : � _ � Y. ; -- � � < .,s---- ,�; � �' �#�� "�` .� �` . �' • ,�,.�� ' � . , � � "� . � . - .,,�p � .� ¢ • r ` "r & � '"� f ��F� �"�. ��'� A. 4 �1, �., t - r �:. . _ ��`�.. -� ,'� _'� �,� ,-, `�`' �_°'�" '`--` y �" _: L�i.7��.. � � ra _,. f�� ... `., I , j �` 4 µ�� O �� . �,x . �� t ~ �y�_;� . . y � y � z�k... ...a". . ,, � fi ,� . �r �' �� v i �. � * � �� •� „ - . �ior� `',� ' 's� .. �� R . � � '� �k � .j � � �_ � NI^h'.. i�t � a'; i � w � � ��` ' �� .: �x V * ?� s �, � `' ..�.��`'� � F�` �... �. ; . : �:� - � , �� ,� . '`�. .. � ' � � .�._�. . � x �� . { .. F .. 1 tr ` �' �� .. , � .: +"�'L _"' ` _. . . . - ,.. _ . w: �� ' `� y��p r -' 4 v" ' � ri � � L � f • . �"°' � s� . � , . , � •, r , s„, * �� e a-:� " M: � i ��,.� �� •F ... _ f � "�' �� . .. . , . � . .. . ,'.. , •: , .,, .� . ; i . .� ; r� � � ' i ' � . r ' .. n- . _.' "__ � � � M ' � ' - � } � � � ° T � i �' �a y � � _ ` i . , �- ` i ai ' ,., '' rt � � � � r � � z ' .�. _ � s , ,�... , : � r � �R<. ,� � _ : � �� ' �' ' .. . . . �a �' '; � t �� ;�,; � �" �� ''�`. � ` • _ . _ �>� ...- ��< "y � - ` �rr�.s� � - ��`�. : �� •. �� - « _ ,� � , , � , ". , � ,� i aw�.� .,�/ _ �L'�"�,! � � �� ,� .. � �� Proposed Microcell 0 DISCUSSION The proposed wireless facility complies with the City's Ordinance. The antennas are at about 45 feet where 55 feet is allowed. The antennas are mounted on a utility pole, which exempts them from the residential setback requirement of 75 feet, as long as Federal safety standards for radio frequency energy are met (see discussions on Radio Frequency Assessment). All of the associated equipment cabinets are mounted on the same side as the antenna to ensure a clear pathway for climbing linemen. In addition, the equipment location is on the west side of the pole in order to address the wireless communications coverage in that portion of the City (Attachment 3). The proposed facility also complies with the City's Wireless Facilities Master Plan, which articulates a visual preference for microcells in residential neighborhoods since 2 DIR-2010-28 Bubb Road ROW (in f ront of 11371 Bubb Road) Page 3 September 7, 2010 such a facility can take advantage of existi ng vertical structures such as utility poles, in lieu of building new vertical structures. Radio Frequencu Ener� Assessment The applicant has commissioned a radic� frequency energy assessment prepared by Hammett & Edison, Inc. to estimate the lE�vels of radio frequency energy generated by the proposed T-Mobile microcell site and evaluate those energy levels against adopted federal safety limits for human exposurE� to radio frequency energy (Attachment 4). The federal limits apply to continuous exposures and are intended to provide a prudent margin of safety for all persons, regardless of age, gender, size or health. The calculated, ground-level, maximum [ZF exposure due to the proposed T-Mobile facility is 0.12% of the applicable public exposure limit (1 milliwatt per centimeter squared). Second-story residential expos ure to the west is slightly higher, 0.22% of the applicable public exposure limit. Both calculated levels are well below adopted federal safety standards. AQenci/ Review Project plans were routed to the Cupertino Technology, Information and Communications Commission (TICC) for their commentary. The TIC Commissioner noted that the RF emission exposure was well-within the federal safety standard; that there was no serious aesthetic issue with placing the equipment on an existing utility pole; and the radio coverage will co��er a serious gap in T-Mobile's coverage (Attachment 5). ACTION The Director of Community Development deems the modification minor and approves the microcell facility with the following co lditions of approval. State law requires a minimum 10-year permit for personal wirf�less service facilities. 1. APPROVED EXHIBITS Approval is based on Exhibits titled: " T-Mobile West Corporation/A Delaware Corporation/SF24189D/PG&E R�;GNART/ON BUBB RD. BETWEEN FOLKSTONE DR. & CONRA� IA CT. / IN FRONT OF 11371 BUBB ROAD/CUPERTINO, CA 95014" p��epared by Michael Wilk Architecture dated 9/3/10 and consisting of ten sheets labeled T-1, T-2, LS1, A-1 through A-4, PS-1, REF-1 and REF-2 except as may be ��mended by the conditions contained in this resolution. 2. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, I;ESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication requirements, reservai ion requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute 3 DIR-2010-28 Bubb Road ROW (in front of 11371 Bubb Road) Page 4 September 7, 2010 written notice of a statement of the � mount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pu:�suant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protE st within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions. 3. ABANDONMENT If after installation, the aerial is not u��ed 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 co� t of demolition and removal. 4. EXPIRATION DATE This Director's Minor Modification :;hall expire ten (10) years after the effective date of the permit. The applican t may apply for a renewal of the minor modification at which time the Director of Community Development may review the state of wireless communication and camouflage technologies to determine if the visual impact of the personal wirE less facility can be reduced. 5. CAMOUFLAGING OF EQUIPMENT All cables shall be enclosed in conduit. The mounting brackets, conduit and equipment cabinets shall be painted t� match the color of the utility pole. This Director's approval is effective Septer.lber 7, 2010. The fourteen calendar day appeal period will expire on September 21. 2010. Enclosures: Attachment 1 Photosinlulations of microcell facility (3) Attachment 2 T-Mobilf � Existing & Proposed Coverage Maps Attachment 3 Email fr<�m PG&E Attachment 4 RFR Ass�ssment of T-Mobile West Corp. Proposed Base Stat ion, (Site No. SF24189D),11371 Bubb Road, Cupertir�o, California Attachment 5 Email communications from TIC Commissioner Attachment 6 Plan Set Referenced attachments that may not be �ncluded with this mailed report are available in the Planning Department located ut City Hall and may also be viewed at the City's website at u�u�w.cit�erti�zo.org. SelECt the link to "Public Records" at the top bar, then "Planning Department" folder, then "DIR Approvals" folder, then "2010" folder. Select file nurr ber DIR-2010-28. Gfplanning/PDREPORT/DlRreports/2010/DIR-2010-28.doc 4 ATTACHMENT 1 �� `.� �� ,� ,, .�\. � , �-� � , �. _. . } � r � �� ; � ..�,{ � ; ,� ` � , _ ', , �., �� w '� �� .t. . �t � c .r, . 7,� i j� � � :. � t"y - -�� P`` ��`r�=�zF,�'}�ari.`+ t` �,5,. ~^ � .. [� � :� � a �t , � . � �. . 6 �. 'Y , ?� t� � 7:�� • �I" �,��• � L � T c f ..l r � �?C � {.�: � � ��,y� ' t- i � � � t1 ", � � � . �.� -: �° �r� x ' � , � �� J�1. k ,.�i��l1t/. �ti5'� .{ 1 - y . {� � � ,� � �� ' �._,t4r :� !S � � ��. 4 a ��yi4 i 1 �� ,f�, tiiw;-�' , . ��.�;;�►;: �� r (��jy� �f _ . ,� _ .. ��:�J s � .�� f�� `4.�5 y �t ', �,,,�, `"�` � - �� y- �} - _..�.,...,,� � ::�. � „� y ' _ �, .� :w, . �� } � : �� 1 �' �: �" ' � , t � ~ , ,-!;,. .. - � i� �; r - t. .., - � - .; ._ � : _ .__„ '� -°�- �',; _ . ' - . ._ . ,��..�,.. Y. ,� -- =�c . �- , ' - _ r�— Pro�osec� `,,�, �'°". . , . , � =�� _ _ _: f� �; i ' Proposed T-Mobile ; � Antennas ` �� ? � �� i � / s ' f .� �'v i� • _ Proposed T-Mobile �� "' � �. r + r � . a _ -, Equipmenf f ,K .� '°` �.�, s,� ^,,,`;�� `+�r � -6, � + �.� Y A .J -� � ;Y � � , r ''� f b �3�'��• � � ,� , ` �� _ k S � %+ •y � �, ` } �v�' p�K �.�-f. � � �i. ♦ � j'' �J' 1 � " - - r... ' t � +� �' s ��,; r � �;s•r #� •�'�?�' ` .1 �,. �3 .,� ry �• �, . �� , ,��` ��;-� :� `� "� � �'�- : � ��5- . r r �• _ri : � � Li+ � „` � .._ ,� � . �� ,/�' �. ,� r � +.� :��" y ��. .,,,w. . . � R:s •f"'�', A;� j' r �*i ,f' M a ��y�a .�°' � � . 7 . ..w�, _ _ .s-.� , i.��g � . , z . ! � d ` h ,j l � � ' b. � s' �. i• �i _ 1� ' " ' � y �'' � .- � :.i`.". - -. i � +� � y �- � _ e . �V3sta:a_.. - ^.. __ � ..._ _ _ - � a ..�;' �:1 � . .:r._ _ - , . , w ... . ... . _ , r� . - , . . �. . - �' ' ' � .. - ..µ�,,; _ ..• ... - w a _ - '� Y ,S�`R - - - view from Bubb Road looking north at srte �� , , � , SF24189 PG&E Regncrrt -, ; , � � � d �; � � � � ; __ _ 11371 Bubb Road, Cupertino, CA Phota Simu ' on Salutior,s - _- Contact ( 9?5 ) ZQ2-850.' t �;• . �t�. � Y . ,:. . ; � �,a � �� .� � � .; � .w t y� 4' • , f ` `,+�' � � . . .. .t:• . ., 9Rr . ,s� ," � �. � �� . � L �,��, ,'"�� .. � � }+. �'{ � • ��`�t .`'. ' !r • i'� ''y' r. +s .. s ' ''.,� , ��,• r r' . i� � . Y '' ::J, 1 � ..�?�.. ., M , . ' � - , fr . ! Y '�! ` ; f .•1� � ti. `,. !� �' �": ' ,t, ��5 ~ . 3 ': fe �{ �`A '�. � - :� • � . +�ft +j � � � • �' �+ � '�'�� a . � r r ; 7r, >. �, °� ,,� �� 'ry� . .,. . • R �y.7 �,�, ' it,�`� c y� a� r x ,�'f't y r : �' „f' ,� + } + t �' - �' � - � a" ... � �R�F � k A ' -� � .: �* R ,;r^ . . . ;*'�5 y s�C �;rl t� '. `;�� -�� *�. : � - � -Z M �rs "" r�� ,c ..� e !�4 + ^,� y.�ti� � . . �' � r � r � . t S�� . � i � R �x r, s �� 2 4 ' R '.�� ♦ . . n . .� _ r j +"��`a � 'a tY° � � �y � � �� { u � "s ,t:. -�`� � KF '�=�' . �. . .�•' ' ., -� � J "� �. ... ' � . y�� '�' �" . it � �.. , � ., � l � '"� '�ir'� � . 1 . � •� � • J '. � � •� Y tA"��s �� 5�� 6< �,' �� • "�.`. "�. '! , .M. . . �. !`.;,s � � . , : ,:� � , •. � �� iy ° . - .. j , r : �.. Y � . . � R � ..; � . - �� } ' � �.^. . � � ` . >. ri , ��, `�� . "! F f ' �t:� �a, �� E1 � i '� � �'. .." _�,�j 4 aEr� � #� :{'��, '� . ,�. � ,�' . � i '. • .Dli. � � n��+J;'.� � Y : � . .. J 4+i+' ! {• .�� . � `, �. . i � . _ �� - r . I� � y 2 > ..,�`•«'� . �. t t I ' � �� . .�.� � i ' �i"A�T4 �.,� . i�--� � � i �, , ,} � � , 3 y � �'' t �' � �t� � ' * . K .� � - � � . " i,! �w, � � � . �v1, l��• l' . . . , �y ' �'J' � *� �'• ` , a L.� ` . � " + l ' ' �' �v �. .� � *. � '.'�[a .t �s �m —� .�� ..r� :fyh'� r � "� *�� . . � r •? � - . , � �.: � � ; � , s _ • ,, � �'t _ � ' +ti a '.s • � � � / � ti, _: ,�� V . 4 n � �' . .',,,� � �` � . �� .: .�� :, .�.;� •� ' : t•. i . y ' �� • �i � `.�.:r� � � ?` � �- �:� +�' ��. . . E . �...* ; �, `y "'� ... �. d _ • , + Z a, : r � . . i. - . i ,,, . -, ; • • '. , �S �� 'Ar�c � ` � y�l � M1 'r: � • � �.. f, i� �� . "re _ f�'.�[ .4 ... . � � ..i'►' fi -+ i i , r } �': , t` � kr. � r-f►' e+ � ^ ��i + t�'�' �' � � j. 'i � - �j �� "* r>' ,.t�^ 1 - /�! - ' +►�! 'S �t` ' � � � . • • �;. c � t�* t . kF . .. _ '4 f �r • � - r � - x ' � � �� . M, � , . - � i '�'tf� � � �. �� yh` t� �� ,� 'T' �'. _•��^ ��,4.�,. . ��. .{ r � L - � • - t;. f� A�' l• ". T � k : • ..Q t �. , .�L. , -... r, � � • . . r.��. �. 1 .� a!"! . . ,u j ♦ �!�►� �`�v' � �L 4f ,� t' � ''t� � r r. 'Y � . K . , -� _�. .: .� ksx'' t'��.�� Y � .�`�' S t �! y ^i . �T' I . 1 � � 1�1. �L:' � : ' '{' � ♦, � 1 �'�� i sti'��P< <.r. � ;�� e . , �.q.t � '..}' . , k;^ . iv i . � ,�� +� � ��'�_ a � . . �) - �z ., :� .rt'zr �, i�' . � �j. F' t �' . � ��. _�c� w �j,.�'' �.:�'� 7' •i �,'�': � R . s' . �� .. ...� ` . �� . � �: � .� �i f . �� . ,L � a�� ti ' ��. . � 'rt�..�� 'j '4�' } �t ��' ` �"1� :,��a �;i . L ,: .,,� t;%..r jy� 1� � �� .h �""�S . <�r�, �t : -•z.;l'��r �� . '! � �. �._ � ; f �+r`� � _ . �r. � s. -. �• • ' i .a.. ` � � � f:'•>. , x. �:' °z. j�""' �+. '�,� �" �`'��' � iW:r j �', _ r . �� ' s r ' �,• . K . '' �,�'^+�' . ' }� � .'� � � , ^t � � _ y � r � , - � �� 4a � `.� • + .. ..- l� `t'1. ._ . _ 1, _ .:� �. �a ,a e - � � :atc� , - ,. , . . , � • .; w 1�"� • ��'�'� ' ' • - . . �• , • ..•. 1, y � . � r ��. �� a _ , , •__ � ��. -�w..: . . . • a. r. - - • � � � � � I � � � � � � � � 1 �! �/I� /' � � � � � � � �� Advance�� Photo Simulation Solutions Contact ( 925 } 202-II507 ATTACHMENT 2 .� �=�� Existing Coverage Map � " R� KSO 11 D "Confidential and Pro�ariet�. �� Further Distribution." C 0 V E R A G E �;' ,� _ ; :, t . _ . _ ,,,�' � i� � • :, _, � _ ^ !�L�d �s 2 �n Q '" �� = � � � `S � c - 53'Ft . � � � ' " _ _ - T. "� � � � - �, :,t r • � t 1 ,- �- : � +, :': :;'. _ — _ t- :�I:'etBr.S, .: � ' - -'¢w ,� " s - � � _ ' ` - • `' " � . ' ' y s - • �!'Cr�� ..'7 �`: �'' � r' r 'a� �6 � ' - ti . � � — � � j��ii�c - "- . ' � _.:�^:' , .,r •y` ' � ( Jltv �. '� � � } `;�;• ` Y`r L _ r x ^ , _ _ � � _ ..._ _, _ ...-erw,3pC, r. "� a_ :. 4 _ `_ _ ''" � �- �. �y �:? Kirr;ir ln � _ ? - i Sa( � j �ltj r� VF�'i�0 ', c � \ ,• � �G ^aa•R� � _ � ' �2'1ti�2:•�� ' C � ��.? •'dfN( � ; r,, �� Jclw�manCn C �-' _ E _ ��apr�'CCM ;",�� ' � � ��fi . {°��. �' �ar*t�gC _- - � _'12 � -,3 �If �1 �Y • - - . � a ��'�aa�' � s �Y"�"�� p,-P. . �O -�i �- �a!�£ L7t �•a s` �; . .. . �� r `` K"ar � 6 : ,�, [� O � � F�Ifa;^�a.c � c� ^ '�'ay � � � ra %� � '- :J y , _. - L� � e r. C �"� Ct . - ' � ' � �,' �3 _ _ � .. _ _ _ uwti«�.3 : ` ` '- � ��c Ave �tiGYS �f1 � y - _ S �, �, _ ~ G � r , S�uirQtat':�'.: �: -= = _ ; y � ••y;r, � � - � " r � ^ q U�t jt,�.,r � = . �+ �� - ^ � � `� C( n `` �' t'r; l: r;J Tt 4 % �r' a E=hoHill �t - ?�.- lr '� � � r _ .;, :'., ' 1 '� �`��'C _ : 8erland = .'t�C .:? '�� _ 3 � � ' - � • � � :� � �� illah'!anaCt _ ` 'i' : �C ' ^ � _ � + � � _ _ G �' �`� � v . _ � � � Ra '� � �i�e'ir,rs�- ' � 3 =c•,=_ _ _ = �,:�:� �. •; e y't�.K ; z� � � — = C � ; -a. �Yu.�.� - ~ - :'.��er�a',;a _ ..; t � } r. - � : r r� •r �; - . = Q=��K a `' `_ _ _ , � . :� : - = 3.;;a, z J/ �'' � �;C�� _ _ ' ,c � . � � -r'sC; .�, _ _ c � � ° r. '] l�,).:'N l'L � r @I�e HillS Cr ! � - � � Cii�?�jt3M�-1 ��,1� � l v rl.•�L n '-� O �i1�T`�� 1 �� AiV�r' �„ �C . �%f Legend � ��' !.��'!. - �::� { . Arro;otn - Existing On Air Sites � k° ��'� ` �j�� _ -.` • ' ,r -' ' �a�rol :{.� a �� . - In Building (-76 dBm) � t ',. p4dJ��i�'*" '_ , p , - - In Car ( -84 dBm) � r � At? �d � c �^ c" � _ . : �: :n �:.. �* ,_ �'� ` ` . � � �� ` .'�'` �O c ��----m'_! � ~ �� , -�� r J `� •- = On Street ( -91dBm) � ��y��"' � ;� ' :° ,�. ��{�� ,`��" ,^� y _ _ ` . . :- ; ` _- _ _ � �.. � - Proposed Site _ _ � . ¢ 3y � 1 ; �' - — - � � ^` ;� � �� = � ' - _ _ - Br;t'E tt _ � Co _ � . _ - �uiy z6, �o�c� � �j� 4 . � , �� i�,_ . . , Proposed Coverage Map „ �o�Ksol�o Canfidential and Pr+� �r��r�,. ��t �� Further Distribution." C 0 V E R A G E , � ' _ --�- - i C � ` �C �`. .. _ . . . . �_ -. - � ;, �� . =' y � . a � r - ? j C : _ - _ . r. 2 .. f � ,� � _ _ -. sr �, � � = ,.. C'i� �•L '�'�'i� 1 � � �v �:=v� , - '_ .r {' � , •t C • ' - `&, � t . - �.'7: _ 31 `5�of c �� r C ` , � j . � - - _ t =_ _ y _ .�.��•� �; �� p } m �.�= - � �i � • ' " . �'�65= �0�.�7� .��. � - �• '� ' " ' r ` � �+`.: � ,1^ -� = � : i , . .r J � i �'� �' . +'y I Y .' � �, . - � � - '�'' _ ..�''..... �' � r � :r.e-wvGL .,. n. �' _ - =i ,� - y _ _ ; S _^ ' _ , -' ` , r - �: ry �, Kirwir Lr, � _ � = �t - - : �'�■ _ _ :�. ' �LSZ;t' ,. ,� `_ ' : � � BG''^�2^n� - _ .. C2n��l:� ,} ' �o �, a � - -, . ��. C�:';'- i� _.� - ',�p�, ( �.� ;t � n ,n., � L � Jc ►��manln Ce �:_ _ • _ - j�de�t�tc�, ;":' � � J �! �I. �'7ajj� ��I� Legend - Existing On Air Sites - In Building (-76 dBm) In Car f -84 dBm) On Street ( -91dBm} � Proposed Site ,� a � �� _ .�.i�IT� r �� 3f{��'i+� ��: ,_- r�. .'�._. , - . - d�Lp �� "'=''s �� y`t � ~ � 'dr `� � ' =J � C'w � y�' � F3!la�la;ri _ �`. a � t � ��'�� av c �� ` � a � : � � ~ - � � -�:. •e - - ' � `,�, U°o- "° � � ':a' "'�` 3ricn Ln - = _ ._ -_ � � ` a � �� 9 f�..� �aUt(21�i=-- _ __ - _ � ti .c. :�� y:,.. _ ,� � - � --.�,� � � _ � ' .',; . � '1 , ' . `` , � �' j � 1 -•- . ` ^ . _� ,-.,:'��ft ,� � , a � _ � �" �C�7H1��L R��. �r ,�;. - _ r . . . � - ^ f f' .,; �' _ _ �.� � .� ° �, _� �' _ _ �,, Fe _,� �t = � _. .. - � - _ ? � � j�� " • � � �.� � .� � ' � ,� .. �. � -, • �9' q ' - " c ? p , �' - - � _ - r .� ' ��'r�i!^qSJ,. _ ^� _ - �� - - _ - ^ .i;�r'.� �� a �'� tan k`�n L - � r - _ .. � e�� e , r° .R��•° � Y j _ J y ,' ` . � - , I� S a �� ` � �' _ -" ' _ _ • - ' S : . F� � v ' �. nd� n�` a � P' � - '.,� � ,�� 'rac '� °'��'� �'< < � � � .�!7 Cx E� Bl�e Hills Cr � � � r = �, ` �, -: _ c � �� ` � ~ �'Lrn�. = ��,�3'�'�'D a' d�, � � � �� • � � / '�� +' [CdO� _ C' i �` 7 Arreyotn - � ` ` c' _ . e. � � • _ '�Y �f �!j� .��r�` �� S, � �a�^g� ,i�,, s i � - � � ora � t n�'na5 �t , � �� 7 � � i7A,.. �7 � �J� Cr � = �? Fti :: ]: .. ,S �^"! j ' -' J � �� ,�� _ `�. -3 ` i ��;'` ��,Q c,- �al_:_-, �. �-.� =-2�[ �"•- - ; �0 , J � � - `_ � �� \\� ,` _ � - � " , . _ - � � -"•:' ; J ` � f ` r . [ � 1 " _ - �� BA;t'E -. _ � C � ' ' . - �� U�y �6, 201� � , =�� {��J�� Dayna Aguirre ATTACHMENT 3 From: Sartini, Richard [RRSr�pge.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 2:07 PA� To: Dayna Aguirre Cc: Tred Haglund; Blaine Swafford Subject: RE: Proposed T-Mabile Sife at 3ubb/Regnart Attachments: SF24189-95CD's-2Ju1y2010.pdf Dayna, Per Mr. Jung question below, the proposed antennas cannc t be flush mounted to the pole. PG8�E must comply with the rules set forth in "General Order 95" (G095) imposed by thE� State of California. Below is an excerpt from G095 along with a link to the actual document. G095 requires that PG&E maintain a safe workable climbing space on all wood pole structures. In this case the pole in question is a transmissioi� structure and is not part of the Joint Pole Association. The bracket shown in your drawings is the only bracket approve j by PG&E for installation of antennas on wood transmission structures. This bracket allows for one half of the pole to be available for safe climbing. PG8�E would require the cabinets occupy the same half of tl�e pole that the antenna mount would occupy. (as shown in the drawings) Please feet free to forward this email to the Mr. Jung at the :,ity of Cupertino planning dept. He is welcome to contact me directly if he has any additional questions regarding the pro��osed installation. Regards, Richard Sartini Project Manager Pacific Gas and Electric Company 245 Market St Mail Code N10D San Francisco, CA 94105 Mobile: 415-308-9400 E-Mail: rrsrCa�pqe.com http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/published/Qraphics/5259:� Climbing space shall be maintained from the ground level. Climbing space, measured from center line of pote, shall bE; provided on one side or in one quadrant of all poles or structures vvith dimensions as specified in the following: The width of the climbing space measured horizoritally through the centerline of the pole shall not be les:� than 5 i Attachment 4 T-Mobile West Corp. • Propos �d Base Station (Site No. SF24189D) 11371 Bubb Roacl • Cupertino, California Statement of Hammett & E�iison, Inc., Consulting Engineers The firm of Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulti�ig Engineers, has been retained on behalf of T-Mobile West Corp., a personal wireless telecommuni�;ations carrier, to evaluate the base station (Site No. SF24189D) proposed to be located at 11371 Bt bb Road in Cupertino, California, for compliance with appropriate guidelines limiting human exposure to radio frequency ("RF") electromagnetic fields. Prevailing E:cposure Standards The U.S. Congress requires that the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") evaluate its actions for possible significant impact on the e�ivironment. 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 wireless services are as follows: Wireless Service Frequercv Band Occupational Limit Public Limit Microwave (Point-to-Point) 5-80,C00 MHz 5.00 mW/cm 1.00 mW/cm BRS (Broadband Radio) 2,E�00 5.00 1.00 AWS (Advanced Wireless) 2,100 5.00 1.00 PCS (Personal Communication) 1,5�50 5.00 1.00 Cellular F 70 2.90 0.58 SMR (Specialized Mobile Radio) F 55 2.85 0.57 700 MHz � 00 2.35 0.47 [most restrictive frequency range] 30—� 00 1.00 0.20 Power line frequencies (60 Hz) are well belov� the applicable range of these standards, and there is considered to be no compounding effect frc►m simultaneous exposure to power line and radio frequency fields. General Facility Requirements Base stations typically consist of two distinct p��rts: the electronic transceivers (also called "radios" or "channels") that are connected to the traditionsil wired telephone lines, and the passive antennas that send the wireless signals created by the radi��s out to be received by individual subscriber units. The transceivers are often located at ground le� el and are connected to the antennas by coaxial cables. A small antenna for reception of GPS signals is also required, mounted with a clear view of the sky. Because of the short wavelength of the frequ�;ncies assigned by the FCC for wireless services, the antennas require line-of-sight paths for their signals to propagate well and so are installed at some height above ground. The antennas are design�;d 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 phys cally very near the antennas. HAMMETT & EDIS(�N, INC. �:�?�SL�;1�ti� �:�vc;�tii�t:tz4 TM24189X596 f s.�� r•a:��ve�seo Page 1 of 3 T-Mobile West Corp. • Propos�:d Base Station (Site No. SF24189D) 11371 Bubb Roacl • Cupertino, California Computer IVlodeling Method The FCC provides direction for determining ccmpliance in its Office of Engineering and Technology Bulletin No. 65, "Evaluating Compliance witli 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 tlie distance from it (the "inverse square law"). The conservative nature of this method for evaluati:lg exposure conditions has been verified by numerous field tests. Site I)escription Based upon information provided by T-Mobi e, including construction drawings by Michael Wilk Architecture, dated July 2, 2010, it is proposed to mount three RFS Model APXV 18-206513-C directional panel antennas on an existing 60'/2-ioot utility pole sited in the public right-of-way located near 11371 Bubb Road in Cupertino. The ant�nnas would be mounted with up to 2° downtilt at an effective height of about 44'/z feet above grouncl and would be oriented toward 0°T, 120°T, and 240°T, to provide service in all directions. The maxitr um effective radiated power in any direction would be 360 watts, representing simultaneous operatior� at 180 watts each for AWS and for PCS. There are reported no other wireless telecommunications �ase stations nearby. Stu�iy Results For a person anywhere at ground, the maxim am RF exposure level due to the proposed T-Mobile operation is calculated to be 0.0012 mW/cm �vhich is 0.12% of the applicable public exposure limit. The maximum calculated level at the second-floor elevation of any nearby residence is 0.22% of the public exposure limit. It should be noted that these results include several "worst-case" assumptions and therefore are expected to overstate actual p��wer density levels from the proposed operation. Recommendecl Mitigation Measures Due to their mounting locations, the T-Mobile �ntennas would not be accessible to the general public, and so no mitigation measures are necessary tc comply with the FCC public exposure guidelines. To prevent occupational exposures in excess of tl�e FCC guidelines, no access within 2 feet directly in front of the antennas themselves, such as might occur during maintenance work on the pole, should be allowed while the base station is in operation, unless other measures can be demonstrated to ensure that occupational protection requirements are rr et. * Located at least 25 feet away, based on the drawings. "� � � ' HAMMETT & EDI50N, INC. co�s�t;i°�:�c E:;�;<;iyrt:tz5 TM24189X596 �- snN e•K�iNCisc°o Page 2 of 3 T-Mobile West Corp. • Propos�:d Base Station (Site No. SF24189D) 11371 Bubb Roacl • Cupertino, California Posting explanatory warning signs at the ante;inas and/or on the pole below the antennas, such that the signs would be readily visible from any a:igle of approach to persons who might need to work within that distance, would be sufficient to mee� FCC-adopted guidelines. Conclusion Based on the information and analysis above, it is the undersigned's professional opinion that the operation of the base station proposed by T-N[obile West Corp. at 11371 Bubb Road in Cupertino, California, will comply with the prevailing sta�idards 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 �reas 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 static ns. Posting of explanatory signs is recommended to establish compliance with occupational exposure limitations. Authorship The undersigned author of this statement is :� qualified Professional Engineer, holding California Registration No. E-18063, which expires on Ju1e 30, 2011. This work has been carried out under his direction, and all statements are true and correc : of his own knowledge except, where noted, when data has been supplied by others, which data he beliE;ves to be correct. QR pf ESSION �� p,� M.4 Ty F, , �' at athur, P.E. �' No. E-19063 m � w a E � 707/996-5200 July 28, 2010 ,k � * `�� F �fCT 2\�P� �\� qTF OF C A1-�F�� j' Warning signs should comply with OET-65 color :ymbol, and content recommendations. Contact information should be provided (e.g., a telephone number) to arrar�ge for access to restricted areas. The selection of language(s) is not an engineering matter, and guidance from tt e landlord, local zoning or health authority, or appropriate professionals may be required. Signage may also nee i to comply with the requirements of PUC G095. HAMMETT & EDISON, INC. cta�s�;i,ri�,c r:;�cl�r�:�:f:.� TM24189X596 �� s.�� rH:��c°isc-o Page 3 of 3 FCC Radio Freq�iency Protection Guide The U.S. Congress required (1996 Telecom A�;t) the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") to adopt a nationwide human exposure standarcl 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 Radiofreque�icy Electromagnetic Fields," published in 1986 by the Congressionally chartered National Council o i Radiation Protection and Measurements ("NCRP"). Separate limits apply for occupational and pub ic 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 Americ�n 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 limit � apply for continuous exposures from all sources and are intended to provide a prudent margin of saPety for all persons, regardless of age, gender, size, or health. As shown in the table and chart below, separsite limits apply for occupational and public exposure conditions, with the latter limits (in italics and/c�r dashed) up to five times more restrictive: Frequency Electromagnet c Fields ,f is frequencv of emission in MHz) Applicable Electric Magnetic Equivalent Far-Field Range Field Strength Field Strength Power Density (MHz) (V/m) (A/m) (mW/cm 0.3 — 1.34 614 614 1.63 1.63 100 100 1.34— 3.0 614 823.8/�� 1.63 2.19/f 100 180/f 3.0 — 30 1842/ f 823.8/�' 4.89/ f 2.19/f 900/ t� 180/f 30 — 300 61.4 27.5 0.163 0.0729 1.0 0.2 300 — 1,500 3.54�f 1.59ff �f/106 �f/238 f/300 f/1500 1,500 — 100,000 137 61.4 0364 0.163 5.0 1.0 1000 / Occupational Exposure 100 f PCS � � � 10 �� Cell o � 3 � FM a" Q � 1 ♦ � �� " f ♦� � 0.1 / Public Exposure �.1 1 1� 1�� 1� 1� 1� Frequency (MHz) Higher levels are allowed for short periods of ti ne, such that total exposure levels averaged over six or thirty minutes, for occupational or public setti;igs, 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 all�wances 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 rect�.ngular 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 proje�ctions. HAMMETT & EDISON, INC. FCC Guidelines ' CONSULTING ENGINEERS SAN FRANCISCO Figure 1 - RFR.CALC 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 t�� ensure that its licensees do not, cumulatively, have a significant impact on the environment. The ma:cimum permissible exposure limits adopted by the FCC (see Figure 1) apply for continuous exposures =rom all sources and are intended to provide a prudent margin of safety for all persons, regardless of age, geider, 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 microwa ✓e links. The antenna patterns are not fully formed in the near field at these antennas, and the FCC ()ffice of Engineering and Technology Bulletin No. 65 (August 1997) gives suitable formulas far calculating power density within such zones. For a panel or whip antenna, power density C= 180 x 0.1 x Pnet � in mW��2� B ,�t x D x h O.1x16xr�xP and for an aperture antenna, maximum power density Smax = � x h2 � ln mW��2� where 6gW = half-power beamwidth of the antenna, in degrees, and Pnet = net power input to the antenna, in watts, D= distance from antenna, i�i meters, h= aperture height of the antenna, in meters, and r� = 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: 2.56x1.64x100xRFF xERP power density S= , in mW/cm 4x,nxD where ERP = total ERP (all polarizations), in kilowatts, RFF = relative field factor at the di -ection to the actual point of calculation, and D= distance from the center of r adiation to the point of calculation, in meters. The factor of 2.56 accounts for the increase i:i 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 int � 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 fc�r the description of uneven terrain in the vicinity, to obtain more accurate projections. HAMMETT & EDISON, INC. a CONSULTII�IG ENGINEHRS Methodology SAN FRANCLSCO Figure 2 Colin Jung Attachment 5 Subject: FW: Referral of a T-Mobile Micr�cell Proposal, file no. DIR-2010-28 -----Original Message----- From: Peter Friedland [mailto:peterfriedland@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 11:56 PM To: Colin 7ung; Avinash Gadre Subject: Re: Referral of a T-Mobile Microcell Proposal, file no. DIR-2010-28 Colin, The following is my assessment of the application: 1. RF analysis seems properly done and maximum exposure is well within Federal safety guidelines. 2. I find the microcell to be visible on the power pole to be visible only if you already know where to look and see no serious esthetic issues associated with it. 3. It covers a serious hole in T-Mobile coverage along Bubb Road. I note that it still leaves the hilly area off Bubb (up Regnart and Lindy) with minimal coverage--that is true for all of the major carriers, unfortunately. Peter Friedland Vice-Chair, TICC At 10:56 AM 8/12/2010, Colin Jung wrote: >Avinash & Peter: > >This is an application for a Director's Minor Modification to allow a >T-Mobile microcell consisting of three panel antennas and associated >equipment on a PG&E pole located in front of 11371 Bubb Road. The >application is being transmitted to you in ttio PDF files for your >comments. > >Please note that applications like this one are a direct result of TICC >work and support of the revised Wireless Comrrunications Facilities >Ordinance. > >Colin 7ung >Senior Planner >City of Cupertino > > > > > > > > i T-MOBILE WEST CORPORATION . ■ a DELAWARE CORPORATION 1855 GATEWAY BLVD., 9TH FLOOR, CONCORD, CA 94520 usA Nortn CALL: 811 AT LEASC TWO DAYS 9EFORE YOU DIC UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT OF NORTHERN CALIFORhI[A ,_. P�� .�'� � � ��:��: ��;�: ,��.��=�+� �� .. i. , a 1-e. ....�.,.........� A O `"'t f t'� ^ t � � � ,• ,r.� ,.�. _ 'v. i i.�t 4 \� :"°4 o.J � '.�.. . .-, �: (J' �°�P� �'� � a . � �",�, � � `�'� _ � ON BU BB RD. BETWEEN FOLKSTON E DR. & CON RADIA CT. IN FRONT OF 11371 BUBB ROAD CUPERTINO, CA 95014 CODE COMPLIANCE PROJECT DESCRIPTION DRIVING DIRECTIONS ALL WORK AND MATERUILS SHALL BE PERFORMED AND INSTALLED IN THIS IS AN UNMANNED TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY FOR T-MOBILE FROM T-MOBILE OFFICE: CONCORD, CA ACCORDANCE WfTH THE CURRENT EDITIONS OF THE FOLLOWING CODES AS CONSISiING OF THE INSiALLATION AND OPERA710N OF ANTENNAS dc ASSOCUITED ADOPTED BY THE LOCAL GOVERNING AUTNORRIES. NOTHING IN THESE PLANS IS EQUIPMENT ON A WOODEN POIE. 1. HEAD SOUTHWEST ON CUYTON RD TOWARD EDIE CT/PINE ST - 0.2 �11 TO BE CONSTRUCTED TO PERMR WORK NOT CONFORMING TO THESE CODES. 2. MERGE ONTO CA-242 S VIA THE RAMP TO OAKLAND - 1.2 MI ��nu •nnrrin�� rn nn� r. j 4FR[:F f1NTn I-/'iRfl S-�7 9 NI 1. CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS 4. TAKE THE MISSION BLVD/STATE ROUTE 282 IXIT TOWARD I-680 - 0.2 MI 2. 2007 CALJFORNIA BUILDING CODE 1. (N) T-MOBILE ANTENNAS MOUNTED WITH (N) H-MOUNT ON WEST SIDE OF 5. KEEP RIGHT AT THE FORK, FOLLOW SIGNS FOR MISSION BLVD AND MERGE ONTO 3. 2007 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE (E) 60'-9' HIGH WOOD POLE. A�ISSION BLVD - 1.0 MI 4. 2007 CAl1FORNIA PLUMBING CODE ��3� pANEL ANTENNAS 6. TAKE THE RAMP ONTO I-880 S- 3.9 MI 5. 2007 CAUFORNIA ELECTRIC CODE �� 7. TAKE TNE D(R ON THE LEFf ONTO CA-237 W TOWARD MOUNTAIN VIEW - 9.3 MI 6. ANY LOCAL BUILDING CODE AMENDMENTS TO THE ABOVE 2. (N) ONE (3) 3308 HTS CABINET, ONE (1) ELECTRIC METER dc ASSOC4ITED B• TAKE THE D(R ONTO CA-85 S TOWARD CA-82 S/LOS GATOS/SANTA CRUZ - 7. CITY/COUNTY ORDINANCES MISC. SUPPORT EQUIPMENT TO BE MOUNTED ON (E� W000 POLE. 4.5 MI 9. TAKE THE STEVENS CREEK BLVD IXR - 0.2 MI 3. ALL (N) ANTENNAS, CABINEfS dc MISCELLANEOUS EQUIPMENT WILL BE 10. TURN RIGHT AT STEVENS CREEK BLVD - 410 FT PAINTED TO MATCH POLE 11. TAKE THE 1 ST LEFf ONTO BUBB RD - DESTINATION WILL BE ON THE RIGHT - ADA REQUIREMENT'S: FACILffY IS UNMANNED AND NOT FOR HUMAN 1.4 MI HA8ITATION. HANDICAPPED ACCESS NOT REQUIRED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CAL.IFORNW ADMINISTRATNE STATE CODE PART 2, TITLE 24, CHAPTER 11 B, SECTION 11036. PROJECT TEAM ARCHITECT / ENGINEER: MICHAEL WILK ARCHITECTURE 833 MARKET STREET, SUfTE 805 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103 CONTACT: FRANCES LESHER PHONE: (415) 839-9594 FAX: (415) 904-8388 EMNL• fleaherOwilkarch.com SITE ACQUISITION: SUTRO CONSULTING LLC 112 HEBARB ST SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060 CONTACT: BUUNE SWAFFORD PHONE: (831) 295-0868 EMAIL• bawaffordOsutroconsulting.com RF ENGINEER: T-MOBILE 1855 GATEWAY BLVD., SUfTE 900 CONCORD, CA 94520 CONTACT: PRAKASH ZOTING PHONE: (469) 877-7957 EMAIL• prakash.zotingOt-mobile.com APPLICANT/LESSEE: T-MOBILE 1855 GATEWAY BLVD., SUITE 900 CONCORD, CA 94520 CONTACT: MIKE DIPIERO PHONE: (925) 260-9275 EMAIL• mika.dipieroOt-mobile.com ZONING MANAGER: SUTRO CONSULTING LLC 4166 CLARINBRIDGE CIRCLE DUBLJN, CA 94568 CONTACT: DAYNA AGUIRRE PHONE: (925) 784-7888 FAX: (925) 551-0228 EMAIL• daguirre0autroconsufting.com CONSTRUCTION MANAGER: T-MOBILE 1855 GATEWAY BLVD., SUITE 900 CONCORD, CA 94520 CONTACT: TRED HAGLUND PHONE: (805) 264-2680 EMAIL• tred.haglundOt-mobile.com SffE ADDRESS: APN: LATTfUDE: LONGITUDE: ZONING: JURISDICTION: TELEPHONE: POWER: PROJECT INFORMATION IN FRONT OF 11371 BU88 ROAD CUPERTINO, CA 95014 PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY (IN FRONT 0� 356-23-046 3T 18' 10.84' (NAD 27) 127 02' 57.85' (NAD 27) R 1-7.5 CITY OF CUPERTINO ATdcT PGdcE � � ■ VICINITY MAP w.'a»+... � � a�n.�m...e � `*�� Y+r D� �^rw�+ortn v tivaoa �r � � 9 s �.�� !" a { .�.. s� �S tene. a n � ,,,�,., 3 ��,,,, q rrrM M IYAtMtw O' `:.:�•• `.�� TE � �.✓""=• .. 4 11otiw� st w1.�e.wa o s � � . w�... �,...,. �� P 6 l �«+� � `i � � � � � , 4 a q � �� P�w*� 1 � � POWER ORDER �` '� � �� PoW� ,�PU�,,,oN oA�: C U P E RT I N O POWER APPLICATION NUMBER: ,«.�..,:, �.�.a +�^u ,so�w+a � £ 8 7 3 �� .� � �... a. . �� , , � - 1 � � � � '� � 0 � �.ev.o � 's°`q'� . , a,.4 � � � � N � GENERAL CONTRACTOR NOTES DO NOT SCALE DRAWING: CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL PLANS AND D(ISTING DIMENSIONS AND CONDRIONS ON THE JOB SITE AND SHALL IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE ARCHfTECT IN WRITiNG OF ANY DISCREPANCIES BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH THE WORK OR BE I KttiF'UNSIkiLt hUft SAAAt. I SHEET INDEX SHEET DESCRIPTION T-1 TITLE SHEET T-2 GENERAL NOTES LS1 SURVEY A-1 OVERALL SITE PLAN / ENLARGED SITE PLAN A-2 ELEVATIONS A-3 CONSTRUCTION DETAILS A-4 POWER & TELCO SOURCE / PARCEL MAP / AERIAL MAP PS-1 PHOTO SIMULATIONS REF-1 RF DATA SHEET / ANTENNA SPECIFICATIONS REF-2 EQUIPMENT SPECIFICATIONS ....�o il � be T-MOBILE WEST CORPORATION, a DELAWARE CORPORATION 1855 GATEWAY BLVD., 9TH FLOOR CONCORD, CA 94520 PROJECT INFORMATION: SF24189D PG&E REGNART � IN FRONT OF 11371 BUBB ROAD CUPERTINO, CA 95014 CURRENT ISSUE DATE: 09/03/10 100% ZONING DWGS-REV =REV.:=DATE: DESCRIPTION: BY:= 0 05/21/10 90' ZONING DRAWINGS FL 1 07/22/10 �009� ZONING � DRAWINGS � � 100� ZONING 2 09 03 10 DRAWINGS - REVISION FL PROJECT ARCHITECT/ENGINEER: MICHAEL WILK M ARCNITECTURE � 833 Market Street, #805 San Francisco, CA 94103 T: 41 �839-9594 F: 41 �904-8388 www.wilkarch.com U LT, �RAWN BY: CHK.: APV.:= FL MWA MW �HEET TITLE: TITLE SHEET :SHEET NUMBER: � NOT USED pi�~�� -B �',,4 �;�`.c";� ��.,��`�� r`�'"�1� a `��`' t : ._ s ......._.,..►...l." '`/ � •r t _ - S , y ,. � . rPi : t . , r � � � -~ a ` �? �! z';g�` � ' � ``� � � k�. �. A ! � . � NOT USED 3. ,� ;OUS. �GR. r. 'PROX. ;CH 1. DG. .KG. �. >T. r.s. )L )MP. )NC. )NT. R. �� :PT. 7. F. a AG. M. J. P. 2. i. S.P. L DWG. (E) EA. E.B. E.J. EL EL.AS. ELEY. ENCL EQ. EQPT. DCP. DCPO. EXT. FDN. FlN. Fl_. Fl./1SH. F.O.C. F.O.F. F.O.S. FRP F.S. FT. fTG. GA. GALV. GND. GR. G.S.M. GYP. HDG HORIZ. HT. I.D. INT. LMU LT. LVR. LW. MAX. M.B. MECH. MEMB. MEf. MFR. Muv. MISC. MTD. Ml'L. (N) N.I.C. NOM. ANCHOR BOLT AIR-CONDRIONING ACOUSTICAL AGGREGATE ALUMINUM ALTERNATE APPROXIMATE ARCHfTECTURAL BOARD BUILDING BLOCKING BEAM BOTfOM BASE TRANCEIVER STATION BUILT-UP ROOFlNG CEMENT CAST IRON CAST-IN-PLACE CEILJNG CAULKING CLEAR CONCRETE MASONRY UNR COLUMN COMPOSff10N CONCREfE CONI'INUOUS CENTER DOUBLE DEPARTMENT DETAIL DOUGLAS FlR DUIMETER DIAGONAL DIMENSION DOWN DAMPPROOFlNG DOOR DOWNSPOUT DRY STANDPIPE DETAIL DRAWING D(15T1NG EACH DCPANSION BOLT DCPANSION JOINT ELEVATION ELASTOMERIC 5 I ABBREVIATIONS GROUT OR PLAS'TER CONCREfE : EARTH _ ___ _:_ _ __ _. _ ,_ PLYWOOD GRAVEL O WOOD CONTINUOUS � WOOD BIOCKING STEEL 6 I LEGEND ELEVATION ENCLOSURE EQUAL EQUIPMENT DCPANSION DCPOSED EXTERIOR FOUNDAl10N FlNISH FLOOR FLASHING FACE OF CONC. FACE OF FlNISH FACE OF STUDS FlBERGLASS REINFORCED PANELS FULL SIZE F00T OR FEET FOOTING GAUGE GALVANIZED GROUND GRADE GALVANIZED SHEEf METAL GYPSUM HOT DIPPED GALVANIZED HORIZONTAL HEIGHT INSIDE DIAMETER INTERIOR LINE I�ONROR UNR ucHr LOUVER uc�icKr MAXIMUM IdACHINE BOLT MECHANIG4L MEMBRANE METAL MANUFACTURER �n��imuro MISCELLANEOUS MOUNTED A�IATERIAL NEW NOT IN CONTRACT NOMINAL N.T.S. 0/ O.C. O.D. OPNG. PL PLAS. PLYWD. P.T. PTDF RAD. R.D. REF. REINF. REQ. R.O. SCHED. SECT. SHT. SHTG. SIM. SQ. S.S. STD. STL.. SYM. TdcG 1}iK. TA�A � T.W. �. U.N.O. VERT. VIF w/ WD. W/0 WP. rri. W.W.F NOT TO SCALE OVER ON CENTER OUTSIDE DIAMEfER OPENING PUTE PLASTER PLYWOOD PRESSURE TREATED PRESSURE TREATED DOUGLAS FlR RADIUS ROOF DRAIN REFERENCE REINFORCED REQUIRED ROUGH OPENING SCHEDULE SECTION SHEET SHEATHING SIMILAR SQUARE STAINLESS STEEL STANDARD S'TEEL SYMMEfRICAL TONGUE de GROOVE THICK TOWER MOUNTED AMPUFlER TUBE STEEL TOP OF WALL �i� UNLESS NOTED oniEr�nsE VERIICAL VERIFY IN FlELD WITH WOOD WfTHOUT WATERPROOF wu�ni WELDED WIRE FABRIC 1. PRIOR TO THE SUBMISSION OF BIDS, THE BIDDING CONTRACTOR SFUILL VISR THE CELL SfTE TO BECOME FAMIWIR WITH THE (E) CONDfT10NS AND TO CONFlRM THAT THE WORK CAN BE ACCOMPLISHED AS SHOWN ON THE CONSTRUCTION DWGS. ANY DISCREPANCY FOUND SHALL BE BROUGFfT TO THE ATTENTION OF ARCHffECT/ENGINEER. PRIOR TO SUBMITTING iHE BID dc STARTING CONSTRUCTION. 2. ALL MATERW.S FURNISHED dc INSTALLED SHALL BE IN STRICT ACCOROANCE W/ ALL APPUCABLE CODES, REGUU110NS dc ORDINANCES. CONTRIICTOR SW1LL ISSUE ALL APPROPRUITE NOTICES & COMPLY W/ ALL UWS, ORDINANCES, RULES, REGUUTIONS dc LAWFUL ORDERS OF ANY PUBUC AUTHORfTY REGARDIN6 THE PERFORMANCE OF THE WORK. 3. ALL WORK CARRIED OUT SHALL COMPLY W/ ALL APPUCABLE MUNICIPAL dt UTIUTY COMPANY SPECIFlCATIONS dt LOCAL JURISDICTIONAL CODES, ORDIWWCES dc APPUCABLE CODE dc REGULATIONS. 4. DWGS PROVIDED HERE ARE NOT TO BE SCALED dc ARE INTENDED TO SHOW OUTUNE ONLY. 5. U.N.O., THE WORK SFiALL INCLUDE FURNISHING b1ATERW.S, EQUIPMENT, APPURTENANCES dc UBOR NECESSAFiY TO COMPLETE ALL INSTALUTIONS AS INDICATED ON THE DWGS. 6. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL ALL EQUIPMENT dc 4MTERW.S IN ACCORDANCE W/ �IANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS UNLESS SPECIFlCALLY STATED OTHERMIISE. 7. If THE SPECIFlED EQUIPMENT C/WNOT BE INSTALLED PS SHOWN ON THESE DWGS, THE CONTRACTOR SFIALL PROPOSE AN /1LTERNATNE INSTALUTION FOR APPROVAL BY THE ARCHITECT/ENGINEER. 8. CONTRACTOR SHALL DETERMINE ACTUAL ROUTING OF CONDUfT, POWER dc T1 CABIES, GROUNDING CABLES dc COAX AS SHOWN ON THE POWER, GROUNDING de TELCO PLAN DWG. CONTRACTOR SHALL UTIUZE (� TRAYS AND/OR SHALL ADD (N) TRAYS AS NECESSARY. COP(TRACTOR SW4LL CONFlRM THE ACTUAL ROUTiNG W/ THE CONSTRUCTtON MANAGER. 9. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROTECT IXISTING IMPROVEMENTS, PAVEMENTS, CURBS, LANDSCAPING AND STRUCTURES. ANY DAMAGED PART SHALL BE REPAIRED AT CONTRACTOR'S IXPENSE TO THE SATISFACTION OF OWNER. 10. CONTRACTOR SHALL LEGALLY dc PROPERLY DISPOSE OF ALL SCRAP MATERWS SUCH AS COAXUIL CABLES dc OTHER ffEMS REMOVED FROM THE (E) FACILRY. ANTENW�S REMOVED SHALL BE RETURNED TO THE OWNER'S DESIGNATED LOCATION. 11. CONTRACTOR SFWl LEAVE PREMISES IN CLEAN CONDRION. 12. ALL CONCREfE REPAIR WORK SHALL BE DONE IN ACCORDANCE W/ MAERICAN CONCREfE INSTiTUTE (ACI) 301. 13. ANY NEW CONCREfE NEEDED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION SHALL HAVE 2500 PSI STRENGTH AT 28 DAYS. ALL CONCRETING WORK SHALL BE DONE IN ACCORDANCE W/ ACI 318 COOE REWIREMEMS. 14. ALL STRUCTURAL STEEL WORK SHALL BE DONE IN ACCORDANCE W/ AISC SPECIFlCATIONS. 15. THESE DWGS ARE FORMATTED TO BE FULL-SIZE AT 24' X 36.' CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL (E) DIMENSIONS dc CONDfT10NS PRIOR TO COMMENCING ANY WORK. ALL DIMENSIONS OF (E) CONSTRUCTION SHOWN ON THE DWGS MUST BE VERIFlED. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTiFY ARCHfTECT OF ANY DISCREPANCIES PRIOR TO ORDERING MATERIAL OR PROCEEDING W/ CONSTRUCTION. 16. THE (E) CELL SfTE IS IN FULL COMMERCUIL OPERATION. ANY CONSTRUCTION WORK BY CONTRACTOR SW1LL NOT DISRUPT THE D(ISTING NORMAL OPERATION. ANY WORK ON (E) EQUIP�IENT MUST BE COORDINATED W/ CONTRACTOR. ALSO, WORK SHOULD BE SCHmULED FOR AN APPROPRIATE MIUNTENANCE WINDOW USUALLY IN LOW TRAFFlC PERIODS AF7ER �IIDNIGHT. 17. IF THE CELL SfTE IS ACTIVE, ALL SAFETY PRECAUTIONS MUST BE TAKEN WHEN WORKING AROUND HIGH LEVELS OF ELECTROMAGNETIC RADIATION. EWIPMENT SHOULD BE SHUT-DOWN PRIOR TO PERFORMING ANY WORK THAT COULD D(POSE THE WORKERS TO DANGER. PERSONAL RF D(POSURE MONITORS ARE ADVISED TO BE WORN TO /1LERT OF MIY DANGEROUS IXPOSURE LEVELS. PROVIDE A PORTABLE FlRE EXTINGUISHER W/ A RATING OF NOT LESS THAN 2-A OR 2-/�/10-BC WfTHIN 18. 75 FEET TRAVEL DISTANCE TO ALL PORTIONS OF THE WORK AREA DURIN6 CONSTRUCTION. 19. CONTRACTOR SHALL USE BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES TO PREVENT STORM WATER POLLU110N DURING CONSTRUCTION. 3 I GENERAL NOTES � SPOT ELEVATION � REVISION xO 6RID REfERENCE � DETAIL REFERENCE � ELEVATION RffERENCE �� SECTION REFERENCE 1. THE COM'RACTOR SHALL CONTACT UTIUTY LOCATING SERVICES PRIOR TO THE START OF CONSTRUCTION. 2. ALL IXISTING ACTNE SEINER, WATER, GAS, ELECTRIC, AND OTHER UTILI'TIES WHERE ENCOUNTERED IN THE WORK, SHALL BE PROTECTED AT ALL T1MES, AND WHERE REWIRED FOR THE PROPER DCECUTiON OF THE WORK, SHALL BE RELOCATED AS DIRECTED BY CONTRACTOR. EXTREME CAUTION SHOULD BE USED BY THE CONTRACTOR WHEN D(CAVATING OR DRIWNG PIERS AROUND OR NEAR UT1LfTIES. COM'RACTOR SHALL PROVIOE SAFEfY TFL4INING FOR THE WORKING CREW. THIS WILL INCIUDE BUT NOT BE UMRED TO A) FALL PROTEC110N B) CONFlNED SPACE C) ELECTRICAL SAFETY D) TRENCHING dc IXCAVATION. 3. ALL SITE WORK SHALL BE AS INDICATED ON THE DRAWINGS AND PROJECT SPECIFlCATIONS. 4. IF NECESSARY, RUBBISH, STUMPS, DEBRIS, STICKS, STONES AND OTHER REFUSE SFW1 BE REMOVED FROM THE SITE AND DISPOSED OF LEGALLY. 5. ALL IXISTING INACTNE SEWER, WATER. GAS, ELECTRIC AND OT}1ER UTIUTIES. WHICH INTERFERE WITH THE IXECUTION OF THE WORK, SHALL BE REMOVED AND/OR CAPPED, PLUGGED OR OTHERWISE DISCONTINUED AT POINTS WHICH WILL NOT INTERFERE WITH THE DCECUTION OF THE WORK, SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF COMRACTOR, OWNER AND/OR LOCAL UTIUTIES. 6. CONTRACTOR SHALL �IINIMIZE DISTURBANCE TO D(ISTING SITE DURING CONSTRUCTION. 7. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE SffE SIGNAGE IN ACCORDANCE WfTH THE TECHNICAL SPECIFlCATION FOR SRE SIGNAGE. S. THE SfTE SHALL BE GRADm TO CAUSE SURFACE WATER TO FLOW AWAY FROM THE BTS EQUIPMENT AND T01NER AREAS. 9. NO FlLL OR EMBANKMENT MATERIAL SHALL BE PLACED ON FROZEN GROUND. FROZEN MATERWS, SNOW OR ICE SHALL NOT BE PLIICED IN ANY FlLL OR EMBANKMENT. 10. THE SUB GRADE SHALL BE COMPACTED ANO BROUGHT TO A SMOOTH UNIFORM GRADE PRIOR TO FlNISHED SURFACE APPLJCATION. 11. THE AREAS OF THE OWNERS PROPERTY DISTURBED BY THE WORK AND NOT COVERED BY THE TOWER, EQUIPMENT OR DRNEWAY, SHALL BE GRADED TO A UNIFORM SLOPE, AND STABILJZED TO PREVENT EROSION AS SPECIFlED IN THE PROJECT SPECIFlCATIONS. 12. CONTRACTOR SHALL MINIMIZE DISTURBANCE TO EXISTING SfTE DURING CONSTRUCTiON. EROSION CONTROL ME4SURES, IF REQUIRED DURtNG CONSTRUCTION, SHALL BE IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE LOCAL GUIDQINES FOR EROSION AND SEDIMEPfT CONTROL 13. CONCRETE FlNISH TO BE BROOM FlNISH. 4 I SITE NOTES � ....�o il � be T-MOBILE WEST CORPORATION, a DELAWARE CORPORATION 1855 GATEWAY BLVD., 9TH FLOOR CONCORD, CA 94520 PROJECT INFORMATION: SF24189D PG�E REGNART IN FRONT OF 11371 BUBB ROAD CUPERTINO, CA 95014 CURRENT ISSUE DATE: 09/03/10 SSUED FOR: 100% ZONING DWGS-REV REV.:=DATE:�ESCRIPTION: BY: 0 OS/21/10 909: ZONING DRAWINGS FL 1 07/22/10 �009� ZONING FL DRAWINGS 2 09/03/10 100� ZONING FL DR,4WINGS - REVISION r ROJECT ARCHITECT/ENGINEER: � MICHAEL WILK M ar�cHir�cTUr�E �,y 833 Market Street, #805 San Francisco, CA 94103 T: 41 �839-9594 F; 415-904-8388 www.wilkarch.com U L' �RAWN BY: CHK.: APV.:= FL MWA MW -SHEET TITLE: GENERAL NOTES -SHEET NUMBER: � �.; � -.; WA R METER ,_ , _ _ _ _ , _ _ �. ., l ___ ,_ _. _ _ ;_.. _. .. �� _ _ , _ � , � �___ _ _ , _. �.; - N 0 -.......__ :: � � .....--....... �,. ,.. ,Ki . _ �- I TAL ,., ,., .. ......- - .... . . _ _; .:,. --- - r : ...._._ _ . , � _ . -- 0., __._ . ! +� v b� - -- -- - - - - - - - - � - - - - - - - - TECC�VAUtI`� - - ELECTRIC VAULT �0 � I � I ry I DRIVEWAY � I I I I GRAPHIC SCALE � 70 0 6 f0 ]0 10 I I �I I ( ffi FE�P ) I 1 inch = 10 ft I i i i A.P.N. 356-23-045 A.P.N. 356-23-046 � i I I I � (E) BUILDING I I I I � � i \ I , � , � � � � � � U� BOUNDARY SHOWN IS BASED ON RECORD INFORMA?lON AND FOUND MONUMENTATION. THIS IS NOT A BOUNDARY SURVEY. PROPERTY LINES SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE. 1 05/O6/10 ISSUED FOR REVIEW r N a � Q � n � N oi 0 � 0 I � 0 I 0 0 N � � 0 0 122'03'01.71"(NAD 83) JP W/ GUY WIRE r(SEE DETAIL) GROUND / WATER METER EL=396.7� AMSL LIGHT STANDARD . ____ _ . : .. ; ._..... . __.. . , � ....._. .. - . ; __ ; _ r _ . ' . ;... ,. " � --....._. ��. t ...__ r , . -. . y ..'_..... ._. ,.. �..__�.. - . ., ._ % . _'. _ .'_, . � ____..... ^. - `. �., �.. ; _... , �. ,.. �.. � -. ,. . ;,�.: ._ .. ��: _.__...._.._ _. ..... i .....'__'_"_ ' ;"_ o WATER M ' o-�TELCO PEDISTAL . - _ --__ - _ __ , _ .: ,,-, __ _.. .. � _...._. . ., .... - , r.� - __...�. - _ -. _ � _ _- -- _. ; i ._ __ - .. . _ F ; _... ._. „�_ _ �- , , __ __ ,�;:� _ _ .._.. : -- .._.. � � . _., _ . _ ,.,; ` : _. - .. _....__ :. ._._ � ,:. � `�' DRIVEWAY ` � \ �� ROW Q� £�£RQ4£a/S � A bE74AC£ HOGHT I \ Q=lJI9' AA/SL � HT=.x5�9' A!X I \ 1 � i I I I I I I i i A.P.N. 356-23-047 i A.P.N. 356-23-048 i I I I I I (E) BUILDING I � �^ � ~ � ; I b I�/ � - ...i,:- � , ""', � •. {.: i , ` . � : I � F _ �� R �� • �� e� x � �i W3' u� 4��fh ��K^ `.x �� I i � i r�: : 6. ._. i� C.; . R,,.�. � �`�' i��i�r'e��:' is.., a � � �rs�t>"�,��— � . ��, � � � , � • � � •Mobile• Oa�,. �4...i9., dT.,laY1.U5A, he 1855 GATEWAY BLVD, 9'IH FLOOR CONCORD, CA 945211 PROJECT INFORMATION: SF-24189C P.G.+E. REGMART NEAR 11371 BUBB ROAD CUPERTINO, CA 95014 CURRENT ISSUE DATE: 07/21/10 SSUED FOR: REVIEW EV.:�ATE:�ESCRIPTION:�Y:= ROJECT ARCHITECT/ENGINEER: � �I ONSULTANT• 1� WOO D Land Sweying Profesaionale � nr n.� �r.r, a+v ti.+o�ar ti. oav��e RAWN BY:�HK.: APV.: I ICENSER: �� LAND S� v� ��'� K y ��c^ �� * No.7900 `* � EXP.12/31/11 � �� OF CAL� `�� HEET TITLE: �7VIlrG 1 HEET NUMBER: LS1 (E) FENCE � ��' , � "a-� Z _.,. .�'��"�`�� / � S � : . � "� � ��t�'tJ��: � r�e ��t� ENLARGED SITE PLAN G �� , �. � (N) T—MOBILE� GPS ANTENNA ^ k� 1� i� ti� � �� ' ,I i i. � i I W � z = � � � � x � � � J i � = i � _ _. �� (� DRNEWAY� SC�ALE: � ,/s•-,�-0• o ,� \TER � (E) CURB I i q �Qr � �i. � I � _ WATER I � � � I ' '� o FOLKESTONE DRIVE Q e O , , � CENTER UNE � m ,;------- -- - -------.. -- - - ..... - ... _ - - _._._.... _ , m ; ________ __ __ � . (E) PROPERTY UNE _. __ , AP.N. 356-23-045 11331 BUBB ROAD I � i ' ', (E) STREET ucHr W I 2 I i � �: � U 6'-0' f , 4'-6' t - � 37'-8' t R.O.W. ' , � I i ' _ ;(� TELCO - - �PEDESTAL i I _ (E) PROPERTY L1NE , _. _ _ _ _.. _.. __ _ _.. _ ___ _ __ _ _._ _ - (E) PROPERTY L1NE AP.N. 362-11-063 11350 BUBB ROAD - - (E) JOINT i POL.E ' i j ; �� - - � � J �� ' (E) PROPERTY L1NE . (E) BUILDING � � � � ' �� eui�iNc � � i - ;, � DRNEWAY � w '' . � - (E) ELECTRIC � � -"�-' A.P.N. 362-11-061 ! � VAULT ' �., AP.N. 356-23-046 ' �� ,� �,., ` ' __ .+.__i `: -' � .�,... 1184 BUBB ROAD 11351 BUBB ROAD DRNEWAY - - VAULT/(N) ' "�- ` - - - T—MOBILE �` �� P.o.�. " � ___ ;___ _. ._(E) PROPERTY LJNE _ _ s � I• ` _. ._ ____. ... _ _. (E) PROPERTY IJNE • Z � �. � ,- _ _.. __.__ ___ _ _.__ _.._. �, �: _.._ _.__ _ ._ _ � r _._._ __.. (E) FENCE • ' '� , �$ i �s. -r • ; - _ ' ! M � _,.,., � .� �'''.r - � (E) WOOD (� BUIIDING aP.N. �s-2s—o4� _ - Po� w/ cuY 11371 BUBB ROAD DRNEWAY WIRE ' j - I M � j ; DRNEWAY AP.N. 362-11-062 11366 BUBB ROAD - - - ; ?�� . (E) BUILDING 4'-6"t 5'-0"t � 37'-0' t �" � ' _ _ R.O.W. :v. �,�`.� i ' = �, � , � �. �� I /��i% - �i, I (E) JOINT "�� POLE r '�, �, - - - =�`..� �, � w -� Z T � � ' x � I� � , � � �. x ' c� , _- �- � ln.l � __ .__ _ _ .. . � �E) PROPERTY UNE A.P.N. 356-23-048 11411 BUBB ROAD 4. � 2 � OVERALL SITE PLAN (E) TELCO PEDESTAL (E) WATER METER i sr ' /'`'\.�� , I "� � '�;�� (E) PROPERTY LINE ; _ �. __ ____.__.___ _ __.__. __ _ _ i _ ____ AP.N. 362-11-057 ' � �� 1194 8UB6 ROAD _ - _ , LJGHT w � � ! � HIGH � VOLTAGE _ - ' ov�H�w W i uNES � W a �_ � � � -- o , a m u�J � � m a - m ' v ' �8� 1�-0� 0 4' 6' 16' 32' I� I �••��obil • � T—MOBILE WEST CORPORATION, a DELAWARE CORPORATION 1855 GATEWAY BLVD., 9TH FLOOR CONCORD, CA 94520 PROJECT INFORMATION: SF24189D PG�E REGNART IN FRONT OF 11371 BUBB ROAD CUPERTINO, CA 95014 CURRENT ISSUE DATE: 09/03/10 ISSUED FOR: 100% ZONING DWGS-REV EV.:=DATE:�ESCRIPTION: BY:= 0 05/21/10 90� ZONING DRAWINGS FL 1 07/22/10 �009' ZONING FL DRAWINGS � � 1009.' ZONING 2 09 03 10 DRAWINGS — REVISION FL PROJECT ARCHITECT/ENGINEER: MICHAEL WILK M ARCHITECTURE w 833 Market Street, #805 San Francisco, CA 94103 T: 41 �839-9594 F: 41 �904-8388 www.wilkarch.com r-CONSULTANT: DRAWN BY: CHK.: APV.:= FL MWA MW �LICENSER: �SHEET TITLE: OVERALL SITE PLAN/ ENLARGED SITE PLAN SHEET NUMBER: � I I _.__I � 9'-O'f , I „ . �, �. 17�t W O � Of a ^� q� . o W o a � Z� o °f N � �� . � 0 � a io 26'-0't AG.L.. TOP OF (E) GUY WIRE 1 '-10't AG.L TOP OF (N) 3308 BTS CA&NET 10'-0't A.G.L BOTfOM OF N ELECTRIC A�EfER zs'-o't ac.� e TOP OF (� GUY WIRE 18'-10't /�G.L e TOP OF (N) 3308 B'T5 CABINET 10'-0't A.G.L BOTTOM OF N ELECTRIC METER 0'-0' E GRADE p �(� - �Dio - � �'��"�� a ��°� ��E��'�� _ K . �� ` �•� , ,_„�..,.� r � +" O � �fi r�� ..��?��. � ...�...... � , j ; f = / � , y� � � ; -,�-. �-' � j , , � `V'`M ,�.�:t. : / �.. s � V i (E) POLE ELEVATION - NORTH TOP OF (E) HIGH VOLTAGE WIRES eo'-s•t ac.� TOP OF (E) POLE � ' ,� - ' � ,�� i� TOP OF (N) AMENWIS / 44'-3't AG.L.. ANTENNA RAD CENTER � � � ; ' � , BOTT0�1 OF (N) � ' , MITENWAS TOP OF (E) HIGH VOLTAGE WIRES ;'� /� /% / TOP OF (N) ANTENNAS / 44'-3't AG.L.. ANTENNA RAD CENTER 4 .� . 3 I(E) POLE ELEVATION - WEST TOP OF (E) HIGH VOLTAGE WIRES � an�_o•+ • r_ i GRWND EL=396.7' MASI ,,;� . 2 I EXISTING POLE ISOMETRIC � 1 N.LS. �•��o il • be T-MOBILE WEST CORPORATION, a DELAWARE CORPORATION 1855 GATEWAY BLVD., 9TH FLOOR CONCORD, CA 94520 PROJECT INFORMATION: SF24189D PG&E REGNART IN FRONT OF 11371 BUBB ROAD CUPERTINO, CA 95014 CURRENT ISSUE DATE: 09/03/10 ISS UED FOR: 100% ZONING DWGS-REV EV.:=DATE: BY: 0 05/21/10 90� ZONING DRAWINGS FL 1 07/22/10 �00� ZONING FL DRAWINGS � � 100� ZONING 2 09 03 10 DRAWINGS - REVISION FL ROJECT ARCHITECT/ENGINEER: MICHAEL WILK M ARCHITECTURE W 833 Market Street, #805 San Francisco, CA 94103 T: 41 �839-9594 F: 41 �904-8388 www.wi �CONSULTANT: �RAWN BY: CHK.: APV.:= FL MWA MW �ICENSER: 0'-0' E GW1DE =SHEET NUMBER: . � . � � N i �oKr ANTENNA DETAIL N07E: ALL CABINETS MOUNTED TO llTIL1iY POLE SHALL FIAVE A MINIMUM TOP dc BOTfOM CLEARANCE OF 8" m (N) > >'-� o• x 6' ALUMINUM C CHANNEL (N) 1/2`/ MOUNTING BOLT (CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY W/ CABINEf MFR. SPEC) 0 I 0 (N) UNISTRUT P1000 OR EQUAL, 7YP. (HORIZONTAL LENGTH AS REQUIRED PER CABINEn (N�� TUBE � Q W . � ELEVATION VIEW MOUNTING DETAIL � oao M TOP MANUFACTURER: ANDREW MODEL #: APV18-206513—C FREQUENC^f RANGE: 1710-1900 I�Hz 1900-2170 MHz CONNECTORS: (2) 7-16 DIN FEMALE (N) UNISTRUT P1047 OR EQUAL, 'U' SFUIPE FiTT1NG TYP. 5/8'I ANTI—SPLfT GHL.VANIZm THRU—BOLT, TYP. ,9.a9. � 0 N �', FRONT 19.09' � � TOP ERICSSON 3308 CABINET WEIGHT: APPROX. 87 LBS 9.� 0 N SIDE ,._�. 8 3308 BTS CABINET ,._�. 5 NOT USED i.o scora '!bc pafwse uf thic drewing is ro rocz: fy +he enml�mma prm.�aed in e CR'S+DowT:ink antaoa mc! enivenel moa�tiag ]dt i0 Anlew Cmtlg�[aWm: Auteen eol4p0'aflep TF p+n Huber �uhncr GPSnJo�s*�linkaaleune 3JOAb ]399.1;.(1Q90 �� .._., .................,,..,,....�.�.,........k •� ��°'°•.,� � ; ; � ' _� ,.� �r ` �y.:...,...r«a..r.............-__�.....,..._;,,,,,� £�� 0 N 9.84` ,�OC� � ISOMETRIC 3.� conaaaaots and Bard..■re sopplfed: 3.1 U+dven�d �tema b�u9u.Y mo�pin3 kit cansim of the Tnxpo�i:icrt pnct ntmh�m thowa hdow.ea eomylcoc, Id: aeaD b�+ yrornc.a pe. xub� sb�m« ywt mm�ber �iicd m ytr.. d.0. t� l��"" •TeT� :�`'�'� ( � f /J � �V � ��• , ('� ` �'e.� ;Tl/_`rQ I �"; •'� jv I � f , f�� f l .-,,:s � ,� f �!o`;` -..�.� � � �� v�, �- , �� `� --'^�� ,� � ,��. `� r /� '� � ,�' :'�,-' �` �f �� '" 1"`' ' � =� ��r,.� .. �+�� ,G � I-LBnckct 2-U M�aciccxy TP tatt ne. 13528 7P pari oo. 1 iS27 GPS ANTENNA DETAIL (N) 6' ALUMINUM/ STEEL C CHANNEL r � � �" � � a�ma PLAN VIEW SG1LE N.TS. (N) 1/2�0 MOUNTING BOLT PER CABINET 80LTING PATTERN 6 NOT USED NOTE: (N) BRACKET ASSEMBLY TO 8E PROMDm BY UTILITY COMPANT (E� WOOD F (N) MOUNT ;CAM—P—Dl 'JUNIOR' (N) T—MO81 P/WEL MfTE (N) T—MOBILE GPS ANTENNA ,��,�� °co -- �.8 � ; � � t � .�� ; .�. � � W � � ,; �, , _ t.� �s.' .R '' ', L � ~ � � ! � � J '�r. ".� ) �:3; ; � ; : .�.�...____3.r,...._.`�"' �D. �_� ' . . � , i�..._ 1 � J�.% .�" ` �.�. i ,� A. 9<?`i 1� +.,� . A'1�., �,... � �'� �� s,.� � _.: � ��, � 1 � - NOTE: (N) BRACKET ASSEMBLY TO BE PROVIDED BY UTILITY COMPANT 3 (N) MOUNT �CAM—P—DY 'JUNIOR' OF APPROVED E (E) WOOD F ,, • 7 I PLAN VIEW OF BRACKET ASSEMBLY ,._�. 4 � BRACKET ASSEMBLY (N) 2' STEEL TUBE (E) WOOD POLE 5/8'I MITI—SPLff cuv�wizm THRU—BOLT, TYP. (N) UNISTRUT P1000 OR — EQUAL, TYP. (HORIZONTAL LENGTH AS REQUIRED PER CABINET 1 , �' •�•��o il • be T—MOBILE WEST CORPORATION, a DELAWARE CORPORATION 1855 GATEWAY BLVD., 9TH FLOOR CONCORD, CA 94520 PROJECT INFORMATION: SF24189D PG&E REGNART IN FRONT OF 11371 BUBB ROAD CUPERTINO, CA 95014 CURRENT ISSUE DATE: 09/03/10 ISSUED FOR: 100% ZONING DWGS-REV EV.:�ATE:-DESCRIPTION: BY: 0 05/21/10 909' ZONING DRAWINGS FL 1 07/22/10 100% ZONING FL DRAWINGS � � 100� ZONING 2 09 03 10 DRAWINGS — REVISION FL r PROJECT ARCHITECT/ENGINEER: -� MICHAEL WILK M ARCHITECTURE w 833 Market Street, #805 San Francisco, CA 94103 T: 41 �839-9594 F: 415-904-8388 www.wilkarch.com SULTANT =D RAW N BY: C H K.: APV.:= FL MWA MW _SHEET TITLE: CONSTRUCTION DETAILS =SHEET NUMBER: � r-, L ' -P �2� ` , n i / ¢' ,� t, � ` :-'�--:•'�• \�.-' �j�ii �N� Ed � .�_ a �ra � p.0.5� s. �� µd. • rr . lE �� r � , � ' _�--:� � � s�' "os _: _� u .. ,. ��,1` � � � i� : y � ,( nR�7p Or � C � � �.7n24: � �/ / � : .' $ ,C � L � �1� �,>., e. ` %� /i' � g£ � �inr 1"s �.., a '�/ t.jsac. '.... �.,_\� � J " �..__ - �.. 5 0�{p `y n.ar .� r., , � - _...�n'4Cr _4 -..� '" viZ ` H�etac er. i¢ w s �r� u��¢ : :1e�e - nex;�ot �g 7 :.�.�,.� � �. �.....� �,,. r, '� � GrMN xn R. 3 T fa�. ?c l7/. " l�l�eflw MII TYS �0►-?p9 PARCEL MAP • �`�� .' � A. � w �� F �� `��, �� k ` . � ": 3' �'-•< ` �' � ,� �r, c� �: , � s; � �. �'� �' �� - ;°\ \ � 1 , -s' .""_\� � � �. � ' 4� s. s �� ; "- i� Y AERIAL MAP .r,+�r,d � .r� � . . _, � - � - i� �� .�.�, ar�+� �, �t� i�. � - ♦ 1 35fi 23 i t = , ,, � , s:� -- �� -- , l.'`t ,�IJ y _ ' Zy � � .'d d 4 P 0 ;;, , , � ;�. !"' �zz i .�� "' • ��o �� ; ss „ : �� _ � o +� �an/ e+'`{". . L ' �/ �` _�>., -- ./ - '- -�E,." � � v 1 fQ ` .a , y :, . ��E.'O" - � '..� . ' . ;y � c �+ , t ... . - '� . � ✓ rJ.. ' '"-- . . � :.f 39 ' � � ' � .. , L� a � _, ,,. �, ., t o; �' ;.. .. " i. „ .�� a� RO��'�' - e �. �• '>_� yo 'y.. •.> ' isf�- - �y �p :�• l - 't. 1 ' s � • �, t' � � � f � y --' xo4��'+. �t'�.' �. � y, !� f. •�• ' �� . TiD . , � � •�;! � ^� t.��'��-N.'t 4� ! � z`� _ . z . ....� � ,.:�s _ `• �� .� r _� : o - • � � - �.' v'�Y�, �..� S '�:� � � °- ^,�, �',. No ° . 'L � �' t:. --- "� .'j �1 � . � >� .s � l . L7bi: 0' _ / ��..." ... _ _ w i�q �•' � i • ` ti � ^a � tn'° T' - r �i!` ��.,s` r.`,: � 7y '� BK 1 ^`�,a r' , - . x� � t )62 a:;, �.e , pLpYp �� n . �r. - . r �4 �naiLA � : �.'-- ' sri ' r�� -...�_ '?f'- . _ ,_w; .� ,� . ` �it . z �� ., � -� aH , � �. � F ' � � � ,i( . ` m .eR � .'. � _wr� A9r�, r..''� .� � i m '* . ' .+:-.- e °� �`ti'� ,o : . � � E � �; ►cl. a . � , y �� ?q� � ' a'��7 ru 3 r,.,.r � r �i_ ro7s:r -"-.�;��`� � � '` .,.,• „r � DaWi S7A�ET s- - �1�'�_r _-� az : en ,� , f . , - - ' . 4' � - �.^^ ° ss ''._ � � < ( +� I ��`i :. � i ' _ . ».:� 4 �/ �I �' � + '�jS 'L�'� ~ 73 ' `I' � � , � 5� � � -_ i � £'i a �CS s�e . »r '`.-"�^L �s+ � � : s � ,� 1 .A'�, ;f _� _ :"c r � �----��._�. '4 : �LI ' � �~ r1a ~ � M -�� 4��r� � �� " s� , �, : � � ; _�.� - � "�m ; ' � -', j� � � � .: � -.•, _ = '� � 3 '.n� �� ti t•.v. - 'L..:L. Ran�,� Th � ' 4.,, % �.,a. , ,_ ;;. ;�. �,,. ... _ ?i _.�. 5 ' , sss ~ J�_,iED � - p�� . , Z6-rr: ra n � ._ �2 . . � ,' eFa�:�� i � .: ��..l....- . . � .` �' > . .� � I � ' ` � � - � � . ' !\� � ..� � � �� - � . ^s. �� . �:�1 k �..' j ` � � .�; ' a ��; � f - ., �.;..,�.� � � � ; r , - • ' '--� . . ,> , � � � � �� i � � . � � ,_.� , , � � � ,.�'3i.�.'. . � ' � / 1 Fl �. � �.s�.r �� s r� �} - �� s � � �,�. � � ��: � � . �' �' „ � �� 7 ��r�, �,,��, i �"x � ; �r+fi.gr . . f � � . _ � �� : — - '�� ,, � - � ? :,s► �: �, � �• ,�"�� +� � — � � _ ._ . . � �' ._. . _ . _ . � -��.�.�.� .�_ . 3 � POWER & TELCO SOURCE � � ��,. 4� � -- - - .' . . . . .. � _ _ : : �,� 4�,. � ; a � � - �_ _ ��I .�y4"S ' �.�.: � . � � � -- r �„„s �„ ' ....x�� '� � , �{`y� , � � c .�.. � � , J � h'` } �� - - .._. _ 'e.. . "� ; -� --- _• - �. _ _ � ._ ,; � � _ __.,� �� • ^ � _ y �*a., - - - � a ._ e � ► '� � � 1 �,� ��""�, .#.�: r � �B . . � Ly, �;,,- � �> `� _ � _ ._------° � _ ' ,. . <�: "�� _ "° p j I�-'2oID - �Q . - � -,.s j-.. _ :� +- l. ` `�"`�--- o . 1 � o � � ��s•Mobil � T-M081LE WEST CORPORATION, a DELAWARE CORPORATION 1855 GATEWAY BLVD., 9TH FLOOR CONCORD, CA 94520 PROJECT INFORMATION: SF24189D PG&E REGNART IN FRONT OF 11371 BUBB ROAD CUPERTINO, CA 95014 CURRENT ISSUE DATE: 09/03/10 ISSUED FOR: 100% ZONING DWGS-REV REV.:=DATE: DESCRIPTION: BY: 0 05/21/10 90� ZONING DRAWINGS FL 1 07/22/10 �00q ZONING FL DRAWINGS � � 100� ZONING 2 09 03 10 DRAWINGS - REVISION FL PROJECT ARCHITECT/ENGINEER: MICHAEL WILK M fi��NITE� 1'U�c 833 Market Street, #805 San Francisco, CA 94103 T: 41 �839-9594 F: 41 �904-8388 www.wilkarch.com I rCONSULTANT: L DRAWN BY: CHK.: APV.:= FL MWA MW LICENSER: SHEEf TITL�. POWER � TELCO SOURCE / PARCEL MAP / AERIAL MAP SHEEf NUMBER: . ' `� • ---- =" � n" .�... r� � ��'� ;'..•`� �j:� �' : �� \/. C} ( �'{ . � ��obil • � T—MOBILE WEST COR�ORATION, a DELAWARE CORPORATION 1855 GATEWAY BLVD., 9TH FLOOR CONCCRD, CA 94520 PROJECT INFORMATION: SF24189D PG&E REGNART IN FRONT OF 11371 BUBB ROAD CUPERTINO, CA 95014 CURRENT ISSUE DATE: 09/03/10 ISSUED FOR: 100% ZONING DWGS-REV REV.:=DATE:�ESCRIPTION: BY: 0 05/21/10 90� ZONING DRAWINGS FL 1 07/22/10 1009' ZONING FL DRAWINGS � � 100� ZONING 2 09 03 10 DRAWINGS — REVISION FL r -PROJECT ARCHITECT/ENGINEER: � MICHAEL WILK M �1�CHlTEC i Uf�� 833 Market Street, #805 San Francisco, CA 94103 T: 41 �839-9594 F: 41 �904-8388 www.wilkarch.com ti�..1 i i'v v�.: :. i '� mU'3't�n Sn `"`� � Y � �2- �.oto - . , , ;� , ; �.� �.� � �� . : _.._.,�..�...: _ 7 " � I _ ` .� I � - ' ;'z/'"�K.$� ` �"��. � ►f��t `$i-� _ - eJ�' 4r; r �1 � a � � � � .. -� � � �, PHOTO SIMULATION S U LTANT =DRAWN BY: CHK.: APV.: FL MWA MW =LICENSER: -SHEET TITLE: PHOTO SIMULATIONS =SHEET NUMBER: . . ' � '' . . � . _ . . OpUmizer� Panel �ual Pdanzed anrenna � � Opt�maer�; Panel pual Polanied Antenna ^,`� _ - - --- _ - - I _ � _ _-- _ _ _ __ - - -- � • � � �.�:p�r54ebM5upptlSSan�4B >18.Ni(TYD�caily�i0� '. Th�s ��dn.�t".e t:it .�^.trr•��i.� 7rr�v�:7rt rx::r{: •,uOC�r��.�.�on P Gudl � - nf .il'� .i�'lirc :.rl...nh...� .it .�'I ;7:.wn��7 .i�i�lr.., �. .�':c�- f��.�•�i�r•. - p01 +1 {5' , �� i �� „� � ., „� � -�•�„�,r�.i � . ; ., rr , .�i �. .,,,,r • �, r �...-„ r o-ESack aatio. OB > 18 �� at,�:anum ibwcr IRput. W �U � . l�..i x tqcen Port d � 30 t �htninq WotecLOn Di�eGt G�ourW �-rd �r6lr !MV � 2� 4; d9m, tltl4 > ISq � �'n Ordr.r IMP y 2x �p tn, dBc > 1T0 . ��+rraii �cnqtn, m (H; 0.T ;2.291 � �� c��m - MrWxO, mm (� n) 7q0 x 175 x 80 t2i S e 5.8 ■ 3.1:: � '7�n.qht erro MtA MiMware, tq (�i b(t3 2) � g V� e�qht w,' M 1g NaMx kq (Ib; 8.8 ;19.4j �, f�...�, Rar,at�ry) EiertceM MaterWl 8�a55 I , : ,;,: � ��, � R M F�her7lass � i � � I RqPector Matcrtal Ak4minum . .. � ' Maz WIrW Laadinq Area, m= (fl=! 0. ] A ; I.i7: .� -� �i�rv�ivgl Wl�id 5pe�!G, krtUh imph; 2on ;125', � �.._._. � h!nx:m TAntst $ RateC W�nd, N��:i61' I B4 ;40.�5'. rn:,r rnn�s� p aeced wi�K. n;ier, iea ;ao asi ' i . VnnMhlr rincYnc:il 4>wnt,lt -�:r.��...�t.-. rnh:�nrrcl ?n',... or� ii ;snrrn.hnq irt�^: r�.l �r.t�•rtrmni r Th�• h� i•. ti'��•p� Weqh:. k '��' _'� 32 :25 1�, ^ ' ' �nfl��d .xljuStabM 2 �1.�". P��.:k � '".. . , , N.�:; '. .� � d�. �. > , �� . , � . . . : I . �„gn SupDn+sS�en a! .y11 Upprr ti,d�i<�lnti : Ty��: �i-ly i i:;t5: , �•� � � � � � I � Opoonal remote ntt CMl G@ �ECrOtIltad 1='d!Yiti'� ; ��n��rv ;ri . r�t ,:il . 4 S• � . . � . . .+. . , _ , x 7 -�: .. Braadbantl desOn. , Di�i uoia rat.on - lu�-r Nr fi- !or lii,v v:•.ual �••v.i� : f c� atl�. �ir n �.t�r�� n��r .�:i.�.� ;ilr.isr• . �A1.]�r,: i��.�l ��r�.�rii, t i��f-:rm.it i:�n�� .^.o..�r. � ��. � F�tnd ,�: ��.I..��.� � yiii�.. ;sr.�.::� (��i.�: .�i��1 'r;{1� t'.��A �. t'w0 r -_ � '_-'.'`` W ' ` ,� ` I ��, !�on_ontal Vatt�rn li�r��crin�u�l ( AManna Type Panel D�W �olanlM ' , � � �� Elecincal Ovwn '�tt QI%�� — vanable i-',' � ca�n, d� (oed? ta �; tz e; . is i i i3 0; =� 1 ^ — %�' - ! �.�� r,��,x. Mff� t710-19 , 1400-2170 '�t , ' '; � Conntctor Type (2 � 7- f6 DIN Female �`- I a Connectw Locatbn Bactom � '` I ��,;; � , � !AOUM TYPe Downrnc ; . �, .•. �� . . �� flettncal �ownt�t. dcy Z'[2 � �-.-r",��. . 1 / �� r�ori:nnt.J Bremwidtn, dcg 6B, 67 � �� »owxinq Hantw� AVM60-I �. Rat.d Wu�<f S�eed, km/h (mph; I60 ; 200`, ��. vSiVR •: l 4� 1 -17� - - 10 J�rt�cai Bt:dmwlOth, dep i5l . I' 6 M i t:r Upper SiCrIOW� Sup�svon, dB � l8 ;rypcally > 20;� I RFS The Clear Choice '" APKV18-206513-C Pnnt Dale: 12.04.2007 � Rf5 The Clear Choice '" APxV18-2d6513-C ! Print Date: 12.04.2007 I - w.a.. .��e w e.. m. .I.e«Mn ar +e,y �: rw..w.�...�a �o-� a +�a ., , . �:. .. e.�. o'�aa� .M a en :N� ..r1�rn�f at Y� ;!wwn �f'swAl� ayre i.�Ga i-�yu.+zY S�it�m♦ 4ti:ih:r^n�finr�.:-S�,n�.l.n.n�.�u^tt.%a�nrt��tvrt'..:�-d�.rm�t:s�t��v.l.:�;s" � x:' 1"�r�.�M141` .C-.fs�ney 'f n� p'�ur't =1"a:�1at ti L��»(' :. .'-.hrrvt i� 11 !��^I ��! .YO�n.�3 ANTENNA SPECIFICATIONS � qPlTENNA ANTEWNA COAX COAX COAX ELECTRICAL MECHANICAL �� SECTOR �� MAKE/MODEL QN ' LENGTH SIZE QTY. DOWNTILT DOWNTILT CENTER A 0' RF5 APXV18-206513-C 1 25'-3't �� FORM 2 . �. 44�-3'f FLD( A.G.L. B 120' R� ��18-206513-C 1 25'-3'f 1/2' FORM 2 2 . �. 44�-3'f FLD( A.G.L � �l��o�lD + 028 ;�..,•' `n� ,-`�::, , C 240' RFS APXV18-206513-C 1 25'-3•f 1/2��F`ORM 2' 0' AG.Lt 2.,.�! � � L. . �.,�.,._ � r � � �O �. ,,,,� � �,",'," „;'"�"" - : � �... . . GPS N/A ERICSSON 1 26'-6't 1/2'0 AVA N/A N/A N/A N/A , , _..�. {�` �.,,�� i B ` �� • �cv !^ � , g= ` '��QD 9 �.: t ...� LLQIE: THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE MUST BE VERIFlED HY THE CONTRACTOR PRIOR TO ORDERING ANY EQUIPMENT. RF DATA SHEET 3 ANTENNA CONFIGURATION CHART 2 i � ��■�oblle� T-MOBILE WEST CORPORATION, a DELAWARE CORPORATION 1855 GATEWAY BLVD., 9TH FLOOR CONCORD, CA 94520 PROJECT INFORMATION: SF24189D PG�E REGNART IN FRONT OF 11371 BUBB ROAD CUPERTINO, CA 95014 CURRENT ISSUE DATE: 09/03/10 ISSUED FOR: 100% ZONING DWGS-REV REV.:�ATE: DESCRIPTION: BY:= 0 OS/21/10 907 ZONING DR,4WINGS FL i o�/2z/io �ooq zoNiNC F � DRAWINGS � � 100� ZONING 2 09 03 10 DR,4WINGS - REVISION FL r PROJECT ARCHITECT/ENGINEER: MICHAEL WILK M �;ry�HIT�� i URE � 833 Market Street, #805 San Francisco, CA 94103 T: 415-839-9594 F: 415-904�388 www.wilkarch.com ONSULT =DRAWN BY: CHK.: APV.: J FL MWA MW =LICENSER: -SHEET TITLE: RF DATA SHEET / ANTENNA SPECIFICATIONS =SHEET NUMBER: � r��s 33os A WCDMA Radio Base S[a[ion � �� F x` • �'� � �° �� . � � 1 � � .. . � f�f� �'- . .. �:� Tt+e RBS 3308 e a man0a d�e pa�all� iffi p� a 3l'f'l' �11� M.'RI Ef�T. PE �$ 3� R a :: Yry�e WC.'�.w racyc :ac ��n �x�a�dlrt� cc vn.�ra�� av: Q",aIXy!r-r'.tllXxr ax: !rcYrr kt r ymKtt 7Ts HBS 3308 s yrr+cU Itr dppllr�rs Wd� a K% �JC7S� �19(} qxQ i�XY �I�'.} y�S 71'1 f1cY77 caa+age a a�r ot a dl�ASeC ast�►y syiocm, i� c`�iC5St7?v � ERICSSON 3308 CABINET Ktly !e7tu/es . smax :�:.. ,,�,. .,N.,; ... ......::.... ......, ,. _,. .. WMPM:or i. :.I�Q.• .iltl5.:]:� . � 2�srnaur.teq �Bwttiny n 3.vggnt oi ZQ •g !v �r+a �nqk �+.ev�nt w�e Nncax..t. . n�o�+e.d nv,y�+g «+ �aus x+n vo� . Trar�on caecawg wpportea. . �arr+. �ac�. ,.,m nx-a,�e.srty ASGTIAA and RET � a�pp�ortad. . Co-srt�. . .,.,....'.n�:. 'f:��!a . S:.Ftit:�r!ca: • Outdoa P4xtl��f 'rrth M1HaI ex[n:��ra<� • k�dod p4xanant wM Mw vM Ir!a ^��„ encharx� • F1ndwYte mod�Ymb frOm RBS 3000 W-+ • Soflwa��CHOraaraeonwaraup�ya��.� an oe P� wfw ttw F6S a n aiDM:rton. Tecrvxal Spec�kabors Ior RBS 3308 F,�,,,�,�, wc�,,, aTnz :'OOi900!;001`800.''•V�1'i1pp8S01p'1 m��a�.vv�ex �.a�arsy Src�a � =�•r+ � ..� a � a :�t oanr, �x�. M�v �+� �Q�ypeta C1urv+tK L;nrern t11/LY )2 ?58 i�.- tlT�R7�M.7� � t'�7CY C!MOImeR': G fY (Lrif +;!GLaDL�; ( spedfcmon E7L ctau 3 � ;rv3oorl Mxmaiaoer.arr; �33^.`�•4ti?" -ernpe,�r.,A �s'C �c •Hr� � NeOe l�,e+ k:s T.en s•i :]BA a[t[/�xJ :e �SC 37ia i 'rarsr�an cJD ra d£ r/� ��; � ^ `` i � d � Up K> 1 E�lt3 t� � 1 ST1N � CY+e E000 BaseT �/R1+ i:� !lp �+izer+.y.rxm rpit r'cerf3c6 � ti.' oaerrav cCrro' artR4 ss w a9LDC :� ecmrr �aucm�- �� I - �r *'�varca 4 �,� ,:n :_JChC i�Gerd �!"S +]:' �.r�:�.� .u^: �L':»•x�..lt � AM3J1'OfKJ �[�!!.lf W.IQ T�CP'-MK: a" 3 I NOT USED f-lSCPA St�;t%Y' 'af t� :c ? i iStT( :J" �_.lrtr+ �,vvf .X.�a tX! i 4 A�(=t FiY'arxee� ;U+� iW' �;r5e.�sye •� ;:e.� r.�e^ �' ++ �T.FZ -�w xrn..�e.�nr'c �e.r ��!e ; ;n � Vdurre o5>cre a+�r nrae rzctsrrti,.e+ 55:ue ,vrr tr.r ��.rr �.r;7c�� Sve:�+rv:.wcm. 536.J5u.a+35m,r ccl: 536f251Ls�d rm� �n7c-�: WeYa1!: 39 p7 ;at,:ocYl :o 35 rG �u'cX�c.�� .�N+e+v40N -�2 Vt=�. �rSi l^� 3W' i: � ,.,�.�x �«�- ��v,� T}p[a pU�e+ 2lYJ `+V .�tt� fy: xR]ply ca�rr�uon 1'� W .vcf+.rC SwyY Fiae rxrq :S A ��nxh -39'rJC �.., wr,r � �o v„c o A vMJ+ ? 30 VI�C 7ese Bfock Bypasg r � � � �_ �� r -:;,�- m m � •re �+MiH� } � Y tlpM � �� = a 3 � . __- - _ __._ ..___ trr ia�unaat w.r.: — a...+... ,.�:: . . ,...., .' ,;� .�r . • .�.�6�F:r:xavv:.�m,vrtmrrx : . ;, „ ,s _ ._.-,.... �� . .. �� . , . • e.m . ....,.._...-,.,.,...---•� _ , ^ .�._..,.�,o.., � l �� c� ° "` �-� . � Y . . a � �:�_ � :��'�� - ' �, � �: �..�.�.�...�.__�.�.._� _ . `� d �.� . ,r ._ � . � -r'�`��. t,�� ;;'..6i°i' , ��, °�:�' � NOT USED ;JUprl: � ttll O W 1! ' �a a r YY{�:�M W�11WV � �f 11 6 1\�� . . f � 1- - —l_.__L___!'--L.._l._J.___L—.l_---�'_`_"_��...: R�7i �� f H 8 'S ' .< ) �� ` ' II '.1NG �:9Y4 'iAnLi.' IwY. "y;. �:I � 7 ' h � IM � �+�� ^ys r � a� � ' s� t � �w a� r�rsr .MS st � 1 � �r ... ,.. 1�- --- - -- — ' . -'. �,:.ar�wr�w�u�erc`cat'�Am . �� .�-� � ��i3rVf/�WA'IYAIY��Y/li/I1�ISAN��:: .�.. .,. �K , .. . ,-�. ,,. � - ... �,..m • ,�� •. ,,, coo� e-� �„P 4 I ELECTRIC METER CATALOG �p aRCUIT BREAKER ITEM {14 U214N1B1-30 j�104770fi U214MTBL—JO �{1047707 U214M1BL-70 f1090084 U^_14MlHL �1031703 1 � '� � 47 u 49 � _—' j ' i � � I I � � r wK � � � :_—� — � 72 1/I6 00 � �— t9 3�� D —� �: t.) �PP�v rtENS J, Eu k C+JlOB6ARD a091C Pu� � soe a weroe. 41 �J 4l 92 WOf 41D1N II 2 � � � a Mll 11 • b� T—MOBILE WEST CORPORA?ION, a DELAWARE CORPORATION 1855 GATEWAY BLVD., 9TH FLOOR CONCORD, CA 94520 PROJECT INFORMATION: SF24189D PG&E REGNART IN FRONT OF 11371 BUBB ROAD CUPERTINO, CA 95014 CURRENT ISSUE DATE: 09/03/10 ISSUED FOR: 100% ZONING DWGS-REV REV.:=DATE:�ESCRIPTION: BY: 0 05/21/10 90% ZONING DRAWINGS FL 1 07/22/10 1007 ZONING FL DR.4WINGS � � 100� ZONING 2 09 03 10 DRAWINGS — REVISION FL r PROJECT ARCHITECT/ENGINEER: � MICHAEL WILK M A!�C�IITE�TUI�� 833 Market Street, #805 San Francisco, CA 94103 T: 41 �839-9594 F: 41 �904-8388 www.wilkarc ONSULTANI �DRAWN BY: CHK.: APV.:= FL MWA MW :LICENSER: _SHEET TITLE: EQUIPMENT SPECIFICATIONS =SHEEf NUMBER: . a .�[.".. � N � 16 GA. SIFEL � r�a4■c i�r c+a-r D214YTBL �aoti x�ca. i►�w wm tdpA 4AM � 1t11O CENiFA GM'iON N11�276 1-PLR CMfON c��oeo,um cios�wc ruh pooz�+� � 4689 mu.eaNx YI�G. CO. �•� + + + +� +��+ � T/3�� s/n �n� ti 9 27/7Z