MetroPCS: Big Win in Irvine, CA

[Jonathan Kramer]

Last Thursday evening, the City of Irvine approved MetroPCS's master plan Conditional User Permit for 30 new sites in the City. Of the 30 sites, the Planning Commission also specifically approved 15. The information below is taken from the Planning Commission agenda:

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 00418200-PCPM TO PERMIT A WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITY (CLASS 1) CAMOUFLAGED ON THE ROOFTOP OF A BUILDING LOCATED AT 18071 FITCH

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 00424878-PCPM TO PERMIT A WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITY (CLASS 1) CAMOUFLAGED ON THE ROOFTOP OF A BUILDING LOCATED AT 18 TRUMAN

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 00436694-PCPM TO PERMIT A WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITY (CLASS 1) CAMOUFLAGED ON THE ROOFTOP OF A BUILDING LOCATED AT 17310 RED HILL AVENUE

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 00437303-PPA TO PERMIT A WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITY (CLASS 1) CAMOUFLAGED ON THE ROOFTOP OF A BUILDING LOCATED AT 350 COMMERCE

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 00428428-PCPM TO PERMIT A WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITY (CLASS 1) CAMOUFLAGED ON THE ROOFTOP OF A BUILDING LOCATED AT 8677 RESEARCH

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 00424880-PCPM TO PERMIT A WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITY (CLASS 1) CAMOUFLAGED ON THE ROOFTOP OF A BUILDING LOCATED AT 57 PARKER

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 00432564-PCPM TO PERMIT A WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITY (CLASS 1) CAMOUFLAGED ON THE ROOFTOP OF A BUILDING LOCATED AT 90 PACIFICA

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 00425913-PCPU TO PERMIT A WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITY (CLASS 1) CAMOUFLAGED ON THE ROOFTOP OF A BUILDING LOCATED AT 10 THOMAS

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 00439509-PCPM TO PERMIT A WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITY (CLASS 1) CAMOUFLAGED ON THE ROOFTOP OF A BUILDING LOCATED AT 5161 CALIFORNIA

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 00427398-PCPU TO PERMIT A WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITY (CLASS 6) ON A SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON TRANSMISSION TOWER LOCATED AT INTERSTATE 405 AND LAGUNA CANYON ROAD

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 00427809-PCPM TO PERMIT A WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITY (CLASS 6) ON A SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON TRANSMISSION TOWER LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF BARRANCA PARKWAY AND JEFFREY ROAD

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 00430718-PCPU TO PERMIT A WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITY (CLASS 6) ON A SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON TRANSMISSION TOWER LOCATED SOUTH OF THE ATCHISON, TOPEKA, & SANTA FE RAILROAD AND WEST OF YALE AVENUE

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 00432819-PCPU TO PERMIT A WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITY (CLASS 6) ON THE FIRST SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON TRANSMISSION TOWER LOCATED IMMEDIATELY NORTH OF THE JEFFREY/I-405 INTERSECTION

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 00431698-PCPU TO PERMIT A WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITY (CLASS 6) ON SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON TRANSMISSION TOWER LOCATED SOUTH OF THE CULVER/I-405 INTERSECTION

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 00442580-PCPM TO PERMIT A WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITY (CLASS 6) ON A SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON TRANSMISSION TOWER LOCATED AT 2960 MAIN STREET

I'm pleased to say I had a small hand in the process.

-Jonathan

[larry]

Wow I've never heard of that many sites getting approved at the same time! I also see that some of those addresses are where Sprint has exisiting sites. They seem to follow Sprint around more than other carriers. hee-hee

Now getting sites approved in Turtle Rock is the real challenge in Irvine!

[Andy]

Good Job, Metro. With all the sites they are putting up, looks like the network may not be that bad, for most people at least.

[larry]

Originally Posted by Andy

Good Job, Metro. With all the sites they are putting up, looks like the network may not be that bad, for most people at least.

I'm still amazed at all the money they seem to have for this build-out. I didn't think they would have the funding for this many sites. They seem to moving along quicker in Orange County than In LA County. They still have a ways to go up in the valley and in the Inland Empire. They claimed they were going to start offering service later this year but I still don't see that happening. It seems like they're method of build-out is to exclusively do co-location sites and use building rooftops. I haven't seen one single freestanding monopole put up by Metro themselves yet. I guess that's the only way they can do it these days. In the 1990's each carrier put up their own monopoles and weren't co-locating with each other but I think the cities and nimby's got wise to that. In Metro's case they usually settle for lower elevations on monopoles that already have one or two carriers and thus the need to build so many sites.

[Andy]

Originally Posted by larry

I'm still amazed at all the money they seem to have for this build-out. I didn't think they would have the funding for this many sites. They seem to moving along quicker in Orange County than In LA County. They still have a ways to go up in the valley and in the Inland Empire. They claimed they were going to start offering service later this year but I still don't see that happening. It seems like they're method of build-out is to exclusively do co-location sites and use building rooftops. I haven't seen one single freestanding monopole put up by Metro themselves yet. I guess that's the only way they can do it these days. In the 1990's each carrier put up their own monopoles and weren't co-locating with each other but I think the cities and nimby's got wise to that. In Metro's case they usually settle for lower elevations on monopoles that already have one or two carriers and thus the need to build so many sites.

Sad that it is almost easier to (co-locate) more sites than build an actual monopole. But I guess having one huge monopole is better than having two monopoles with only 2 or 3 carriers on it.
T-Mobile has done this in my area- build/colocate on tons of sites, but at a lower altitude than other carriers. This way, it seems, T-Mobile did away with capacity problems because they have a ton of cell sites, but they still have great coverage because they have a site "on every corner".

[Jonathan Kramer]

Originally Posted by larry

Wow I've never heard of that many sites getting approved at the same time! I also see that some of those addresses are where Sprint has exisiting sites. They seem to follow Sprint around more than other carriers. hee-hee

Now getting sites approved in Turtle Rock is the real challenge in Irvine!

Larry:

Yup...15 is a record as best I can tell. The real heroes are Kelly Kuldus and Maya Contreras, both UberPlanners at the City of Irvine, as well as Metro's "cast of thousands."

I suspect the reason why Metro is heading to already-developed sites is that there's a known (or at least reasonably) willing landlord who already enjoys the benefits of a passive income.

j

[roamer1]

Originally Posted by larry

I haven't seen one single freestanding monopole put up by Metro themselves yet.

I'm not aware of anywhere here in Atlanta where Metro put up their own towers, either... (Given that they were the last carrier to enter the market, there probably wasn't any need to build new towers and relying on colocations was no problem.)

Metro certainly appears to have some money; not only have they gone site-crazy in SoCal, here in Atlanta they've finally expanded coverage into some of the outer suburban and exurban areas they've avoided in the past -- Peachtree City (which IMO they should have built out at the beginning), Newnan, Canton, etc.

-SC

[larry]

Originally Posted by roamer1

I'm not aware of anywhere here in Atlanta where Metro put up their own towers, either... (Given that they were the last carrier to enter the market, there probably wasn't any need to build new towers and relying on colocations was no problem.)

Metro certainly appears to have some money; not only have they gone site-crazy in SoCal, here in Atlanta they've finally expanded coverage into some of the outer suburban and exurban areas they've avoided in the past -- Peachtree City (which IMO they should have built out at the beginning), Newnan, Canton, etc.

-SC

But it's a little different here in So. Cal because most towers are built low and already have 2 carriers on them. So co-location is not possible on many of them or if they do co-locate they don't get a good height. But to Metro's credit they seemed to have done good detective work and managed to find any and all available poles to add on to that didn't already have 2-3 carriers on them.

[TelcomJunkie]

Originally Posted by larry

But it's a little different here in So. Cal because most towers are built low and already have 2 carriers on them. So co-location is not possible on many of them or if they do co-locate they don't get a good height. But to Metro's credit they seemed to have done good detective work and managed to find any and all available poles to add on to that didn't already have 2-3 carriers on them.

Initial buildouts always involve some fuzzy engineering. You can't get second wave budgets till you launch

[TelcomJunkie]

I forgot to mention last night, if they hadn't got their 350 Commerce address passed... I would've laughed.

[larry]

Originally Posted by TelcomJunkie

I forgot to mention last night, if they hadn't got their 350 Commerce address passed... I would've laughed.

Hey isn't that their own office building in Irvine?

[TelcomJunkie]

Originally Posted by larry

Hey isn't that their own office building in Irvine?

You got it... the whole group is down in that general area. Sprint/Nextel, Verizon, Metro and Cingular/ATT is around the corner.

[larry]

I've been to the Sprint/Nextel building there before. I know someone who works there.

[TelcomJunkie]

Originally Posted by larry

I've been to the Sprint/Nextel building there before. I know someone who works there.

Which Commerce office? The Ops or the Sales one? They've also got some other offices scattered around the general area.

[larry]

Originally Posted by TelcomJunkie

Which Commerce office? The Ops or the Sales one? They've also got some other offices scattered around the general area.

The sales one.

[Jonathan Kramer]

Originally Posted by TelcomJunkie

I forgot to mention last night, if they hadn't got their 350 Commerce address passed... I would've laughed.

Yeah, for some reason, they *really* wanted that one approved in the first batch. jlk

[Jonathan Kramer]

Originally Posted by Jonathan Kramer

"The real heroes are Kelly Kuldus and Maya Contreras, both UberPlanners at the City of Irvine..."

I misspelled Kelly's last name. It's Koldus (not Kuldus).

jlk