HomeMy WebLinkAboutDRB 2014-02-04 #3CITY OF
Community Development Department — Planning Division
Meeting Date: February 4, 2014
Case NumbersD13-049 & UP13-027
Project Planner. raig Tambornini (415) 485-3092
Agenda Item: . 5
REPORT TO DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
SUBJECT: 400 Smith Ranch Road (AT&T Wireless Faux Tree) — Environmental and Design Review
and Use Permit for a 50 -foot tall faux pine tree supporting up to nine (9) panel antennas and
24 Remote Radio Units (RRU's), and associated ground mounted equipment placed adjacent
to existing buildings on the San Rafael Airport property; APN: 155-230-11; PD 1909 Zone;
AT&T Mobility, Applicant; San Rafael Airport, LLC, Owner; Smith Ranch Neighborhood Area.
PROPERTY FACTS
Location
General Plan Designation
Project Site:
Airport/Recreation
North:
Open Space
South:
Open Space
East:
Open Space
West:
Residential - Medium
Zoning Designation Existing Land -Use
PD1909-WO
Private Airport Facilities
P/OS-WO
North Fork Gallinas Creek
County
South Fork Gallinas Creek
County
Open Space/Tidelands
PD1626-WO
Contempo Marin Residential
Height Allowed: 36'
Proposed: 50' (subject to design approval)
SUMMARY
A new monopole wireless facility is subject to Major Use Permit and Design Review approval by the
Planning Commission, with the Design Review Board (Board) recommendation. Design Review
approval is also required for a tower structure that exceeds the applicable zoning district height limit.
Staff notes that building mounted facilities are generally preferred over new monopole structures. In this
case, a new building mounted facility could not be pursued because the buildings at the airport have
been used for solar energy collection. Thus, the applicant has proposed a new, stand-alone monopole
designed to mimic the appearance of tall pine tree.
The project would require an alternative site analysis if it were not a stealth design or were proposed in
a least preferred residential or open space location. In this case, the project is located on an industrially
developed site and has been designed with a genuine stealth concept. In general, staff concludes that
the project may be supported to permit an additional monopole on this site subject to additional
requirements, revisions and/or conditions as identified on page 6 of this report. Specifically, staff asks
that the Board consider the following design issues:
• Whether the faux pine tree monopole design is acceptable where located and as proposed.
• Whether the height should be reduced to comply with the standard 36 foot building height limit for a
single -carrier monopole.
• Whether the staff recommended conditions are adequate.
• That the RRU units location or placement should be further modified to minimize visual impact.
The Board is asked to provide its recommendation to the Planning Commission, which has been
tentatively set to review the project on February 25, 2014. Staff notes that based on a Federal
Telecommunications Act of 1996 amendment (Act) and "shot clock" ruling, the project has been
deemed complete as of January 13, 2014 (after a total of 30 tolled days in review for completeness).
Action must be taken on the proposed new facility within 150 days, consistent with the Act. Further, in
accord with state "permit streamlining act" provisions, a decision on zoning entitlements should be
made within 60 days of a determination of completeness (and conclusion of environmental review).
Thus, unless the applicant requests an extension of time or further environmental review is deemed
required, the project should be scheduled for action by March 14, 2014.
BACKGROUND
Site Description & Setting:
The project is located on the westerly portion of the 119.5 acre airport property which is currently
developed with light industrial buildings. The antenna structure is proposed to be placed within a
landscape strip that lies along the west edge of the unpaved access road that, approximately 350 feet
past the traffic circle at the entrance to the airport parking lot, (or approx. 480 feet after of the railroad
crossing). See figure 1 below.
Figure 1 - Faux Pine Location (Pro
2
History:
Wireless antenna facilities can be considered within any City zoning district, including PD districts.
Several facilities have been approved on the subject airport property, generally co -located on existing
buildings. This includes a 43 -foot building mounted radome (i.e., antenna array concealed within a
cylindrical shaped roof mount enclosure) on a nearby building, for MetroPCS (2008). A 34 -foot tall
monopole also has been approved and built in the immediate project vicinity, for T -Mobile (2001).
➢ On July 31, 2013, the applicant submitted a request for a new 43 -foot tall monopole, with a US Flag
proposed to be hung from the pole. The following day, August 1, 2013, staff provided a detailed
letter of incompleteness advising that this type of facility would require Planning Commission review
and approval, with an alternative site analysis, etc. required, given that the design was not
considered to be adequately "stealth". The applicant was encouraged to revise the proposal to co -
locate antennas on or integrated with an existing building.
➢ On August 5, 2013, the applicant asked whether staff could review and comment on alternative
design concepts. Subsequently, the applicant advised staff that its legal department required a
determination as to whether the project could proceed in light of a deed restriction placed on the
property. Project processing was informally suspended pending receipt of a request from the
applicant.
➢ On December 9, 2013, the applicant submitted a revised proposal for a 50 -foot tall faux pine tree.
The applicant advised staff that co -location on an existing structure could not be achieved because
the buildings had been fitted with solar panel arrays and the antenna would block or reduce panel
efficiency. Therefore, staff accepted the revised submittal and agreed to forward this to the Design
Review Board for its recommendation. Staff concluded that an alternative design analysis would not
be required based on the revised stealth alternative and conclusion that the solar equipment
prevented a building co -location option. The following day, December 10, 2013, staff provided a
letter requesting additional missing information; including additional plan sets, confirmation that the
taller pole would not require airport hazard safety lights, eight (8) of the required photo -simulations,
and an updated RFR report.
➢ On December 17, 2013, staff accepted a response from Bob Herbst, San Rafael Airport manager,
citing that a 53 -foot tall pole would not require a blinking red warning light for airplane safety, along
with submittal of a materials board and copies of revised photo -simulations intended to complete
the application submittal. On December 19, 2013, staff conducted a followup site visit and sent the
applicant an email reiterating a request for a photo -simulation showing view of the faux tree pole
from Smith Ranch Road; i.e., near Captains Cove (looking across the bridge crossing over the
North Fork of Gallinas Creek). However, this was not identified as a completeness item, and the
applicant did not submit a response to this additional request. Subsequently, City Hall was closed
due to staff furloughs from December 21, 2013 through January 2, 2014.
Revised federal regulations have established a "shot clock" ruling, which require that project
completeness review times must be "tolled" for a maximum total completeness review allowance of 30
days. The completeness review period continued through the recent City Hall closure of December 21
through January 2. As a result, the application has been deemed complete as of January 13, 2013.
Therefore, staff has scheduled the project for review to meet processing timelines. Staff request for a
photo -simulation of the facility as viewed from Smith Ranch Road has been reiterated, along with
additional information regarding need for placement of the 24 RRU units on the pole near the antenna.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project proposes the following:
• New 50 -foot tall faux pine tree (mono -pole) supporting up to nine (9) panel antennas and 24
Remote Radio Units (RRU's), with the antenna approximately 43 feet above grade and RRU units
approximately 35 feet above grade; and
• Ground mounted equipment placed in a 12 -foot by 16 -foot enclosed lease area adjacent to existing
buildings on the San Rafael Airport property.
The new mono -pole support structure would be placed within an existing landscape planter along the
west edge of the unpaved access road (closest to the buildings). Cabling would be placed with
underground trenches to connect to existing electrical service and new equipment. No new offsite
above grade utility equipment is indicated.
The "density" of proposed branches is not described, but illustrated on plan sheet A04, which shows a
conical tree form that tapers with wider branches and "trunk" at the base. Branch length is proposed to
extend 6'9" from the pole, at the antenna height (see Sheet A03). The antenna array and the
subordinate RRU's equipment would be set back within the branch depth. Cabling is not shown but
anticipated to extend through the monopole.
The antennas measure approximately 7" deep by 12" wide by 55" tall and the RRU's units measure
approximately 7" deep by 17" wide by 20" tall. The pole would be painted brown and have a bark
texture applied to the surface. Samples of the facility materials will be provided at the meeting. Lastly,
emergency warning signage would be installed at the facility location as required by the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) and state and federal Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) standards for protection of workers and persons that may have access or come
in contact with the facility.
The RRU units are being incorporated into new and upgraded wireless facilities in order to increase the
RF signal strength provided to the antennas, which is needed in order to meet the higher data demands
of new 4G/LTE service. Fiber optic cable connects the base equipment to the RRU, which in turn is
connected to the antenna being served. Placing the RRU's closer to the antenna increases the RF
signal strength delivered to the antenna, and reduces need for additional facilities in order to meet the
larger data demands of new wireless services. The applicant has submitted additional information
addressing staffs concern with the visual impact of these units. See Exhibit 6 for revised details for
placement of the units closer to the pole.
Staff has recommended that the applicant address future colocation opportunities on the pole,
particularly given that the antennas exceed the zoning districts 36 foot height limit. The applicant
intends to address this at the hearing.
Zoning Entitlements Required
The new monopole structure requires a Use Permit and Design Review Permit with an exception to
exceed the height limit, subject to Planning Commission review and approval with the recommendation
of the Design Review Board.
4
ANALYSIS
General Plan 2020 Consistency:
The Project is consistent with General Plan 2020 Policy 1-15, which states that the City should "ensure
that residents, schools, businesses and organizations have access to reliable, modern and cost-
effective telecommunications. The project has not been found to be in conflict with Policy -OS which
discourages placement of utilities in open space, nor Policy CD -5 which encourages review of projects
to ensure they would respect and enhance important community views and view sheds. No other
pertinent policies or potential conflicts have been identified.
Zoning Ordinance Consistency:
The site is located within an established Planned Development (PD) zoning district. Development of
minor ancillary structures associated with the permitted uses on the site, including wireless facilities
which may be permitted in any zoning district, may be considered through the design review process,
consistent with the provisions of the adopted PD 1909 district standards. The project is subject to
further review for compliance with the following standards and criteria:
Chapter 14.16 — Site and Use Regulations (Wireless Communications Facilities)
Submittal Information
Pursuant to Section 14.16.360, Use Permit and Design Review approval are required for new wireless
communications facilities. The project would have required an alternative site analysis if it lacked
stealth design. However, as revised, staff has concluded the faux pine tree qualifies as stealth design
and may be considered by the Planning Commission with Board review and recommendation for
approval. Story poles were not required for the project based given that photo -simulations were
provided. However, staff's request for a photo -simulation to show the visibility of the tree from Smith
Ranch Road was not provided. Staff anticipates that the top portion of the faux tree pole would be
partially visible, mainly by pedestrians on Smith Ranch Road; but staff notes that view of the facility
would be mitigated by the existing hillside and vegetation in the background.
The applicant submitted required plans and materials, including an "RFR" report that identifies the
potential radio frequency radiation that would be emitted by the facility. The RFR emissions would be
greatest directly in front of the wireless antenna, which project over the rooftops of the nearby buildings.
These buildings are primarily metal industrial structures that have been covered with solar arrays, thus
they would be rarely accessed. The RFR report recommends installation of required health and safety
signage to comply with FCC and OSHA standards; which would advise workers and occupants in the
area of potential exposure areas.
Site and Design Preferences
Wireless facilities are encouraged in the subject light industrially developed area, particularly when
stealthily integrated into existing buildings. However, integration with buildings in the area has been
precluded due to their use for rooftop solar. Placement of facilities on or near the buildings would
impact solar collection performance.
New monopoles are less -preferred, and typically considered appropriate only where they can be
screened from view and where other options are not available. This site contains an existing 34 -foot tall
pole near the proposed facility, and several building mounted radomes (i.e., cylindrical antenna
enclosures on rooftops). The subject "mono -pine" would be taller than these other facilities. An option to
co -locate equipment on an existing monopole would be supported to minimize the potential cumulative
visual effects of having multiple facilities at a single location. However, co -location on the existing pole
would require replacing it with a new taller pole, and cooperation from T -Mobile.
The existing 34 -foot tall T -Mobile monopole is not currently a highly visible facility and designed to
comply with the height limits of the site. Thus, the benefits of encouraging a co -location between the
5
two carriers appear minimal. However, staff notes that recent revisions made to the Federal
Telecommunications Act of 1996 may require that the City must approve subsequent expansions of
existing monopoles with limited discretion. The City is considering revisions to its current zoning
regulations in response to the Federal Telecommunications Act. Thus, it would be appropriate to review
this case on its own merits, including the height exception request which may provide a basis for
regulating future expansions.
Applicable Design Criteria
The wireless communications ordinance provides the following design requirements:
➢ All new wireless facilities shall co -locate with existing or new wireless facilities whenever feasible.
➢ Providers are encouraged to co -locate with other existing structures/improvements where it is
possible to minimize overall visual impact of the new facility.
➢ All wireless facilities shall have a stealth design to screen or reduce visual impacts to blend into the
existing environment.
➢ New ground mounted facilities shall be:
o Co -located to the extent feasible, which is preferred to new monopoles or towers. (Note:
Technical evidence may be warranted to demonstrate there are no other alternative sites or
feasible support structures or that the monopole tower would serve to better minimize adverse
visual effects.)
o Sited to be screened by existing development or existing/proposed vegetation.
➢ The 36 foot height of the underlying district may be exceeded through grant of an exception
(through design review) if the RFR exposure or aesthetic quality are found to be acceptable.
The facility reportedly achieves the coverage objectives of the carrier, which generally requires line of
sight to other antenna and customers. As noted above, staff had encouraged building or structure co -
location but had not encouraged colocation with the existing adjacent tower, as it would not materially
alter the aesthetic impacts. The facility could lowered in height to comply with the maximum 36 foot
height limit (comparable to the T -Mobile Antenna), which would mitigate the existing and future
potential visual impacts of the facility. This would most likely reduce overall service coverage, and the
applicant may need to consider further revisions to the site location or design in response, but such a
recommendation would be appropriate for a new monopole facility proposed for a single carrier. In
general, the faux pine design for the single AT&T carrier would appear to be a successful stealth
solution, as proposed and located.
Recommended Conditions or Modifications
If supported, staff recommends that the project should be subject to the following additional
requirements and conditions:
❖ As required by SRMC Section 14.16.360, AT&T Mobile needs to provide a statement that it, and its
future successors, will cooperate with the City to allow future co -location of antennas at the
proposed site, if it is approved.
❖ The following would be recommended as revisions/conditions of approval:
1. As required by SRMC 14.16.360, the following conditions must be imposed:
a. Post installation RFR measurement is required within 45 days of facility installation.
b. Participation in a three year review of RFR and facility for compliance.
2. The RRU's should be removed modified to the extent practicable to be less visible.
3. Plans shall identify area(s) on the pole that could support potential future antenna installations
by other carriers.
1.1
4. The project details shall be implemented as presented on the plans and colors and materials
exhibit, with faux bark treatments and the antenna painted to blend in with tree colors. All colors
and finishes shall be non -reflective.
5. Design of the tree and spacing of branches shall be implemented as indicated on approved
plans sheet A04 and represented by the color and materials board; i.e., a conical tree form with
6'9" branches extending past the antenna array and equipment at the antenna height and
widening toward the base. Details shall be specified on plans for building permit.
6. Any required approvals from Caltrans Division of Aeronautics shall be obtained prior to issuance
of building permits. If airport safety lighting is required, an amendment to the project shall be
required to show the visual impacts of or negate need for such lighting.
7. All equipment shall be screened from view, as indicated. On and off-site utility lines and related
improvements shall be placed underground, as indicated. An amendment to this approval shall
be required if additional above ground equipment or facilities are proposed on or off-site.
8. This approval limits the height of the monopole to 50 -feet, which includes a 14 foot exception
above the maximum 36 foot height limit established for the subject PD1 909 Zone District. No
further height increase shall be permitted unless a design review permit amendment is
submitted and approved by the City.
9. The overall height of the facility shall match the height as depicted in the project photo -
simulations. Actual height impacts shall be verified during or prior to installation. If the structure
would extend higher than indicated in the photo -simulations, an amendment and/or revision
shall be required.
10. All cabling to the antennas and equipment on the pole shall be concealed within the pole
structure.
As noted in the Project Description above, the RRU units require fiber cabling that needs to run as
close to the antennas as possible, with a short jumper to the antennas, in order to maximize RF
transmission at the antennas. Placing the RRU's on the ground results in greater loss of signal
strength, which is undesirable by the applicant. Staff also asked the applicant to demonstrate whether
other carriers could share the pole, as proposed. Additional information on the RRU unit placement is
attached as an exhibit. The applicant intends to address colocation opportunities at the meeting.
Requested Comments
Based on the above discussion, staff requests that the Board provide its comments on the project,
including the following specific items:
• Whether the faux pine tree monopole design is acceptable where located and as proposed.
• Whether the height should be reduced to comply with the standard 36 foot building height limit for a
single carrier monopole.
• Whether the additional staff recommended conditions and revisions are adequate.
The Boards recommendations will be forwarded to the Planning Commission for consideration. If Board
the concept, staff would suggest that any additional details could be forwarded to the Board prior to
issuance of building permits if needed.
Chapter 22 — Use Permit
The Planning commission will be required to make findings for approval of a Use Permit the project. In
general, the project must be found to be in accord with the general plan and zoning ordinance, and not
be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. As proposed and conditioned, the use permit
7
findings would be satisfied if the applicable design and development standards have been adequately
addressed.
Chapter 25 — Environmental and Desiqn Review Permit
The Planning commission must also make findings for major environmental and design review
approval, which requires the recommendation of the Board. The following design criteria apply in
addition to the wireless antenna criteria discussed above:
➢ There shall be a harmonious relationship between structures within the site. Proposed structures
should be related accordant to existing development in the vicinity.
➢ Major views should be preserved and enhanced from public streets.
➢ Respect site features and constraints
➢ Utility connections shall be placed underground
➢ Materials and colors should be consistent with the context of the surroundings, with use of
earthtone/woodtones and low reflectivity.
Site has distant views of significant hillsides to the south and Mt Tam to the west. Based on the
provided photo -simulations faux pine tree does not appear to materially alter the views, and should
result in an inconspicuous facility installation. No further design issues identified.
NEIGHBORHOOD CORRESPONDENCE
Consistent with the City noticing requirements of Chapter 14.29, a notice of the public hearing was
mailed at least 15 days prior to the meeting to surrounding residents and property owners within 500
feet of the project site. In addition, a public hearing sign was posted at the entrance to the site, off
Smith Ranch Road. No comments have been received to date.
CONCLUSION
Staff recommends that the Board provide address the points raised in the Summary section of this
report, provide its recommendation to the Planning Commission on the project, and give any further
direction to the applicant on the project design. A recommendation for support of the project as
proposed, or support with specific revisions, or to deny the project would be considered appropriate. A
continuance for further redesign may not be a viable option, unless the applicant was able to request a
continuance and revise plans in order to return to the Board without exceeding the FCC processing
time limits.
If during its discussion of the project or as a result of public testimony, the Board identifies additional
revisions that have not been addressed in this report or in the applicant's presentation, staff
recommends that the applicant should be provided an opportunity to speak to any new items. Any
follow-up comments should be limited to the newly identified information, for the Board to consider
before making its final recommendations.
EXHIBITS
1. Vicinity Map
2. Application Submittal Letter
3. Photo -simulations
4. RFR Report
5. Coverage Maps
6. Revised RRU response and details
7. Project plans (provided to the DRB members only)
cc: AT&T Mobile, c/o Perry Novak/Laurie Robinson
San Rafael Airport, Attn.: R Herbst LLC 400 Smith Ranch Rd, San Rafael, CA 94901
Exhibit 1 - Vicinity Map (400 Smith Ranch Road - AT&T Monopole)
ROAD
SCALE 1 :5,703
�TTI
500 0 500 1,000 1,500
FEET
N
A
Monday, January 27, 2014 12:32 PM
July 22, 2013
Sarjit Dhaliwal, PhD, AICP
City of San Rafael
Community Development Department
Planning Division
1400 Fifth Avenue
P.O. Box 151560
San Rafael, CA 94915-1560
Subject: Proposed AT&T Mobility Tower CNU0655 at San Raphael Airport
Dear Mr. Dhaliwal,
Blue Licenses Holding, LLC/New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC dba AT&T Mobility ("AT&T) is a registered
public utility, licensed and regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission and the Federal
Communications Commission ("FCC"). As a public utility, AT&T Mobility is mandated by the FCC to
provide wireless communication services throughout California. AT&T is dedicated to providing
customers with wireless technology designed to enrich their lives as their mobility is increasing. AT&T's
vision is to simplify the wireless experience for its consumer and business customers by offering easy -to -
understand, affordable rate plans and excellent customer service. AT&T is bringing next -generation
wireless data products — from corporate e-mail to downloadable ringtones — all for customers
nationwide through its advanced networks. The network performance goals include providing the best
quality, lowest level of blocking, easy access to the network and continuous drop -free connections.
AT&T's wireless network is based on GSM and UMTS technology. These technologies are wireless
communication standards that require re -using specific frequencies across defined frequency bands.
Due to the need for frequency reuse, GSM and UMTS require numerous sites to provide customers with
suitable signal strength to deliver services. These sites are typically built on existing buildings, lattice
towers and freestanding poles in order to provide a network of sites that provide seamless coverage
over an area.
In addition to these 3G wireless service gap issues; AT&T is in the process of deploying its 4G LTE service
in San Raphael with the goal of providing the most advanced personal wireless experience available to
the City's residents.
Efforts are currently underway in San Raphael to establish the required infrastructure. AT&T has
retained the services of DSI to facilitate the land use entitlement process. AT&T is currently seeking the
review and approval of a Site Plan Review Application to allow the construction, operation and
maintenance of an unmanned Wireless Telecommunications Facility at the (proposed facility) San
Raphael Airport located at 400 Smith Ranch Road.
Development Systems Incorporated
6368 N. Figarden Drive, Suite 113
Fresno, CA 93722
This project is proposed to close a significant service coverage gap and enhance wireless services in the
area surrounding the site. AT&T's service coverage area in the city must be improved to handle the
growing number of voice calls and wireless data usage.
The project will consist of the installation of a new equipment shelter mounted to a new concrete pad
for AT&T equipment. Inside the shelter there will be (9) Remote Radio Units, 36 Coax cables. Outside
the shelter there will be fiber lines and DC power lines that run to the radio units in the shelter. Six (6)
Antennas (two per sector) will be mounted atop a 43' proposed slim line flag pole. This particular design
to have an additional pole (vs. collocated) is at the request of the landlord at the airport. The airport has
limited space available close to its structures due to solar arrays that have been installed.
Once Constructed and Operational, the proposed facility will provide 24-hour service to customers
seven (7) days a week. Aside from the initial construction, AT&T will periodically service the facility. It is
reasonable to expect that routine maintenance/inspection of the facility will occur about once a month
during normal business hours. Beyond this intermittent service, AT&T requires 24-hour access to the
proposed facility to ensure that technical support is immediately available if and when required.
Mr. Dhaliwal, please accept this submittal package on behalf of AT&T. You should find that it is all
inclusive with exception of a geotechnical report at the direction of Bechtel Communications. If you
have any questions please feel free to contact me at (559)304-4300. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Perry Novak
DEV'FLOPMENT SYSTEMS INCORPORATED
6368 N. Figarden Dr., Suite 113
Fresno, CA 93722
Office - 559.800. 7676
Cell - 559.304.4300
Fax - 559.272.6432
Perty(@develol2mentsysteinsinc.com
Development Systems Incorporated
6368 N. Figarden Drive, Suite 113
Fresno, CA 93722
Kraig Tambornini
From: Laurie Robinson <laurie@developmentsystemsinc.com>
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2014 8:07 AM
To: Kraig Tambornini
Subject: Justification to have the RRU's closer to the Antennas for San Rafael Airport
Importance: High
Good morning Kraig,
In the evolution to advance 3G and 4G services, we need to bring fiber to the top of the tower. Next -generation, fiber -
fed architectures are quickly becoming the standard design for NSB and Mod projects. These new fiber -to -the -antenna
(FTTA) architectures leverage tower mounted radios to deliver a number of benefits over traditional coaxial -based
systems.
• Better Signal Integrity (as much as 50% loss can occur with coaxial cable vs. FTTA)
• Increased Energy Efficiency
o As the frequency of the radio signal rises, the corresponding signal losses in the coaxial feeder
increase. In the worst cases, twice as much signal must be injected into the feeder coax as is needed to
propagate out from the antenna. The radio frequency (RF) power amplifier in the base station is one of
the lease efficient components of the system, and much of the extra energy required to drive RF power
up hard-line coax is simply wasted as heat. This, in turn drives up the energy costs even more because
active cooling systems such as AC are needed to keep the equipment within its operating temperature
ranges. Cooling typically accounts for 25% of a tower's energy use. With a remote radio system, the RF
power amplifier is located in the RRU. The tower -mounted RRU is cooled by ambient air flow,
eliminating or decreasing the need for active cooling in the base station and saving energy.
Increased Capacity and Coverage
Smaller Footprint
o FTTA systems consume less space because the fiber cable is many times thinner and carries more signal
than coaxial feeder cable. A fiber -fed system lessens, or at least doesn't add to coaxial congestion
(multiple carriers on one tower using coax cable) and tower loading issues (requiring drop and swap
expansions for future collocation), which reduces physical complexity and minimizing visual impact
(placing coax cable on the exterior of the tower due to multiple carriers on the same tower using coax
cable).
Thanks!
Laurie
Laurie Robinson, LEED AP
DEVELOPMENT SYSTEMS INCORPORATED
6368 N. Figarden Dr., Suite 113
Fresno, CA 93722
Office - 559.800.7676
Cell - 559.704.8849
Fax - 559.272.6432
Laurie@developmentsystemsinc.com
! jl/flBl l Cl
Kraig Tambornini
From: Laurie Robinson <laurie@developmentsystemsinc.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2014 1:32 PM
To: Kraig Tambornini
Subject: ATT Tower at San Rafael airport
Attachments: RRU Mount Options.pdf, RRU Mount Options 2.pdf
Hi Kraig,
I just wanted you to have a copy of the options we are looking at for the RRUs in the monopine, as you can see they are
snugged up right on the pole, so the branches will cover them and they will be painted to match as well, so will be
virtually invisible to the naked eye. We are also revising the plans to reflect a future carrier location on the monopine to
enable co -location at a lower elevation. What are your thoughts?
Thanks!
Laurie
Laurie Robinson, LEED AP
0
DEVELOPMENT SYSTEMS INCORPORATED
6368 N. Figarden Dr., Suite 113
Fresno, CA 93722
Office - 559.800.7676
Cell - 559.704.8849
Fax - 559.272.6432
Laurie@developmentsystemsinc.com
RRU Mounts/Monopole
.m
L
Im
BBPM-K1 Shown
RRU Ring Mount
• Mount up to 6 RRUs.
• Designed to stay as close as possible to the monopole for
reduced wind load.
• Accepts 1-1/2" - 4-1/2" pipes. Buy pipe separately (page
142).
Part #
Weight
Size Range
Price
UGLM-DCP
113 Lbs
10-1/2" - 28"
$399.00
LP -42
71 Lbs
28" - 42" Adapter Kit
$205.00
LP -6
33 Lbs
6-5/8" - 10-1/2" Adapter Kit
$75.00
RRU Dual Pipe Ring Mount
• Mount up to 6 RRUs.
• Designed to stay as close as possible to the monopole for
reduced wind load.
• Compact design takes less vertical space on pole.
• Pipe separation is 15-1/2".
• Accepts 1-1/2" - 3-1/2" pipes. Buy pipe separately.
• *Requires 9 pipes.
Part #
Weight
Size Range
Price
UGLM-DAC
113 Lbs
10-1/2" - 28"
$609.00
LP -42
71 Lbs
28" - 42" Adapter Kit
$205.00
LP -6
33 Lbs
6-5/8" - 10-1/2" Adapter Kit
$75.00
Back to Back Pipe Mount
• Simple way to add RRU's to a monopole stand-off arm.
• Provides back to back pipes, useful for RRU mounting.
• BBPM-U uses half -clamps for universal pipe sizes.
• Buy pipes separately (page 142).
Part #
Pipe Sizes
Stand-off Arms
Price
BBPM-K1
2-3/8"
3-1/2"- 4-1/2"
$46.95
BBPM-K2
2-7/8"
3-1/2"- 4-1/2"
$48.95
BBPM-U
2-3/8" - 4-1/2"
2-3/8" - 4-1/2"
$69.00
valmont J New York Atlanta Plymouth
126 1-888-438-7761 1-866-901-0603 1-888-753-7446
www.siteprol.com
RRU Suaaorts
6 -Sector Pipe Mount Kit
Application:
Design:
Feature:
Mounts to:
Material:
Includes:
Order Separately:
Monopoles
Six Sector pipe mount kit
Allows pipe diameter up to 3-1/2" OD (88.9 mm
OD) with separately purchased u -bolts and pipe
15" to 60" OD (381 mm to 1524 mm OD)
Monopoles
Hot dip galvanized steel
Mount, threaded rod, twelve 2-3/8" (60.3 mm)
u -bolts
Pipe, 2-7/8" (73 mm) up to 3-1/2" (88.
u -bolts
Part Number Description
Weight, Ib (kg)
Six Sector Pipe Ring Mount
RR-RM1560 Pipe Mount Kit, for 15" to 97 (44)
60" OD (381 mm to 1524 mm OD) Monopoles
62 CommScope • w .commscape.com/andrew
RR-RM1560
��J Z-
Al
RRU Supports
Monopole Chain Mount Kit Part Number Description Weight, Ib (kg)
Application:
Monopoles
Design:
Three sector chain mount
Feature:
Allows pipe diameter up to 3-1/2" OD (88.9 mm
Feature:
OD) with separately purchased u -bolts and pipe
Mounts to:
18" to 30" OD (457.2 mm to 762 mm OD)
Mounts to:
Monopoles
Material:
Hot dip galvanized steel
Includes:
Mount, chain, hardware with six 2-3/8" OD (60.3
Includes:
mm OD) antenna pipe u -bolts
Order Separately,
Pipe, 2-7/8" (73 mm) up to 3-1/2" (88.9 mm)
Order Separately:
u -bolts
Chain Mounts
.O
Application:
Monopoles
Design:
One, three or six sector kits
Feature:
Allows pipe diameter up to 3-1/2" OD (88.9 mm
OD) with separately purchased u -bolts and pipe
Mounts to:
10" to 30" OD (254 mm to 762 mm OD)
Monopoles
Material:
Hot dip galvanized steel
Includes:
Mount, chain, hardware, 2-3/8" (60.3 mm)
u -bolts
Order Separately:
Pipe, 2-7/8" (73 mm) up to 3-1/2" (88.9 mm)
u -bolts
• RR-CM130
64 Commkope • www.commscope.com/andrew
Three Sector Monopole Chain Mount Kit
MT -RCM -1830 Chain Mount Kit, for 18" to 102 (46.2)
30" OD (457.2 mm to 762 mm OD) Monopoles
MT -RCM -1830
Part Number Description
Weight, Ib (kg)
Chain Mounts
RR-CM130
Single Sector Chain Mount, for 10" to 30" OD 22 (10)
(254 mm to 762 mm OD) Monopoles
RR-CM330
Three Sector Chain Mount, for 10" to 30" OD 42 (19.1)
(254 mm to 762 mm OD) Monopoles
RR-CM630
Six Sector Chain Mount, for 10" to 30" OD 72 (32.7)
(254 mm to 762 mm OD) Monopoles
• RR-CM330
• RR-CM630