Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda Packet - CC - 2018.09.04
City Council City of Burlingame Meeting Agenda - Final BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Council Chambers6:15 PMTuesday, September 4, 2018 STUDY SESSION - 6:15 p.m. - Conference Room A Study Session Regarding the Public Art Project to Honor Anson Burlingamea. Staff Report Information about Subcommittee Members Anson Burlingame Public Art Roles for all Participating Parties Attachments: Note: Public comment is permitted on all action items as noted on the agenda below and in the non-agenda public comment provided for in item 7. Speakers are asked to fill out a "request to speak" card located on the table by the door and hand it to staff, although the provision of a name, address or other identifying information is optional. Speakers are limited to three minutes each; the Mayor may adjust the time limit in light of the number of anticipated speakers. All votes are unanimous unless separately noted for the record. 1. CALL TO ORDER - 7:00 p.m. - Council Chambers 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG 3. ROLL CALL 4. REPORT OUT FROM CLOSED SESSION 5. UPCOMING EVENTS 6. PRESENTATIONS 7. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA Members of the public may speak about any item not on the agenda. Members of the public wishing to suggest an item for a future Council agenda may do so during this public comment period. The Ralph M . Brown Act (the State local agency open meeting law) prohibits the City Council from acting on any matter that is not on the agenda. Page 1 City of Burlingame Printed on 12/5/2018 September 4, 2018City Council Meeting Agenda - Final 8. APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR Consent calendar items are usually approved in a single motion, unless pulled for separate discussion . Any member of the public wishing to comment on an item listed here may do so by submitting a speaker slip for that item in advance of the Council’s consideration of the consent calendar. Adoption of City Council Meeting Minutes August 20, 2018a. Meeting MinutesAttachments: Adoption of a Resolution Approving the Procurement of Five Public Safety Vehicles for the Police Department b. Staff Report Resolution Bid Summary Attachments: Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency to Negotiate with the City and County of San Francisco on behalf of the City of Burlingame to Amend the Water Supply Agreement c. Staff Report Resolution Attachments: Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Cost -Sharing Agreement with the County of San Mateo for the Relocation of a Water Main on Airport Boulevard d. Staff Report Resolution Rough Order of Magnitude Cost Estimate Project Location Map Attachments: Adoption of a Resolution Approving a License Agreement with Zayo Group, LLC for Installation and Use of Underground Conduit and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute the Encroachment Agreement e. Staff Report Resolution Agreement Attachments: Adoption of a Resolution of Support for Proposition 1, the Veterans and Affordable Housing Bond on the November 6, 2018 Ballot f. Staff Report Resolution Attachments: Page 2 City of Burlingame Printed on 12/5/2018 September 4, 2018City Council Meeting Agenda - Final Update on San Mateo County Community Resilience Grantg. Staff Report Community Resilience Grant Guidelines Asset Vulnerability Profile Attachments: Open Nomination Period to Fill Two Vacancies on the Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission h. Staff ReportAttachments: 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Public Comment) City Council Consideration of an Appeal of the Planning Commission ’s June 11, 2018 Action Denying Without Prejudice an Application for a Conditional Use Permit to Install a New Wireless Facility (Antenna and Equipment) on an Existing Wood Utility Pole Located Within the Right-of-Way Adjacent to 1800 Hillside Drive City Council Consideration of an Appeal of the Planning Commission ’s June 11, 2018 Action Denying Without Prejudice an Application for a Conditional Use Permit to Install a New Wireless Facility (Antenna and Equipment) on an Existing Wood Utility Pole Located Within the Right-of-Way Adjacent to 701 Winchester Drive (Existing Utility Pole is Located Along Oak Grove Avenue) a. Staff Report - 1800 Hillside Staff Report - 701 Winchester Legal Memorandum Title 25 - Zoning Code - Sections 25.77.080(c) and 25.77.090 Letter & Exhibits Submitted by Applicant, Both Sites Appeal Letter 1800 Hillside Appeal Letter 701 Winchester June 11, 2018 PC Minutes, Both Sites June 11, 2018 PC Staff Report 1800 Hillside June 11, 2018 PC Staff Report 701 Winchester Letters Rec'd After Prep. of PC Staff Reports, Both Sites Revised Plans - 1800 Hillside Dr Previously Proposed Plans - 1800 Hillside Dr Revised Plans - 701 Winchester Previously Proposed Plans - 701 Winchester Attachments: Page 3 City of Burlingame Printed on 12/5/2018 September 4, 2018City Council Meeting Agenda - Final Request for a Finding of Public Convenience and Necessity (PCN) Pursuant to Section 23958.4 of the California Business and Professions Code, Related to a Request for a Type 42 (On-Sale Beer and Wine – Public Premises) Alcoholic Beverage Sales Permit Issued Through the California Alcoholic Beverage Control Board (ABC), as Requested by Wine Revelry, LLC to Permit the Sale of Alcoholic Beverages in a Neighborhood Wine Bar at 310 Lorton Avenue b. Staff Report Resolution Request for PCN Police Department Review of PCN Request Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - July 9, 2018 Attachments: Introduction of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 25.58 of the Burlingame Municipal Code to Add Regulations Regarding Marijuana c. Staff Report Ordinance Attachments: Public Hearing to Consider Proposed Amendments to Chapter 25.59 (Accessory Dwelling Units), Chapter 25.08 (Definitions), Chapter 25.26 (R-1 District Regulations), Chapter 25.60 (Accessory Structures in R-1 and R-2 districts) and Chapter 25.70 (Off-street Parking) of the Burlingame Municipal Code Related to Accessory Dwelling Units to be Consistent with Recently Adopted Amendments to California Government Code Section 65852.2 and Additional Changes to Remove Constraints to Creating Accessory Dwelling Units d. Staff Report Proposed Ordinance Code Language Showing Tracked Changes PC Study Meeting Minutes 5.14.18 PC Action Meeting Minutes 6.25.18 Govt Code Section 65852.2 Attachments: 10. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS (Public Comment) The Village at Burlingame Affordable Housing Development (Parking Lot F – 150 Park Road) and Public Parking Structure (Parking Lot N – 160 Lorton Avenue) – Proposed Development Program Modifications a. Staff Report February 26, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Attachments: 11. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS Councilmembers report on committees and activities and make announcements. Page 4 City of Burlingame Printed on 12/5/2018 September 4, 2018City Council Meeting Agenda - Final Mayor Brownrigg's Committee Reporta. Committee ReportAttachments: Vice Mayor Colson's Committee Reportb. Committee ReportAttachments: Councilmember Beach's Committee Reportc. Committee ReportAttachments: 12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS 13. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The agendas, packets, and meeting minutes for the Planning Commission, Traffic, Safety & Parking Commission, Beautification Commission, Parks & Recreation Commission and Library Board of Trustees are available online at www.burlingame.org. 14. ADJOURNMENT Notice: Any attendees wishing accommodations for disabilities please contact the City Clerk at (650)558-7203 at least 24 hours before the meeting. A copy of the Agenda Packet is available for public review at the City Clerk's office, City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. before the meeting and at the meeting. Visit the City's website at www.burlingame.org. Agendas and minutes are available at this site. NEXT CITY COUNCIL MEETING - Next regular City Council Meeting Monday, September 17, 2018 VIEW REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING ONLINE AT www.burlingame.org/video Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection at the Water Office counter at City Hall at 501 Primrose Road during normal business hours. Page 5 City of Burlingame Printed on 12/5/2018 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: MEETING DATE: September 4, 2018 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: September 4, 2018 From: Margaret Glomstad, Parks and Recreation Director – (650) 558-7307 Subject: Study Session Regarding the Public Art Project to Honor Anson Burlingame RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council provide feedback to the Anson Burlingame Subcommittee and the artist, John Roloff, regarding the Anson Burlingame art project draft conceptual design. BACKGROUND On February 21, 2017, the Council held a study session to discuss a public art work to honor Anson Burlingame and agreed that further work could be done by an ad hoc subcommittee. Subsequently, the City established a subcommittee that included then-Vice Mayor Brownrigg, Councilmember Beach, Lance Fung and John Talley of Fung Collaboratives, Ruth Waters, Russ Cohen, Leslie Holtzman, Janet Martin, and David Chai. To complete the committee, Andra Norris joined the group in March 2018. More information about the subcommittee members is attached to this report (Exhibit A). The Anson Burlingame Public Art project is intended to create a timeless artwork that commemorates the values and spirit of Anson Burlingame (as opposed to the man himself) and evolves a sense of place making within the community while engaging the history and culture of Burlingame and embracing both aesthetics and content. In order to develop the best artwork to honor Anson Burlingame, the project was developed in three phases: Phase 1: • Plan and facilitate two educational workshops, for the Councilmembers and community members, about what public art is, the benefits of public art, national and local views on public art, best practices, how the public can get involved, and what art can mean in Burlingame. • Hold one meeting of the Subcommittee and community working group to begin the conversation, talk about ideas and locations, and create a list of potential artists and/or ways to advertise the project. Phase 2: Study Session Regarding the Public Art Project to Honor Anson Burlingame September 4, 2018 2 • Research possible grant opportunities to help fund the art. • Meet with potential local funders, such as businesses or patrons. • Create the Call for Artists, Request for Qualifications, and Request for Proposals. • Present to Council to update the status of the project. Phase 3: • Advertise and promote the Request for Qualifications and Request for Proposals. • Select the final location and artist to commission the new site-specific artwork. • Work directly with the artist to create the draft proposals and the final proposal. • Schedule meetings with City stakeholders to provide information about the work. • Obtain funding and present the final proposal to the Council for final approval. • In conjunction with the City Attorney, develop and execute a contract between the City and the artist. • Work on installation details such as engineering, safety, ADA compliance, and signage. • Schedule and complete a ribbon-cutting event. During these phases, each participating party has a role to play (Exhibit B). The consultant, Fung Collaboratives, oversees and supports the entire project, while the artist, John Roloff, is responsible for the sole artistic vision and resulting permanent public artwork. In addition, the Subcommittee provides background information on community input and general feedback to ensure accurate content interpretation and appropriate location within the city; the community provides input to the artist to guide the development of the artwork; and the City Council approves the final design that confirms the artwork reflects the goals of the project and is fully accessible and visible for the community’s enjoyment. To date, phases 1 and 2 have been completed, and phase 3 is in progress. The consultants received 18 Request for Qualifications (RFQ) submissions. Of the 18 submissions, eight were disqualified because the artist didn’t meet the minimum requirements of the RFQ or didn’t follow the RFQ instructions. The consultants, based on their extensive art background, selected the top seven most qualified and appropriate submissions f or the Subcommittee’s review. After evaluation and discussion, the Subcommittee selected three artists to be interviewed on April 4, 2018: Kate Dodd, John Roloff, and Stutz/Dihn. The Subcommittee interviewed all three artists and determined that John Roloff and Stutz/Dihn should be invited to the Request for Proposals (RFP) phase. The two artists were given eight weeks to complete the RFP phase; On June 7, 2018, the artists presented their statement of intent, a written description and visual representations of the artwork, a budget, and a timeline. The Subcommittee discussed the aesthetics of the designs, the manner in which Anson Burlingame would be honored by exemplifying his actions and philosophy, the relationship of the artwork to the site location, the commitment of the artist to the project, and the feasibility of the proposed budget. The Subcommittee subsequently decided to continue working with John Roloff to continue refining the artwork in order to help solicit funds. The Subcommittee met with John Roloff and Fung Collaboratives on August 13 to review the preliminary renderings and location and provide additional input to help refine the artist’s vision for the artwork. Study Session Regarding the Public Art Project to Honor Anson Burlingame September 4, 2018 3 Study Session Regarding the Public Art Project to Honor Anson Burlingame September 4, 2018 4 DISCUSSION In order to further develop the artist’s vision, the City Council’s input is requested in the following areas. 1. Do the preliminary design options reflect the goals of the project? 2. Do the materiality, scale, and accessibility resonate with the City Council? 3. Are the representations of the preliminary design options relevant now and into the future? 4. Are there concerns about the artwork’s meaning and/or maintenance? FISCAL IMPACT Currently, funds in the amount of $23,833 have been budgeted for this project. At this time, no additional funds are being requested. Exhibits: • Information about Subcommittee members • Anson Burlingame Public Art Roles for all Participating Parties Exhibit A Information about Subcommittee Members Fung Collaboratives Fung Collaboratives is an arts organization founded in 1999 by Lance Fung. Their mission is to explore and develop interesting conversations between and through the arts. Through the development of curatorial, commercial, and educational events under a single organizational umbrella, Fung Collaboratives fosters the collaboration of both emerging and established artists in intimate and ambitious projects with domestic and international settings. Ruth Waters Ruth Waters is the founder and executive director of the Peninsula Museum of Art, now located in Burlingame and serving the Greater Bay Area. She has been working in sculpture for 60 years and in arts administration for 40 years.. Russ Cohen Russ Cohen is a past president of the Burlingame Historical Society and currently serves as its vice president. He is the founder of the Burlingame Hillsborough History Museum currently located in the historic Burlingame Train Station and has designed all the exhibits since its opening in 2008. Leslie Holtzman Leslie Holzman worked in the public art field for many years and led the City of Oakland's public art program. Prior to that, she worked in project management for the public art programs in San Jose and Los Angeles. Janet Martin Janet Martin is an owner of the Studio Shop, an art gallery in Burlingame. She is also a past Parks and Recreation Commissioner. Andra Norris In 2012, Andra Norris moved her San Francisco art gallery — Gallerie Citi — to Burlingame in order to bring more art to the Peninsula. She has worked as a gallerist since 2003 and is currently the owner and director of Andra Norris Gallery — a contemporary art gallery in downtown Burlingame. She was a dedicated studio artist for 20+ years previously. David Chai David Chai, the committee’s historical consultant, was fascinated with Anson Burlingame, the namesake of the City of Burlingame, when the City celebrated its 100th anniversary in 2008. Mr. Chai was able to collaborate with Dr. George Koo, a local Chinese American community leader, to obtain private funding to hire two professional librarians to search and document all relevant material on Anson Burlingame. One librarian searched the local libraries and the US Library of Congress while the other searched the primary libraries in Beijing, China. Fung Collaboratives Fung Collaboratives, INC 13519 Skyline Blvd Woodside CA 94062 www.fungcollaboratives.org Anson Burlingame Public Art Roles for all Participating Parties Fung Collaboratives (FC) is the paid consultant who will oversee the entire project in partnership with the Burlingame Parks and Recreation Department. As per the scope of work described in their contract, FC will be the communication conduit between the City and the Artist. FC will help guide the project through the industry standard public art process to ensure proper communication, inclusion, approvals, realization and unveiling of the artwork. The Artist, John Roloff, will be responsible for the sole artistic vision and resulting permanent public artwork. With his lifelong experience as a Bay Area artist and college professor, Roloff will develop a final proposal consisting of renderings, budgets, site drawings, etc. for the City to use to fundraise the necessary funds for project realization. At that time, the artist will fabricate and install the artwork with the supervision and assistance from FC and the City. The Anson Burlingame Public Art Subcommittee is comprised of Burlingame residents and City representatives in a volunteer capacity to help ensure the best possible outcome for this legacy artwork. The Subcommittee provides the necessary background information, community needs and desires, and general feedback to the artist to ensure the “correct feel” and accurate content interpretation is included. The Subcommittee is comprised of individuals with knowledge and experience in the arts and understands their role as a sounding board for the artist to bounce ideas off of. Their comments are meant to represent the general Burlingame community, rather than personal preference, so the comments remain constructive and directional versus detail oriented. This allows the creative genius of the artist to shine through which can only be happen through serious artistic research and information from the Subcommittee that has a deep understanding of the local motivations and desires. Fung Collaboratives Fung Collaboratives, INC 13519 Skyline Blvd Woodside CA 94062 www.fungcollaboratives.org The Subcommittee has been present at all of the FC public art workshops and selection/steering meetings. Most importantly, they were present at the community outreach sessions and helped to summarize the community’s desires and thoughts that were provided to the artist for his interpretation. The community has been invited to participate in two workshops where they were able to provide their input on the qualities of the proposed artwork. In addition, the community will be invited to learn about the artist and to see the initial conceptual proposal and the artist’s intention. The comments heard from the session will be addressed by the artist and incorporated in the final design. Given the subjective nature of art and public art, the artist will address the community’s ideas and concerns in a conceptual manner based on relevant comments. The Burlingame City Council has been fully informed throughout the process with updates by FC and staff reports. At the upcoming study session with the City Council, the artist seeks to learn: the passion and commitment of the City Council to this tribute, as well as any practical concerns they may have over implementation and future use of the project. Roloff will present his conceptual design with variations to be considered and discussed with the City Council. Comments at this stage are welcome to help guide the artist to advance the initial conceptual design towards the final design to be presented to the general community in the fall of 2018. Traditionally, comments about personal preference are withheld. Rather, comments about overall design issues such as materiality, function, access, maintenance, meaning, interpretation, relevance, scale, longevity and legacy are more instructive for an artist. Also, any thoughts about how the artwork would fit within the City’s future designs, plans and goals could be helpful. The final role of the City Council will be to approve the final design that will ensure the artwork reflects the nature of the City and the goals of the project, is properly conceived for full accessibility, visibility, and requires normal maintenance, and will be a beacon for Burlingame for generations to come. Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 9/04/18 Burlingame City Council August 20, 2018 Unapproved Minutes 1 BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL Unapproved Minutes Regular Meeting on August 20, 2018 1. CALL TO ORDER A duly noticed regular meeting of the Burlingame City Council was held on the above date in the City Hall Council Chambers. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG The pledge of allegiance was led by Burlingame School District Superintendent Dr. Maggie MacIsaac. 3. ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Beach, Brownrigg, Colson, Keighran, Ortiz MEMBERS ABSENT: None 4. CLOSED SESSION a. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS (GOV. CODE SECTION 54957.6) CITY DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVES: TIMOTHY L. DAVIS, SONYA M. MORRISON, KATHLEEN KANE, CAROL AUGUSTINE, LISA GOLDMAN, AND SHERYL SCHAFFNER EMPLOYEE ORGANIZATIONS: ASSOCIATION OF POLICE ADMINISTRATORS, BURLINGAME POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION, BURLINGAME POLICE SERGEANTS ASSOCIATION, TEAMSTERS LOCAL 856, AND DEPARTMENT HEADS AND UNREPRESENTED UNITS City Attorney Kane reported that direction was given but no reportable action was taken. 5. UPCOMING EVENTS Mayor Brownrigg reviewed the upcoming events taking place in the city. Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 9/04/18 Burlingame City Council August 20, 2018 Unapproved Minutes 2 6. PRESENTATIONS a. BURLINGAME SCHOOL DISTRICT UPDATE Burlingame School District Superintendent Dr. Maggie MacIsaac gave an update to Council on the District’s construction projects and enrollment growth. She began with a picture of BIS in 1959 and overlaid the picture with the District’s development over the years. Dr. MacIsaac reviewed the construction projects that the District undertook including: 1. Replacing the portables with permanent structures at Roosevelt 2. Replacing the portables with permanent structures at Washington 3. Adding six classrooms at Lincoln 4. Adding eight classrooms at McKinley 5. Adding 12 classrooms at Hoover 6. Adding 12 classrooms at BIS and creating the multimedia center She explained that these projects were undertaken thanks to funding from District Bond Measures A, D, and M. She noted that the District is currently at their bond capacity. Vice Mayor Colson asked if Measures A, D, and M required 55% approval to pass. Dr. MacIsaac replied in the affirmative. Vice Mayor Colson asked if the District could do a 2/3 bond. Dr. MacIsaac stated that she was unsure and would need to get back to Council. Dr. MacIsaac explained that the District’s Bond Oversight Committee meets four times a year, and annual bond reports are on the District’s website. Dr. MacIsaac explained that the District uses DecisionInsite to forecast their enrollment growth. She stated for the 2018-19 school year, the District has 3,576 students. She used a graph to display the District’s natural growth and projected growth based on increased housing in the city in the coming years. She reviewed the housing projects that have been approved by the City that will increase student enrollment. Next, she discussed student counts in grades K-8 for the District. She noted that the District is not prepared for the growth that is predicted for the 2022-23 school year. Lastly, she stated that the community will need an additional site to build a school. Councilmember Ortiz asked how the City’s growth compares to neighboring cities. Dr. MacIsaac stated that she didn’t have the statistics with her, but noted that Millbrae isn’t growing as fast Burlingame and that San Bruno has closed schools. Mayor Brownrigg stated that for the past ten years, San Mateo County has seen a 6% growth of K-8 students. However, in that same period of time, Burlingame has seen a 42% growth of K-8 students. He explained Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 9/04/18 Burlingame City Council August 20, 2018 Unapproved Minutes 3 that he didn’t believe growth was necessarily tied to additional housing but rather the quality of the City and school system. Councilmember Keighran asked how close to capacity BIS is. Dr. MacIsaac explained that BIS would be able to accommodate growth by co-opting classrooms during teacher’s prep periods to use for classes. Councilmember Keighran asked if the Council could get a copy of the DecisionInsite report. Dr. MacIsaac replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Beach asked how DecisionInsite forecasts growth. Dr. MacIsaac stated that it is a formula based on birth rates, housing, historical data, and other factors. Councilmember Beach stated that if the General Plan update creates new neighborhoods, the projected student growth would increase. Dr. MacIsaac replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Keighran stated that when the new developments are built and rented out, she would be interested to learn the percentage that go to families. Vice Mayor Colson complimented the District on the architectural design of the new classrooms. Vice Mayor Colson discussed the State’s mandates on teacher to student ratio. She asked if the District was below the State’s mandate. Dr. MacIsaac stated that for K-3 if the District’s ratio increases to more than 24 to 1, the District lose State funding. Dr. MacIsaac stated that for 4th to 8th grade, the ratio is 32 to 1. Vice Mayor Colson asked if the District had thought of where they would want a new school. Dr. MacIsaac stated that it would depend on where the growth is in the city. Vice Mayor Colson asked how much land the District would need for another school. Dr. MacIsaac stated that they would need two to three acres. The District’s Facilities Director, Tim Ryan, added that Hoover is seven acres, but only two are developed. Councilmember Beach asked about the prospects for State funding for new schools. Dr. MacIsaac stated that currently it is the community’s responsibility to fund new schools. Councilmember Beach asked if the State still owes the District matching funds. Dr. MacIsaac replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Beach stated that she would encourage the District to stay engaged in the conversations concerning updates to the General Plan. Mayor Brownrigg asked the District to supply the Council with the number of kids on free or reduced lunches in Burlingame. Dr. MacIsaac replied in the affirmative. Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 9/04/18 Burlingame City Council August 20, 2018 Unapproved Minutes 4 Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up for public comment. Burlingame resident Jennifer Pfaff asked for clarification on the number of units that the City had approved. City Manager Goldman reviewed the housing projects that had been approved. A new Burlingame resident voiced her opinion that the City’s schools are great. David Harris on the District’s Bond Oversight Committee commended the District for the work they had done with the various bond measure funds. Mayor Brownrigg closed public comment and thanked Dr. MacIsaac for the presentation. b. BROADWAY GRADE SEPARATION UPDATE Caltrain Director of Capital Program Rafael Bolon updated the Council on the Broadway Grade Separation Project. He explained that the project is being undertaken to improve the safety of the intersection. He noted that currently there are 92 Caltrain trains that cross this intersection every day, and this number will increase to 114 after electrification. He stated that the crossing averages two accidents and 105 traffic citations every year. Additionally, he explained that the crossing ranks number one on the CPUC’s priority list for grade separations. Mr. Bolon reviewed the project goals: 1. Enhance safety for motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians 2. Improve the efficiency of Caltrain rail operations 3. Improve traffic flow and reduce delays 4. Reduce automobile congestion and emissions 5. Gateway treatment for Broadway 6. New Broadway Station and parking lot 7. Landscaping and other enhancements Next, Mr. Bolon stated that in 2017, the City Council was presented with a number of design options. The Council selected partially elevating the railway and partially depressing the road at Broadway. He explained that for the past eight months, Caltrain has been working with the City on key elements of the project including: shoofly alignment, station layout, and vertical and horizontal profiles. Mr. Bolon reviewed what the Broadway Station and roadway plans would look like after completion of this project. He explained that the preliminary design and environmental clearance of the project was funded by the City and Measure A. Mr. Bolon stated that the public could find out more about the project by going to www.caltrain.com/BBGS. He noted that targeted mailers will be done once construction is underway. Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 9/04/18 Burlingame City Council August 20, 2018 Unapproved Minutes 5 Councilmember Beach asked about the timing of electrification versus the Broadway Grade Separation. Mr. Bolon stated that the Broadway Grade Separation would break ground after electrification was completed in 2021. Councilmember Beach asked what sorts of station improvements would happen at Broadway as a result of electrification. Mr. Bolon stated that Broadway Station improvements would occur when the grade separation was undertaken. Councilmember Beach asked when the City would have a better sense of the cost of this project. Additionally, she asked when the City should start pursuing funding outside the County. Mr. Bolon stated that at 35% design, Caltrain will conduct the first realistic construction estimate. Councilmember Beach explained that this project is a great opportunity to assist in making the Broadway intersection friendlier to cyclists and pedestrians. Mayor Brownrigg asked that Caltrain further refine the bridge design and suggested natural stone and a well- defined balustrade. Mayor Brownrigg asked how the project would be funded and what the City’s role is in terms of lobbying for funds. Mr. Bolon stated that the City is the project sponsor, and Caltrain is the delivery team. He explained that Caltrain is looking to the City to come up with a funding plan. DPW Murtuza discussed different funding sources that the City would look into for the Broadway Grade Separation. He stressed the importance of getting the project ready in order to obtain necessary funding. Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke. Mayor Brownrigg thanked Mr. Bolon for his presentation. 7. PUBLIC COMMENT There was no public comment 8. CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Brownrigg asked the Councilmembers and the public if they wished to remove any item from the Consent Calendar. Mayor Brownrigg pulled items 8d and 8f.Vice Mayor Colson pulled item 8h. Mayor Brownrigg stated that item 8o was removed from the agenda. Mayor Brownrigg made a motion to approve 8a, 8b, 8c, 8e, 8g, 8j, 8k, 8i, 8l, 8m and 8n; seconded by Councilmember Keighran. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 9/04/18 Burlingame City Council August 20, 2018 Unapproved Minutes 6 a. ADOPTION OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JULY 2, 2018 City Clerk Hassel-Shearer requested Council adopt the City Council Meeting Minutes of July 2, 2018. b. ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 13.40.010 OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING PARKING METER ZONES DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Ordinance Number 1952. c. ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 13.36.020 OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING “NO PARKING DURING SPECIFIED HOURS” DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Ordinance Number 1953. d. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING A $48,300 CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF TRAFFIC SAFETY GRANT Police Chief Wollman requested Council adopt Resolution Number 99-2018. Mayor Brownrigg discussed how because of community concern, the City had increased traffic and parking enforcement in Lyon Hoag. He asked if some of the grant would be used to conduct further enforcement in Lyon Hoag. Police Chief Wollman replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Keighran asked that the number of citations be categorized and put in the e-newsletter. Police Chief Wollman replied in the affirmative. Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke. Councilmember Keighran made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 99-2018; seconded by Councilmember Ortiz. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. e. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AWARDING THE CONTRACT FOR TREE PRUNING & STUMP REMOVAL FOR FY 2018-2019 (CITY PROJECT #85450) AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT WITH TIMBERLINE TREE SERVICE Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad requested Council adopt Resolution Number 100-2018. f. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION EXPRESSING SUPPORT FOR CLEAN AIR DAY, WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 3, 2018; ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION URGING THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS TO ENACT A REVENUE-NETURAL TAX ON CARBON- Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 9/04/18 Burlingame City Council August 20, 2018 Unapproved Minutes 7 BASED FOSSIL FUELS: AND CONSIDERATION OF A FUTURE DISCUSSION RELATED TO INVESTMENT OF CITY FUNDS IN FOSSIL FUELS City Manager Goldman explained that the staff report consists of two resolutions and a policy matter. She stated that the first resolution is a request from the Coalition for Clean Air to recognize October 3, 2018 as Clean Air Day. The second resolution is a request from the Citizens Environmental Council and the San Mateo Chapter of the CCL to adopt a resolution urging Congress to enact a revenue-neutral tax on carbon- based fossil fuels. She explained that the idea would be to create a revenue-neutral carbon fee-and-dividend system that would place a predictable, steadily rising price on carbon, with all fees collected, minus administrative costs, returned to households as a monthly energy dividend. She added that putting the additional fee on fossil fuels is intended to reduce consumption. Mayor Brownrigg stated that the City Council is also being asked to consider creating a subcommittee to draft an investment policy concerning fossil fuels. Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up for public comment. Doug Silverstein and Alan Matlige both voiced their support for City Council adopting the resolution urging Congress to enact a revenue-neutral tax on carbon-based fossil fuels. Mayor Brownrigg closed public comment. Councilmember Ortiz voiced support for both resolutions and the formation of a subcommittee. Vice Mayor Colson stated that she supported the two resolutions. She suggested that instead of having the subcommittee deal only with fossil fuels, the subcommittee should review the City’s portfolio using ESG (“environmental, social and governance”) criteria. She noted that this is how CalPERS and other organizations handle investments. Councilmember Keighran stated that she supported the two resolutions. She stated that she was concerned about developing a subcommittee that focuses on social issues and investment correlation. She noted that she didn’t want this to take away from the local issues that come before the Council. Councilmember Beach stated that she supported the two resolutions. She stated that she liked the Vice Mayor’s suggestion for the subcommittee. She noted that the Council was all in on environmental and sustainability issues. She explained that if the Council does form a subcommittee, it is important that they recognize that it is largely symbolic. Mayor Brownrigg stated that he supported the Vice Mayor’s suggestion. Mayor Brownrigg made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 101-2018, Resolution Number 102-2018 and establish a subcommittee to look at ESG criteria; seconded by Councilmember Ortiz. Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 9/04/18 Burlingame City Council August 20, 2018 Unapproved Minutes 8 Vice Mayor Colson discussed the City’s fiduciary duty and stated that a significant part of the City’s sales tax comes from car sales. She stated that she would prefer the broader investment conversation using the ESG perspective. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. g. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CITY OF BURLINGAME RESPONSE LETTER TO THE 2017-2018 SAN MATEO COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT “LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS + NARCAN = LIVES SAVED FROM OPIOD OVERDOSES” Police Chief Wollman requested Council adopt Resolution Number 103-2018. h. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH ICF TO PERFORM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW SERVICES RELATED TO THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL AND ADAPTIVE REUSE PROJECT AT 220 PARK ROAD (FORMER POST OFFICE SITE) Vice Mayor Colson stated that under Exhibit A of the agreement it states: The Post Office building would be a dominant element of the overall Project, opening directly onto the proposed public square. The major elements of the building that would be retained include the wing facing Park Road and the central wing/existing lobby area that will face the public square. She noted that what caught her attention was the absence of language concerning the Lorton side of the property. She explained that the City has a letter dated September 20, 2016 from the Burlingame Historical Society that states: “It is the opinion that the omission of the Lorton facing wing is not in keeping with the covenant that the City maintains intent neither in word nor spirit, and this is not consistent with the Secretary of State Interior standards.” She explained that because the City’s historical covenant includes significant references to Lorton, the EIR should include language concerning the Lorton facing wing. Councilmember Keighran stated that she believed the more global the EIR the better. She stated she wanted to make sure that the City didn’t miss the boat and that the EIR covers everything. CDD Gardiner replied in the affirmative. Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up for public comment. Burlingame resident Jennifer Pfaff stated that she agreed with Vice Mayor Colson that the language of the project understanding should be amended to include the Lorton facing wing. Mayor Brownrigg closed public comment. Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 9/04/18 Burlingame City Council August 20, 2018 Unapproved Minutes 9 Mayor Brownrigg suggested that the simplest solution might be to delete the sentence that states: “The major elements of the building that would be retained include the wing facing Park Road and the central wing/existing lobby area that will face the public square.” and replace it with: “The historic nature of the building as set out in the Covenant would be respected.” CDD Gardiner replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Ortiz made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 104-2018 with amendments; seconded by Councilmember Beach. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. i. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONTRIBUTION TO THE PUBLIC AGENCIES POST-EMPLOYMENT (PENSION) BENEFIT TRUST ADMINISTERED BY PUBLIC AGENCY RETIREMENT SERVICES (PARS) Finance Director Augustine requested Council adopt Resolution Number 105-2018. j. ANNUAL RENEWAL OF THE BURLINGAME AVENUE AREA BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (DBID): RESOLUTION APPROVING THE 2017-18 ANNUAL REPORT; DECLARING THE CITY’S INTENTION TO ESTABLISH AND LEVY ASSESSMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2018-19 AND SETTING REQUIRED PUBLIC HEARING FOR SEPTEMBER 17, 2018 Finance Director Augustine requested Council adopt Resolution Number 106-2018. k. QUARTERLY INVESTMENT REPORT, PERIOD ENDING JUNE 30, 2018 Finance Director Augustine submitted the Quarterly Investment Report for the period ending June 30, 2018 to the Council. l. OPEN NOMINATION PERIOD TO FILL TWO VACANCIES ON THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION City Manager Goldman requested Council open the nomination period to fill two vacancies on the Parks and Recreation Commission. m. OPEN NOMINATION PERIOD TO FILL THREE VACANCIES ON THE BEAUTIFICATION COMMISSION City Manager Goldman requested Council open nomination period to fill three vacancies on the Beautification Commission. Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 9/04/18 Burlingame City Council August 20, 2018 Unapproved Minutes 10 n. APPROVAL OF RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO CITY PURCHASING AND CONTRACTING PROCEDURES Finance Director Augustine requested Council’s approval of recommended changes to City purchasing and contracting procedures. o. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING A LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH ZAYO GROUP, LLC FOR THE INSTALLATION OF CONDUIT ON CITY RIGHT OF WAY AND RATIFYING THE USE OF THAT AGREEMENT AS A FORM FOR SUBSEQUENT SIMILAR APPLICATIONS This item was pulled from the agenda and will be discussed at a later meeting. 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPTION OF RESOLUTIONS APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE CHAPTER OF THE BURLINGAME DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN TO INCORPORATE CORRECTIONS TO TABLE 3-2 – DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS CDD Gardiner stated that the Downtown Specific Plan was adopted by the City Council in October 2010. A year later, the Land Use Chapter was amended to incorporate changes to the Development Standards Table in conjunction with amendments to the Zoning Ordinance to implement the Downtown Specific Plan and adoption of the 2009-2014 Housing Element. The changes included the North California Drive setback and height regulations, and setback requirements along El Camino Real. CDD Gardiner stated that in 2016, the Land Use Chapter was further amended to incorporate revised side setback requirements for properties in mixed use zones adjacent to existing residential use. An additional amendment required R-3 multifamily residential side setback standards for property line(s) abutting an existing residential use. CDD Gardiner explained that staff was made aware of discrepancies in the 2016 version of the Development Standards Table for the California Drive Commercial Area compared to earlier versions of the table and standards in applicable zoning regulations. He stated that the North California Drive Commercial District regulations reverted back to the earlier height and setback regulations that were in place prior to 2011. Additionally, he noted that the El Camino Real setbacks were replaced with dash marks. CDD Gardiner explained that staff believes the discrepancies on Table 3-2 were unintentional “scrivener’s” errors because the 2016 amendments to the Downtown Specific Plan did not involve the North California Drive Commercial District, and did not propose or consider omitting the required El Camino Real setbacks. CDD Gardiner explained that to correct the error, the Downtown Specific Plan would need to be amended with revisions to Table 3-2 to reflect the North California Drive Commercial District regulations and El Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 9/04/18 Burlingame City Council August 20, 2018 Unapproved Minutes 11 Camino Real setbacks as adopted in 2011, together with the mixed use district side setback requirements adopted in 2016. CDD Gardiner stated that this amendment provides the opportunity to further clarify the R-3 and the R-4 District rear setback standards shown in Table 3-2. The Table shows a minimum rear setback of 20 feet in the R-3, R-4 Base, and R-4 Incentive Districts. However, the zoning standards in Municipal Code Sections 25.28 (R-3 District Regulations) and 25.29 (R-4 District Regulations) specify minimum rear setbacks of 15 feet for one and two stories, and 20 feet for more than two stories. Mayor Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Burlingame resident Jennifer Pfaff discussed the importance of setbacks to create community space and light between buildings. Mayor Brownrigg closed the public hearing. Vice Mayor Colson asked if she was correct that North California Drive has a ten foot rear setback and everything else has 20. CDD Gardiner replied in the affirmative. Vice Mayor Colson stated that the buildings can go up to 55 feet with a CUP and 75% lot coverage. She noted that these are dense and tall buildings on North California Drive. She asked if there was a mix up that the setbacks should have been 20 feet but were written as ten feet. CDD Gardiner stated that he didn’t believe that this was the case. Councilmember Beach asked if staff would take a look at the rear setback on North California Drive in the General Plan update. CDD Gardiner replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Beach made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 108-2018 and Resolution Number 109- 2018; seconded by Vice Mayor Colson. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. b. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 25.59 (ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS), CHAPTER 25.08 (DEFINITIONS), CHAPTER 25.26 (R-1 DISTRICT REGULATIONS), CHAPTER 25.60 (ACCESSORY STRUCTURES IN R-1 AND R-2 DISTRICTS) AND CHAPTER 25.70 (OFF-STREET PARKING) OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE RELATED TO ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS TO BE CONSISTENT WITH RECENTLY ADOPTED AMENDMENTS TO CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65852.2 AND ADDITIONAL CHANGES TO REMOVE CONSTRAINTS TO CREATING ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS Mayor Brownrigg stated that this item was being pushed to the September 4, 2018 meeting because of a few errors in the report that need to be amended. Mayor Brownrigg asked if anyone from the public wanted to speak. Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 9/04/18 Burlingame City Council August 20, 2018 Unapproved Minutes 12 Burlingame resident Jennifer Pfaff voiced her concern about the use of the front setback for parking and ADU. She stated that she was concerned about how this would change the look of neighborhoods. 10. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A REAL ESTATE AGREEMENT WITH CALTRAIN AND RELATED DOCUMENTS TO ALLOW RELOCATION OF CALTRAIN PARALLELING STATION (PS-3) TO CITY PROPERTY ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE RAILWAY TRACKS IN THE INDUSTRIAL ZONE DPW Murtuza explained that in 2015, Caltrain certified the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project. As part of the project, Caltrain proposed 10 paralleling stations along the corridor to power its electrified trains. One of the paralleling stations, PS-3, was to be located in Burlingame, on the west side of the railway tracks, near the California Drive and Lincoln Avenue intersection. However, when the Broadway Grade Separation Study Report was completed, it was determined that the original location of the PS-3 was in conflict with the grade separation. Caltrain determined that if PS-3 was not relocated now, it would cost approximately $10 million to $12 million to relocate it in the future. As a result, Caltrain consulted with the City to determine where to locate the paralleling station. Caltrain proposed locating the station on the west side of tracks near the intersection of California Drive and Mills Avenue. DPW Murtuza explained that on July 18, 2018, Caltrain held a public meeting at which the proposed new location for the paralleling station was discussed. He stated that residents along California Drive were extremely upset and expressed strong opposition to the paralleling station being located near the residential neighborhood. DPW Murtuza explained that staff met with the Vice Mayor and Mayor to discuss the issue and identify a solution. He stated that on July 31, 2018, the Mayor issued a letter to Caltrain requesting the relocation of PS-3 to the east side of the tracks. Additionally, staff participated in a conference call with County Supervisor Pine and Caltrain Program Director John Funghi to resolve the conflict. After further discussions, it was determined that the PS-3 could be located adjacent to the Public Works Corporation Yard parking lot with maintenance access provided through the lot. Accordingly, the City negotiated a Real Estate Agreement with Caltrain that includes the following: 1. Temporary construction easement of 4,000 square feet 2. Caltrain will lease from the City 2,000 square feet in the rear of the Corporation Yard’s parking lot 3. The City will grant Caltrain a maintenance access easement 4. Caltrain will pay the City $150,000 to mitigate the costs associated with construction impacts. Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up for public comment. Caltrain Electrification Chief Officer John Funghi thanked the City for collaboration and stated it was a win for electrification and the Broadway Grade Separation. Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 9/04/18 Burlingame City Council August 20, 2018 Unapproved Minutes 13 Vice Mayor Colson thanked staff and Caltrain for entering into a lease instead of a property sale. Councilmember Beach thanked the citizens for voicing their opinions and bringing this matter to the Council. Councilmember Beach made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 110-2018; seconded by Councilmember Keighran. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. 11. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS a. MAYOR BROWNRIGG’S COMMITTEE REPORT b. VICE MAYOR COLSON’S COMMITTEE REPORT 12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS Vice Mayor Colson discussed the County’s recent tobacco legislation and request for cities to follow suit. She asked that staff look into scheduling a discussion. Councilmember Ortiz stated that he attended the SFO Roundtable. He explained that many people feel that the airport noise has increased. Therefore, he would like to propose that the City send a letter to SFO in support of the SFO Roundtable’s request for a noise study. Councilmember Keighran asked that a few experts in the field of retail be brought in for a discussion on the future of retail and how it impacts the two business districts. 13. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The agendas, packets, and meeting minutes for the Planning Commission, Traffic, Parking & Safety Commission, Beautification Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission and Library Board of Trustees are available online at www.burlingame.org. 14. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Brownrigg adjourned meeting at 9:26 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Meaghan Hassel-Shearer City Clerk 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: MEETING DATE: September 4, 2018 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: September 4, 2018 From: Syed Murtuza, Director of Public Works – (650) 558-7230 Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Approving the Procurement of Five Public Safety Vehicles for the Police Department RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution approving the procurement of five public safety vehicles for the Police Department in the amount of $165,994.45. BACKGROUND The Public Works Department’s Fleet Division provides vehicle maintenance services for City- owned vehicles and equipment. The Fleet Division maintains approximately 115 vehicles and 137 pieces of equipment for various City departments, including Police, Public Works, Parks & Recreation, Library, City Attorney/Code Enforcement, and Community Development. As part of providing fleet maintenance services, the Division is responsible for maintaining a sustainable Vehicle Replacement Program to ensure all City vehicles and equipment are in good working condition for staff to conduct City business and effectively deliver services to the community. Five public safety vehicles for the Police Department have reached the end of their useful life and need to be replaced. Although staff plans to purchase additional vehicles for the City’s fleet system later this year, the five public safety vehicles need to be purchased prior to the halt of production for the Ford Motor Company’s Interceptor Utility vehicle. The cut-off date for production orders for 2019 Ford Interceptor models is September 14, 2018; after that date, the Interceptor models will not be available until 2020. DISCUSSION Staff solicited bid proposals for the procurement of five Ford Interceptor Utility vehicles from local dealerships in Burlingame and the greater Bay Area. The local dealerships in Burlingame declined to submit bids as they do not sell the requested vehicles. However, the City received four competitive bid proposals ranging from $165,994.45 to $170,474.20 total for the five vehicles. The Ford Store in San Leandro submitted the lowest bid proposal in the amount of $165,994.45. Therefore, staff requests that the City Council approve the procurement of five public safety vehicles from the Ford Store in the amount of $165,994.45. Resolution Approving the Procurement of Five Public Safety Vehicles September 4, 2018 2 FISCAL IMPACT The City Council has previously approved funding for the replacement of vehicles as part of the FY 2018-19 Equipment Maintenance Replacement Fund Budget, and sufficient funds are available to undertake the procurement. Exhibits: • Resolution • Bid Summary RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME APPROVING THE PROCUREMENT OF FIVE SAFETY VEHICLES FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE PROCUREMENT WHEREAS, the Fleet Division of the Public Works Department is responsible for vehicle maintenance services of the City’s fleet and for managing the Vehicle Replacement Program in a sustainable and effective manner to ensure the City’s fleet is in good operating condition; and WHEREAS, the Fleet Division has identified five public safety vehicles for the Police Department that have reached their useful life, and need to be replaced in a timely fashion due to the temporary halt of production on the Ford Interceptor utility vehicle effective September 14, 2018; and WHEREAS, staff has been able to secure the lowest responsible bid for the procurement of five public safety vehicles from the Ford Store in the amount of $165,994.45 for the five vehicles. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, and ORDERED, that the lowest responsible bid above is approved and adopted; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Manager or her designee is authorized to execute the above said procurement. Mayor I, MEAGHAN HASSEL-SHEARER, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 4TH day of September, 2018, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: City Clerk Exhibit A – Bid Summary BID SUMMARY Comparison & Review FIVE (5) FORD INTERCEPTOR UTILITY VEHICLES Company Name Bid Amount The Ford Store $165,994.45 Town Ford $ 166,673.00 Serramonte Ford $168,137.45 National Joint Powers Alliance $170,474.20 Recommended Award: The Ford Store Amount: $165,994.45 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: MEETING DATE: September 4, 2018 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: September 4, 2018 From: Syed Murtuza, Director of Public Works – (650) 558-7230 Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency to Negotiate with the City and County of San Francisco to Amend the Water Supply Agreement RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution authorizing the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA) to negotiate with the City and County of San Francisco (San Francisco) to amend the Water Supply Agreement (WSA) between San Francisco and the BAWSCA member agencies. BACKGROUND Burlingame purchases potable water from the San Francisco Regional Water System (RWS) and is one of the 26 member agencies of BAWSCA. In 2006, the BAWSCA member agencies delegated authority to BAWSCA to negotiate the WSA between San Francisco and the member agencies. The City of Burlingame approved the WSA in 2009. The City of Burlingame also approved Amendment No. 1 to the WSA in spring of 2013; this amendment prohibited changes to the Hetch Hetchy Reservoir unless there is an amendment to the WSA. In 2014, the City of Burlingame delegated authority to BAWSCA to initiate, defend, and settle arbitration related to the WSA. At this time, some sections of the WSA require amendments to address substantive and important issues that have arisen during implementation of the WSA, and BAWSCA has requested that the delegation of authority for negotiations be in place by October 1, 2018. DISCUSSION The proposed amendments do not diverge from the existing policies and spirit of the WSA. The requested delegation of authority will allow BAWSCA to negotiate amendments related to discrete but important items. The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) is the operating department responsible for the water enterprise system for San Francisco. The following items are of interest to San Francisco: 1. Process for reviewing the Wholesale Capital Fund; Resolution Authorizing BAWSCA to Negotiate with the September 4, 2018 City and County of San Francisco to Amend the WSA 2 2. Wholesale debt-coverage ratio for the rate-setting process; 3. Extension of the Water System Improvements Program (WSIP) completion date; and 4. Description of the Regional Groundwater Storage and Recovery Project that is being built by SFPUC as part of the WSIP. Additionally, the following four items are of interest to BAWSCA: 1. BAWSCA's oversight role over the SFPUC’s 10-year Capital Improvement Program; 2. Procedure to divide available water between the SFPUC and the member agencies during droughts; 3. Extension of the deadline for a decision by SFPUC to make San Jose and Santa Clara permanent customers of the RWS; and 4. Resolution of disputed SFPUC Regional Water System asset classifications. Upon completion of negotiations, staff will return to the City Council for its approval of any resulting recommended amendments to the WSA, which must also be approved by San Francisco and all other member agencies. FISCAL IMPACT None Exhibit: • Resolution RESOLUTION NO. __________ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AUTHORIZING THE BAY AREA WATER SUPPLY AND CONSERVATION AGENCY TO NEGOTIATE WITH THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME TO AMEND THE WATER SUPPLY AGREEMENT WHEREAS, in April 2003, the City of Burlingame and other water suppliers in Alameda, San Mateo, and Santa Clara counties established the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA), as authorized by Water Code Section 81300 et seq. pursuant to State legislation enacted in 2002 (AB 2058); and WHEREAS, the City of Burlingame is represented on the BAWSCA Board of Directors; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Burlingame has previously approved the Water Supply Agreement between the City and County of San Francisco (San Francisco) and the member agencies in Alameda County, San Mateo County, and Santa Clara County; and WHEREAS, BAWSCA has proposed to serve as the representative of its members in discussions and negotiations with San Francisco leading toward the resolution of a number of discrete, but important amendments to address substantive issues that have arisen during the implementation of the Agreement; and WHEREAS, BAWSCA has the capabilities required to serve in this capacity by virtue of agency staff and consultants in relevant disciplines including civil engineering, water supply planning, finance, economics, accounting, and law; and WHEREAS, BAWSCA's CEO/General Manager has met with the City of Burlingame’s representatives to update them on the matters at issue in this negotiation, and WHEREAS, the topics of negotiation that are of interest to San Francisco have been narrowed to the following items: (1) Process for reviewing the Wholesale Capital Fund; (2) Wholesale debt-coverage ratio for the rate-setting process; (3) Extension of the Water System Improvements Program (WSIP) completion date; and (4) Description of the Regional Groundwater Storage and Recovery Project that is being built by San Francisco as part of the WSIP; and WHEREAS, the topics of negotiation that are of interest to BAWSCA have been narrowed to the following items: (1) BAWSCA's oversight role over the San Francisco Public Utility Commission's (SFPUC) 10-year Capital Improvement Program; (2) Procedure to divide available water between the SFPUC and its member agencies during droughts; (3) Extension of the deadline for a decision by San Francisco to make San Jose and Santa Clara permanent customers of the Regional Water System; and (4) Resolution of disputed SFPUC Regional Water System asset classifications. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. The City of Burlingame appoints BAWSCA as its authorized representative in discussions and negotiations with San Francisco for the purpose of amending the Agreement to address issues arising from implementation of the Agreement. 2. BAWSCA, through its CEO/General Manager, shall confer with and keep the City of Burlingame informed on the status of these discussions and negotiations. 3. This appointment shall continue unless and until revoked by the City Council of the City of Burlingame. 4. This resolution confers no authority on BAWSCA to enter into a contract with San Francisco or to make any commitments legally binding on the City of Burlingame. The authority to enter into any contracts is expressly reserved to the City Council of the City of Burlingame. Mayor I, MEAGHAN HASSEL-SHEARER, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 4TH day of September, 2018, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: City Clerk 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: MEETING DATE: September 4, 2018 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: September 4, 2018 From: Syed Murtuza, Director of Public Works – (650) 558-7230 Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Cost- Sharing Agreement with the County of San Mateo for the Relocation of a Water Main on Airport Boulevard RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a cost-sharing agreement with the County of San Mateo for the relocation of a water main on Airport Boulevard. BACKGROUND During the construction of the new Animal Shelter at 12 Airport Boulevard, the County of San Mateo encountered an existing six-inch diameter, City-owned water main in conflict with their project, and reached out to the City for its relocation. Burlingame staff reviewed their initially proposed relocation plans and determined that relocation of the 1950’s-era six-inch main as proposed would negatively affect the City’s water system. City staff has worked with the County to resolve the issue and identified a feasible alternative to relocate the water main outside the area of conflict. The water main will be relocated outside the proposed Animal Shelter building footprint and will be closer to Airport Boulevard, providing easier access to City staff for maintenance. The new water main will consist of a twelve-inch diameter pipeline with adequate capacity to serve the Bayfront area customers on Airport Boulevard. The County has agreed to construct the new water main with a larger size diameter pipeline as part of their project, with the condition that the City reimburse them for the construction costs minus $25,000, which the County had previously budgeted for the relocation of an existing six-inch water main. Pending the approval of the City Council, the two agencies have been collaborating on the design details to prepare the construction plans. In order to expedite the water main relocation and avoid delays to the Animal Shelter project construction, an engineering design was prepared by the professional engineers procured by the County in accordance with the City of Burlingame’s specifications and requirements. The design has been reviewed and approved by the City of Burlingame’s Public Works Department. The County’s design-build contractor will competitively bid the new water main relocation work to pipeline subcontractors and will select a qualified construction firm to do the job. Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Cost Sharing September 4, 2018 Agreement with San Mateo County for the Relocation of a Water Main 2 DISCUSSION The project will construct approximately 470 linear feet of a new twelve-inch diameter polyvinyl chloride (PVC) water main along Airport Boulevard. The new water main will include a new City fire hydrant, domestic irrigation, and fire service connections to the new Animal Shelter. The existing six-inch main will be abandoned in place and capped on both ends. The County will provide a ten foot access easement for the City to allow maintenance of the relocated water main. The rough order of magnitude cost for the project is estimated to be approximately $270,000. The County will undertake the construction, pay the contractor directly, and the City will reimburse the County for the construction costs minus the County contribution of $25,000. Staff requests that the City Council authorize the City Manager to enter into a cost-sharing agreement with San Mateo County to reimburse them for the relocation of the water main. FISCAL IMPACT The rough order of magnitude cost for the project is estimated to be approximately $270,000. There are adequate funds available in the fiscal year 2018-2019 Water Capital Improvement Program budget to cover the estimated costs. Exhibits: • Resolution • Rough Order of Magnitude Cost Estimate • Project Location Map RESOLUTION NO. __________ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A COST-SHARING AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO FOR THERELOCATION OF A CITY-OWNED WATER MAIN ON AIRPORT BOULEVARD WHEREAS, during the construction of a new animal shelter at 12 Airport Boulevard, the County of San Mateo encountered an existing six-inch diameter, City-owned water main in conflict with their project, and proposed its relocation; and WHEREAS, the City of Burlingame reviewed the original plans submitted by San Mateo County and determined that relocating the 1950’s era six-inch diameter main as proposed would negatively affect the City’s water system; and WHEREAS, City staff coordinated with the County and proposed a new twelve-inch water main with adequate capacity to serve the Bayfront properties on Airport Boulevard and provide additional benefits such as moving the Burlingame water infrastructure away from the proposed building and parking lot improvements, and avoiding conflict; and WHEREAS, the rough order of magnitude of construction costs for the new twelve-inch diameter water main is preliminarily estimated to be approximately $270,000; and WHEREAS, the County of San Mateo has agreed to install the larger, twelve-inch water main with the condition that the City reimburse them for construction costs, minus $25,000, which was previously set aside in their budget for relocating the six-inch main; and WHEREAS, the preliminary design of the twelve-inch water main has been prepared by the professional engineers procured by the County in accordance with the City of Burlingame’s specifications and approved by the City of Burlingame; and WHEREAS, the County of San Mateo will competitively bid the construction work for the new water main and after construction will invoice the City of Burlingame for the construction costs minus $25,000. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. The City of Burlingame agrees to reimburse the County of San Mateo for the construction costs associated with the installation of a twelve-inch diameter water main estimated at $270,000. 2. The City Manager is hereby authorized to enter into and execute a cost-sharing agreement with the County of San Mateo for the construction of the water main on Airport Boulevard, and reimburse the County of San Mateo for the construction costs minus $25,000, for a net total of up to $270,000. 3. City staff is hereby authorized to oversee the construction of the relocation of the City- owned water main to ensure it is built in compliance with City standards and specifications. Mayor I, MEAGHAN HASSEL-SHEARER, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 4th day of September, 2018, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: City Clerk San Mateo County and City of Burlingame Rough Order of Magnitude Cost Estimate Exhibit New Water Main at 12 Airport Blvd August 24, 2018 No. Item Description Cost 1Design and Permitting 25,000.00$ 2Labor and Materials 125,000.00$ 3 General Conditions and Equipment Rental 55,000.00$ 4Markup and Profit 30,000.00$ 5Estimate Subtotal 235,000.00$ 6Construction Contingency 15% 35,250.00$ Total Construction Cost (rounded to nearest $10k)*270,000.00$ *The County of San Mateo and Burlingame understand and hereby agree that this estimate is not final, as the total costs will be unknown until the work is completed. Burlingame shall reimburse the County of San Mateo the actual cost incurred to construct the water main improvements on behalf of Burlingame. Page 1 of 1 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: MEETING DATE: September 4, 2018 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: September 4, 2018 From: Sheryl Schaffner, Acting City Attorney – (650) 558-7204 Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Approving a License Agreement with Zayo Group, LLC for Installation and Use of Underground Conduit and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute the Encroachment Agreement RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager to execute an Encroachment Agreement with Zayo Group, LLC (“Zayo”) to install conduit in the City’s right of way. BACKGROUND Zayo Group, LLC (“Zayo”) is a wireline telecommunications carrier with an approved certificate of public convenience and necessity from the California Public Utilities Commission. To improve mobile telecommunications services, Zayo desires to install conduit on the City’s right of way at various locations, as shown and described in Zayo’s permit applications filed with the City. DISCUSSION Zayo’s installation of conduit shall be subject to the terms and conditions of an Encroachment Agreement, which is a master agreement with individual encroachment permits to be obtained as conduit needs to be installed. The Encroachment Agreement is the result of considerable discussion and negotiation between City staff and Zayo. The Encroachment Agreement states that Zayo shall provide the necessary assurances and covenants so that the installation of the conduit will not interfere with the use of the property by the City, and Zayo shall remove or relocate the conduit should the needs of the City require such action in the future. FISCAL IMPACT There is no impact on the City General Fund. Exhibits: • Resolution • Agreement RESOLUTION NO. _______ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME APPROVING A LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH ZAYO GROUP, LLC FOR INSTALLATION AND USE OF UNDERGROUND CONDUIT AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT WHEREAS, Zayo Group, LLC (“Zayo”) is a wireline telecommunications carrier with an approved certificate of public convenience and necessity from the California Public Utilities Commission; and WHEREAS, telecommunications service is an important element of life in the San Francisco Bay Area and in the City of Burlingame specifically; and WHEREAS, to improve telecommunications services, Zayo desires to install conduit on the City’s right of way as shown and described in Zayo’s permit applications filed with the City, and WHEREAS, Zayo’s installation of conduit shall be subject to the terms and conditions of an encroachment permit and an Encroachment Agreement; and WHEREAS, the Encroachment Agreement states that Zayo shall provide the necessary assurances and covenants so that the installation of the conduit will not interfere with the use of the property by the City and Zayo shall remove or relocate the conduit should the needs of the City require such action in the future; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Manager is authorized and directed to execute the Encroachment Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit A for and on behalf of the City of Burlingame. ____________________________ Mayor I, MEAGHAN HASSEL-SHEARER, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, certify that the foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 4th day of September, 2018, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ____________________________ City Clerk Exhibit A ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA AND ZAYO GROUP, LLC FOR THE INSTALLATION OF FIBER OPTIC FACILITIES This Agreement is entered into as of ______________, 2018 (“Effective Date”) by and between the City of Burlingame, California, a municipal corporation (the “City”) and Zayo Group, LLC, a limited liability company organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware (“Company”). RECITALS A. Company is authorized to provide Telecommunications Services (as defined herein) in the State of California by the California Public Utilities Commission. B. Company desires to install Facilities (as defined herein) from time to time within the Public Rights-Of-Way within City in order to provide Telecommunications Services. C. City has the authority to regulate the terms and conditions for use of the Public Rights-Of-Way and land use within the corporate limits of the City. D. The purpose of this Agreement is to provide the general framework within which Company will apply for necessary encroachment permits and install the Facilities within the corporate limits of the City. The parties do not intend the Agreement to give Company a right to the award of any such permits. AGREEMENT In consideration of the Recitals set forth above, the mutual promises and terms and conditions of this Agreement and other valuable consideration, the adequacy of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows: ARTICLE 1 DEFINITIONS 1.1 Company – means Company, and its lawful successors or assigns. 1.2 City – means the City of Burlingame, a municipal corporation of the State of California, including the duly elected or appointed officers, agents, employees, and volunteers of the City of Burlingame, individually or collectively. 1.3 City Engineer – The City Engineer of the City of Burlingame, State of California, acting either directly or through properly authorized agents, such agents acting within the scope of the particular duties entrusted to them. 1.4 Public Rights-Of-Way – means the surface of and the space above and below any street, road, highway, Right-Of-Way, alley, easement, pathway, sidewalk and other public way, including driveway, curb, gutter, paving or other surface and subsurface drainage structure or facility and any public place, or City property, now or hereafter existing as such within the City. 1.5 Telecommunications Services – means services that Company is authorized to offer and/or provide as of the date of this Agreement pursuant to any applicable Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) issued by the California Public Utilities Commission, including its existing CPCN approved by D98-12-083 which authorizes Company to provide resold and full facilities-based local exchange service, including access service, in the territories of the five Uniform Regulatory Framework companies, and interexchange services throughout the State of California. Page 2 of 15 1.6 Facilities – means fiber optic cables, coaxial and copper cables, conduits, converters, splice boxes, cabinets, handholes, manholes, vaults, equipment, drains, surface location marker, appurtenances, and related facilities located or to be located in the Public Rights-Of-Way of the City and used or useful for the transmission of telecommunication data. This shall not mean commercial transmitting, relaying and/or receiving antennas, antenna support structures and/or ancillary facilities, including, but not limited to, equipment cabinets, facility components and similar structures or equipment and/or overhead service/transmission lines used for the purpose of transmitting, relaying and/or transmitting and/or receiving data, voice and/or paging services. ARTICLE 2 INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE OF FACILITIES 2.1 Permitted Installations. During the term of this Agreement, Company may install, maintain, operate, relocate and remove the Facilities within the City’s Public Rights-Of-Way subject to the issuance of required encroachment and building permits and approvals. The Facilities shall be shown and described in permit applications filed with the City Engineer and may be modified by subsequent permits approved by the City. All Facilities to be installed, maintained, operated, relocated and removed under this Agreement shall be underground in areas where all existing utilities are already underground or all new utilities are being installed underground; provided, however, that in those areas where poles exist and electric and telephone lines are overhead, Company may install fiber optic cables overhead if using the same poles (subject to the approval of the pole owner and City); and further provided that whenever and wherever the owner of the poles moves its plant from overhead to underground placement in an area, all Company’s facilities must be relocated and moved underground as directed by the City Engineer, at Company's expense, and in accordance with then-existing City practices, policies and regulations. 2.2 No Cost to City. The construction, installation, operation, maintenance, and removal of any Facilities shall be accomplished (i) without cost or expense to the City and (ii) subject to the prior approval of the City Engineer. Company shall maintain any such Facilities at all times in good and safe condition and free from any nuisance to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 2.3 Compliance with Code. Company shall comply with the provisions of the Burlingame Municipal Code, as may be amended from time to time (the “Code”), including Title 12 Streets and Sidewalk, Chapter 12.10 Encroachment Permit and Chapter 25 Wireless Communications Facilities. Company shall also comply with applicable provisions of the City’s Zoning Code, as amended from time to time (the “Zoning Code”). In the event of a conflict between this Agreement and the Code and/or the Zoning Code, the provisions of the Code and/or the Zoning Code shall apply. 2.4 Encroachment Permits. All work performed by Company under this Agreement shall be made pursuant to individual encroachment permits. Company shall obtain encroachment permits from the City for the installation of the Facilities and for any other work or activities within the City’s Public Rights-Of-Way as required by Chapter 12.10 of the Code. Company shall submit all plans, schedules, and information required by the Code and the City Engineer. Company also shall pay all required processing, field marking, plan review, engineering and inspection costs, cash deposits, bonds or other security required by the City Engineer, and the City’s actual legal costs for the preparation of this Agreement, prior to issuance of said permit in accordance with the City’s rates in effect. All work within the Public Rights-Of-Way shall be performed in strict compliance Page 3 of 15 with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the Code, and the pertinent encroachment permit. Once a permit is issued, Company shall commence work and complete the construction and installation of the Facilities in accordance with the Code and any construction schedule approved by the City Engineer in the applicable permit. 2.5 Compliance with Laws and Regulations. Company shall at all times during the duration of this Agreement, comply with all state, federal and local laws and regulatory requirements, including, without limitation, compliance with Company’s Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity, the California Environmental Quality Act, zoning laws, and construction codes. Company shall at all times employ reasonable care so as not to endanger personnel or property or unreasonably obstruct travel on any Public Rights-Of-Way and shall install, maintain and use commonly accepted industry methods and devices for preventing failures and accidents that are likely to cause damage, injury or nuisance to the public or other users of the Public Rights-Of-Way, public property or private property. 2.6 Coordination of Excavation with Other Permittees. Company shall coordinate work with other utilities using the Public Rights-Of-Way in accordance with Title 12 of the Code and the requirements imposed by any applicable encroachment permit. 2.7 Membership In Underground Service Alert. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 4216.1, Company shall become a member of Underground Service Alert-Northern California and shall field mark, at its sole expense, the locations of its underground Facilities upon notification in accordance with the requirements of Section 4216 of the State of California Government Code, as it now reads or may hereinafter be amended. Company shall furnish written proof of such membership to the City Engineer within thirty (30) days of obtaining such membership (or within 30 days of the date of this agreement if such membership has been obtained prior to the date of this agreement). Repeal or amendment of Government Code Section 4216.1 shall not negate Company’s obligation to maintain such membership, unless such repeal or amendment disbands or eliminates Underground Service Alert-Northern California, and shall not negate any notice requirement to City. Company shall undertake and perform any work authorized by this Agreement in a skillful and workmanlike manner, free of defects. 2.8 Facilities Maps. Company shall promptly submit to City accurate as-built maps, plans and record drawings showing in detail the location, depth, and size of all Company Facilities in the Public Rights-Of-Way (collectively, the “Maps”) within thirty (30) days of a request by the City Engineer. Such Maps shall be submitted in the form and with the detail required by the City Engineer. The Company shall provide, upon demand, copies of the Maps to other third parties interested in performing work within Public Rights-Of-Way for a reasonable charge upon request within thirty (30) days after such demand. The Company shall, moreover, at its sole cost and expense, pothole its subsurface Facilities to a depth of 1' below the bottom of its subsurface Facilities within thirty (30) days of receipt of a written request from the City to do so. 2.9 Contractors. Any contractor or subcontractor used for the construction, installation, operation, maintenance or repair of the Facilities must be properly licensed under the laws of the state and all applicable local ordinances, and each contractor or subcontractor shall have the same obligations with respect to its work as Company would have under this Agreement and applicable law if the work were performed by Company. Company shall be responsible for ensuring that the work of contractors and subcontractors is performed consistent with this Agreement and applicable Page 4 of 15 law, shall be responsible for all acts or omissions of contractors or subcontractors, shall be responsible for promptly correcting acts or omissions by any contractor or subcontractor, and shall implement a quality control program to ensure that the work is properly performed. This section is not meant to alter tort liability of Company to third parties. ARTICLE 3 LIMITATIONS AND RESTRICTIONS 3.1 Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as granting or creating any franchise rights. 3.2 This Agreement is not a grant by City of any property interest but is made subject and subordinate to the prior and continuing right of City to use all the Public Rights-Of-Way, including but not limited to, public use as a street and for the purpose of laying, installing, maintaining, repairing, protecting, replacing and removing sanitary sewers, water mains, storm drains, gas mains, poles, overhead and underground electric and telephone wires, electroilers, cable television and other utility and municipal uses together with appurtenances thereof and with right of ingress and egress, along, over, across and in said Public Rights-Of-Way. 3.3 This Agreement shall not create a vested right of any nature in Company to use the Public Rights-Of-Way. This Agreement is made subject to all easements, restrictions, conditions, covenants, encumbrances and claims of title which may affect the Public Rights-Of-Way, and it is understood that Company, at its own cost and expense, shall obtain such permission as may be necessary consistent with any other existing rights. No reference herein to “Public Rights-Of-Way” shall be deemed to be a representation or guarantee by City that its interest or other rights to control the use of such property is sufficient to permit its use for such purposes. It is not a warranty of title or interest in any Public Rights-Of-Way. It does not confer rights other than as expressly provided in the grant hereof, and Company shall be deemed to gain only those rights to use as are properly in City and as City may have the undisputed right and power to give. 3.4 This Agreement only authorizes Company to use the portions of the Public Rights- Of-Way specifically described in one or more encroachment permits if and when issued by the City. It does not require the City to approve any particular encroachment permit applications, nor does it provide Company with any interest in any particular location within the Public Rights-Of- Way. This Agreement shall not be deemed to approve any particular design or installation technique. Certain specific physical design aspects of the Facilities and detailed approvals of the installation of the Facilities will occur through the issuance of specific permits and approvals by the City. 3.5 If Company proposes and is authorized by the Public Utilities Commission of California or the Federal Communications Commission to provide additional and/or alternative services other than Telecommunication Services, including, but not limited to, wireless telecommunications services and mobile or digital Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) services and intends to offer such services to customers within the corporate limits of City, Company shall notify City in writing, as soon as practicable, but in no event later than thirty (30) days following such as decision by the California Public Utilities Commission and comply with City’s local ordinances, including any fee, franchise and/or permit requirements. Company acknowledges that any expansion or change in the character and nature of the services in general may increase City’s regulatory authority over such service and/or product, and this may, at City’s election, require Page 5 of 15 Company to enter into a new Agreement consistent with the requirements of an existing or hereinafter-enacted City ordinance regulating such services, if all or any part of such services fall under the regulation, jurisdiction and authority of City. 3.6 This Agreement shall be for the non-exclusive use of the Public Rights-Of-Way. By executing this Agreement, City does not agree to restrict the use of the Public Rights-Of-Way in all or any part of the City by any person in the same business, a related business, or a competing business as Company. 3.7 Company is not authorized to use any City property located outside of the Public Rights-Of-Way nor any City-owned infrastructure located within the Public Rights-Of-Way without the prior express written agreement of the City. ARTICLE 4 REQUIRED CASH DEPOSIT OR BOND 4.1 Security. Company will furnish and deliver to City, the following securities, each of which must be issued by a surety company duly and regularly authorized to do general surety business in the State of California, or such other surety as may be acceptable to the City Engineer: (a) Performance Security. Company shall furnish and deliver a surety security (the “Durable Performance Security”), naming the City of Burlingame as the obligee, in the amount of not less than one hundred percent (100%) of the estimated cost of the Work or concurrently with the execution of this Agreement, which security must be acceptable to the City Engineer. The Durable Performance Security shall be conditioned upon the faithful performance of this Agreement and any work performed thereunder and shall be released by City one-year following the termination of this Agreement. This one (1) year period is to guarantee that any work is of good quality and free from any defective or faulty materials or workmanship. City may draw on the Durable Performance Security in the event of a default by Company or in the event that Company fails to fulfill any of its obligations under this Agreement. City may also draw on the Durable Performance Security to cover any reimbursements owed to City by Company. If City draws on the Durable Performance Security, it will notify Company of the amount drawn, and Company will promptly restore the Durable Performance Security to the full amount of not less than one hundred percent (100%) of the estimated cost of the. In the event that a bond issued pursuant to this Section of this Agreement is canceled by the surety, after proper notice and pursuant to the terms of said bond, Company shall, prior to the expiration of said bond, procure a replacement bond that complies with the terms of this Section of this Agreement. 4.2 Additional Security. 4.2.1 Whenever Company applies for an encroachment permit to perform work under this Agreement, it will provide City with an estimate of its cost for the work, including estimated labor costs. If City, in its sole discretion, determines that the Durable Performance Security provides insufficient security in relation to the proposed work, it may require Company to obtain an additional performance security in an amount City determines necessary to provide adequate security (an “Additional Performance Security”), which security must be acceptable to the City Engineer. Each Additional Performance Security shall be conditioned upon the faithful performance of this Agreement and any work performed thereunder and shall be released by City one-year following the date the work for which it was obtained is completed, inspected, accepted, Page 6 of 15 and released by the City Engineer. With respect to any proposed work, City may recover against both the Durable Performance Security and any applicable Additional Performance Security obtained to insure that work. If City draws on any Additional Performance Security, it will notify Company of the amount drawn, and Company will promptly restore such Additional Performance Security to its full original amount. 4.2.2 Whenever Company applies for an encroachment permit to perform work under this Agreement, it will provide City with an estimate of its cost for the work, including estimated labor costs. If City, in its sole discretion, determines that the Durable Payment Security provides insufficient security in relation to the proposed work, it may require Company to obtain an additional payment security in an amount City determines necessary to provide adequate security (an “Additional Payment Security”), which security must be acceptable to the City Engineer. City shall retain each Additional Payment Security until both (i) one (1) year following the date the work for which it was obtained is completed, inspected, accepted, and released by the City Engineer and (ii) the applicable statute of limitations has expired. With respect to any proposed work, City may recover against the Durable Payment 4.3 Recovery. So long as any securities described in Section 4.2 and 4.3 remain in place (each an “Existing Security”), they may be utilized by the City as provided herein for reimbursement of the City by reason of Company’s failure to pay the City for actual costs and expenses incurred by the City with respect to the Facilities, including any expenses for removal under this Agreement. 4.3.1 In the event Company has been declared by the City to be in default of a material provision of this Agreement and if Company fails, within 30 days of mailing of the City’s default notice, to perform any of the conditions of this Agreement, or fails to begin to perform any such condition that may take more than 30 days to complete, City may thereafter obtain from the applicable Existing Security, after proper claim is made to the surety, an amount sufficient to compensate the City for its damages and/or expenses. Upon such withdrawal from an Existing Security, the City shall notify Company in writing, by First Class Mail, postage prepaid, of the amount withdrawn and the date thereof. 4.3.2 Thirty days after the City’s mailing of notice of the cash deposit or bond forfeiture or withdrawal authorized herein, Company shall deposit such further cash or bond, or other security, as the City may require, which is sufficient to bring the amount of each Existing Security back to its original amount. 4.3.3 The rights reserved to the City with respect to any Existing Security are in addition to all other rights of the City whether reserved by this Agreement or authorized by law, and no action, proceeding, or exercise of a right with respect to any cash deposit or bond shall constitute an election or waiver of any rights or other remedies the City may have. 4.4 Other Security Provisions. 4.4.1 If any Existing Security is a corporate surety bond and, in the opinion of the City, any surety or sureties thereon become insufficient, Company shall renew or replace any such surety with good and sufficient surety or sureties within ten (10) days after receiving from City written demand thereof. Page 7 of 15 4.4.2 Any Existing Security consisting of corporate surety bonds shall be kept on file with the City Engineer. If a corporate surety bond is replaced by another approved bond, the replacement shall be filed with the City Engineer and made a part of and incorporated into this Agreement. Upon filing and approval by the City Engineer of a replacement bond, the former Existing Security shall be released. 4.4.3 If there is an increase to the estimated cost of any work, City may require Company to increase the amount of any Additional Performance Security and/or Additional Payment Security so that the applicable securities cover the entire estimated cost of the work. In addition, if there is any increase to the estimated cost of any work, City may also require Company to obtain an Additional Performance Security and/or Additional Payment Security even if such additional security had not been originally required with respect to the work. ARTICLE 5 TERM AND TERMINATION 5.1 Duration. This Agreement shall remain in force for ten (10) years, subject to the City’s authority to regulate the terms and conditions of Company’s use of the Public Rights-Of- Way, and its right to terminate the Agreement pursuant to Section 5.2 below. If none of the grounds for termination listed in Section 5.2 exist at the end of the initial term (or any Renewal Term), the Agreement shall automatically renew for a one (1) year period (a “Renewal Term”) on the same terms and conditions unless either party provides written notice to the other party at least six (6) months prior to the expiration of the then-current term stating it does not wish to renew the Agreement. For the sake of clarity, at the end of each Renewal Term this Agreement will renew for an additional Renewal Term unless it is terminated as described in the preceding sentence. In the event that Company loses its authorizations to use the Public Rights-Of-Way, including any CPCN, at any time during the initial term or a Renewal Term, then this Agreement shall automatically terminate. 5.2 Termination. The City may terminate this Agreement by giving thirty (30) days written notice of termination upon the occurrence of any of the following: 5.2.1 Reasonable determination by City that the provisions herein interfere with the use or disposal of the Public Rights-Of-Way or any part thereof by City. Where only a portion of Company’s Facilities interfere with the use or disposal of the Public Rights-Of-Way, the City, at its sole discretion, may elect to require Company to relocate the said portion in accordance with Article 6 of this Agreement. 5.2.2 For failure, neglect, or refusal by the Company to fully and promptly comply with any and all of the conditions of this Agreement, or for nonuse in accordance with Section 6.2 herein, unless Company confirms within thirty (30) days of receipt of the notice that the cited condition has ceased, been corrected or, subject to the City’s agreement, is diligently being pursued by the Company; 5.2.3 An order entered by a court of competent jurisdiction approving a petition in bankruptcy or ordering the dissolution, winding up or liquidation of Company or appointing a custodian, receiver, trustee, or other officer to administer a substantial part of Company’s property. Page 8 of 15 5.2.4 The revocation, expiration or other loss of applicable permits or authorizations required by City, state or federal law for the use, maintenance or operation of the Facilities. 5.3 Occupancy/Removal/Abandonment upon Termination. Company shall discontinue use of the Facilities immediately upon termination of this Agreement and within one hundred and twenty (120) days after termination of this Agreement, Company shall either completely remove the Facilities at Company’s sole cost and expense or, with City approval, abandon the Facilities in place. The provisions of Articles 6.2-6.4 shall govern any such removal or abandonment. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City Engineer may require a shorter period due to exigent circumstances and may authorize a longer period if it is in the public interest. If Company fails to remove the Facilities within the prescribed time period and the City has not approved abandonment in place, the City may remove the Facilities at the expense of Company, and Company shall promptly reimburse the City for any and all expenses, including but not limited to administrative, legal and consultant costs, within thirty (30) days after receiving an invoice from the City. ARTICLE 6 REMOVAL, RELOCATION AND ABANDONMENT 6.1 Upon receipt of a written demand from the City, Company, at its sole cost and expense, shall remove and relocate any Facilities installed, used and/or maintained by Company under this Agreement when such removal or relocation is made necessary (a) due to any work proposed to be done by or on behalf of the City or other governmental agency, including but not limited to, any change of grade, alignment or width of any street, sidewalk or other public facility, installation of curbs, gutters or landscaping and installation, construction, maintenance or operation of any underground or aboveground facilities such as sewers, drains, pipes, power lines, and tracks or (b) due to a determination by the City that the Facilities are detrimental to governmental activities. Company shall complete the removal or relocation within ninety (90) days of receipt of notice from the City or according to an agreed upon schedule with the City of no less than ninety (90) days. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City Engineer may require a shorter period due to exigent circumstances and may authorize a longer period if it will not delay the public project. If Company fails to remove or relocate the facilities within the prescribed time period, City may remove the facilities at the expense of Company, and Company shall promptly reimburse the City for any and all expenses, including administrative, legal and consultant costs, within thirty (30) days after receiving an invoice from the City. Any removal or relocation work by Company shall only be done pursuant to an encroachment permit. All of the foregoing shall be subject to all applicable rules, requirements and procedures of the California Public Utilities Commission. 6.2 Abandonment of Facilities. If any portion of the Facilities laid, installed, or constructed in the Public Rights-of-Way, other than redundant Facilities or Facilities for emergency use, are no longer used by Company or are abandoned for a period in excess of six (6) months, Company must notify the City Engineer and promptly submit all necessary applications for permits prior to commencing work to vacate and remove the Facilities. Alternatively, in its sole discretion the City may allow Company to abandon the Facilities, or any part thereof, in place and convey the Facilities to the City. 6.3 If Company fails to remove the Facilities as required by the City pursuant to Section 6.2, the City may, in its sole discretion, after providing written notice to Company (a) remove the Page 9 of 15 Facilities at Company’s sole expense, which expense Company shall promptly reimburse to the City within thirty (30) days after receiving an invoice for such expenses, including all administrative, legal and consultant costs or (b) deem the Facilities, or any part thereof, to have been abandoned and conveyed to the City. 6.4 Repair of Public Rights-of-Way. Whenever the removal or relocation of facilities is required under this Agreement or the Code, Company shall promptly repair and return the Public Rights-Of-Way and adjacent property to a safe and satisfactory condition to the City in accordance with the Code and with the construction-related conditions and specifications established by the City according to its standard practice. If Company removes any Facilities from the Public Rights- Of-Way, company shall, within ten (10) days after such removal, give notice thereof to the City specifying the Right-Of-Way affected and the location thereof as well as the date of removal. Company agrees to promptly complete all restoration work and to promptly repair any damage caused by such work at its sole cost and expense. If Company fails to do so, the City shall have the option to perform such work at Company’s sole expense, which expense Company shall promptly reimburse to the City within thirty (30) days after receiving an invoice for such expenses, including all administrative, legal and consultant costs. Before proceeding with removal or relocation work, the Company shall obtain an encroachment permit from the City. ARTICLE 7 DAMAGES 7.1 The Company shall be responsible for any damage to the City’s street pavements, existing utilities, curbs, gutters, sidewalks due to its installation, maintenance, repair, or removal of its Facilities in the Public Rights-Of-Way and public utility or service easements, and shall repair, replace, and restore in kind the said damaged facilities at its sole expense. 7.2 Company shall be responsible to repair any premature deterioration of the surface or subsurface improvements caused by the Company’s activities. This responsibility shall survive this Agreement or any abandonment of its Facilities for a period of two (2) years from the last date of any of Company’s work in the City’s right of way. The Company shall immediately on written notice from the City cause all necessary repairs to be completed; however, under no circumstances may the time for repairs exceed thirty (30) days from the date of City’s notice to Company. In the event the repairs are not made, the City shall make repairs and bill the Company. 7.3 If any Public Right-Of-Way to be used by the Company has preexisting installation(s) placed in said Right-Of-Way, the Company shall assume the responsibility to verify the location of the preexisting installation and notify the City and any third party of the Company's proposed installation. The cost of any work required of such third party or the City to provide adequate space or required clearance to accommodate the Company's installation shall be borne solely by the Company. ARTICLE 8 TAXES 8.1 Company agrees that it will be solely responsible for the payment of any and all lawful taxes, fees and assessments relating to its use and maintenance of the Facilities including but Page 10 of 15 not limited to all taxes, fees and assessments listed in Company’s Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity issued by the California Public Utilities Commission. Company shall also comply with the Communication Users’ Tax Law, found in Chapter 32 Article VIII of the Code. Pursuant to Section 107.6 of the California Revenue and Taxation Code, the City hereby advises, and Company recognizes and understands, that Company’s use of the Public Rights-Of- Way may create a possessory interest subject to property taxation and that Company will be subject to the payment of property taxes levied on such interest. ARTICLE 9 INDEMNIFICATION 9.1 Indemnification. To the fullest extent permitted by law, the Company, jointly and severally, for itself, its successors, agents, contractors or employees agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold the City, its directors, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers harmless from and against any and all liability, claims, suits, actions, damages, and causes of action arising out of, pertaining or relating to the actual or alleged negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct of the Company, its employees, subcontractors, or agents, or on account of the performance or character of the services, except for any such claim arising out of the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the City, its officers, employees, agents, or volunteers. Company shall indemnify for any loss of or damage to property caused, directly or indirectly, by an act or omission of Company or its personnel or by any structures of encroachments placed in, on or under the surface of any Public Rights-Of-Way and the use, misuse or failure of any equipment or facility used by Company, or by Company personnel regardless of whether such equipment or facility is furnished, rented leased or loaned by or to Company. It is understood that the duty of the Company to indemnify and hold harmless includes the duty to defend as set forth in section 2778 of the California Civil Code. Notwithstanding the foregoing, for any design professional services, the duty to defend and indemnify City shall be limited to that allowed by state law. Acceptance of insurance certificates and endorsements required under this Agreement does not relieve the Company from liability under this indemnification and hold harmless clause. This indemnification and hold harmless clause shall apply whether or not such insurance policies shall have been determined to be applicable to any of such damages or claims for damages. 9.2 Duty to Defend; Notice of Loss. Company acknowledges and agrees that its obligation to defend the City under Section 9.1 (a) is an immediate obligation, independent of its other obligations hereunder; (b) applies to any Loss which actually or potentially falls within the scope of Section 9.1, regardless of whether the allegations asserted in connection with such Loss are or may be groundless, false or fraudulent; and (c) arises at the time the Loss is tendered to Company by the City and continues at all times thereafter. The City shall give Company prompt notice of any Loss under Section 9.1 and Company shall have the right to defend, settle and compromise any such Loss; provided, however, that the City shall have the right to retain its own counsel if representation of City by the counsel retained by Company would be inappropriate due to conflicts of interest between City and Company. City’s failure to notify Company promptly of any Loss shall not relieve Company of any liability to City pursuant to Section 9.1, unless such failure materially impairs Company’s ability to defend such Loss. Company shall seek City’s prior written consent to settle or compromise any Loss if Company contends that City shares in liability with respect thereto. 9.3 Assumption of Risk. Company shall assume all risk of damage to any and all other property of Company, or any property under the control or custody of Company while upon or near the Public Rights-Of-Way incident to the use of the Public Rights-Of-Way. Company releases City Page 11 of 15 from any liability, including claims for damages or extra compensation, arising from construction delays due to any activities by City. Under no circumstances shall City be liable to Company for any loss of service downtime, lost revenue or profits or third-party damages. 9.4 Survival. Company’s obligations under this Article 9 shall survive Termination of this Agreement. 9.5 No Waiver. The failure of either party on one or more occasions to exercise a right or to require compliance or performance under this Agreement or any other applicable state or federal law shall not be deemed to constitute a waiver of such right or a waiver of compliance or performance by such party nor to excuse the other party from complying or performing, unless such right or such compliance or performance has been waived in writing. ARTICLE 10 INSURANCE 10.1 Minimum Insurance Requirements. The Company shall procure and maintain for the duration of the Agreement insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the Company, Company’s agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors. 10.1.1 Minimum Scope of Insurance Coverage shall be at least as broad as: (a) Insurance Services Office form number GL 0002 (Ed. 1/73) covering Comprehensive General Liability and Insurance Services Office form number GL 0404 covering Broad Form Comprehensive General Liability; or Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage ("occurrence" form GC 0001). (b) Insurance Services Office form number CA 0001 (Ed. 1/78) covering Automobile Liability, code 1 "any auto" and endorsement CA 0025. (c) Worker's Compensation insurance as required by the Labor Code of the State of California and Employers Liability insurance. 10.1.2 Beginning of Work Contractor shall maintain limits no less than: (a) General Liability: $2,000,000 combined single limit per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. If Commercial General Liability Insurance or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this Project/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit. (b) Automobile Liability: $1,000,000 combined single limit per accident for bodily injury and property damage. Page 12 of 15 (c) Workers' Compensation and Employers Liability: Worker's compensation limits as required by the Labor Code of the State of California and Employers Liability limits of $1,000,000 per accident. 10.1.3 Deductibles and Self-insured Retentions Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City. At the option of the City, either: the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retentions as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers; or the Contractor shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration, and defense expenses. 10.1.4 Other Insurance Provision The policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain the following provision: (a) General Liability and Automobile Liability Coverages (i) The City of Burlingame, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers are to be covered as insureds as respects: liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of the Contractor, products and completed operations of the Contractor, premises owned, occupied or used by the Contractor, or automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by the Contractor. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to the City of Burlingame, its officers, officials, employees, or volunteers. The endorsement providing this additional insured coverage shall be equal to or broader than ISO Form CG 20 10 11 85 and must cover joint negligence, completed operations, and the acts of subcontractors. (ii) The Contractor's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the City of Burlingame, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City of Burlingame, its officers, officials, employees, or volunteers shall be excess of the Contractor’s Insurance and shall not contribute with it. (iii) Any failure to comply with reporting provisions of the policies shall not affect coverage provided to the City of Burlingame, its officers, officials, employees, or volunteers. (iv) The Contractor's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability. (b) Workers' Compensation and Employers Liability Coverage (i) The insurer shall agree to waive all rights of subrogation against the City of Burlingame, its officers, officials, employees, or volunteers for losses arising from work performed by the Contractor for the City of Burlingame. (c) All Coverages Page 13 of 15 (i) Each insurance policy required by this clause shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be suspended, voided, canceled by either party, reduced in coverage or in limits except after thirty days prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt required, has been given to the City of Burlingame. 10.1.5 Acceptability of Insurers (a) Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a Best's rating of no less than A-:VII and be authorized to conduct business with regard to the proffered lines of insurance in the State of California. 10.1.6 Verification of Coverage Contractor shall furnish the City with certificates of insurance and with original endorsements effecting coverage required by this clause. The certificates and endorsements for each insurance policy are to be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. The certificates and endorsements are to be on forms approved by the City. All certificates and endorsements are to be received and approved by the City before work commences. The City reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, at any time. 10.1.7 Indemnification Not Limited Any insurance required to be obtained and maintained by Company under this Agreement shall not limit in any way Company’s indemnification obligations under Article 9 of this Agreement. ARTICLE 11 MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 11.1 Representations and Warranties. Each party represents and warrants that it has the full right and authority to enter into, execute, deliver and perform its obligations under this Agreement and that this Agreement constitutes a legal, valid and binding obligation enforceable against such party in accordance with its terms, subject to bankruptcy, insolvency, creditors’ rights and general equitable principles. The Company represents and warrants that it has any and all authorizations and approvals from state and federal regulatory agencies including the California Public Utilities Commission and the Federal Communications Commission as are necessary for the activities and Facilities contemplated by the Agreement and that Company is in compliance in all material respects with its obligations under such authorizations. 11.2 Notices. All notices which shall or may be given pursuant to this Agreement shall be in writing and transmitted through first class United States mail, or by private delivery systems, to the following address or such other address of which a party may give written notice: Page 14 of 15 City: City of Burlingame Public Works Director 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Company: ZAYO GROUP, LLCAttn. General Counsel 1805 29th Boulder, CO 80301 With CC to: Zayo Group, LLC Attn: Underlying Rights 1805 29th Suite 2050 Boulder, CO 80301 11.3 Service of Process. Company shall designate a person in California who is authorized to accept service of process on behalf of Company. 11.4 Operations Center. Company’s Operations Center shall be available to City staff 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, regarding problems or complaints resulting from the Facilities installed pursuant to this Agreement and may be contacted by telephone at: (866)_ 236-2824, or zayoncc@zayo.com regarding such problems or complaints. 11.5 Assignment. Company shall not assign or transfer any interest in this Agreement nor the performance of any of Company’s obligations hereunder, without the prior written consent of City (which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld), and any attempt by Company to so assign this Agreement or any rights, duties or obligations arising hereunder shall be void and of no effect; provided, however, Company may assign its rights and delegate its obligations hereunder without first obtaining the City’s consent to a corporation, limited liability company, partnership or other business entity wholly controlled or owned by Company or to the purchaser of all or substantially all of the Company’s assets. An assignment shall not be effective until the Assignee agrees in writing to comply with and be subject to all the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the Code, and the Zoning Code. This Agreement may be assigned in its entirety; however, Company shall remain liable for any outstanding obligations incurred prior to such assignment. 11.6 Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire agreement and understanding between the parties with respect to the subject matter herein. There are no representations, agreements or understandings (whether oral or written) between or among the parties relating to the subject matter of this Agreement that are not fully expressed herein. 11.7 Amendments. This Agreement may not be amended except pursuant to a written instrument signed by both parties. 11.8 Severability. If any one or more of the provisions of this Agreement shall be held by a court of competent jurisdiction in a final judicial action to be void, voidable, or unenforceable, such provision(s) shall be deemed separable from the remaining provisions of this Agreement and shall in no way affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Agreement. Page 15 of 15 11.9 Survival. All of the provisions, conditions and requirements of this Agreement shall be in addition to any and all other obligations and liabilities Company may have to the City at common law, by statute, or by contract, and shall survive the City’s Agreement to Company and any renewals or extensions thereof. All of the provisions, conditions, regulations, and requirements contained in this Agreement shall further be binding upon the heirs, successors, executors, administrators, legal representatives and assigns of the parties and all privileges, as well as all obligations and liabilities of each party shall inure to its heirs, successors and assigns equally as if they were specifically mentioned wherever such party is named herein. 11.10 Governing Law and Venue. This Agreement shall be subject to, and governed and construed by and in accordance with, the laws of the State of California. In the event that suit is brought by a party to this Agreement, the parties agree that trial of such action shall be vested exclusively in the state courts of California in San Mateo County, or in the United States District Court, Northern District of California. 11.11 Successors. This Agreement is binding upon the successors, assigns and transferees of the parties hereto. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement on the dates set forth below. CITY OF BURLINGAME, a California municipal corporation __________________________ Lisa K. Goldman, City Manager Zayo Group, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company By: __________________________________ Its: __________________________________ Date: __________________________________ APPROVED AS TO FORM: _____________________________ Kathleen Kane, City Attorney Attest: ___________________________________ Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: MEETING DATE: September 4, 2018 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: September 4, 2018 From: Lisa K. Goldman, City Manager – (650) 558-7243 Subject: Adoption of a Resolution of Support for Proposition 1, the Veterans and Affordable Housing Bond on the November 6, 2018 Ballot RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the City Council adopt a resolution of support for Proposition 1, the Veterans and Affordable Housing Bond. BACKGROUND Proposition 1 is a ballot measure that will appear on the November 6, 2018 statewide ballot. Both the State Legislature and Governor Brown approved the measure, formerly known as SB 3, last September. The League of California Cities is supporting this ballot measure and serves on the Steering Committee. In San Mateo County, the Cities of Redwood City, San Mateo, and South San Francisco and the Town of Portola Valley have endorsed the measure. DISCUSSION Proposition 1 is a $4 billion general obligation bond that would fund affordable housing programs and the veterans homeownership program. If approved by voters on November 6, Proposition 1 would fund the following existing programs: • Multifamily Housing Program: $1.5 billion, administered by the State’s Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), to assist the new construction, rehabilitation, and preservation of permanent and transitional rental housing for lower-income households through loans to local public entities and nonprofit and for-profit developers; • Transit-Oriented Development Implementation Program: $150 million, administered by HCD, to provide low-interest loans for higher-density rental housing developments close to transit stations that include affordable units and as mortgage assistance for homeownership. Grants are also available to cities, counties, and transit agencies for infrastructure improvements necessary for the development. • Infill Incentive Grant Program: $300 million, administered by HCD, to promote infill housing developments by providing financial assistance for infill infrastructure that serves new construction and rehabilitates existing infrastructure to support greater housing density. • Joe Serna, Jr. Farmworker Housing Grant Fund: $300 million, administered by HCD, to Support for Proposition 1 September 4, 2018 2 help finance the new construction, rehabilitation, and acquisition of owner-occupied and rental housing units for agricultural workers. • Local Housing Trust Fund Matching Grant Program: $300 million, administered by HCD, to help finance affordable housing by providing matching grants, dollar for dollar, to local housing trusts. • CalHome Program: $300 million, administered by HCD, to help low- and very low- income households become or remain homeowners by providing grants to local public agencies and nonprofit developers to assist individual first-time homebuyers. It also provides direct loan forgiveness for development projects that include multiple ownership units and provides loans for property acquisition for mutual housing and cooperative developments. • Self-Help Housing Fund: $150 million, administered by HCD, to assist low and moderate income families with grants to build their homes with their own labor. • CalVet Home Loan Program: $1 billion, administered by the California Department of Veterans Affairs, to provide loans to eligible veterans at below-market interest rates with few or no down payment requirements. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact from the adoption of this resolution. Exhibit: • Resolution RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME SUPPORTING PROPOSITION 1, THE VETERANS HOUSING BOND INITIATIVE WHEREAS, California’s cities, counties, and transportation agencies face a statewide backlog of over $130 billion in needed funds to make transportation infrastructure improvements; and WHEREAS, housing affordability is an issue facing many communities in California, where a majority of renters pay more than 30 percent of their income toward rent and nearly one-third spend more than 50 percent of their income on rent; and WHEREAS, California's homeownership rates are at the lowest point since the 1940's; and WHEREAS, even though federal funding for affordable housing comprises a significant portion of California's resources to support affordable housing, federal spending has been on the decline in recent years; and WHEREAS, between 2003 and 2015, Community Development Block Grant and HOME funds allocated to California by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development to produce affordable housing units have declined by 51 percent and 66 percent respectively; and WHEREAS, the State Legislature proposed and Governor Jerry Brown approved on September 29, 2017 to place the Veterans and Affordable Housing Bond Act on the November 6, 2018 general election ballot for voters to decide; and WHEREAS, the Veterans and Affordable Housing Bond Act, now known as Proposition 1, seeks to provide funding to support the construction of multi-family housing, first-time home buyer assistance, and veteran home loans; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Burlingame supports fostering a range of housing options affordable to all income levels through policies, programs, partnerships, and projects that support the creation and preservation of affordable housing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Burlingame that: 1. The City of Burlingame supports Proposition 1, the Veterans and Affordable Housing Bond Act on the November 6, 2018 ballot to infuse much-needed funding to support important affordable housing projects and spur housing construction statewide; and 2. The City of Burlingame supports and can be listed as a member of the Affordable Housing Now coalition. ___________________________________ Michael Brownrigg, Mayor I, Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 4th day of September, 2018 and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers: NOES: Councilmembers: ABSENT: Councilmembers: ___________________________________ Meghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: MEETING DATE: September 4, 2018 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: September 4, 2018 From: Kevin Gardiner, Community Development Director – (650) 558-7253 Subject: Update on San Mateo County Community Resilience Grant RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council receive an update on the City’s application for a Community Resilience Grant from San Mateo County, and provide additional suggestions to consider for the application as appropriate. BACKGROUND Under the leadership of Supervisor Dave Pine, the County of San Mateo Office of Sustainability launched the “Sea Change SMC” initiative in 2015 with the goal of increasing coordination and collaboration on sea level rise planning across the County, and improving awareness and understanding of the issue. In 2018, the County finalized a Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment for the Bayshore and coastside Half Moon Bay north, in coordination with cities, agencies, businesses, community groups, and others. In 2019, the County will work on completing a Vulnerability Assessment for the south coast of the County. As part of the County’s Climate Change Preparedness Action Plan, the County’s goal is to continue to prepare for the impacts of sea level rise, and to evaluate risks from other climate change impacts. Key County actions include developing a menu of adaptation strategies and model policies, providing technical assistance to cities, developing communication tools for a range of audiences, and facilitating a collaborative process to share information and best practices. The purpose of the Community Resilience Grants Program is to assist cities in developing solutions that reduce impacts from sea level rise for specific areas or assets. For 2018-2019, the focus will be only in areas vulnerable to sea level rise. Future calls for proposals may include additional climate change impacts besides sea level rise. San Mateo County is soliciting project proposals that will help address the impacts of sea level rise in communities across the County (Community Resilience Grant Guidelines attached). The Program will support projects that assess or plan for sea level rise impacts and/or implement innovative adaptation strategies. Proposed projects should help prepare communities and habitats for current and future flood, erosion, and storm risks. San Mateo County Community Resilience Grant September 4, 2018 2 DISCUSSION Staff has been preparing a proposal for the grant program that would involve a further assessment of potential impacts of sea level rise on the City’s Bayfront. The proposal would be to build upon the “Asset Vulnerability Profile” prepared for the San Mateo County Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment for the Old Bayshore Highway and Airport Boulevard study area (attached). As a first step, the grant would propose combining the findings of the Asset Vulnerability Profile together with analysis prepared separately by the Stanford University Sustainable Urban Systems Initiative classes this past year, to create a consolidated “existing conditions” overview. The assessment would then extend to identify potential near-term and long- term adaptation strategies that would be applicable to the particular site conditions of the Bayfront. The result would be a high-level assessment that could inform policies and future planning efforts. This assessment would build upon the policies and programs outlined in the Draft General Plan and Environmental Impact Report, but with additional specificity and focus on identifying a range of implementation options. In preparing the grant application, staff is anticipating the assessment would involve both technical expertise and community engagement. The proposal would likely include a technical consultant with expertise in sea level rise and resiliency planning, and a community engagement specialist. The intent would be for the community to gain an understanding of the particular issues involved with the Bayfront in Burlingame, and how that understanding can guide future planning efforts. San Mateo County is providing up to $200,000 for sea level rise adaptation assessment, planning, and/or implementation projects through the Program. Selected grant recipients may be awarded a maximum of $90,000. The County is looking for project proposals that have a high likelihood of helping localities prepare for the impacts of sea level rise, erosion, and storms, and complement County initiatives. The County highly encourages the use of matching funds, especially the inclusion of in-kind staff time to increase the likelihood of long-term success. FISCAL IMPACT Selected grant recipients may be awarded a maximum of $90,000, and matching funds are highly encouraged. Exhibits: • Community Resilience Grant Guidelines • Asset Vulnerability Profile – Old Bayshore Highway and Airport Boulevard San Mateo County Community Resilience Grant 1 Community Resilience Grant Guidelines Deadline: September 17, 2018, 5:00 PM PST Background Under the leadership of Supervisor Dave Pine, the Office of Sustainability launched the “Sea Change SMC” initiative in 2015 with the goal of increasing coordination and collaboration on sea level rise planning across the County, and improving awareness and understanding of the issue. In 2018, the County finalized a Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment for the Bayshore and coastside Half Moon Bay north, in coordination with cities, agencies, businesses, community groups, and others. In 2019, the County will work on completing a Vulnerability Assessment for the south coast of the County. San Mateo County’s location between the San Francisco Bay and the Pacific Coast makes it especially vulnerable to sea level rise and flooding. As part of the County’s Climate Change Preparedness Action Plan the County’s goal is to continue to prepare for the impacts of sea level rise, and to evaluate risks from other climate change impacts. Key County actions include developing a menu of adaptation strategies and model policies, providing technical assistance to cities, developing communication tools for a range of audiences, and facilitating a collaborative process to share information and best practices. Community Resilience Grants Purpose The purpose of the Community Resilience Grants Program (Program) is to assist cities in developing solutions that reduce impacts from sea level rise for specific areas or assets. For 2018-2019, the focus will be only in areas vulnerable to sea level rise. Future calls for proposals may include additional climate change impacts besides sea level rise. The County of San Mateo is soliciting project proposals that will help address the impacts of sea level rise in communities across the County. The Program will support projects that assess or plan for sea level rise impacts and/or implement innovative adaptation strategies. Proposed San Mateo County Community Resilience Grant 2 projects should help prepare communities and habitats for current and future flood, erosion, and storm risks. Eligible Applicants Cities and towns, special districts, Joint Powers Authorities, schools, and non-profit organizations in San Mateo County are eligible applicants. Non-profit organizations should be able to demonstrate support from relevant city staff to move projects towards implementation. Funding Details The County of San Mateo is providing up to $200,000 for sea level rise adaptation assessment, planning, and/or implementation projects through the Program. Selected grant recipients may be awarded a maximum of $90,000. The grant agreement will be between the grant recipient and the County of San Mateo. Every effort will be made to fund a diverse portfolio of projects. Eligible Activities Eligible activities include projects that address sea level rise impacts including storm surge, shoreline erosion, and flooding. Projects can include components of the following categories: Assess, Plan, and Implement, and should build off, but not replicate the results of the County’s Vulnerability Assessment. All projects should be guided by robust community and stakeholder engagement that is meaningful, inclusive and occurs early on in the project. The goal of engagement can be broad, but should aim to increase the understanding and awareness of sea level rise and climate change impacts among elected officials, city and county staff, key stakeholders, and community members. Outreach programs that reach disadvantaged communities or at-risk small, minority- owned or disadvantaged businesses are especially encouraged. Projects can include efforts that reduce sea level rise risks to the built environment, vulnerable communities, or habitats. Strong proposals will include multi-sector collaboration and stakeholder engagement, and integrate nature-based solutions where feasible. Preference will be given to proposals that outline a pathway to integrate planning scenarios into day-to-day decision making and long-term strategic planning and to build awareness of community members, elected officials and businesses. Project Category Goal Project Examples Assess Build from the County’s Vulnerability Assessment to understand risks to built or natural assets. • Assess or evaluate impacted public or private assets (built or natural) with the intent to address current and anticipated flood or erosion impacts. • Assess public health impacts from sea level rise on communities. San Mateo County Community Resilience Grant 3 Project Category Goal Project Examples Plan Integrate adaptation planning into local plans, policy, operations, projects, and decision making. Develop adaptation strategies or concepts. • Update and/or adopt planning processes that include sea level rise impacts into policy and plans, such as Hazard Mitigation Plans, General Plans, Local Coastal Programs, floodplain ordinances, building codes, zoning ordinances, and/or Capital Improvement Plans. • Engage stakeholders in a neighborhood-level adaptation planning effort. • Assess the feasibility of nature- based adaptation solutions at the local level. • Develop adaptation strategies and project concepts for at-risk areas and/or at the neighborhood level. Implement Design and/or implement sea level rise adaptation projects that address vulnerabilities identified in the County’s Vulnerability Assessment or a local/regional assessment or plan. • Complete or contribute to a portion of an existing sea level rise project, such as tasks related to permitting, design, etc. • Develop a training program for local businesses or contractors. Application Resources Prior to submitting a proposal, please review the following to ensure the proposed project builds from the County’s sea level rise initiatives. These include: • County of San Mateo’s Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment. o Chapter 3D: City and County specific findings for your project area. o Chapter 5: Asset Vulnerability Profiles for 30 facilities across the county. o Chapter 3C: Considerations of vulnerable communities and high-level impacts to these communities. • County of San Mateo’s Climate Change Preparedness Action Plan Application Submittal Applicants should complete the brief application form by September 17, 2018 by 5 PM PST. The proposal and supporting documents can be sent to Marcus Griswold at mgriswold@smcgov.org. Proposals will be evaluated in September. In-person interviews with selected applicants will San Mateo County Community Resilience Grant 4 occur in late September or early October. Following interviews, the County will work with the highest-ranking proposals on an agreement and project timeline. Project Timeline and Workplan Applicants should plan to begin work on projects as early as November 2018 and finish by December 31, 2019. Project end dates should reflect the conclusion of all activities, including program evaluation and reporting. For the proposal, please include a brief description of project goals and tasks, key deliverables, and expected outcomes. A final workplan detailing project deliverables will be developed collaboratively during the contracting process. For more information, visit the funding website (http://seachangesmc.com/funding- opportunities/). Register here for an informational webinar being held August 8th from 12:30- 1:30 PM. Review Process A review committee made up of staff from the County of San Mateo will review and score all proposals. Applicants may be contacted by staff as part of the proposal review process to answer questions. After review, staff will invite top scoring applicants for a final screening round through in-person interviews about the project. County of San Mateo staff may ask applicants to work collaboratively on regional projects, where applicable. Staff will work with selected candidates to complete the final scope of work for the project and discuss timing needs to ensure project outcomes are met on time. Tentative Schedule for Coastal Resiliency Grants Program Application Process Event Date RFP issued July 30, 2018 Application Webinar (register here) August 8, 2018 at 12:30 PM Applications Due September 17, 2018 by 5:00 PM Evaluation Panel Review Mid-September 2018 In-person Interviews with Selected Applicants Early October 2018 Execute Funding Agreements with Project Sponsors for Awarded Projects November 2018 Final Report and Reimbursement Requests Due December 31, 2019 San Mateo County Community Resilience Grant 5 Evaluation Criteria The County of San Mateo is looking for project proposals that have a high likelihood of helping localities prepare for the impacts of sea level rise, erosion, and storms, and complement County initiatives. Projects should be ready to begin upon agreement finalization. We highly encourage the use of matching funds, especially the inclusion of in-kind staff time to increase the likelihood of long-term success. Specific evaluation criteria include: Evaluation Criteria Description Weighting (percent) Project feasibility and approach • Appropriateness of proposed tasks, timeline, and budget. • Appropriateness of approach to address or solve identified and/or anticipated problem or challenges. • Extent to which the project clearly demonstrates how outcomes will be achieved throughout the work. • Extent to which the applicant is ready and has the capacity and resources to ensure project success. 40 Commitment to stakeholder and community engagement • Extent to which the project shows a commitment to working with socioeconomically and racially diverse community partners who are affected by or who reach those affected by sea level rise. • Extent to which the applicant meaningfully seeks out and builds partnerships with key stakeholders and community partners, which includes inclusion of regular feedback into the planning process and project outcomes. 20 Project impact • Extent to which the project builds on next steps in the County’s Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment and/or Action Plan. • Likelihood that proposed project will lead to long-term system change or community resiliency. 20 San Mateo County Community Resilience Grant 6 Evaluation Criteria Description Weighting (percent) • Extent to which the project shows innovation and could be replicated in other parts of the County. • Extent to which the project proposes to use a multi-benefit approach, that could include nature-based solutions, recreation, the local economy, water quality, and community benefits. Organization’s commitment to proposed project • Extent to which the applicant demonstrates appropriate partnerships, organizational support, and/or coordination of efforts to support the advancement and success of the project. Examples include a support letters from partners, an existing level of support from partners, and/or level of matching funds. 20 100 Expectations and Requirements of Selected Applicants Grant awardees will be expected to: • Participate in an in-person interview to discuss the proposed project in more depth prior to developing an agreement. • Participate in a funding contract orientation event – in person meeting or webinar – where contract management guidelines and expectations will be reviewed. • Submit brief written reports describing progress on deliverables at six months and at the end of the funding period. The final report includes a more robust description of project impacts, challenges, and lessons learned. • Participate in (and/or send a representative to) the quarterly San Mateo County Climate Collaborative meetings and be available to share lessons learned through discussions, mentorship, and/or presentations. These meetings are an opportunity to deepen knowledge on local sea level rise adaptation and share lessons learned. • Develop a process to keep city leadership informed as the project unfolds. San Mateo County Community Resilience Grant 7 Technical Assistance from the County of San Mateo County of San Mateo staff will host a webinar on August 8th from 12:30-1:30 pm to answer questions about the RFP and application process. Please register here. For questions or assistance contact: Marcus Griswold at mgriswold@smcgov.org or (650) 363-1902. County of San Mateo staff are available to provide technical assistance in the form of strategic thinking, presentations, trainings, and sharing of resources. This includes: • Assistance to project partners in interpreting data and information in the County’s Vulnerability Assessment; • Presentations to staff and project partners on the County’s sea level rise efforts; • Help in building and implementing community engagement efforts, including development of community engagement templates; and • Connections to other stakeholders and projects funded through this effort and the County’s Climate Collaborative to assist with troubleshooting. Under the leadership of Supervisor Dave Pine, the Office of Sustainability launched the “Sea Change SMC” initiative in 2015 and, in 2018, finalized the Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment. The County of San Mateo is soliciting project proposals that will help address the impacts of sea level rise through the Community Resilience Grants Program. Please submit the completed application below, signed by your City Manager or Executive Director, and submit to Marcus Griswold at the address below by 5 PM PST September 17, 2018. For questions about the RFP or process contact: Marcus Griswold at mgriswold@smcgov.org or (650) 363-1902. For more information, please visit seachangesmc.com/funding-opportunities/ County of San Mateo Community Resilience Grant Proposal 1 Section I: General Project and Applicant Information County of San Mateo Community Resilience Grant Proposal 1. Project Title 2. Project Type (Check all that apply) Assessment Planning Implementation Name Title Organization Address City/Town State/Province ZIP/Postal Code Email Address Phone Number 3. Project Contact Information 4. Grant amount being requested from the County of San Mateo? 5. Amount of matching funds available (include cash and staff time match as separate items). 2 Section II: Proposed Project County of San Mateo Community Resilience Grant Proposal 6. Briefly describe the proposed project and goals, including the impact, climate risks, and need. Is this proposal part of a larger project? If so, please describe or provide a website link. (Max 250 words) 7. Please describe how the proposed project builds on the County's Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment and Action Plan. (Max 200 words) 8. Please list the tasks, key deliverables, and expected outcomes. For each task specify the costs and the portion of budget that will support staff time or consultant time. (Max 400 words) 9. List the composition and roles of the project team and partners. (Max 100 words) 10. Briefly describe the types of technical assistance requirements you might need from the County of San Mateo to carry out your proposed project (e.g. understanding sea level rise projections and guidance, connection to stakeholders, outreach techniques, staff training, funding expertise)? (Max 100 words) 11. Please describe the role stakeholder and community engagement will play in achieving your outcomes for this project? (Max 200 words) 3 12. To what degree will your proposed project engage or protect socially vulnerable communities (e.g. low-income communities, communities of color, people with disabilities, older adults and young children)? (Max 100 words) 13. Signature of Chief Administrator (City Manager or Executive Director) 4 ASSET VULNERABILITY PROFILE | SAN MATEO COUNTY SEA LEVEL RISE VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT VULNERABILITY SUMMARY ASSET CHARACTERISTICS Asset Description and Function: (Local Road) Environmental Considerations City of Burlingame Water mains, storm drain outlets, utilities for businesses are underground. Asset is in SFHA Good Asset Type Asset Risk Class Size Year of Construction Elevation Level of Use Annual O&M Cost Special Flood Hazard Area Physical Condition Underground Facilities 12. OLD BAYSHORE HIGHWAY AND AIRPORT BOULEVARD Old Bayshore Highway (Bayshore) and Airport Boulevard (Airport) are moderately vulnerable to sea level rise. The roads are sensitive to flooding when water is deep enough to limit traffic, restricting the only access to Burlingame's hotel corridor. Exposure is moderate, as high tides prevent rainwater from draining, which creates ponding, isolating parts of the roadway. Adaptive capacity is moderate because there are emergency measures to maintain access and some detours to access businesses; however, none would serve the hotel corridor. Closure of Bayshore could affect Burlingame due to significant revenue loss, and would affect travelers to and from San Francisco International Airport (SFO). 4 linear miles 3 1960s Ground transportation 7 feet (average) 34,100 vehicles/day Portion of $2M budget Bayshore and Airport run parallel to Highway-101, and are primary access routes for much of coastal Burlingame. In particular, they connect travelers from SFO to at least 12 major hotels along Airport, which provide significant income for the city: 35- 40% of the annual budget comes from Transient Occupancy Tax from this area. The road also protects underground water mains and utilities that supply the businesses and hotels, and it provides access to a wastewater treatment plant. Landowner City of Burlingame Special status plants, animals, and natural communities may be present in the project area; a more detailed analysis will be needed before implementing adaptation strategies. SENSITIVITY Moderate EXPOSURE Moderate ADAPTIVE CAPACITY Moderate CONSEQUENCES High Old Bayshore Highway and Airport Boulevard | Burlingame 12-1 ASSET VULNERABILITY PROFILE | SAN MATEO COUNTY SEA LEVEL RISE VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT ASSET SENSITIVITY SHORELINE VULNERABILITY Shoreline Overtopping Analysis Cross-Cutting Vulnerabilities Though the creeks were modified and designed to pass 1% annual chance water levels, any storms coincident with high tides would increase the likelihood of flooding on Bayshore. The shoreline that protects the road is mostly in private ownership, and the floodwall is under the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC), making Bayshore vulnerable to the decisions and management of many others. OLD BAYSHORE HIGHWAY AND AIRPORT BOULEVARD The asset is moderately sensitive to inundation. Bayshore and Airport are the main access routes to much of coastal Burlingame. Therefore, if they were inundated, access to most businesses and to other facilities could be impacted; however, a detour may be possible in some locations. Because Airport and Bayshore provide the sole access road to many of the hotels, if it were inundated, businesses along this road would be isolated and inundated. Road access to the Burlingame wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) would be eliminated, and access to other underground utilities would also be affected. There are different access points for Airport, so inundating different sections would only isolate those sections. A number of the assets in this area that can be accessed by the road are also likely sensitive to inundation; however, the effects on the hotels, parks, and businesses were not evaluated. The northwestern portion of the shoreline is first overtopped (red stars on map) when water surface elevations are between the current mean higher high water (MHHW) level and 12 inches above. Meanwhile, the southeastern portion is first overtopped (red stars on map) when water levels reach 12 to 24 inches above MHHW. The first significant impacts occur when water surface elevations are between 24 and 36 inches above the current MHHW level. (Overtopping discussion continues in Exposure Discussion section on next page). Bayshore Highway connects to multiple hotels near the airport. Image from Google Street View First Significant Impacts: 36 inches above MHHW. Sanchez Creek Lagoon Old Bayshore Hwy Airport Blvd 12-2 ASSET VULNERABILITY PROFILE | SAN MATEO COUNTY SEA LEVEL RISE VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT SEA LEVEL RISE EXPOSURE ANALYSIS Exposure Discussion Exposure Analysis Results Minimum Maximum 0 7 0 2 0 10 0 13 Baseline 1% Flood Mid-Level 1% + 3.3 feet High-End 1% + 6.6 feet Scenario OLD BAYSHORE HIGHWAY AND AIRPORT BOULEVARD Potential Inundation Depth (feet) First Significant Impacts (36 inches) Bayshore is moderately exposed to sea level rise. The roadway has not been fully submerged in the past, though isolated areas have been flooded. This happens when high tides coincide with heavy rains, giving water nowhere to drain. Exposure of the asset to impacts of sea level rise is therefore moderate, despite the fact that even the baseline scenario (to the right) shows minimal flooding of the asset (2 feet deep maximum). There are two low sections of shoreline that could cause coastal flooding on this segment of Bayshore. The first is a low spot of the shoreline adjacent to San Francisco Bay, roughly 300 feet to the northeast of the northwestern section of the road (northernmost red star on map, previous page). The other low spots are roughly 300 feet west and south of the southeastern segment of the road, where the Sanchez Creek Lagoon (connected tidally to San Francisco Bay) overtops the embankment (southernmost red stars on map, previous page). Under increased water levels (mid-level and high- end scenarios), the flood depth and extent on those previously affected areas could expand (up to 7 to 10 feet deep), thereby cutting off access to large segments of the road. Some businesses and hotels have underground facilities (e.g., basements, garages), parking lots, and first floors that could be exposed to higher water levels. Baseline Scenario: Minimal flooding of the asset. Mid-Level Scenario: Many areas of the asset affected. High-End Scenario: Asset flooded at 13 feet deep. 12-3 ASSET VULNERABILITY PROFILE | SAN MATEO COUNTY SEA LEVEL RISE VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT ADAPTIVE CAPACITY, CONSEQUENCES, AND POTENTIAL ADAPTATION Adaptive Capacity Consequences Additional Important Information Asset-Specific Adaptation Vulnerable Local Roads There is another Asset Vulnerability Profile on vulnerable roads in the County: Mirada Road (AVP #28). The vulnerability assessment analysis shows that there are 373.8 miles of vulnerable local roads in the project area, and Bayshore and Airport represent 4 miles. OLD BAYSHORE HIGHWAY AND AIRPORT BOULEVARD In the event that the asset were to significantly inundate, many businesses and nearby hotels (in lower lying areas)would be flooded. Any future changes to the shore (e.g., riprap, floodwalls) provide jurisdictional challenges for the City of Burlingame because shoreline projects are subject to BCDC management and private ownership. Therefore, the future vulnerability of Bayshore and Airport depends not only on sea level rise, but also upon administrations outside the City of Burlingame. Future plans that affect the asset include flap gates for the nearby lagoon, though it is unclear whether design of flap gates will consider sea level rise. Adaptation options may consider raising the shoreline or building protection along the low spots (identified earlier) to prevent inundation of the asset. Because Bayshore is a linear feature, adaptation may require a regional approach that also addresses shoreline vulnerabilities north and south. Adaptation will be challenging because the area traversed by the roadway is managed by the City of Burlingame, meanwhile individual owners and the BCDC are involved in decision-making affecting this land. Coastal green infrastructure (CGI) in front of the road could help reduce the height of flood waters and diminish the need or size of a flood protection feature on land. Adaptive capacity of Bayshore and Airport is moderate. The road is in good condition (with 40% of the service life remaining), and flood waters are not likely to damage the roadway itself. In addition, there are response plans, including detours and sandbags, to maintain access during a storm. Effectiveness of those measures, however, depends on the extent and location of flooding. They would likely be insufficient to be efffective if the high-end scenario were to occur. If inundation were extensive enough, there would be no detours available to access businesses, hotels, or critical facilities like Burlingame WWTP on Bayshore or Airport. Direct damages to the asset could be high, and the impact from the loss of revenue would be significant. If the road were damaged, it would cost the city approximately $200 per ton of material to repair and rebuild. However, under severe conditions, access to businesses and hotels on Airport could be lost entirely, which could lead to a loss of 35-40% of revenue for the City of Burlingame and disproportionately impact the vulnerable populations in Burlingame. An inundated roadway would also reduce any available evacuation routes for hotel guests and local businesses should an emergency arise. Flooding of the road may also affect or damage the water and utility lines that are protected by the road, each with its own additional repair costs. There are emergency response plans to provide equipment and detours to protect and maintain access to businesses and hotels along Bayshore and Airport during a flood. Engaging these measures would cost the city money and would likely reduce income at the businesses and hotels. Rerouting traffic if this asset were closed also has costs. Loss of access could result in additional damages caused by flooding at the Burlingame WWTP, if staff are unable to access the site. Bayfront Park at north end of Bayshore Highway. Image from Google Street View 12-4 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: MEETING DATE: September 4, 2018 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: September 4, 2018 From: Ana Maria Silva, Executive Assistant – (650) 558-7204 Subject: Open Nomination Period to Fill Two Vacancies on the Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council call for applications to fill two vacancies on the Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission. The pending vacancies are due to the expiring terms of Commissioners Christopher Bush and Howard Wettan. The recommended deadline is Friday, October 12, 2018. This will allow applicants an opportunity to attend the October 11, 2018 Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission meeting. BACKGROUND The City’s current commissioner appointment procedure calls for any Commissioner desiring reappointment to apply in the same manner as all other candidates. All past applicants on the two-year waitlist will be informed of the vacancy. 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: MEETING DATE: September 4, 2018 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: September 4, 2018 From: Kevin Gardiner, Community Development Director – (650) 558-7253 Subject: City Council Consideration of an Appeal of the Planning Commission’s June 11, 2018 Action Denying Without Prejudice an Application for a Conditional Use Permit to Install a New Wireless Facility (Antenna and Equipment) on an Existing Wood Utility Pole Located Within the Right-of- Way Adjacent to 1800 Hillside Drive RECOMMENDATION The City Council should conduct a public hearing, consider all oral and written testimony received during the hearing and, following closure of the hearing and deliberations, take one of the following actions: • Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s denial of the application without prejudice; • Grant the appeal, overrule the Planning Commission’s denial, and approve the application, with or without amended conditions; or • Remand the application to the Planning Commission for reconsideration, with specific direction on aspects of the project to be re-evaluated. Whether the City Council decides to uphold the Planning Commission’s denial without prejudice, or approve the application (with or without amended conditions), the City Council should state the finding(s) along with reasons for its decision based on the record and direct staff to prepare a resolution memorializing its decision for consideration and adoption at the next regular City Council meeting. BACKGROUND Wireless Communications Ordinance: The City’s authority to regulate the placement of wireless communications facilities in the public rights-of-way is subject to certain limitations in state and federal law. These are discussed in more detail in the attached legal memorandum. In summary, under state law, both wireline and wireless telephone companies have a statutory state franchise to use public rights-of-way for placement of their facilities. The City can, within limited discretion, control the time, place, and manner of installation to ensure that facilities do not “incommode the public use” of the public rights-of-way. Federal law generally preserves local Appeal – 1800 Hillside Drive September 4, 2018 2 authority to regulate, with some important substantive and procedural restrictions, including the following: (i) the City must act on any permit application within a reasonable period of time; (ii) a local government may not “unreasonably discriminate” in its siting decisions with respect to providers of “functionally equivalent services”; (iii) regulation must not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services; (iv) radio frequency (“RF”) emissions cannot serve as a basis for denying or regulating wireless facilities to the extent that such facilities comply with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulations concerning such emissions; and (v) denials must be “in writing” and based on “substantial evidence” contained in a written record. The City Council adopted the City’s Wireless Communications Ordinance on February 6, 2012. The purpose of this ordinance is to maintain and, more importantly, facilitate modernization of Burlingame’s communications infrastructure in a manner that improves the quality of the city’s environment, the pleasant aesthetics of the city’s neighborhoods, the city’s architectural traditions dating to the early 20th century, and the visual quality in the non-residential areas of the city. More specifically, the purpose of this ordinance is to regulate, as allowed by state and federal law and regulations, the placement of wireless communications facilities in Burlingame in a manner that recognizes the community benefits of communications technology, which provides clear guidance to the communications industry but also recognizes the strong need to preserve the city’s aesthetic traditions. Burlingame Municipal Code Sections 25.77.080(c) and 25.77.090, which address location preference order and design criteria, respectively, are provided in the attachment titled “Title 25 – Zoning Code – Chapter 25.77 – Wireless Communications Facilities – Code Sections 25.77.080 (c) and 25.77.090”. Project Description: The applicant is proposing to install a new wireless communication facility (wireless facility) on an existing wood utility pole jointly owned by public utilities and other entities who are members of the Northern California Joint Pole Association. The project consists of installing a cylindrical antenna and extension on top of the existing utility pole and associated equipment and cabling mounted on the side of the utility pole. The proposed antenna, equipment, and cabling are proposed to be painted to match the utility pole. The PG&E utility pole is located within the right-of-way near the corner of Hillside Drive and Cabrillo Avenue, adjacent to the parcel with an address of 1800 Hillside Drive. The utility pole is located along Hillside Drive, in the planter strip between the sidewalk and street. The proposed site is surrounded by single family residential uses and Our Lady of Angels Catholic Church and School to the east. There are existing street trees on either side of the utility pole, which would not need to be removed to accommodate the proposed wireless facility. Appeal – 1800 Hillside Drive September 4, 2018 3 An application for a Conditional Use Permit is required because the project consists of installing a new wireless facility (not a co-location) and because it is located in a residential zoning district.1 The following application was submitted for the project: • Conditional Use Permit to install a new wireless facility (antenna and equipment) on an existing wood utility pole located within the right-of-way (C.S. 25.77.050 (c)). For a full description and analysis of the project, please refer to the attached June 11, 2018 Planning Commission staff report and attachments, as well as the supplemental letter, exhibits, and revised plans submitted by the applicant, dated August 22, 2018. Changes to Proposed Project Since June 11, 2018 Planning Commission Denial Without Prejudice: Since the June 11, 2018 Planning Commission meeting, several changes were made to the proposed wireless facility to address concerns and comments expressed by the Planning Commission. Please refer to the applicant’s attached letter, exhibits, and revised plans, dated August 22, 2018, for additional information. The following changes were made to the project: • AT&T worked with PG&E to allow installation of a smaller meter, called a SmartPole Meter. The previously proposed meter measured 1’-0” wide x 2’-0” tall (2 square feet). The SmartPole Meter measures 4.18 inches wide x 7.17 inches tall (0.2 square feet). • The previous proposal consisted of the electric load center box and fiber distribution panel being attached side-by-side on the pole. The revised project includes installing these two boxes on top of one another, in line with the other equipment boxes on the pole. Required Findings for a Conditional Use Permit for a Wireless Communications Facility (Code Sections 25.77.050(c), 25.77.130, and 25.52.020, a-c): In order to grant a Conditional Use Permit for a Wireless Facility, the City must find: (1) The proposed facility complies with all the requirements of Chapter 25.77 and with all applicable requirements of other chapters of the Burlingame Municipal Code. (2) The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience. (3) The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Burlingame general plan and the purposes of the Zoning Code. (4) The City may impose such reasonable conditions or restrictions as it deems necessary to secure the purposes of the Zoning Code and to assure operation of the use in a manner compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk, and character of existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity. 1 AT&T’s appeal letter dated August 22, 2018 incorrectly states that the proposed facility is within 500 feet of a residential zoning district. It is in fact within a residential zoning district. Zoning districts go to the centerline of the street, consistent with Section 25.12.020(a). Appeal – 1800 Hillside Drive September 4, 2018 4 (5) In approving a use permit pursuant to Chapter 25.77, the City may impose conditions, not prohibited by applicable federal and state law, which are deemed necessary to ensure compliance with the provisions of Chapter 25.77, the provisions of the Burlingame Municipal Code and the provisions of any other applicable laws and regulations. Planning Commission Action: At its regular meeting of June 11, 2018, the Planning Commission denied without prejudice the applicant’s request for a Conditional Use Permit to install a new wireless facility on an existing wood utility pole located within the right-of-way adjacent to 1800 Hillside Drive (see attached June 11, 2018 Planning Commission meeting minutes). Appeal of Planning Commission’s Action: Subsequent to the Planning Commission’s action, Talin Aghazarian, an agent for AT&T, filed a timely appeal of the Commission’s action (see attached letter dated June 21, 2018). AT&T followed up its appeal with a letter and several exhibits that explains their reasons for filing the appeal. The letter, dated August 22, 2018 and prepared by John di Bene, General Attorney for AT&T, is attached to this report for the City Council’s review and consideration. Factors to Consider on the Appeal: As noted above, federal law prohibits cities from considering radio frequency (“RF”) emissions as a basis for denying or regulating wireless facilities if (as is the case here) the applicant has demonstrated that the proposed wireless facility complies with the FCC’s RF emissions regulations. The City Council is therefore limited to reviewing and discussing the proposed design and location of the wireless facility and making findings based on the requirements in the ordinance and within the constraints of federal and state law governing the regulation of telecommunications facilities. The City Council should therefore focus its consideration of the appeal and the required findings based on the evidence in the record and considering the wireless facilities design and location criteria set forth in Sections 25.77.080 and 25.77.090, which for convenience are attached to this staff report. AT&T’s Effective Prohibition Claim: In its appeal letter dated August 22, 2018 at pages 7-9, AT&T claims that the City may be required to approve its project to avoid violating federal law because denial of the project by the City would “prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services.” (47 U.S.C. Section 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II)). Because AT&T has raised this issue, if the City Council determines that it cannot make the required findings for granting the appeal and approving the application based on the evidence in the record and considering the wireless facilities design and location criteria set forth in Sections 25.77.080(c) and 25.77.090, then, the City Council should consider the evidence and arguments as to whether its proposed denial would “prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services” in conflict with federal law, and determine whether or not it must approve the project to avoid such a result. Exhibits: • Legal Memorandum Appeal – 1800 Hillside Drive September 4, 2018 5 • Title 25 – Zoning Code – Code Sections 25.77.080 (c) and 25.77.090 • Letter and Exhibits Submitted by John di Bene, General Attorney for AT&T, dated August 22, 2018 • Appeal Letter Submitted by Talin Aghazarian (AT&T), dated June 21, 2018 • June 11, 2018 PC Minutes (excerpt) • Correspondence Received After Preparation of the June 11, 2018 Planning Commission Staff Report • June 11, 2018 PC Staff Report (including all attachments) • Previously Proposed and Revised Plans 1 ` STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: MEETING DATE: September 4, 2018 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: September 4, 2018 From: Kevin Gardiner, Community Development Director – (650) 558-7253 Subject: City Council Consideration of an Appeal of the Planning Commission’s June 11, 2018 Action Denying Without Prejudice an Application for a Conditional Use Permit to Install a New Wireless Facility (Antenna and Equipment) on an Existing Wood Utility Pole Located Within the Right-of- Way Adjacent to 701 Winchester Drive (Existing Utility Pole is Located Along Oak Grove Avenue) RECOMMENDATION The City Council should conduct a public hearing, consider all oral and written testimony received during the hearing and, following closure of the hearing and deliberations, take one of the following actions: • Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s denial of the application without prejudice; • Grant the appeal, overrule the Planning Commission’s denial, and approve the application, with or without amended conditions; or • Remand the application to the Planning Commission for reconsideration, with specific direction on aspects of the project to be re-evaluated. Whether the City Council decides to uphold the Planning Commission’s denial without prejudice, or approve the application (with or without amended conditions), the City Council should state the finding(s) along with reasons for its decision based on the record and direct staff to prepare a resolution memorializing its decision for consideration and adoption at the next regular City Council meeting. BACKGROUND Wireless Communications Ordinance: The City’s authority to regulate the placement of wireless communications facilities in the public rights-of-way is subject to certain limitations in state and federal law. These are discussed in more detail in the attached legal memorandum. In summary, under state law, both wireline and wireless telephone companies have a statutory state franchise to use public rights-of-way for placement of their facilities. The City can, within limited discretion, control the time, place, and manner of installation to ensure that facilities do not Appeal – 701 Winchester Drive September 4, 2018 2 “incommode the public use” of the public rights-of-way. Federal law generally preserves local authority to regulate, with some important substantive and procedural restrictions, including the following: (i) the City must act on any permit application within a reasonable period of time; (ii) a local government may not “unreasonably discriminate” in its siting decisions with respect to providers of “functionally equivalent services”; (iii) regulation must not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services; (iv) radio frequency (“RF”) emissions cannot serve as a basis for denying or regulating wireless facilities to the extent that such facilities comply with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulations concerning such emissions; and (v) denials must be “in writing” and based on “substantial evidence” contained in a written record. The City Council adopted the City’s Wireless Communications Ordinance on February 6, 2012. The purpose of this ordinance is to maintain and, more importantly, facilitate modernization of Burlingame’s communications infrastructure in a manner that improves the quality of the city’s environment, the pleasant aesthetics of the city’s neighborhoods, the city’s architectural traditions dating to the early 20th century, and the visual quality in the non-residential areas of the city. More specifically, the purpose of this ordinance is to regulate, as allowed by state and federal law and regulations, the placement of wireless communications facilities in Burlingame in a manner that recognizes the community benefits of communications technology, which provides clear guidance to the communications industry but also recognizes the strong need to preserve the city’s aesthetic traditions. Burlingame Municipal Code Sections 25.77.080(c) and 25.77.090, which address location preference order and design criteria, respectively, are provided in the attachment titled “Title 25 – Zoning Code – Chapter 25.77 – Wireless Communications Facilities – Code Sections 25.77.080 (c) and 25.77.090”. Project Description: The applicant is proposing to install a new wireless communication facility (wireless facility) on an existing wood utility pole jointly owned by public utilities and other entities who are members of the Northern California Joint Pole Association. The existing utility pole also contains a street light, which is operated by PG&E. The project consists of installing a cylindrical antenna and extension on top of the existing utility pole and associated equipment and cabling mounted on the side of the utility pole. The proposed antenna, equipment, and cabling are proposed to be painted to match the utility pole. The PG&E utility pole is located within the right-of-way at the corner of Winchester Drive and Oak Grove Avenue, adjacent to the parcel with an address of 701 Winchester Drive. The utility pole is located along Oak Grove Avenue, in the planter strip between the sidewalk and street. The proposed site is surrounded by single family and duplex residential uses to the north and Burlingame High School athletic facilities to the south. There are existing street trees on either side of the utility pole, which would not need to be removed to accommodate the proposed wireless facility. Appeal – 701 Winchester Drive September 4, 2018 3 An application for a Conditional Use Permit is required because the project consists of installing a new wireless facility (not a co-location) and because it is located in a residential zoning district.1 The following application was submitted for the project: • Conditional Use Permit to install a new wireless facility (antenna and equipment) on an existing wood utility pole located within the right-of-way (C.S. 25.77.050 (c)). For a full description and analysis of the project, please refer to the attached June 11, 2018 Planning Commission staff report and attachments, as well as the supplemental letter, exhibits, and revised plans submitted by the applicant, dated August 22, 2018. Changes to Proposed Project Since June 11, 2018 Planning Commission Denial Without Prejudice: Since the June 11, 2018 Planning Commission meeting, several changes were made to the proposed wireless facility to address concerns and comments expressed by the Planning Commission. Please refer to the applicant’s attached letter, exhibits, and revised plans, dated August 22, 2018, for additional information. The following changes were made to the project: • AT&T worked with PG&E to allow installation of a smaller meter, called a SmartPole Meter. The previously proposed meter measured 1’-0” wide x 2’-0” tall (2 square feet). The SmartPole Meter measures 4.18 inches wide x 7.17 inches tall (0.2 square feet). • The previous proposal consisted of the electric load center box and fiber distribution panel being attached side-by-side on the pole. The revised project includes installing these two boxes on top of one another, in line with the other equipment boxes on the pole. • A shorter pole and stump, located next to the subject utility pole and which existed at the time the Planning Commission reviewed the application, have been removed. Required Findings for a Conditional Use Permit for a Wireless Communications Facility (Code Sections 25.77.050(c), 25.77.130, and 25.52.020, a-c): In order to grant a Conditional Use Permit for a Wireless Facility, the City must find: (1) The proposed facility complies with all the requirements of Chapter 25.77 and with all applicable requirements of other chapters of the Burlingame Municipal Code. (2) The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience. (3) The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Burlingame general plan and the purposes of the Zoning Code. 1 AT&T’s appeal letter dated August 22, 2018 incorrectly states that the proposed facility is within 500 feet of a residential zoning district. It is in fact within a residential zoning district. Zoning districts go to the centerline of the street, consistent with Section 25.12.020(a). Appeal – 701 Winchester Drive September 4, 2018 4 (4) The City may impose such reasonable conditions or restrictions as it deems necessary to secure the purposes of the Zoning Code and to assure operation of the use in a manner compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk, and character of existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity. (5) In approving a use permit pursuant to Chapter 25.77, the City may impose conditions, not prohibited by applicable federal and state law, which are deemed necessary to ensure compliance with the provisions of Chapter 25.77, the provisions of the Burlingame Municipal Code and the provisions of any other applicable laws and regulations. Planning Commission Action: At its regular meeting of June 11, 2018, the Planning Commission denied without prejudice the applicant’s request for a Conditional Use Permit to install a new wireless facility on an existing wood utility pole located within the right-of-way adjacent to 701 Winchester Drive (see attached June 11, 2018 Planning Commission meeting minutes). Appeal of Planning Commission’s Action: Subsequent to the Planning Commission’s action, Talin Aghazarian, an agent for AT&T, filed a timely appeal of the Commission’s action (see attached letter dated June 21, 2018). AT&T followed up its appeal with a letter and several exhibits that explain their reasons for filing the appeal. The letter, dated August 22, 2018 and prepared by John di Bene, General Attorney for AT&T, is attached to this report for the City Council’s review and consideration. Factors to Consider on the Appeal: As noted above, federal law prohibits cities from considering radio frequency (“RF”) emissions as a basis for denying or regulating wireless facilities if (as is the case here) the applicant has demonstrated that the proposed wireless facility complies with the FCC’s RF emissions regulations. The City Council is therefore limited to reviewing and discussing the proposed design and location of the wireless facility and making findings based on the requirements in the ordinance and within the constraints of federal and state law governing the regulation of telecommunications facilities. The City Council should therefore focus its consideration of the appeal and the required findings based on the evidence in the record and considering the wireless facilities design and location criteria set forth in Sections 25.77.080 and 25.77.090, which for convenience are attached to this staff report. AT&T’s Effective Prohibition Claim: In its appeal letter dated August 22, 2018 at pages 7-9, AT&T claims that the City may be required to approve its project to avoid violating federal law because denial of the project by the City would “prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services.” (47 U.S.C. Section 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II)). Because AT&T has raised this issue, if the City Council determines that it cannot make the required findings for granting the appeal and approving the application based on the evidence in the record and considering the wireless facilities design and location criteria set forth in Sections 25.77.080(c) and 25.77.090, then, the City Council should consider the evidence and arguments as to whether its proposed denial would “prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services” in conflict with federal law, and determine whether or not it must approve the project to avoid such a result. Appeal – 701 Winchester Drive September 4, 2018 5 Exhibits: • Legal Memorandum • Title 25 – Zoning Code - Sections 25.77.080 (c) and 25.77.090 • Letter and Exhibits Submitted by John di Bene, General Attorney for AT&T, dated August 22, 2018 • Appeal Letter Submitted by Talin Aghazarian (AT&T), dated June 21, 2018 • June 11, 2018 PC Minutes (excerpt) • Correspondence Received After Preparation of the June 11, 2018 Planning Commission Staff Report • June 11, 2018 PC Staff Report (including all attachments) • Previously Proposed and Revised Plans Indian Wells (760) 568-2611 Irvine (949) 263-2600 Manhattan Beach (310) 643-8448 Ontario (909) 989-8584 Riverside (951) 686-1450 Sacramento (916) 325-4000 San Diego (619) 525-1300 Walnut Creek (925) 977-3300 Washington, DC (202) 785-0600 300 South Grand Avenue, 25th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 617-8100 | Fax: (213) 617-7480 | www.bbklaw.com Gail A. Karish Partner (213) 617-7491 gail.karish@bbklaw.com Memorandum To:Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Burlingame, California From:Gail A. Karish Meeting Date:September 4, 2018 Re:AT&T Wireless Appeals (Adjacent to 701 Winchester Drive and 1800 Hillside Drive) This memo provides guidance on select topics concerning the scope of City Council authority which may be pertinent when considering the above-noted appeals. 1. Consideration of Aesthetics The City can, within limited discretion, control the time, place, and manner of installation to ensure that facilities do not “incommode the public use” of the public rights-of-way. Under California law, telephone companies have state franchise rights to use public rights-of-way pursuant to Public Utility Code Section 7901 (“Section 7901”). Section 7901 has long been interpreted as a statutory grant of a franchise to telephone companies to use and place “telephone lines” in public rights-of-way, and to “erect poles, posts, piers, or abutments for supporting the insulators, wires, and other necessary fixtures of their lines…”.1 Public Utility Code Section 233 defines “telephone line” broadly to include “all conduits, ducts, poles, wires, cables, instruments, and appliances, and all other real estate, fixtures, and personal property owned, controlled, operated, or managed in connection with or to facilitate communication by telephone, whether such communication is had with or without the use of transmission wires.” (emphasis added). The courts have held that the statutory definition of “telephone line” is sufficiently broad to include a wide range of technologies including facilities and equipment installed by carriers in connection with or to facilitate both wireless and landline telecommunications services.2 The right of telephone companies to use public rights-of-way to deploy facilities under the state franchise is, however, not unfettered. The City’s ability to regulate the public right-of- way is an extension of its police powers under California Constitution, article 11, section 7; 1 County of Los Angeles v. General Tel. Co. (1967) 249 Cal.App.2d 903, 904. 2 City of Huntington Beach v. Public Utilities Com. (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 566, 587-8 (“City of Huntington Beach”); GTE Mobilenet of Cal. Ltd. v. City of San Francisco (N.D. Cal. 2006) 440 F.Supp.2d 1097, 1103. - 2 - Section 7901 is a “limited grant of rights to telephone corporations, with a reservation of local police power that is broad enough to allow discretionary aesthetics-based regulation.”3 Specifically, Section 7901 provides that such use must be “in such manner and at such points as not to incommode the public use of the road…”. The phrase “incommode the public use” in Section 7901 means “to unreasonably subject the public use to inconvenience or discomfort; to unreasonably trouble, annoy, molest, embarrass, inconvenience; to unreasonably hinder, impede, or obstruct the public use.”4 “Incommode” is “broad enough ‘to be inclusive of concerns related to the appearance of a facility’”, and therefore, Section 7901 does not prohibit local governments from conditioning the approval of a particular permanent siting permit on aesthetic concerns.5 Thus, there is precedent for not only requiring discretionary review and conditioning approvals, but also even denying applications for facilities in particular locations in the public rights-of-way under Section 7901, for example due to aesthetic concerns regarding pole heights or underground districts.6 Further, a local government has the right under Section 7901.1 “to exercise reasonable control as to the time, place, and manner in which roads…are accessed [by telephone companies].”7 The “time, place and manner” of temporary access refers to “when, where, and how telecommunications service providers gain entry to the public rights- of-way.”8 In addition to Sections 7901 and 7901.1, Pub. Util. Code Section 2902 also protects a local government’s right “to supervise and regulate the relationship between a public utility and the general public in matters affecting the health, convenience, and safety of the general public, including matters such as the use and repair of public streets by any public utility, the location of the poles, wires, mains, or conduits of any public utility, on, under, or above any public streets…within the limits of the municipal corporation.” This provision is a further basis for a local government to restrict the location of proposed facilities due to public safety reasons or other local concerns or even deny applications in appropriate circumstances. The Burlingame Municipal Code, including in particular Chapter 25.77 and Sections 25.77.080(c) and 25.77.090, which address location preference order and design criteria, respectively, provide an expression of the City’s aesthetic and locational concerns and preferences for what types of deployments would and would not “incommode the public use.” 3 T-Mobile West LLC v. City and County of San Francisco (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 334, 346 [review granted (Dec. 16, 2016) 385 P.3d 411] (“T-Mobile West LLC”). 4 Id. at 355, quoting Sprint PCS Assets, L.L.C. v. City of Palos Verdes Estates (9th Cir. 2009) 583 F.3d 716, 723. See also, NextG Networks of Cal., Inc. v. City of Newport Beach (C.D. Cal. Feb. 18, 2011) 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17013; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Visalia (1906) 149 Cal. 744. 5 T-Mobile West LLC, 3 Cal.App.5th at 344. 6 Id. 7 See City of Huntington Beach, 214 Cal.App.4th 566 at 569, fn. omitted. 8 T-Mobile West LLC, 3 Cal.App.5th at 358, quoting Sprint PCS Assets LLC v. City of Palos Verdes Estates (9th Cir. 2009) 583 F.3d 716, at 725. - 3 - 2. Substantial Evidence Federal law provides that any decision to deny a request to build personal wireless facilities “shall be in writing and supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record” submitted contemporaneously with the denial.9 To determine whether a local government’s decision is supported by substantial evidence within the meaning of the statute, a reviewing court “must be able to identify the reason or reasons why the locality denied the application.”10 The rationale behind such a denial need not be “elaborate or even sophisticated”—rather, a local authority must provide a rationale clear enough to “enable judicial review.”11 In the Ninth Circuit, courts have construed the “substantial evidence” standard as requiring that the local government’s decision be (1) authorized by local law and (2) supported by a reasonable amount of evidence.12 There is no precise formula for determining when the “substantial evidence” requirement is met; rather, a reviewing court will affirm when a denial is supported by “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion”.13 Considerations of aesthetics in a denial are permissible when based on substantial evidence.14 However, a denial based on aesthetics would not be permissible if such denial would result in an effective prohibition.15 A decision to deny a wireless facility application cannot be based on concerns about RF emissions if the applicant has demonstrated that its facilities will comply with FCC standards.16 Thus, direct or indirect concerns over the health effects of RF emissions may not serve as 9 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iii); see T-Mobile S., LLC v. City of Roswell, Ga. (2015) 135 S. Ct. 808, 815. 10 Id. at 814. 11 Id. at 815. 12 See Sprint PCS Assets, L.L.C. v. City of Palos Verdes Estates (9th Cir.2009) 583 F.3d 716, 721 (“Palos Verdes Estates”); MetroPCS v. City and County of San Francisco (9th Cir.2005) 400 F.3d 715, 725(“MetroPCS”). 13 Palos Verdes Estates, 583 F.3d at 726; see MetroPCS, 400 F.3d at 725, quoting Cellular Telephone Company v. Town of Oyster Bay (2nd Cir. 1999) 166 F.3d 490 (local government must have “less than a preponderance, but more than a scintilla of evidence.”). 14 Sprint PCS Assets LLC v. City of Palos Verdes Estates (9th Cir. 2009) 583 F.3d 716, 722-723; NextG Networks of Cal., Inc. v. City of Newport Beach (C.D. Cal. Feb. 18, 2011) 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17013, *18 (“In this case, the City was entitled to determine that degrading the aesthetic of the Pacific Coast Highway area decreases the public’s ability to enjoy this area. This decreased enjoyment, in turn, quite obviously risks damage to property values and has other ‘materially detrimental’ effects to nearby owners, residents and businesses.”). 15 See discussion below. 16 47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(B)(iv); Gov. Code §65850.6(f). - 4 - “substantial evidence” to deny an application if the proposed facilities comply with the FCC’s regulations.17 Public concerns about property values sometimes are found to serve as a proxy for impermissible concerns about RF emissions.18 Where the public concerns on property values are relatively generalized and limited, the courts tend to find there is no substantial evidence, or if they are contradicted by expert evidence, the expert evidence tends to be favored.19 Case law suggests expert evidence about impacts on property values in other communities is not adequate to respond to local concerns about local property values.20 When faced with credible expert evidence on both sides, a reviewing court is likely to defer to the local jurisdiction’s decision.21 3. Effective Prohibition Standard Under 47 U.S.C. Section 332 (“Section 332”), a local government cannot regulate the “placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities” where such regulation has the effect of actually or effectively prohibiting service. In the Ninth Circuit, a regulation, or application denial, prohibits or has the effect of prohibiting the provision of 17 AT&T Wireless Services of California LLC v. City of Carlsbad (S.D. Cal. 2003) 308 F. Supp. 2d 1148, 1159; MetroPCS, Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco (9th Cir. 2005) 400 F.3d 715, 736. 18 AT&T Wireless Services of California LLC v. City of Carlsbad, at 1161; Cellular Telephone Co. v. Town of Oyster Bay (2d Cir. 1999) 166 F.3d 490, 496-7 (“Cellular Telephone”). 19 Cellular Telephone Co., 166 F.3d at 496 (“the volume and specificity of the comments were not adequate to satisfy the requirement of the substantial evidence standard…. A few generalized concerns about potential decrease in property values, especially in light of AT&T’s contradictory expert testimony, does not seem ‘adequate to support a conclusion’ that the permits should be denied.” (citations omitted)); see also, T-Mobile Northeast LLC v. City Council of Newport News (4th Cir. 2012) 674 F.3d 380 (Court upholds lower court holding, stating that “although citizens need not be ‘armed with a slew of experts,’ where ‘the only cohesive thread’ of opposition was found in ‘four citizens’ passing comments on property values,’ such opposition was not substantial evidence.”). 20 Michael Linet, Inc. v. Vill. of Wellington (11th Cir. Fla. 2005) 408 F.3d 757, 762 (Court upheld local decision based on public concerns stating: “Linet’s expert testimony contradicting the adverse property value impact concerns was provided by a telecommunications executive who placed a tower in a different part of the community and a realtor who based his knowledge on condominium sales in a different county. This does not change our conclusion. The residents were worried about the impact of this tower on the golf course within their community, not a different tower, different location, or different community.”) 21 Primeco Personal Communs., L.P. v. Village of Fox Lake (N.D. Ill. 1999) 35 F.Supp.2d 643, 649 (“[S]ubstantial record evidence supports the Village’s decision to deny PrimeCo’s application. Pointer’s testimony supports both of the Village’s major reasons for denying the permit: negative economic impact based on diminished future residential and resort development and decreased enjoyment by current owners of their property. Pointer, an expert in urban planning…relied on his 37 years of experience and various photographs, primarily of the balloon test, which demonstrate the visual impact of the proposed 150-foot tower at the Hellios site. Although PrimeCo’s expert, George Baker, disagreed with Pointer’s assessment of the proposed tower’s impact, the standard of review does not permit us to resolve this conflict anew. The Village chose to believe Pointer’s assessment, as it was entitled to do. A reasonable mind could accept Pointer’s testimony as sufficient to support the Village’s conclusion that the proposed monopole could stunt development and injure residents’ enjoyment of their property. We see no reason to disturb the Village’s choice.”). - 5 - personal wireless services within the meaning of federal law if it: (1) bans the provision of personal wireless services outright or (2) has effectively prohibited the provision of such services.22 Showing the mere potential for prohibition is not sufficient to overcome local discretionary review power.23 A denial can be found to improperly “prohibit” personal wireless services if it prevents a wireless services provider from closing a “significant gap” in its own service coverage using the least intrusive means.24 There is no bright-line rule regarding when a gap is “significant,” and the determination is based on a fact-specific analysis.25 To support the contention that a site is necessary to close a significant gap, the provider must in the application process demonstrate that the significant gap exists, and that the manner in which it proposes to fill the significant gap in service is the “least intrusive” means.26 To do so the provider must be able to show that it has made a good faith effort to identify and evaluate less intrusive alternatives, such as consideration of less sensitive sites, alternative system designs, alternative tower designs, placement of antennas on existing structures, etc.27 The burden is on the applicant to submit a “comprehensive application” which shows “a meaningful comparison of alternatives.”28 The least intrusive means standard requires an analysis in relation to the factors in the locality’s code, not generalized observations.29 Once the applicant has done that, the burden shifts to the locality. That is, a municipality is not compelled to accept the provider’s representations as to the least intrusive means, however, in order to reject them, it must show that there are some potentially available and technologically feasible alternatives, and the provider must have an opportunity to dispute the availability and feasibility of the alternatives favored by the locality.30 22 Sprint Telephony PCS, L.P. v. Cnty. of San Diego (9th Cir. 2008) 543 F.3d 571, 579 (“Sprint II”); Metro PCS, 400 F.3d at 730-31. 23 Sprint II, 543 F.3d at 579. Examples of regulations that “effectively prohibit the provision of service” include, e.g., an ordinance requiring that all facilities be underground when, to operate, wireless facilities must be above ground, or, an ordinance mandating that no wireless facilities be located within one mile of a road, where, because of the number and location of roads, the rule constituted an effective prohibition. Id. at 580. 24 Metro PCS, 400 F.3d at 731. 25 Id.; City of Palos Verdes Estates, 583 F.3d at 727. 26 Metro PCS, 400 F.3d at 734. 27 T-Mobile USA Inc. v. City of Anacortes (9th Cir. 2009) 572 F.3d 987, 996, fn. 10. 28 Am. Tower Corp. v. City of San Diego (9th Cir. 2014) 763 F.3d 1035, 1056-7. 29 Id. (“To prevail on this claim, therefore, ATC must show that its facilities were the “least intrusive means” in light of the aesthetic values that motivated the City's decision to deny the CUP applications.”) 30 T-Mobile USA Inc. v. City of Anacortes (9th Cir. 2009) 572 F.3d 987, 999. Title 25 – Zoning Code – Chapter 25.77 – Wireless Communications Facilities Code Sections 25.77.080 (c) and 25.77.090 Code Section 25.77.080 (c) – Location Preference Order (c) Location Preference Order. In determining the location of proposed wireless communication facilities, applicants should use best efforts to comply with the location preference order outlined herein. If applicable, the applicant shall include an explanation of the reason that the proposed facilities cannot be deployed at a higher-preference location. Wireless communication facilities must be located where feasible in the following locations by descending priority: (1) Locations within Non-Residential Zoning Districts, which are more than five hundred (500) feet from Residential Zoning Districts or the Burlingame Downtown Districts and which are not within the Burlingame Downtown Districts: (A) Completely enclosed within existing, permitted buildings. (B) Located on electric power transmission towers. (C) Co-located on existing wireless communications facilities. (D) The roof of existing structures (buildings, water tanks, etc), designed to blend in with the building, camouflaged or screened from the public right- of-way which constitutes a pedestrian travel corridor. (E) The side of existing structures (buildings, water tanks, etc.), designed to blend in with the building, camouflaged or screened from the public right- of-way which constitutes a pedestrian travel corridor. (F) Camouflaged stealth structure (a false tree, building, artifice, etc). (G) Existing utility poles, with all ancillary equipment placed underground if feasible, camouflaged or screened. (H) Existing utility distribution poles and street lights. (I) Slim line monopole, with antennas in a canister at the same diameter as the pole. (J) Standard monopole with attached flush-mounted (not extending more than twenty-four (24) inches from the pole) antenna elements. (2) Non-Residential Zoning Districts within five hundred (500) feet of Residential Zoning Districts or the Burlingame Downtown Districts, and the Burlingame Downtown Districts. (A) Integrated into non-residential uses (libraries, churches, temples, etc.) designed to blend in with open space (playing fields, parking lots, parks, etc.); hidden from pedestrian view by means of stealth design, stealth structures, architectural integration or screening. (B) Co-located on existing wireless communications facilities which are in compliance with the provision of this chapter. (C) In public right-of-way, within new light poles with interior stealth installations of cabling and antenna, and to the extent feasible, control equipment. (D) In public right-of-way, on existing utility or light poles, with all ancillary equipment either underground, if feasible, camouflaged, screened or painted to blend into the surrounding structure. (3) Residential Zoning Districts. (A) Integrated into non-residential uses (libraries, churches, temples, etc.) or designed to blend in with open space (playing fields, parking lots, parks, etc.); hidden from view by means of stealth design, stealth structures, architectural integration or screening. (B) Co-located in existing wireless communications facilities which are in compliance with the provisions of this chapter. (C) In public right-of-way, within new light poles with interior stealth installations of cabling and antennae, and to the extent feasible, control equipment. (D) In public right-of-way, on existing utility or light poles, with all ancillary equipment either underground, if feasible, camouflaged, screened or painted to blend into the surrounding structure. (Ord. 1870 § 2, (2012); Ord. 1869 § 3, (2012)) Code Section 25.77.090 – Design Criteria for Wireless Communications Facilities The goal of these regulations is to reduce to the greatest extent possible all visual impacts resulting from the installation of wireless communications facilities. Stealth design and stealth structures for these facilities shall be considered the normal standard for all wireless communications facilities. Non-stealth designs and structures shall not be approved without evidence, independently verified, that it is not possible (using best efforts by applicant) to stealth such facilities. Applications shall be reviewed to determine compliance with the following criteria. If the applicant’s proposed facility cannot comply with the following criteria, the application shall include a detailed explanation of why it is not reasonably feasible to comply with the criteria. (a) Wireless communication facilities should be co-located where feasible and where the co- location does not create an adverse aesthetic impact due to such factors as increasing the bulk, the height or the amount of noise created by the proposed co-located facilities. (b) Wireless communication facilities should to the greatest extent feasible, not be located in Residential Zoning Districts. (c) Wireless communication facilities should be designed, located and constructed in a manner that minimizes visual and auditory impacts of the facilities. The wireless communication facilities shall blend into the surrounding environment and/or shall be architecturally integrated into a structure, considering the color, design and character of the surrounding context (e.g., public art, clock towers, flagpoles, trees/vegetation, rocks, water tank, existing office/industrial buildings, and church steeples). Specifically, the proposed facilities shall comply, to the greatest extent feasible, with the following: (1) The facilities should be concealed, screened or camouflaged by the surrounding topography, vegetation, buildings, or other setting. (2) The facilities should be proportional in size relative to surrounding and supporting structures and ability for co-location by other providers. (3) Roof-mounted facilities should be, out of view and screened; these facilities shall be set back at least one foot from the edge of the roof for every one foot of antenna height and shall not exceed ten (10) feet in height above the roof surface. (4) Wall-mounted facilities should be compatible in scale and design with the building, shall be flush mounted, i.e., not extending from the face of the building more than twenty-four (24) inches and shall be painted and/or textured to match the wall of the building. All cables and brackets, wires, shall also be hidden. (5) All facilities should be constructed of graffiti-resistant materials. (6) All concealing, screening, painting, camouflaging and/or use of stealth designs and stealth structures should be consistent with Section 25.77.010 (Purpose) including, but not limited to, promoting wholesome, attractive, harmonious and economic use of property, building construction, civic service, activities and operations in conformity with and preserving the overall aesthetics of City neighborhoods including its character and its century old architectural traditions. (d) Where applicable, appropriate landscaping should be installed in and around the proposed wireless communication facilities. (e) Any exterior lighting on the facilities should have a manual on/off switch and be contained on-site. (f) Ground equipment of the facilities should be concealed, screened, camouflaged or hidden using stealth design, stealth structures, underground installation or landscaping and fencing. (g) Signage in, on or near any facilities should be prohibited with the exception of warning and informational signs, which shall be designed with minimal aesthetic impact. (h) Wireless communication facilities should be discouraged in areas subject to the City’s hillside construction permit as designated in Section 25.61.010; if facilities cannot be avoided in the hillside areas, then visual impacts should be eliminated through stealth design, stealth structures and landscaping. (i) Support wires for structures should be discouraged. (j) The wireless communication facilities should be designed to discourage unauthorized access. (Ord. 1870 § 2, (2012); Ord. 1869 § 3, (2012)) Burlingame City Council August 22, 2018 Page 2 of 9 AT&T has taken care to select locations to reduce visibility. For example, as you can see in the photosimulations for Small Cell Node 14 (Exhibit A), this facility will be placed on a utility pole with adjacent trees that will help reduce visibility of the facility. The height of nearby trees will help conceal the equipment while still allowing the antennas a clear line-of-site for signals. For Small Cell Node 19, AT&T is planning to improve the overall aesthetic of the existing pole by removing the existing stub pole that is situated immediately adjacent to the utility pole. The photosimulations for Node 19 (Exhibit B) show that the project will transform the site to a more streamlined appearance as compared to existing conditions.1 In compliance with the aesthetic requirements of the Burlingame Municipal Code, as explained in greater detail below, AT&T proposes to screen and camouflage the equipment by painting the equipment to match the existing structure and by selecting locations near natural screening of trees. AT&T has designed the proposed small cell to minimize impacts and to preserve overall aesthetics of the neighborhood. Need for Small Cells Small cells give residents and businesses access to the latest and greatest wireless technologies without cluttering the public rights-of-way. Small cells are critical to meet ever- increasing demand for wireless services. Small cells are needed in residential areas, where they can be installed in the public rights-of-way, so that customers are presented with a dominant signal that results in less noise interference and provides faster throughput. This is especially important in today’s world where so many people rely on wireless services to do more in their homes. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention tracks the rates at which American households are shifting from landlines to wireless telecommunications. According to the CDC’s latest Wireless Substitution Report, more than 70 percent of Americans rely exclusively or primarily on wireless communications in their homes.2 In addition, the FCC estimates that 70 percent of all 911 calls are made from wireless devices.3 And with AT&T’s selection by FirstNet as the wireless service provider to build and manage the nationwide first responder wireless network, each new or modified facility will help strengthen first responder communications. AT&T’s existing macro facilities that serve the area are under duress due to high and increasing mobile data traffic on AT&T’s network. The resulting capacity restraints reduce mobile data speeds to the point where AT&T cannot meet its service objectives in the area. By placing small cells in these high-traffic and poor signal quality areas, they will capture a significant amount of traffic now served by the overloaded macro sectors. Once on air, the 1 Perhaps because of their experience with other providers who have proposed much more bulky facilities, the Planning Commission was skeptical that AT&T’s proposed small cells would be as sleek as they are. One Planning Commissioner suggested that AT&T update its photosimulations to zoom in to the pole-mounted equipment to illustrate its appearance. Exhibits A and B provide those zoomed-in views. 2 See Wireless Substitution: Early Release of Estimates From the National Health Interview Survey, July-December 2017, available at http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhis/earlyrelease/wireless201806.pdf. 3 See 911 Wireless Services, available at https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/911-wireless-services. Burlingame City Council August 22, 2018 Page 3 of 9 proposed small cells will help offload network traffic from those macro sectors, which will improve signal quality and data speeds, allowing customers served by that sector to reliably stream video. (See Exhibits C and D.) AT&T’s Search for Alternative Sites In order to be certain that AT&T is proposing the best available and least intrusive means to address its significant service coverage gap in these portions of the City, AT&T evaluated many different locations in each area. AT&T’s alternative sites analyses for these two small cells are attached as Exhibits E and F. AT&T selected the proposed locations based on their availability – that is, AT&T’s ability to gain attachment rights – and feasibility in terms of both constructability and viability from a radio frequency perspective. AT&T also considered the location preferences and design standards articulated in the Burlingame Municipal Code in order to be sure to identify the least intrusive means. In particular, Section 25.77.80(c) provides location preferences for siting wireless communications facilities. The proposed facilities are situated within 500 feet of residential zoning districts, which is a second-level preference. The primary preference in the Code, which consists of sites farther away from residential districts, is not feasible because AT&T needs to place its small cell facilities in these residential rights-of-way in order to meet its service needs. Further, AT&T investigated but found no viable non-residential uses or open space sites. AT&T investigated but found no collocation opportunities in the area. AT&T also did not identify any opportunities to place new light poles because the proposed small cells are near existing light poles. Small Cell Node 14 is adjacent to an existing street light, and Small Cell Node 19 is attached to a light pole. AT&T identified the existing utility poles as the next available and feasible preference under Section 25.77.80(c)(2)(D). During the Planning Commission hearing, the Commissioners asked AT&T to go back and consider certain specific alternatives and also to make sure it had investigated available alternatives. In response, AT&T redoubled its site selection efforts. Specifically, at the Planning Commission’s suggestion, AT&T reached out to Our Lady of Angels as an alternative to Small Cell Node 14. This church and school would only authorize placement of a wireless telecommunications facility if it would not affect the architectural character of its structure. As AT&T would need to replace a portion of the church steeple with materials of significantly different type and texture, this did not present a viable alternative. AT&T also analyzed whether it could place equipment behind a traffic sign based on a question from Planning Commission. This will not be possible. And AT&T again scoured the areas for the small cells to look for any additional candidates. Having canvassed potential alternatives, including those suggested by the City, and given the positive aesthetics of these specific small cell applications, AT&T has confirmed that proposed Small Cell Node 14 and Small Cell Node 19 are the least intrusive means to address AT&T’s service needs. (See Exhibits E and F.) Burlingame City Council August 22, 2018 Page 4 of 9 AT&T’s Proposals Comply with All Requirements of the City’s Municipal Code Chapter 25.77 of the Burlingame Municipal Code regulates wireless facility siting. Although a part of the City’s Zoning Code, Section 25.77.030 makes clear that this wireless ordinance also applies to sites in the public rights-of-way. Under Code Section 25.77.010, the overall purpose of the wireless ordinance is “to facilitate modernization of Burlingame’s communications infrastructure in a manner that improves the quality of the City’s environment, the pleasant aesthetics of the City’s neighborhoods, the City’s architectural traditions dating to the early 20th century and the visual quality in the non-residential areas of the City.” AT&T’s small cell facilities will enhance vital wireless communications services while preserving neighborhood aesthetics. Indeed, AT&T’s applications fully comply with the City’s wireless ordinance. Under the wireless ordinance the City encourages (but does not require) pre-submittal conferences to discuss requirements of the wireless ordinance.4 On July 13, 2017, AT&T’s representatives attended a pre-submittal meeting with Public Works staff since Planning staff was not available at the time. Later, AT&T’s representatives sat and met with the Planner when the applications were submitted on September 28, 2017. To obtain approval for an application to site a wireless communications facility, a provider must submit the required application materials under Code Section 25.77.060, submit the application fee under Code Section 25.77.070, meet the general requirements under Code Section 25.77.080, and meet the design criteria under Code Section 25.77.090. These applications meet all of these requirements. Pursuant to Code Section 25.77.060, AT&T submitted all required application materials for each small cell, including the City of Burlingame Conditional Use Permit Application form,5 a clear written description of the proposed facility,6 site plans with relevant photos,7 a map of AT&T’s existing and proposed sites,8 an explanation of the site selection process,9 photo- simulations of the proposed small cells,10 and additional information requested by the City through the application process and by the Planning Commission at its hearing. Pursuant to Code Section 25.77.070, AT&T submitted the applicable application fees for these small cells. Pursuant to the “general requirements” of Code Section 25.77.080, AT&T’s applications show that its small cells will meet or exceed current applicable state and federal standards and 4 See Code Section 25.77.055. 5 See Code Section 25.77.060(a)(1). 6 See Code Section 25.77.060(a)(3). 7 See Code Section 25.77.060(a)(4). 8 See Code Section 25.77.060(a)(5). 9 See Code Section 25.77.060(a)(6). 10 See Code Section 25.77.060(a)(7). Burlingame City Council August 22, 2018 Page 5 of 9 regulations,11 will comply with applicable building codes and safety standards,12 and meet the City’s location preferences for wireless facility siting.13 Specifically, the proposed small cells are situated within 500 feet of residential zoning districts, which is a second-level preference. The primary preference in the Code, which consists of sites farther away from residential districts, is not feasible because AT&T needs to place its small cell facilities in these residential rights-of- way in order to meet its service needs. Further, AT&T investigated but found no viable non- residential uses or open space sites.14 AT&T investigated but found no collocation opportunities in the area.15 AT&T did not identify any opportunities to place new light poles because the proposed small cells are near existing light poles.16 Small Cell Node 14 is adjacent to an existing street light, and Small Cell Node 19 is attached to a light pole. AT&T identified the existing utility poles as the next available and feasible preference under the Code.17 Pursuant to Code Section 25.77.090, AT&T’s small cells will meet the City’s design criteria for wireless communications facilities. The City’s design criteria encourage stealth designs and this section provides that “[t]he goal of these regulations is to reduce to the greatest extent possible all visual impacts resulting from the installation of wireless communications facilities.” Again, AT&T’s small cells are stealth designs.18 These small cells will have screened antennas in a pole-top radome, painted to match the pole. The equipment will be housed in small, enclosed boxes matching the diameter of the pole and painted to match the pole. AT&T’s equipment does not stand out; in fact, they look like small utility boxes on a typical utility pole.19 Using pole-top antennas also helps the overall aesthetic by maintaining the existing pole line. Nearby trees also help to screen the equipment of these small cells. Further with respect to the City’s design criteria, AT&T’s small cells are “designed, located and constructed in a manner that minimizes visual and auditory impacts” and will “blend into the surrounding environment.”20 The small cells will not include exterior lighting,21 ground equipment,22 signage,23 or support wires.24 In addition, all conditional use permits must meet two specific findings under Code Section 25.52.020. Code Section 25.52.020(a) requires finding that granting the conditional use permit “will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience.” And Code 11 See Code Section 25.77.080(a). 12 See Code Section 25.77.080(b). 13 See Code Section 25.77.080(c). 14 See Code Section 25.77.080(c)(2)(A). 15 See Code Section 25.77.080(c)(2)(B). 16 See Code Section 25.77.080(c)(2)(C). 17 See Code Section 25.77.080(c)(2)(D). 18 See Code Section 25.77.090(c)(1). 19 See Code Section 25.77.090(c)(2). 20 See Code Section 25.77.090(c). 21 See Code Section 25.77.090(e). 22 See Code Section 25.77.090(f). 23 See Code Section 25.77.090(g). 24 See Code Section 25.77.090(i). Burlingame City Council August 22, 2018 Page 6 of 9 Section 25.52.020(b) requires finding that “the proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Burlingame general plan and the purposes of this title.”25 The City Council can easily make both of these specific findings. AT&T’s small cells will not result in any detriment or injury to properties or the public health, safety, welfare or convenience. Indeed, AT&T’s small cells will “facilitate modernization of Burlingame’s communications infrastructure in a manner that improves the quality of the City’s environment,” which is a primary purpose of the City’s wireless ordinance as stated in Code Section 25.77.010. In addition, AT&T’s small cells will not adversely affect aesthetics. These small cells are of “stealth design” within the meaning of Code Section 25.77.020 because the antennas and equipment will be screened and sited in a way that “reduces to insignificant the visual impact.” Because AT&T has met all of the City’s application requirements for placement of wireless communications facilities as well as for approval of conditional use permits, and since these small cells help to fulfill a primary purpose of the wireless ordinance, the City should approve AT&T’s applications for Small Cell Node SFOK2_014 and Small Cell Node SFOK2_019. AT&T’s Proposals Are Consistent with State Law AT&T has a statewide franchise right to access and construct telecommunications facilities in the public rights-of-way. And AT&T’s small cell applications seek to place these facilities consistent with state policy and law. Consistent with the California Constitution, the placement of telecommunications infrastructure in public rights-of-way is a matter of statewide concern.26 Under California Public Utilities Code Section 7901, AT&T has the right to access and construct facilities in public rights-of-way in order to furnish wireless telecommunications services, so long as it does not “incommode” the public use of the public right-of-way. And under Section 7901.1, AT&T’s right is subject only to the City’s reasonable and equivalent time, place, and manner regulations as to how AT&T constructs in the public rights-of-way. These two proposed small cells will not incommode the rights-of-way. In addition, AT&T’s applications propose to place facilities in accordance with the City Code and with careful consideration given to the City’s location preferences and design criteria. AT&T’s small cells are designed to minimize visual impact and are carefully sited to fit within their surroundings. These will be amenities to the community, improving critical wireless services in the City. 25 Section 25.52.020(c) of the Burlingame Municipal Code also authorizes the Planning Commission to impose additional reasonable conditions or restrictions. 26 See, e.g., Pac. Tel & Tel. Co. v City & County of San Francisco, 51 Cal. 2d 766, 768 (1959) (“the construction and maintenance of telephone lines in the streets and other public places within the city is today a matter of state concern and not a municipal affair”); see also, Cal. Const., Art. XII, § 8 (“[a] city, county, or other public body may not regulate matters over which the Legislature grants regulatory power to the [Public Utilities] Commission”). Burlingame City Council August 22, 2018 Page 7 of 9 Approval of AT&T’s Proposals is Required Under Federal Law The federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. § 332 (“Act”) provides rights to wireless service providers and establishes limitations upon state and local zoning authorities with respect to applications for permits to construct personal wireless service facilities. The United States Supreme Court has explained that the Act was enacted in part to prioritize and streamline deployment of wireless technologies on a national basis.27 The Act defines the scope and parameters of the City’s overall review of AT&T’s Application. Under the Act, the City must act within a “reasonable period of time.”.28,29 And its review must consider the applications based on substantial evidence.30 The Act prohibits a local government from denying an application for a wireless telecommunications facility where doing so would “prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services.”31 Courts have found an “effective prohibition” exists where a wireless carrier demonstrates (1) a significant gap in wireless service coverage, and (2) that the proposed facility would provide the “least intrusive means,” in relation to the land use values embodied in local regulations, to provide the service coverage necessary to fill that gap.32 If a wireless carrier satisfies both of these requirements, state and local standards that would otherwise be sufficient to permit denial of the facility are preempted and the municipality must approve the wireless facility.33 When a wireless provider presents evidence of a significant gap and the absence of a less intrusive alternative, the burden shifts to the local government to prove that a less intrusive alternative exists. In order to meet this burden (and overcome the presumption in favor of federal preemption), the local government must show that another alternative is available that fills the significant gap in coverage, that it is technologically feasible, and that it is “less intrusive” than the proposed facility.34 A key benefit of this “least intrusive means” standard is that it incentivizes prompt results. The municipality has an incentive not to merely deny proposals as they are presented 27 City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams, 544 U.S. 113, 115-16 (2005) (“Congress enacted the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (TCA), 110 Stat. 56, to promote competition and higher quality in American telecommunications services and to ‘encourage the rapid deployment of new telecommunications technologies.’ Ibid. One of the means by which it sought to accomplish these goals was reduction of the impediments imposed by local governments upon the installation of facilities for wireless communications, such as antenna towers.”) 28 See 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(ii) (City must act on applications “within a reasonable period of time”); Petition for Declaratory Ruling to Clarify Provisions of Section 332(c)(7)(B), WT Docket No. 08-165, Petition for Declaratory Ruling to Clarify Provisions of Section 332(c)(7)(B), WT Docket No. 08-165, Declaratory Ruling, 24 FCC Rcd. 13994 (2009) (establishes a legal presumption that “reasonable period of time” means 90 days to act on an application to collocate a wireless facility or 150 days to act on other requests to construct wireless telecommunications facilities); California Govt. Code § 65964.1(a) (providing state law deemed grant remedy where City fails to act within presumptive FCC review timeframes). 29 The City’s review of AT&T’s applications already has taken more than eleven months, far longer than permitted under state and federal law to consider such applications. 30 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iii) 31 47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II). 32 See e.g., Metro PCS, Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco, 400 F3d 715, 734-35 (9th Cir. 2005), abrogated on other grounds, T-Mobile South, LLC v. City of Roswell, 135 S.Ct. 808 (2015); Sprint PCS Assets, LLC v. City of Palos Verdes Estates, 583 F.3d 716, 726 (9th Cir. 2009). 33 See T-Mobile USA, Inc. v. City of Anacortes, 572 F.3d 987, 999 (9th Cir. 2009). 34 Id., 572 F.3d at 998-999. Burlingame City Council August 22, 2018 Page 8 of 9 because that could result in a more intrusive solution or violation of federal law; the provider has incentive to find the best solution for the community in the first instance. In MetroPCS, the Ninth Circuit observed that this least intrusive standard “allows for a meaningful comparison of alternative sites before the siting application process is needlessly repeated” and “promises to ultimately identify the best solution for the community, not merely the last one remaining after a series of application denials.”35 Thus, where the wireless provider analyzes multiple options, it is incumbent upon the local government to identify and approve the least intrusive alternative in the context of pending applications. Here, AT&T has demonstrated its significant service coverage gap (see Exhibits C and D). As AT&T’s Radio Frequency Statement explains, the volume of mobile traffic on AT&T’s network in this area constrains the capacity of nearby macro telecommunications facilities. The result is poor data rates, meaning customers are experiencing poor signal quality in large portions of the City in the vicinity of the proposed small cells. Specifically, this gap area is significant because it encompasses many hundreds of homes in residential neighborhoods, several schools, numerous commercial buildings, a fire station, a library, health care facilities, parks and a retreat center. According to the most recent traffic data estimate available from the California Department of Transportation, approximately 21,000 vehicles travel along El Camino Real every day in this portion of the City. By placing the proposed small cells in locations where specific and measurable signal quality issues are occurring, AT&T can offload traffic from congested macros in order to alleviate these capacity triggers and ensure adequate signal quality in the larger area served by the affected macros. AT&T has worked hard to identify the right solution to its service needs (see Exhibits E and F). Taking into consideration the City’s preferences, AT&T conducted a meaningful comparison of alternatives for each small cell location and identified what it determined to be the best available and least intrusive means for each. Specifically, AT&T has analyzed ten sites for Small Cell 14 and ten sites for Small Cell 19. For Small Cell 14, AT&T concluded that the other nine candidate sites were not feasible because they failed to meet state regulatory standards (CPUC GO95), were unavailable or were more intrusive than the proposed small cell. And for Small Cell 19, AT&T concluded that the other nine candidate sites were not feasible because they failed to meet GO95 standards, not feasible because radio signals would be blocked by dense foliage, were unavailable or were more intrusive than the proposed small cell. Thus, AT&T identified the least intrusive potential and feasible site for each small cell. AT&T would be willing, within the context of the applicable federal case law, to evaluate a less intrusive location, one for each site, but such an alternative must be both available and feasible.36 To date no such alternative has been proposed. If the City wants to proffer an available and feasible alternative, however, it has to issue the permit for any such alternative site in the context of the pending application, and AT&T would need to confirm the feasibility and availability of any such location. If any such alternative site is determined to be available and feasible, the Council should direct the Planning Commission and staff to take all necessary steps to lawfully issue the permit for 35 Metro PCS, Inc., 400 F3d at 734-35. 36 Id.; T-Mobile USA, Inc. v. City of Anacortes, 572 F.3d at 999. Burlingame City Council August 22, 2018 Page 9 of 9 such location(s). If no such alternative is identified, the City Council should reverse the decision of the Planning Commission and either approve AT&T’s applications to install these small cells, or remand the matter to the Planning Commission with direction to take all necessary action to issue the appropriate siting permits. Conclusion AT&T must improve its wireless service and signal quality in the areas surrounding the proposed small cells. For Small Cell Node 14 and Small Cell Node 19, AT&T has worked diligently to identify the most appropriate locations and to develop the best design possible for the City. Approval is required by the City’s wireless ordinance and required by state and federal law. I respectfully request the City Council to grant AT&T’s appeal, reverse the Planning Commission’s denial, and approve these small cell applications. Very truly yours, /s/ John di Bene John di Bene Exhibit A: Photosimulations of AT&T’s Small Cell Node 14 Exhibit B: Photosimulations of AT&T’s Small Cell Node 19 Exhibit C: Radio Frequency Statement for Small Cell Node 14 Exhibit D: Radio Frequency Statement for Small Cell Node 19 Exhibit E: Alternative Sites Analysis for Small Cell Code 14 Exhibit F: Alternative Sites Analysis for Small Cell Node 19 cc: Kathleen A. Kane, Esq., City Attorney Across from 1800 Hillside Dr, Burlingame, CA CRAN_RSFR_SFOK2_014 08.21.2018 Your Project. Visualized. www.photosims.com Photo simulation as seen looking southwest from Hillside Dr & Cabrillo Ave proposed AT&T antenna proposed AT&T RRUs To p o f A n t e n n a : 4 8 ’ 0 0 ” To p o f P o l e : 3 8 ’ 0 7 ” Bottom of Power Meter: 07’ 00” Ground Level: 00’ 00” 09’ 05” Exhibit A Across from 1800 Hillside Dr, Burlingame, CA CRAN_RSFR_SFOK2_014 08.23.2018 Your Project. Visualized. www.photosims.com Photo simulation of the pole mounted equipment 701 Winchester Drive, Burlingame, CA 94010 CRAN_RSFR_SFOK2_019 08.21.2018 Your Project. Visualized. www.photosims.com Photo simulation as seen looking west across Oak Grove Avenue proposed AT&T antenna proposed AT&T pole mounted equipment Top of Antenna: 38’ 01” Top of Pole: 29’ 01” Bottom of Power Meter: 07’ 00” Ground Level: 00’ 00” 09’ 00” Exhibit B 701 Winchester Drive, Burlingame, CA 94010 CRAN_RSFR_SFOK2_019 08.23.2018 Your Project. Visualized. www.photosims.com Photo simulation as seen looking northeast along Oak Grove Avenue CRAN_RSFR_SFOK_014Legend: SINR Simulation : Excellent Data Service : Acceptable Data Service : Poor Data Service or No ServiceLegend: Traffic : High wireless traffic areaLegend: BoundariesMacro antenna service areaExhibit 1 Exhibit 1CRAN_RSFR_SFOK_019Legend: SINR Simulation : Excellent Data Service : Acceptable Data Service : Poor Data Service or No ServiceLegend: Traffic : High wireless traffic areaLegend: BoundariesMacro antenna service area 2 Summary New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC dba AT&T Mobility (AT&T) is committed to providing wireless telecommunications services and faster data rates throughout the City of Burlingame, and is doing so by installing the least intrusive technology, with the least intrusive design, and at the least intrusive locations in the area. Rather than construct several additional macro facilities throughout the neighborhoods of Burlingame, AT&T is choosing to deploy very small facilities, called “small cells,” that can be attached to utility infrastructure in the public rights‐of‐way. A small cell is a low‐ powered cell site, which, when grouped with other small cells, can relieve capacity constraints by offloading network traffic carried by the nearby macro antenna sectors, thereby improving signal quality and mobile data speeds. Objective Small Cell Node SFOK2_014 will help close AT&T’s significant service coverage gap in this portion of the City by the least intrusive means. As AT&T’s Radio Frequency Statement explains, the volume of mobile traffic on AT&T’s network in this area constrains the capacity of nearby macro telecommunications facilities. The result is poor data rates, meaning customers are experiencing poor signal quality in large portions of the City in the vicinity of the proposed small cells. Specifically, this gap area is significant because it encompasses many hundreds of homes in residential neighborhoods, several schools, numerous commercial buildings, a fire station, a library, health care facilities, parks and a retreat center. According to the most recent traffic data estimate available from the California Department of Transportation, approximately 21,000 vehicles travel along El Camino Real every day in this portion of the City. Placing small cells on utility infrastructure in the public rights-of-way helps close this gap with minimal visual impact. AT&T conducted a thorough and good-faith analysis of potential sites in the area for the placement of a small cell facility. Working with the City Code and guidelines set forth by the Burlingame Planning Department, we investigated several alternative sites and identified the proposed site as the best available and least intrusive means to address AT&T’s service objectives. The proposed site will provide substantial improvement in service to business, residents, pedestrians, and travelers in the area that will allow them to fully experience the advantages of AT&T’s high speed 4G LTE service. And with AT&T’s selection by the federal First Responder Network Authority, FirstNet, as the wireless services provider to build and manage the first-ever nationwide public safety wireless network, each of its new and modified sites will enhance its capability to improve first responder communications. Methodology and Zoning Criteria The location of a wireless communications facility to fill a significant gap in coverage is dependent upon topography, building clutter, vegetation, zoning, utilities, access, feasibility and availability. Wireless communication is line-of-sight technology that requires wireless communications facilities to be in relatively close proximity to the wireless handsets to be served. AT&T seeks to close its significant gap in service coverage using the least intrusive means under the community values expressed in the Burlingame Municipal Code. In particular, Section 3 25.77.80(c) provides location preferences for siting wireless communications facilities. The proposed facilities are situated within 500 feet of residential zoning districts, which is a second-level preference. The primary preference, which consists of sites farther away from residential districts, is not feasible because AT&T needs to place its small cell facility in the right-of-way of this residential area in order to meet the service objectives. Under Section 25.77.80(c)(2)(A), AT&T investigated but found no viable non-residential uses and open space sites. AT&T did not identify an opportunity to place new light poles under Section 25.77.80(c)(2)(C) because the proposed Small Cell Node 14 is adjacent to an existing street light. Placing a new light pole would be more intrusive to neighborhood aesthetics because it would occupy space in the public-right-of-way. The proposed site will not create a footprint in the right-of- way. All proposed equipment would be pole mounted, and all cabling and equipment will be tidy and painted to match the pole. AT&T identified the existing utility pole as the next available and feasible preference under Section 25.77.80(c)(2)(D). To meet Section 25.77.80(c)(2)(D), AT&T proposes to screen the equipment and paint to match the existing structure. In addition, Section 25.77.090 provides design criteria for wireless communications facilities. Consistent with Section 25.77.090, AT&T has sited and designed the proposed small cell to minimize visual and auditory impacts and to preserve overall aesthetics of the neighborhood. Based on these parameters, AT&T investigated site locations that could meet the service objective. AT&T’s analysis is set forth below. Analysis AT&T investigated potential alternative sites for Wireless Cell Facilities (WCFs) to fill the identified significant gap. As stated above, no feasible collocation opportunities were identified in the search area. The following map shows the alternative sites in the City, which are discussed below. 4 Location of Candidate Sites 5 Candidate #1 – Public right-of-way near 1720 Hillside Drive Conclusion: Not feasible. This street light utility pole is located in the public right-of-way on the corner of Cabrillo Avenue and Hillside Drive (lat/long 37.585470, -122.373850. This pole would not be viable as it does not meet CPUC GO95 requirements. It has a disconnect switch, primary riser, and cut-outs that connect to primary power, all of which disqualify it for usage per PG&E standards. 6 Candidate #2 – Primary Candidate – Public right-of-way near 1800 Hillside Drive Conclusion: Best available candidate. This PG&E utility pole is located in the public right-of-way near 1800 Hillside Drive (lat/long 37.585211, -122.37405. Consistent with Section 25.77.090(c) of the Burlingame Municipal Code, AT&T has sited and designed this proposed small cell to minimize visual and auditory impacts and to preserve overall aesthetics of the neighborhood. This pole is located between two residences, and the top-mounted antenna will be sheathed in a radome painted to match the pole. AT&T also worked with PG&E to allow a smaller meter on the pole. Using pole-top antennas also helps the overall aesthetic by maintaining the existing pole line. The height of nearby trees will help conceal the equipment while still allowing the antennas a clear line-of-site for signals. The pole-mounted equipment will be in small enclosed boxes painted to match the pole. This site is feasible from radio frequency and construction perspectives. Use of this pole has been approved by PG&E. 7 Candidate #3 – Public right-of-way near 1810 Hillside Drive Conclusion: Not feasible. This utility pole is located in the public right-of-way in front of 1810 Hillside Drive (lat/long 37.585082, -122.374192). This site is not viable because adding a small cell here would not leave sufficient climbing and equipment space. CPUC GO95 standards require two of four quadrants of a wood pole to be free for climbing and equipment space, and this pole would not meet that requirement. Therefore, the pole is not viable. 8 Candidate #4 – Public right-of-way at the corner of Hillside Drive and Drake Avenue Conclusion: Not feasible. This utility pole is located in the public right-of-way at the corner of Hillside Drive and Drake Avenue (lat/long 37.584802, -122.374445). The pole would not meet CPUC GO95 requirements, as there are 3 transformers, a disconnect switch, and cutouts connecting to primary power located on the pole. 9 Candidate #5 – Public right-of-way in front of 1819 Hillside Drive Conclusion: More intrusive than proposed facility. This utility pole is located in the public right-of-way near 1819 Hillside Drive (lat/long 37.584591, - 122.374126). The pole is also located directly in front of a residence and therefore more intrusive than the proposed facility. In addition, the pole is a drop pole with a lower height than other area utility poles and a small cell here would not as effectively address AT&T’s service objective. 10 Candidate #6 – Public right-of-way near 1720 Hillside Drive Conclusion: Not feasible. This utility pole is located in the public right-of-way near 1720 Hillside Drive (lat/long 37.585735, - 122.373594). This pole would not be CPUC GO95 compliant as it has cutouts that connect to primary power and does not have sufficient space for climbing and equipment quadrants. This site is not viable because adding a small cell here would not leave sufficient climbing and equipment space. CPUC GO95 standards require two of four quadrants of a wood pole to be free for climbing and equipment space, and this pole would not meet that requirement. 11 Candidate #7 – Private property behind 1804 Hillside Drive Conclusion: More intrusive than proposed facility. This utility pole is located in an easement behind 1804 Hillside Drive at lat/long (37.585260, - 122.374516). Although this pole is located between six separate residences, AT&T analyzed this site per the City Planning Commission’s request. In addition to being located on private residential property, this utility pole closer to a residence than the proposed site. This pole would not be shielded by any vegetation. Pole #7 would be more intrusive than the proposed facility. 12 Candidate #8 – Our Lady of Angels Parish and School, 1721 Hillside Drive Conclusion: Not available. Our Lady of Angels of Angels Parish and School is a private kindergarten through 8th grade school approximately 200 feet northeast of the proposed subject site. Although not typical for a small cell facility, AT&T analyzed this site per the City Planning Commission’s request. AT&T reached out to Our Lady of Angels to determine interest in leasing space for a wireless communications facility (WCF). Our Lady of Angels initially showed some interest in leasing space, but only if no changes were made to the appearance of the existing building. To conceal the antenna, the site would need to be located in the church steeple, which consists of thick concrete. For the WCF to function effectively, a portion of the concrete steeple would have to be replaced with fiberglass reinforced plastic (FRP) to allow the signal to penetrate the walls. It is not feasible to replace the steeple with FRP without significantly altering the architectural integrity of the building. As feasible designs do not meet the requirements of Our Lady of Angels Parish and School, this is not an available alternative. 13 Candidate #9 – Intersection of Hillside Drive and Cabrillo Avenue Conclusion: Not feasible. Candidate #9 includes the traffic signals located at the intersection of Hillside Drive and Cabrillo Avenue. The traffic signals at the east and west corners of the intersection are not viable because the pole would not be able to support the equipment structurally and there is not adequate space on the poles to mount the equipment. Attaching to traffic signal poles could also overburden the poles. In addition, the lower height of these poles would not as effectively address AT&T’s service objective. Therefore, the traffic signals are not feasible. 14 Candidate #10 – Public right-of-way near 1920 Hillside Drive Conclusion: Not feasible This utility pole is located in the public right-of-way near 1920 Hillside Drive (lat/long 37.584390, - 122.374796). This pole would not be CPUC GO95 compliant as it has cutouts that connect to primary power. CPUC GO95 standards prohibits the attachment of small cells to utility poles with cutouts connecting to primary power. Conclusion The proposed facility, Candidate #2, is the best available and least intrusive means by which AT&T can close its significant service coverage gap in this portion of the city. 2 Summary New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC dba AT&T Mobility (AT&T) is committed to providing wireless telecommunications services and faster data rates throughout the City of Burlingame, and is doing so by installing the least intrusive technology, with the least intrusive design, and at the least intrusive locations in the area. Rather than construct several additional macro facilities throughout the neighborhoods of Burlingame, AT&T is choosing to deploy very small facilities, called “small cells,” that can be attached to utility infrastructure in the public rights‐of‐way. A small cell is a low‐ powered cell site, which, when grouped with other small cells, can relieve capacity constraints by offloading network traffic carried by the nearby macro antenna sectors, thereby improving signal quality and mobile data speeds. Objective Small Cell Node SFOK2_019 will help close AT&T’s significant service coverage gap in this portion of the City by the least intrusive means. As AT&T’s Radio Frequency Statement explains, the volume of mobile traffic on AT&T’s network in this area constrains the capacity of nearby macro telecommunications facilities. The result is poor data rates, meaning customers are experiencing poor signal quality in large portions of the City in the vicinity of the proposed small cells. Specifically, this gap area is significant because it encompasses many hundreds of homes in residential neighborhoods, several schools, numerous commercial buildings, a fire station, a library, health care facilities, parks and a retreat center. According to the most recent traffic data estimate available from the California Department of Transportation, approximately 21,000 vehicles travel along El Camino Real every day in this portion of the City. Placing small cells on utility infrastructure in the public rights-of-way helps meet this need with minimal visual impact. AT&T conducted a thorough and good-faith analysis of potential sites in the area for the placement of a small cell facility. Working with the City Code and guidelines set forth by the Burlingame Planning Department, we investigated several alternative sites and identified the proposed site as the best available and least intrusive means to address AT&T’s service objectives. The proposed site will provide substantial improvement in service to business, residents, pedestrians, and travelers in the area that will allow them to fully experience the advantages of AT&T’s high speed 4G LTE service. And with AT&T’s selection by the federal First Responder Network Authority, FirstNet, as the wireless services provider to build and manage the first-ever nationwide public safety wireless network, each of its new and modified sites will enhance its capability to improve first responder communications. Methodology and Zoning Criteria The location of a wireless communications facility to fill a significant gap in coverage is dependent upon topography, building clutter, vegetation, zoning, utilities, access, feasibility and availability. Wireless communication is line-of-sight technology that requires wireless communications facilities to be in relatively close proximity to the wireless handsets to be served. 3 AT&T seeks to close its significant gap in service coverage using the least intrusive means under the community values expressed in the Burlingame Municipal Code. In particular, Section 25.77.80(c) provides location preferences for siting wireless communications facilities. The proposed facilities are situated within 500 feet of residential zoning districts, which is a second-level preference. The primary preference, which consists of sites farther away from residential districts, is not feasible because AT&T needs to place its small cell facility in the right-of-way of this residential area in order to meet the service objectives. Under Section 25.77.80(c)(2)(A), AT&T investigated but found no viable non-residential uses and open space sites. Under Section 25.77.80(c)(2)(B), AT&T investigated but found no collocation opportunities in the area. AT&T did not identify an opportunity to place new light poles under Section 25.77.80(c)(2)(C) because the proposed Small Cell Node 19 is an existing street light. Placing a new light pole would be more intrusive to neighborhood aesthetics because it would occupy space in the public-right-of-way. The proposed site will not create a footprint in the right-of- way. All proposed equipment would be pole mounted, and all cabling and equipment will be tidy and painted to match the pole. AT&T identified the existing utility pole as the next available and feasible preference under Section 25.77.80(c)(2)(D). To meet Section 25.77.80(c)(2)(D), AT&T proposes to screen the equipment and paint to match the existing structure. In addition, Section 25.77.090 provides design criteria for wireless communications facilities. Consistent with Section 25.77.090, AT&T has sited and designed the proposed small cell to minimize visual and auditory impacts and to preserve overall aesthetics of the neighborhood. Based on these parameters, AT&T investigated site locations that could meet the service objective. AT&T’s analysis is set forth below. Analysis AT&T investigated potential alternative sites for Wireless Cell Facilities (WCFs) to fill the identified significant gap. As stated above, no feasible collocation opportunities were identified in the search area. The following map shows the alternative sites in the City, which are discussed below. 4 Location of Candidates Sites 5 Candidate #1 – Public right-of-way across from 704 Winchester Drive Conclusion: Not feasible. This pole is located in the public right-of-way at the intersection of Winchester Drive and Oak Grove Avenue (lat/long (37.584545, -122.347785). This pole was originally the primary candidate but PG&E indicated that Verizon has reserved that pole for their use. There is not sufficient space on the pole to mount both Verizon and AT&T equipment, so this pole would not be viable. 6 Candidate #2 – Primary Candidate – Public right-of-way at 701 Winchester Drive Conclusion: Best available and least intrusive candidate. This street light utility pole is located in the public right-of-way near 701 Winchester Drive (lat/long 37.584364, -122.348219). Consistent with Section 25.77.090(c) of the Burlingame Municipal Code, AT&T has sited and designed this proposed small cell to minimize visual and auditory impacts and to preserve overall aesthetics of the neighborhood. The pole is located between two residences, and the top-mounted antenna will be sheathed in a radome painted to match the pole. AT&T also worked with PG&E to allow a smaller meter on the pole. Using pole-top antennas also helps the overall aesthetic by maintaining the existing pole line. The height of nearby trees will help conceal the equipment while still allowing the antennas a clear line-of-site for signals. The pole-mounted equipment will be in small enclosed boxes painted to match the pole. This is the best available location from a radio frequency perspective. This site is feasible from radio frequency and construction perspectives. Use of this pole has been approved by PG&E. 7 Candidate #3 – Public right-of-way at 700 Laurel Avenue Conclusion: Not feasible. Pole #3 is located in the public right-of-way near the intersection of Laurel Avenue and Oak Grove Avenue (lat/long 37.584014, -122.348569). This pole is not feasible from radio frequency perspective because the pole is surrounded by trees that will block the antenna signal. Therefore, this pole is not viable. 8 Candidate #4 – Public right-of-way at 707 Laurel Avenue Conclusion: More intrusive than Proposed Small Cell SFOK2_019. This pole is located in the public right-of-way near 707 Laurel Avenue (lat/long (37.584292, - 122.349216). The pole would be more intrusive than the proposed candidate as it is directly in front of a residence. In addition, major tree trimming would be required to attach a small cell to this pole. Therefore, the candidate is more intrusive than the proposed facility. 9 Candidate #5 – Public right-of-way at 908 Oak Grove Avenue Conclusion: More intrusive than Proposed Small Cell SFOK2_019. This pole is located in the public right-of-way in front of 908 Oak Grove Avenue (lat/long (37.583831, -122.349009). This pole more intrusive than the Primary Candidate because it is directly in front of a residence. 10 Candidate #6 – Public right-of-way across from 704 Winchester Drive Conclusion: Not feasible. This pole is located in the public right-of-way on Oak Grove Avenue (lat/long (37.584719, - 122.347522). The pole would not be CPUC GO95 compliant with a small cell attachment. Adding a small cell here would not leave sufficient climbing and equipment space. It is also likely that the pole would not be structurally sound due to the six attached guy wires. This pole is not feasible. 11 Candidate #7 – Public right-of-way across from 700 Laurel Avenue Conclusion: Not feasible. This pole is located in the public right-of-way on Oak Grove Avenue (lat/long (37.584164, - 122.348314). This pole is not feasible from radio frequency perspective because the pole is surrounded by trees that will block the antenna signal. Therefore, this pole is not viable. 12 Candidate #8 – Public right-of-way at 900 Oak Grove Avenue Conclusion: Not feasible. This pole is located in the public right-of-way on Laurel Avenue (lat/long (37.584103, -122.348792). With a small cell attachment, this pole would not be GO95 compliant due to the existing utility boxes located on the pole shown in the image above. There would not be sufficient climbing and equipment space. Therefore, this pole is not viable. 13 Candidate #9 – Public right-of-way at 705 Winchester Drive Conclusion: Not feasible; more intrusive than proposed facility. This pole is located in the public right-of-way in front of 705 Winchester Drive (lat/long (37.584761, - 122.348131). This pole is not feasible from radio frequency perspective because the top of the pole is fully covered by tree canopy which would block signals. In addition, this pole is located directly in front of a residence. Therefore, this pole is not viable. 14 Candidate #10 – Public right-of-way at 719 Winchester Drive Conclusion: Not feasible; more intrusive than proposed facility. This pole is located in the public right-of-way in front of 719 Winchester Drive (lat/long (37.585023, - 122.348511). This pole is located directly in front of a residence. Adding a small cell attachment to this pole would not be CPUC GO95 compliant as it would not leave sufficient climbing and equipment space. Therefore, the pole is not viable. Conclusion: The proposed facility, Candidate #2, is the best available and least intrusive means by which AT&T can close its significant service coverage gap in this portion of the city. 240 Stockton Street 3,o floor son froncisco, co 94.l08 t. 415.989.1 102 www.modus-corp.com RECEIVED JUN 21 2018 8i+vSF'fiifii' OFFICE iNGAME Letter of Appeal, 1800 Hillside Drive June 21, 2018 Dear City Clerk Hassel-Shearer, This is a letter on behalf of New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC d/b/a AT&T Mobility (AT&T) regarding AT&T's application to place a small cell wireless communication facility near 1800 Hillside Drive in the public right-of-way. AT&T hereby appeals the Burlingame Planning Commission's denial of its application, item 8a on the 'Regular ltems' agenda of the June 11, 2018 hearing, reference number 18170-36-3. The Planning Commission did not have substantial evidence to support its denial, and the Planning Commission ignored substantial evidence to support approval of AT&T's application. The application complies with relevant requirements of the Burlingame Municipal Code. Relevant state and federal laws compel approval of AT&T's application. The proposed small cell wireless facility near 1800 Hillside Drive is in the public right-of-way where the city lacks zoning authority. AT&T has a state law right to construct, modify, and maintain its facilities in the public right-of-way. The city's denial unreasonably and discriminatorily infringed AT&T's rights. The proposed small cell facility is the least intrusive means by which AT&T can close its significant service coverage gap in this portion of the city. Under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. 5 332, the city cannot effectively prohibit AT&T from providing personal wireless services, and the city cannot unreasonably discriminate against AT&T. The city's denial violated AT&T's substantive and procedural due process rights. AT&T reserves the right to augment and supplement the basis for appeal. Sincerely, Talin Aghazarian Z..d- ir"ia! mdt-ts - co,p< o rvt &;o>z?4-;o4Z Program Manager ,NOD U ru +oo'6 240 Stockton Street 3ro floor son froncisco, co 94108 t.415.989.1102 www.modus-corp.com RECEIVED CITY CITY JUN 2 r 2018 ,S o IN Letter of Appeal, 701 Winchester Drive June 2L,2078 Dear City Clerk Hassel-Shearer, This is a letter on behalf of New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC d/b/a AT&T Mobility (AT&T) regarding AT&T's application to place a small cell wireless communication facility near 701 Winchester Drive in the public right-of-way. AT&T hereby appeals the Burlingame Planning Commission's denial of its application, item 8a on the 'Regular ltems' agenda of the June 11, 2018 hearing, reference number 78202-26-2. The Planning Commission did not have substantial evidence to support its denial, and the Planning Commission ignored substantial evidence to support AT&T's application. The application complies with relevant requirements of the Burlingame Municipal Code. Relevant state and federal laws compel approval of AT&T's application. The proposed small cell wireless facility in front of 7OL Winchester Drive is in the public right-of-way where the city lacks zoning authority. AT&T has a state law right to construct, modify, and maintain its facilities in the public right-of-way. The city's denial unreasonably and discriminatorily infringed AT&T's rights. The proposed small cell facility is the least intrusive means by which AT&T can close its significant service coverage gap in this portion of the city. Under the Telecommunications Act of :-:996, 47 U.S.C. 5 332, the city cannot effectively prohibit AT&T from providing personal wireless services, and the city cannot unreasonably discriminate against AT&T. The city's denial violated AT&T's substantive and procedural due process rights. AT&T reserves the right to augment and supplement the basis for appeal. Sincerely, Talin Agh nan Program Manager ,NOD U 8 BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, June 11, 2018 a.Application for Conditional Use Permits to install a new wireless facility (antenna and equipment) on an existing wood utility pole located within the right -of-way at the locations listed below. The proposals consist of installing one antenna on top of an existing utility pole and associated equipment attached to the side of the utility pole. These projects are Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303. (Abby Reed, Modus LLC, applicant; Joint Pole Association, owner; Borges Architectural Group, architect) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin 1. In right-of-way adjacent to 701 Winchester Drive, zoned R-1 (pole is located on Oak Grove Avenue) (39 noticed) 2. In right-of-way adjacent to 1800 Hillside Drive, zoned R-1 (51 noticed) Commissioner Sargent noted that he would recuse himself from the discussion of this item as he resides within 500-feet of the installation proposed on Hillside Drive; he left the Council Chambers. All Commissioners had visited the properties. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Community Development Director Meeker provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: There were no questions of staff. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Teddy Rejillas and Talin Aghazarian, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Noted that it is represented that the fiber optic cables already exist near each installation . (Aghazarian: fiber optic already exist at the locations, separate permits will be obtained as necessary for connection to the new antennae.) >Has experience working with fiber optic cable. Noted that the photo provided to the Commission inaccurately shows the size of the cable. Concerned that accurate information is not provided regarding this aspect. No information is provided that shows the details of how the cable will be routed to the installation. (Aghazarian: The details of the fiber optic cable installation are not provided at this point, but are under a separate permit. Rejillas: have shown the details that are required at this point. The excess items on the Winchester pole will be removed prior the the new AT&T installation.) >Can't make an aesthetic decision with the limited detail provided; the scale is too small. (Aghazarian: Could do a close up view of the photo simulations. Rejillas: offered a site visit to an installation that would reflect the installations proposed in Burlingame.) >Was Our Lady of Angels approached regarding integration of the installation on Hillside into the Church structure? (Rejillas: sites like the church steeple are typically reserved for micro -cells. They are not suitable for the limited range with the type of installation proposed. The provider has rights to install on Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 8/17/2018 June 11, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes utility-owned poles.) >Is access to poles first come, first served? (Rejillas: typically first come, first serve. One pole, one carrier.) >On sheet A3.1, will the shorter pole and the stump be removed from the Winchester site? (Aghazarian: the shorter pole will be removed, as will the stump.) Installation will be on the full -height pole? (Aghazarian: yes.) >How do trees affect the service? (Rejillas: they block the signal.) How is the signal distributed? (Rejillas: 360-degree distribution.) >The applicant has submitted seven sites for consideration; Verizon has submitted applications for twelve sites. Should these installations be approved one at a time without consideration for how the City is impacted? (Kane: whether the City prepares a masterplan would require City Council direction; could also require revisions to the ordinance. Must process the applications as submitted within a reasonable period of time. Community feedback has indicated a desire about a broader vision for the installations. Must process applications as they come through. Can't withhold action pending City action to prepare a masterplan.) >Considering that the Commission is asked to review only the aesthetics of the applications; how was the location preference order determined? Have all options been considered? (Aghazarian: obtained information from AT&T regarding a potential service gap. Looked at every pole within a certain radius and evaluated their suitability. Locations have been refused by PG&E as well as extensive vegetation in areas where other poles are located.) >What would be the option if there are no viable poles available? (Rejilla: this is the technology that is evolving; is setting the foundation for 5G service.) >Are these installations being installed elsewhere in neighboring cities? (Rejillas: are working with cities up and down the Peninsula and across the country.) Public Comments: William Sexton: moved to Burlingame in 1949. Citizens of Burlingame rallied together about ten years ago that resulted in an ordinance to regulate these installations. Patricia Gray: concern is about how the poles look. Electromagnetic radiation is dangerous to human bodies. More energy is needed to meet the needs of current technology; will require more installations . Need to be careful and aware of the dangers to humans. Chair Gaul reminded those wishing to speak that the Commission is limited to discussing only the aesthetic aspects of the installations. Stephen Lamont, Adeline Drive: understands the need for more coverage. Understands the limitations on regulating the time, place and manner. Had industry representatives at the table when the wireless ordinance was prepared; was deemed a reasonable set of requests. The submissions received now are as bad as what was submitted prior to adoption of the ordinance. Need to find some mechanism to work with the carriers to ensure that the installations are done in an aesthetic manner. The two sites set a precedent for future applications. There can be improvements on the locations and the designs. A master plan is needed; could assist in pushing back and requiring co-location. Claudia Rizzo, 701 Winchester Drive: referenced her correspondence objecting to the proposal. Will negatively impact aesthetics and property values. Most people do not wish to live near cell towers.Wonders how safe the installations will be when multiple service providers have installations that overlap within the same neighborhood. Brian Chen-Hoon: Resident since 1979, and a homeowner. Recalls the Extenet discussions at the City Council level in 2012. Anyone in the community could have an installation in front of their home. Agreed with prior speakers comments regarding aesthetic impacts and property value impacts. If the requests move forward to the City Council, residents will fight it again. Nothing has changed since 2012. Proposals Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 8/17/2018 June 11, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes look the same. Rich Goldman: is a homeowner in the community. Asked whether the shorter pole adjacent to the pole at the Winchester site is needed for stability? Will there be additional measures taken to ensure the stability of the pole on which the antennae are installed. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion. >Are limited to time, place and manner in the placement of the antennas. Has difficulty making the findings required. Has not provided adequate aesthetic details of the installations. Should have the opportunity, and have the obligation, to review the full aesthetic details of the installations. >Still has a hard time determining that installing a nine -foot section atop an existing pole will not be detrimental to the properties in the vicinity. Cannot make the necessary findings. >Cited the visual impact requirements of the applications as contained with the municipal code. >Need to do a better job of mitigating the visual impacts. >Agrees with other Commissioners. There are better design options for these facilities that need to be explored. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to deny the applications without prejudice. Discussion of Motion: >Requested clarification of "without prejudice". (Kane: the applicant can re-submit the applications immediately without paying additional fees. Permits the opportunity for revision. >How does this form of denial help the process? (Kane: there were a number of outstanding issues that the Commission requested more information about. Revisions/clarifications could be made by the application that could be brought back immediately for reconsideration.) >There may be some other stealth details, technologies that could be used to address the concerns expressed. >Would also like the opportunity to view similar installations within the vicinity. >Would like to see a "good" example. Chair Gaul called for a voice vote on the motion and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Loftis, Kelly, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse5 - Absent:Comaroto1 - Recused:Sargent1 - Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 8/17/2018 City of Burlingame Conditional Use Permit Address: Right-of-Way Adjacent to 1800 Hillside Drive Meeting Date: June 11, 2018 Request: Application for a Conditional Use Permit to install a new wireless facility (antenna and equipment) on an existing wood utility pole located within the right-of-way adjacent to 1800 Hillside Drive. Applicant: Abigail Reed, Modus LLC APN: N/A, in right-of-way Property Owner: Joint Pole Association Lot Area: N/A Architect: Borges Architectural Group Zoning: R-1 General Plan: Low Density Residential Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303, New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, Class 3, consists of construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures; installation of small new equipment and facilities in small structures; and the conversion of existing small structures from one use to another where only minor modifications are made in the exterior of the structure. Planning Commission Review: While the Planning Commission generally does not review projects or improvements proposed within the right-of-way, the Wireless Communications Ordinance states that a conditional use permit for a wireless communication facility may be granted only after a public hearing before and approval by the Burlingame Planning Commission (Code Section 25.77.050 (c)). The Planning Commission is limited to reviewing and discussing the proposed design of the wireless facility and not the radio frequency (“RF”) emissions since the proposed wireless facility complies with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) RF emissions regulations. Federal law prohibits cities from considering RF emissions as a basis for denying or restricting cellular facilities. The Planning Commission should limit and focus their comments on the design of the wireless facility based on the design criteria listed on pages 6 and 7. Wireless Communications Ordinance: Wireless telecommunications facilities are licensed and regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission and the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996. The City can, within limited discretion, control the time, place, and manner of installation. The Wireless Communications Ordinance was adopted by the City Council on February 6, 2012 (Chapter 25.77 – Wireless Communications Facilities is attached for review). The purpose of this ordinance is to maintain and more importantly, to facilitate modernization of Burlingame’s communications infrastructure in a manner that improves the quality of the City’s environment, the pleasant aesthetics of the City’s neighborhoods, the City’s architectural traditions dating to the early 20th century and the visual quality in the non-residential areas of the City. More specifically, the purpose of this ordinance is to regulate, as allowed by state and federal law and regulations, the location of communications facilities in the City of Burlingame in a manner that recognizes the community benefits of communications technology, which provides clear guidance to the communications industry but also recognizes the strong need to preserve the City’s aesthetic traditions. Background: In recent years, wireless telecommunication service providers have indicated they are experiencing increased customer demand, particularly with respect to data capacity and wireless broadband speed. In order to address this demand, wireless providers are installing small cell antennas placed in densely populated areas that have been determined to need additional network capacity, such as downtowns, heavily used traffic corridors or areas that cannot be effectively served by traditional macro cells. These small cell wireless antennas are not intended to replace macro cell sites, but to fill in areas that do not have sufficient capacity. Item No. 8a.2 Regular Action Item Conditional Use Permit Right-of-Way Adjacent to 1800 Hillside Drive 2 AT&T has submitted several applications for new wireless facilities in or near residential zones throughout the City. These applications consist of adding an antenna and associated equipment onto existing PG&E owned wood utility poles located within the public right-of-way. The proposed locations include existing PG&E utility poles adjacent to properties located at: 1505 Bernal Avenue 1800 Hillside Drive 1210 Oak Grove Avenue 1480 Broadway 937 Larkspur Drive 701 Winchester Drive 977 El Camino Drive At the request of the applicant, Planning staff is first bringing forward the proposed applications adjacent to 1800 Hillside Drive and 701 Winchester Drive for review by the Planning Commission. The remaining applications will be presented at future Planning Commission meetings. Staff would also note that Verizon recently submitted 12 similar small cell wireless antenna applications for installations on PG&E utility poles in the right-of-way; staff is currently reviewing those applications for completeness. This brings the total number of applications currently being reviewed to 19; staff anticipates additional applications to be submitted. Lastly, on March 5th the City Council reviewed information pertaining to the placement of wireless cell antennas and related equipment on City-owned utility poles (street light poles). The Council directed staff to provide additional information, but indicated that based on the information provided it may consider allowing installations on City-owned utility poles in the future. Currently there is one similar wireless facility installation on an existing utility pole located at the corner of Peninsula Avenue and Stanley Road. This wireless facility was installed prior to adoption of the Wireless Communications Ordinance, which at that time only required an encroachment permit. Study Meeting: At the March 12, 2018 Planning Commission study meeting, the Commission asked the applicant to provide responses to the questions listed below about the proposed application (see attached March 12, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes). Responses to these questions can be found in the attached response letter, date stamped May 24, 2018. There were no changes to the plans reviewed at the study meeting. Concerned about aesthetics. Not seeing the entire picture since the information regarding fiber-optic cable is not included in the information. Can be a significant difference between what is shown in the exhibits. We don't know where all of the installations are going to be installed - are providing what the customers are requesting to be provided. Need to see the full picture of what the installations will look like. Need some proof regarding why the sites have been selected. Agreed with comments regarding the Commission's role in reviewing the applications. Need to investigate locations that are not as visible. Why can't facilities be shared? There must be something that can be used for multiple servers. Provide information on improvements in technology. The Planning Commission expressed a concern about what happens when installations become obsolete. Specifically, who is responsible for removing the facility and how does the City decide when the facility should be removed. Burlingame Municipal Code Section 25.77.170 (Cessation of Operations) provides the following requirements for vacating or ceasing operations: (a) Vacation. The service provider shall notify the Community Development Director of the intent to vacate a site at least thirty (30) days prior to the vacation. Conditional Use Permit Right-of-Way Adjacent to 1800 Hillside Drive 3 (b) Cessation of Operations. If a wireless communication facilities site is not operated for a continuous period of twelve (12) months, the conditional or administrative use permit for that facility shall be deemed terminated unless before the end of the twelve (12) month period: (1) The Community Development Director has determined that the same operator resumed operation; or (2) The City has received an application to transfer the permit to another service provider. (c) No later than ninety (90) days from the date the facility is determined to have ceased operation or the Provider has notified the Community Development Director of the intent to vacate the site, the owner of the wireless communication facilities or the owner of the property on which the facilities are sited shall remove all equipment and improvements associated with the use and shall restore the site to its original condition as required by the Community Development Director. The provider or owner may use any bond or other assurances provided by the operator to do so. The owner or his or her agent shall provide written verification of the removal of the facilities within thirty (30) days of the date the removal is completed. (d) If the facility is not removed within thirty (30) days after the permit has been discontinued pursuant to either subsection (a) or (b) of this section, the site shall be deemed to be a nuisance pursuant to Chapter 1.18 of the Burlingame Municipal Code, Nuisance Abatement, and the City may cause the facility to be removed at the owners’ expense or by calling any bond or other financial assurance to pay for removal. If there are two (2) or more users of a single tower, then this provision shall apply to the abandoned antenna but not become effective for the tower until all users cease using the tower. The requirement for removal of equipment in compliance with this section shall be included as a provision in any lease of private property for placement of wireless communication facilities. (Ord. 1870 § 2, (2012); Ord. 1869 § 3, (2012)) The Commission also expressed a concern that the City does not have a master plan for this type of installation, noting that although the City c an't ask the vendors to prepare a master plan, the City may want to consider engaging an independent engineer to work on the City's behalf to address this type of application. Planning staff would note that cities either don’t have a master plan in place or are in the process of creating a master plan for these facilities. Project Description: The applicant, Abigail Reed, agent for AT&T, is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit to install a new wireless communication facility (wireless facility) on an existing wood utility pole owned by the Joint Pole Association. The proposal includes installing a cylindrical antenna and extension on top of an existing utility pole and associated equipment and cabling mounted on the side of the utility pole. An application for a Conditional Use Permit is required because the project consists of installing a new wireless facility (not a co-location) and because it is located in a residential zoning district. The PG&E utility pole is located within the right-of-way near the corner of Hillside Drive and Cabrillo Avenue, adjacent to the parcel with an address of 1800 Hillside Drive. The utility pole is located along Hillside Drive, in the planter strip between the sidewalk and street. The proposed site is surrounded by single family residential uses and Our Lady of Angels Catholic Church and School to the east. There are existing street trees on either side of the utility pole, which would not need to be removed to accommodate the proposed wireless facility. In their responses to plan review comments, AT&T notes that “the proposed site will assist with off-loading traffic from the macro sites and provide substantial improvement in service to residents in the area that will allow them to fully experience the advantage of AT&T’s high speed 4G LTE. This is especially impactful for those who rely on the AT&T network for broadband data services and who increasingly use their mobile phones as their primary communication device and rely on their mobile phones to do more.” Conditional Use Permit Right-of-Way Adjacent to 1800 Hillside Drive 4 Visual simulations depicting existing and proposed site conditions are attached to the staff report for review. The proposed antenna, equipment and cabling are proposed to be painted to match the utility pole. The proposed wireless facility application consists of the following: 1) Install one (1) new cylindrical antenna and extension on top of an existing wood utility pole. The antenna measures 9.45” in diameter and 23.63” tall. In order to comply with minimum clearance requirements, the antenna is installed on a 7’-0” wooden extension and mounting bracket on top of the utility pole (see existing and proposed elevations on sheet A-3). The top of the existing utility pole measures 38’-7” in height. The proposed antenna, extension and mounting bracket increases the overall height of the pole to 47’-10” above grade, or 9’-0” above the top of the existing pole. There are no cabinets proposed at grade within the right-of-way. 2) Install equipment associated with the antenna onto the side of the existing utility pole using a mounting bracket. The equipment includes two (2) twin duplexers, two (2) radio remote units, one (1) fiber distribution panel, one (1) electric load center and one (1) power meter, with the following dimensions: Twin duplexers: 0’-8⅜” wide x 0’-4⅝” tall x 0’-3½” deep Radio remote units: 1’-0” wide x 2’-0” tall x 0’-6” deep Fiber distribution panel: 0’-8” wide x 0’-10” tall x 0’-4½” deep Electric load center: 0’-9” wide x 1’-1” tall x 0’-4½” deep Power meter: 1’-0” wide x 2’-0” tall x 0’-4⅝” deep Including the mounting bracket, the equipment extends approximately 1’-8” from the face of the utility pole. The equipment is proposed to be mounted on the side of the utility pole facing the sidewalk. As proposed, the equipment would not extend into the sidewalk area; a minimum clearance of 7’-0” is provided between the ground and the bottom of the equipment. 3) Install coaxial cables associated with the antenna and equipment in 1½” and 3” conduits mounted on the utility pole. As previously noted, AT&T has submitted a total of seven applications for new wireless facilities to be installed on wood utility poles located within the right-of-way. The applicant provided a map showing AT&T’s existing and proposed wireless facility locations over the next two years, including installations within the downtown, Rollins Road and Bayfront areas.. AT&T also provided a propagation map which shows the increased coverage the proposed node adjacent to 1800 Hillside Drive will provide compared to existing conditions. Propagation maps for the remaining six locations are provided for reference. The applicant notes that “small cell technology has a maximum effective radius of 300 feet and therefore requires the sites to be much closer together than the larger macro sites. These small cell facilities are not meant to increase the coverage area but to assist with unloading traffic from the macro site, which is why each site was carefully selected by AT&T’s radio frequency engineer. Small cell facilities increase data speed and decrease the number of dropped calls. Because of this they are placed in specific locations of need, in order to service a targeted community. The target community for these sites are specific residential areas, intersections, and El Camino Real, which can only be reached by these proposed node locations.” The applicant also notes that “the proposed facilities are Centralized Radio Access Network (CRAN) sites. These differ from Distributed Antenna Systems (DAS) because CRAN are lower powered and provide capacity rather than coverage. The CRAN sites are strategically placed to improve the network and will be connected to each other with overhead fiber.” The fiber is 0.8-inch thick and will be painted to match the pole color. The applicant notes that most of the sites will have above ground fiber, while one will be underground. “Overhead fiber will pull from, or extend, existing fiber located at the communication level along the existing lines and travel Conditional Use Permit Right-of-Way Adjacent to 1800 Hillside Drive 5 down the pole to the fiber distribution panel”. The fiber/cables will be installed under separate permits; fiber routes are unknown at this time. Public Outreach: Pursuant to the City’s ordinance, the applicant is encouraged to perform an early stage outreach with residents and property owners near the proposed wireless facility in order to address and, if possible, resolve any impacts of the proposed facilities on the surrounding neighborhood. The applicant sent out an informational notice to all residents/property owners within 300 feet of the proposed wireless facility (see attached copy of notice). The notice provides a description of the proposed facility and AT&T contact information for individuals with comments or questions about proposed facility. The applicant reports that they did not receive any comments or questions for this proposed installation. After hearing concerns expressed by neighbors at the March 12, 2018 study meeting, the applicant invited concerned residents to a meeting at the project site on April 19, 2018. The applicant reports that no residents attended the meeting. Location Preference Order: The City’s ordinance requires that in determining the location of proposed wireless communication facilities, applicants should use best efforts to comply with the location preference order listed below. Wireless communication facilities must be located where feasible in the locations listed below by descending priority. Per the current ordinance, placement on existing utility poles is low in preference, if not the lowest in certain areas. If applicable, the applicant shall include an explanation of the reason that the proposed facilities cannot be deployed at a higher-preference location. Please refer to the attached document title ‘Burlingame Study Session 3.12 Written Response’ date stamped March 7, 2018 for reasons this location was chosen. 1) Locations within Non-Residential Zoning Districts, which are more than five hundred (500) feet from Residential Zoning Districts or the Burlingame Downtown Districts and which are not within the Burlingame Downtown Districts. (A) Completely enclosed within existing, permitted buildings. (B) Located on electric power transmission towers. (C) Co-located on existing wireless communications facilities. (D) The roof of existing structures (buildings, water tanks, etc), designed to blend in with the building, camouflaged or screened from the public right-of-way which constitutes a pedestrian travel corridor. (E) The side of existing structures (buildings, water tanks, etc.), designed to blend in with the building, camouflaged or screened from the public right-of-way which constitutes a pedestrian travel corridor. (F) Camouflaged stealth structure (a false tree, building, artifice, etc). (G) Existing utility poles, with all ancillary equipment placed underground if feasible, camouflaged or screened. (H) Existing utility distribution poles and street lights. (I) Slim line monopole, with antennas in a canister at the same diameter as the pole. (J) Standard monopole with attached flush-mounted (not extending more than twenty-four (24) inches from the pole) antenna elements. Conditional Use Permit Right-of-Way Adjacent to 1800 Hillside Drive 6 2) Non-Residential Zoning Districts within five hundred (500) feet of Residential Zoning Districts or the Burlingame Downtown Districts, and the Burlingame Downtown Districts. (A) Integrated into non-residential uses (libraries, churches, temples, etc.) designed to blend in with open space (playing fields, parking lots, parks, etc.); hidden from pedestrian view by means of stealth design, stealth structures, architectural integration or screening. (B) Co-located on existing wireless communications facilities which are in compliance with the provision of this chapter. (C) In public right-of-way, within new light poles with interior stealth installations of cabling and antenna, and to the extent feasible, control equipment. (D) In public right-of-way, on existing utility or light poles, with all ancillary equipment either underground, if feasible, camouflaged, screened or painted to blend into the surrounding structure. 3) Residential Zoning Districts. If located within a residential zoning district, the following guidelines apply: (A) Integrated into non-residential uses (libraries, churches, temples, etc.) or designed to blend in with open space (playing fields, parking lots, parks, etc.); hidden from view by means of stealth design, stealth structures, architectural integration or screening. (B) Co-located in existing wireless communications facilities which are in compliance with the provisions of this chapter. (C) In public right-of-way, within new light poles with interior stealth installations of cabling and antennae, and to the extent feasible, control equipment. (D) In public right-of-way, on existing utility or light poles, with all ancillary equipment either underground, if feasible, camouflaged, screened or painted to blend into the surrounding structure. Design Criteria: The goal of the City’s regulations is to reduce to the greatest extent possible all visual impacts resulting from the installation of wireless communications facilities. Stealth design and stealth structures for these facilities shall be considered the normal standard for all wireless communications facilities. Non-stealth designs and structures shall not be approved without evidence, independently verified, that it is not possible (using best efforts by applicant) to stealth such facilities. Applications shall be reviewed to determine compliance with the following criteria. If the applicant’s proposed facility cannot comply with the following criteria, the application shall include a detailed explanation of why it is not reasonably feasible to comply with the criteria. Please refer to the attached document title ‘Burlingame Study Session 3.12 Written Response’ date stamped March 7, 2018 for reasons some of the criteria were not met. (a) Wireless communication facilities should be co-located where feasible and where the co-location does not create an adverse aesthetic impact due to such factors as increasing the bulk, the height or the amount of noise created by the proposed co-located facilities. (b) Wireless communication facilities should to the greatest extent feasible, not be located in Residential Zoning Districts. However, staff would note that the California Public Utilities Commission has determined that wireless providers are a utility and therefore have rights of use of public right-of-ways as other utility. (c) Wireless communication facilities should be designed, located and constructed in a manner that minimizes visual and auditory impacts of the facilities. The wireless communication facilities shall blend into the surrounding environment and/or shall be architecturally integrated into a structure, considering the color, design and character of the surrounding context (e.g., public art, clock towers, Conditional Use Permit Right-of-Way Adjacent to 1800 Hillside Drive 7 flagpoles, trees/vegetation, rocks, water tank, existing office/industrial buildings, and church steeples). Specifically, the proposed facilities shall comply, to the greatest extent feasible, with the following: (1) The facilities should be concealed, screened or camouflaged by the surrounding topography, vegetation, buildings, or other setting. (2) The facilities should be proportional in size relative to surrounding and supporting structures and ability for co-location by other providers. (3) Roof-mounted facilities should be, out of view and screened; these facilities shall be set back at least one foot from the edge of the roof for every one foot of antenna height and shall not exceed ten (10) feet in height above the roof surface. (4) Wall-mounted facilities should be compatible in scale and design with the building, shall be flush mounted, i.e., not extending from the face of the building more than twenty-four (24) inches and shall be painted and/or textured to match the wall of the building. All cables and brackets, wires, shall also be hidden. (5) All facilities should be constructed of graffiti-resistant materials. (6) All concealing, screening, painting, camouflaging and/or use of stealth designs and stealth structures should be consistent with Section 25.77.010 (Purpose) including, but not limited to, promoting wholesome, attractive, harmonious and economic use of property, building construction, civic service, activities and operations in conformity with and preserving the overall aesthetics of City neighborhoods including its character and its century old architectural traditions. (d) Where applicable, appropriate landscaping should be installed in and around the proposed wireless communication facilities. (e) Any exterior lighting on the facilities should have a manual on/off switch and be contained on-site. (f) Ground equipment of the facilities should be concealed, screened, camouflaged or hidden using stealth design, stealth structures, underground installation or landscaping and fencing. (g) Signage in, on or near any facilities should be prohibited with the exception of warning and informational signs, which shall be designed with minimal aesthetic impact. (h) Wireless communication facilities should be discouraged in areas subject to the City’s hillside construction permit as designated in Section 25.61.010; if facilities cannot be avoided in the hillside areas, then visual impacts should be eliminated through stealth design, stealth structures and landscaping. (i) Support wires for structures should be discouraged. (j) The wireless communication facilities should be designed to discourage unauthorized access. Radio Frequency Study: Staff would note that cities may not regulate placement, construction or modification of wireless communications facilities based on radio frequency (“RF”) emissions if the proposed wireless facility complies with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) RF emissions regulations. Federal law prohibits cities from considering RF emissions as a basis for denying or restricting cellular facilities. An evaluation of the proposed wireless facility was prepared by Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers, dated September 17, 2017, for compliance with appropriate guidelines limiting human exposure to radio frequency (“RF”) electromagnetic fields (see attached full report). The report concluded that operation of the node proposed by AT&T at this location “will comply with the prevailing standards for limiting public exposure to Conditional Use Permit Right-of-Way Adjacent to 1800 Hillside Drive 8 radio frequency energy and, therefore, need not for this reason cause a significant impact on the environment. The highest calculated level in publicly accessible areas is much less than the prevailing standards allow for exposures of unlimited duration. This finding is consistent with measurements of actual exposure conditions taken at other operating nodes.” The evaluation prepared by Hammett & Edison, Inc. concludes that the proposed wireless facility will be compliant with Radiofrequency Radiation Exposure Limits established by the FCC. Therefore, the City cannot use RF emissions as a reason for denying the modification request. Staff Comments: See attached memos from the Engineering Division. The application was reviewed by the Public Works Department and determined that the proposed facilities will not interfere with, present a hazard to, or otherwise incommode the use of the right-of-way. The Building, Fire, Parks and Stormwater Divisions had no comment on the proposed application. Findings for a Conditional Use Permit: In order to grant a Conditional Use Permit, the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.52.020, a-c): (a) The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience; (b) The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Burlingame general plan and the purposes of this title; (c) The planning commission may impose such reasonable conditions or restrictions as it deems necessary to secure the purposes of this title and to assure operation of the use in a manner compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the application, and consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report. Action should include specific findings supporting the Planning Commission’s decision, and should be affirmed by resolution of the Planning Commission. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: 1. that the conditional use permit to install a new wireless communication facility within the right-of-way on an existing PG&E wood utility pole, consisting of a cylindrical antenna, extension on top of the utility pole, two (2) twin diplexers, two (2) radio remote units, one (1) fiber distribution panel, one (1) electric load center and one (1) power meter, shall be valid for ten (10) years from the date of approval. At least one hundred twenty (120) days prior to the expiration of the initial ten (10) year term, the applicant shall complete and submit a renewal application to the Community Development Director; 2. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped March 2, 2018, sheets T-1, GN-1, C1, A-1 through A-7, E-1 and E-2; 3. that the conditions of the Engineering Division’s November 3, 2017 and January 8, 2018 memos shall be met; Conditional Use Permit Right-of-Way Adjacent to 1800 Hillside Drive 9 4. that prior to commencing any work at the site, the contractor commissioned by the applicant to perform the work shall obtain all required permits, such as a construction Encroachment Permit and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Permit from the Department of Public Works – Engineering Division; 5. that all units must be at least seven (7) feet clear and above the highest adjacent finished grade, no exceptions shall be allowed; 6. that the wireless communication facility shall operate in conformance with all applicable provisions of Chapter 25.77 of the Burlingame Municipal Code (Wireless Communications); where any conflicts exist between the applicable provisions of that chapter and this approval, the more restrictive provision shall apply; 7. that the facility shall meet or exceed current standards and regulations of the FCC, the FAA, and any other agency of the state or federal government with the authority to regulate wireless communication facilities. If such standards and regulations are changed and are made applicable to existing facilities, the owners of the facilities governed by this chapter shall bring such facilities into compliance with such revised standards and regulations within six (6) months of the effective date of such standards and regulations, unless a different compliance schedule is mandated by the controlling state or federal agency. Failure to bring the facility into compliance with such revised standards and regulations shall constitute grounds for the removal of the facilities at the owner’s expense, revocation of any permit or imposition of any other applicable penalty; 8. that the facility shall be constructed of graffiti-resistant materials and shall be painted a non-reflective material consistent with the color scheme on the utility pole; 9. that signage in, on or near the facility shall be prohibited with the exception of warning and informational signs, which shall be designed with minimal aesthetic impact; 10. that within forty-five (45) days of commencement of the facility operation, the applicant shall provide verification by independent qualified experts that the RF (radio frequency) levels of the facility complies with FCC regulations and with the City noise regulations; 11. that the applicant shall conduct a post‐installation field test to confirm that the radio frequency (RF) exposure levels comply with FCC Rules and Regulations, shall submit the comprehensive report to the City, and if necessary, agree to promptly correct any noncompliance; 12. that the applicant shall report to the City every five (5) years from the date of commencement of the facility operation, a review of the condition of the facility, of the facility’s compliance with federal and state regulations and of the facility’s compliance with the provisions of this chapter and the conditions of approval. The applicant shall also provide updated contact information for the owner and the applicant and verifiable confirmation information as to what carrier(s) are using the facility; 13. that the applicant shall procure and maintain a City business license, contact information for the applicant, for the agent responsible for maintenance of the facility and for emergency contact; 14. that the applicant shall either secure a bond, letter of credit or other similar financial assurance, in a form acceptable to the City, for the removal of the facility in the event that its use is abandoned, its operation is ceased or the approval is terminated; Conditional Use Permit Right-of-Way Adjacent to 1800 Hillside Drive 10 15. that maintenance and repairs to facility shall be permitted provided that such maintenance and repair does not enlarge or extend the facility structure or equipment enclosures or change the number, type, dimensions, of the antenna or related equipment; 16. that current contact information of the person or entity responsible for maintaining and repairing the facility shall be provided to and maintained by the Community Development Department; 17. that the facility shall be kept clean and free of graffiti, litter and debris. Lighting, walls, fences, shields, cabinets, and poles, shall be maintained in good repair and free of graffiti and other forms of vandalism, and any damage from any cause, including degradation from wind and weather, shall be repaired as soon as reasonably possible to minimize occurrences of dangerous conditions or visual blight. Graffiti shall be removed from any facility as soon as practicable, and in no instance more than two (2) business days from the time of notification by any person or entity; 18. that except for emergency repairs, testing and maintenance activities that will be audible beyond the property line shall only occur between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Monday through Friday, excluding holidays; 19. that the service provider shall notify the Community Development Director of the intent to vacate a site at least thirty (30) days prior to the vacation; 20. that if the facility site is not operated for a continuous period of twelve (12) months, the Conditional Use Permit shall be deemed terminated unless before the end of the twelve (12) month period: (1) The Community Development Director has determined that the same operator resumed operation; or (2) The City has received an application to transfer the permit to another service provider. 21. that no later than ninety (90) days from the date the facility is determined to have ceased operation or the Provider has notified the Community Development Director of the intent to vacate the site, the owner of the wireless communication facilities or the owner of the property on which the facility is sited shall remove all equipment and improvements associated with the use and shall restore the site to its original condition as required by the Community Development Director. The provider or owner may use any bond or other assurances provided by the operator to do so. The owner or his or her agent shall provide written verification of the removal of the facility within thirty (30) days of the date the removal is completed. Ruben Hurin Senior Planner c. Abigail Reed, applicant Conditional Use Permit Right-of-Way Adjacent to 1800 Hillside Drive 11 Attachments: March 12, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes Applicant’s Response Letter and Attachments, dated May 24, 2018 and June 5, 2018 Email Submitted by Steve Lamont, dated March 10, 2018 Letter Submitted by Marsha Lee, dated March 11, 2018 Chapter 25.77 – Wireless Communications Facilities Application to the Planning Commission Northern California Joint Pole Association Membership Status and Letters of Authorization Conditional Use Permit Application Proof of Outreach, Information Notice prepared by applicant, dated January 17, 2018 Visual Simulations Burlingame Study Session 3.12 Written Response, date stamped March 7, 2018 Existing and Proposed Facility Maps Propagation Maps, dated November 13, 2017 Evaluation of Proposed Wireless Facility, prepared by Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers, dated September 27, 2017 Staff Comments Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed June 1, 2018 Aerial Photo BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, March 12, 2018 b.Application for Conditional Use Permits to install a new wireless facility (antenna and equipment) on an existing wood utility pole located within the right-of-way at the locations listed below. The proposals consist of installing one antenna on top of an existing utility pole and associated equipment attached to the side of the utility pole. (Abigail Reed, Modus LLC, applicant; Joint Pole Association, owner; Borges Architectural Group, architect) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin 1. In right-of-way adjacent to 701 Winchester Drive, zoned R-1 (pole is located on Oak Grove Avenue) (39 noticed) 2. In right-of-way adjacent to 1800 Hillside Drive, zoned R-1 (51 noticed) Chair Gum recused himself from the discussion of this item as he resides within 500-feet of the proposed installation at 701 Winchester Drive; Commissioner Sargent recused himself as he lives within 500-feet of the installation at 1800 Hillside Drive; they left the Council Chambers. All Commissioners had visited the properties. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Community Development Director Meeker provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: There were no questions of staff. Vice-Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Angela Kahn and Helene Nagazarian represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: > Does the San Francisco example that was shown have fiber-optic cable running to it? How will it run in Burlingame's installations? (Kahn: it is buried in that instance. In Burlingame, a separate entity from AT&T will run the fiber-optic cable overhead. The fiber-optic cable will need to run closer to the antenna, above the PG&E lines.) > Clarified that this is not a co-located facility; other providers will seek additional locations and likely run fiber-optic cable to there antennae. > What is the radius served by the installations? (Kahn: 300-500 feet.) Public Comments: Doug Luftman, 2615 Easton Drive: noted that the City worked with residents five-years ago to draft the ordinance. Offered assistance in this matter. Encouraged following the ordinance very closely. Not certain all aspects have been addressed. The ordinance encourages public engagement. The process is moving forward in a piecemeal manner. A master plan approach is needed. The ordinance makes it clear that aesthetics and location are of importance. The most ideal locations within residential areas are in Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 6/5/2018 March 12, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes easements behind properties; though every effort should be taken to keep the installations out of the residential areas. There is no accurate depiction in the application of the installations, the stealth design is not considered, there is a lack of justification regarding location; why are residential areas selected? Should be more engagement of the community and there should be more of a focus on aesthetics. Prakash Amani: not supportive. Every carrier will have their own installations. Is across from a church property with a lot of traffic. Sought more information regarding the radiation emission. There are other alternatives possible. Tom Santoro, 1804 Hillside Drive: lives on Hillside Drive. No one has discussed the radiation and cancer-causing impacts. Will the radiation hurt those children that pass by to go to Our Lady of Angels. Are there any studies that show that the installations are safe? Doesn't want anyone to experience health problems down the road. Perhaps AT&T has studies. Should approach the nearby church and school to discuss with them. Amit Chibber, 1406 Drake Avenue: agreed with prior speakers. What is the dispersal of the radiation from the installation; how much can be expected to enter the nearby homes? Bill Hemet: is an engineer that works with AT&T and other providers. There is no energy emitted from the boxes on the poles, only from the antenna on the top. Have projected exposure levels for every tenth of a meter from the installation. The maximum level of radiation at the ground is .7%; .8% at a nearby home, well below the safe exposure level. Vice-Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: > Noted that a discussion or radio frequencies is "off the table"; meets the standards of the FCC. > Can look at time, place and manner. Concerned about aesthetics. Not seeing the entire picture since the information regarding fiber-optic cable is not included in the information. Can be a significant difference between what is shown in the exhibits. We don't know where all of the installations are going to be installed - are providing what the customers are requesting to be provided. > Concerned when reference is made to potential failure of 911 systems; knows that this is not the full picture. Data is a big need. > Need to see the full picture of what the installations will look like. > Concerned that the City doesn't have a master plan for this type of installation. Has Hillsborough done anything similar to a master plan? > Agrees that a master plan is needed. Individual providers will likely provide plans that the City will need to coordinate. Also need some proof regarding why the sites have been selected. > Agreed with comments regarding the Commission's role in reviewing the applications. Need to investigate locations that are not as visible. > Why can't facilities be shared? There must be something that can be used for multiple servers. > Provide information on improvements in technology. > What happens when the installations become obsolete? Who will remove them? How does the City decide when to remove them? > Can't ask the vendors to prepare a master plan; stuck in a situation where an independent engineer will need to be engaged to work on the City's behalf. > Need to see the full picture. No action is required on this item. Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 6/5/2018 Burlingame ATT Proposed Wood Pole Nodes From: smlamont@gmail.com [mailto:smlamont@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Steve Lamont Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2018 4:37 PM To: GRP-Planning Commissioners <PlanningCommissioners@burlingame.org> Cc: PW/ENG-Syed Murtuza <SMurtuza@burlingame.org>; CD/PLG-Ruben Hurin <RHurin@burlingame.org>; CD/PLG-Bill Meeker <wmeeker@burlingame.org> Subject: Request to table Wireless Antenna discussion pending having a plan With regard to your agenda item 6b at your meeting Monday 12 March 2018: Application for Conditional Use Permits to install a new wireless facility (antenna and equipment) on an existing wood utility pole located within the right-of-way. I respectfully request that the Planning Commission table the discussion and approval of the wireless sites until such time as the City of Burlingame has a strategy to deal with the impending applications for networks of sites. Dealing with these two applications (701 Winchester Drive and 1800 Hillside Drive) early, solely because no citizens protested these particular sites, risks setting a dangerous precedent that could affect the scores of applications the City will face in the coming years. I support the need to improve wireless coverage and capacity within Burlingame, and understand the City must work within the Federal and States laws regulating the placement of wireless antennas in our neighborhoods. At the same time our City has an opportunity to reduce the visual impact and establish the best arrangement for all parties. Burlingame City Council, in their discussion last week, wisely noted that there will likely be applications for many sites over the coming years. The two sites up for discussion are the first of seven applications from AT&T Wireless, who have also predicted nine more over the next two years. We have just received applications from Verizon for seven sites. And we can predict that T-Mobile and Sprint will come along soon. With each site covering a radius of 300 feet and four carriers, we could easily see up to six sites per block on average in our residential district (assuming 1,000 feet/block as in Easton Addition) within a few years. We must plan for this future and avoid setting precedents that will be difficult to undo. Setting the right precedent is important because there are many variables in play at the same time. Burlingame has some influence over the location of the sites, the aesthetics, monthly lease fees and terms for City-owned poles, network design, and more. We must negotiate from strength to reach a fair balance. Leaving any of the elements off the table or approving the networks piecemeal reduces our leverage considerably. 03.12.18 PC Meeting Item 6b CUP to install new wireless facility (antenna & eqpt.) Right-of-way adjacent to 701 Winchester Dr. Right-of-way adjacent to 1800 Hillside Dr. Page 1 of 2 COMMUNICATION RECEIVED AFTER PREPARATION OF STAFF REPORT RECEIVED MAR 12 2018 CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD – PLANNING DIV. Regarding these particular applications, we would like to see more discussions about the time, place, and manner: 1. Regarding placement, the ordinance clearly indicates a preference for carriers to use the easements. The planning department asked the question of AT&T, but the answer was inadequate. We should be able to ask them to demonstrate factually why the nearest easement will not meet their needs. From their coverage maps it should make little difference to the number of homes covered by an alternative site. 2. The ordinance also favors camouflaged locations, including in buildings such as church steeples and playing field scoreboards. I have heard no evidence that the carriers or the City have explored such locations to mutual advantage. 3. There does not appear to have been discussion about co-location, which could considerably reduce the number of sites ultimately required. From what we understand one pole can support multiple carriers, even if it requires the addition of more radio remote boxes. The net visual impact of co-located sites is likely far less than having individual sites for each carrier. 4. Beyond these other factors there are likely many ways to reduce the visual effect of an antenna and support equipment on a residential street. We have yet to push the envelope to determine whether carriers can design equipment boxes to fit inside the poles; apply newer, more compact technology to reduce the size of boxes; or bury some of the equipment. Yes, these options will be more costly for the carriers, so it is natural their first applications will be biased to reducing their costs. Each application under consideration will add about 10.3 cubic feet of mass above ground (3.4 cu ft for the boxes, 3.2 cu ft for the pole extension and antenna, and 3.7 cu ft for the conduits), without including the additional fiber optic lines they will hang through the neighborhood to deliver the signal. When City Council asked the AT&T contractor at the meeting last week whether there were other equipment options, he said "yes, some of the boxes can be as small as six inches", although he did not provide all the dimensions. This suggests there is considerable room to move away from multiple hanging boxes that are each 2 ft X 1 ft X 6 inches. The bottom line is we have only begun to negotiate the best terms and conditions for what will be many applications. The first sites the City approves will set the standard. Let us pause and do this properly. Steve Lamont :: 415-354-9723 03.12.18 PC Meeting Item 6b CUP to install new wireless facility (antenna & eqpt.) Right-of-way adjacent to 701 Winchester Dr. Right-of-way adjacent to 1800 Hillside Dr. Page 2 of 2 COMMUNICATION RECEIVED AFTER PREPARATION OF STAFF REPORT March 11, 2018 Ruben Hurin, Senior Planner Community Development Department-Planning Division City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California 94010 RE: Comments for Planning Commission Meeting, March 12, 2018; Study Item 6. b. 1 and 2. Application for CUP to install new wireless facilities (antenna and equipment) on existing PG&E wood utility poles, located at 1800 Hillside Drive and 701 Winchester Drive. Dear Mr. Hurin, Please distribute the following comments to the Planning Commission and cc. the City Council, city manager, city attorney, city engineer, planning director and planning manager. Dear Planning Commission Members, Thank you for having this Study Session on this important issue – the location of “small cell technology” sites. First I discuss general comments on the need for a comprehensive plan to the location of these facilities in the City of Burlingame. I then will discuss specific comments as to the specific proposed projects. General Comments for a Technologically sound Burlingame. What we know: Burlingame is in the center of Silicon Valley and has more and more high tech companies and businesses that require dependable service. Providing good service to all residents and businesses is imperative. Technology will keep evolving and today we are all dependent on cellular facilities for our communication needs. We appreciate that there are 4 major carriers currently servicing our city and each will require upgrades, and will continue to need to do so in the future. Burlingame’s five your old Telecommunications Ordinance is excellent. It was jointly drafted by the City, residents and industry involvement and takes a balanced approach to the needs to preserve the aesthetics of our neighborhood while at the same time providing a means for cell phone providers to upgrade their telecommunication infrastructure. What we need to know: Since I come from an Urban/Environmental Planning background, my first reaction is to suggest that the City prepare and overall telecommunication master plan that incorporates the cell phone carriers needs, the residents’ priorities and the City’s approach to its master planning process. This might include locating areas required for enhanced service now and projected for some time in the future and what different types of technologies may be available today or in the near future to address those needs. 11.27.17 PC Meeting Item 9b 2115 Roosevelt Avenue Page 1 of 1 COMMUNICATION RECEIVED AFTER PREPARATION OF STAFF REPORT RECEIVED MAR 12 2018 CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD – PLANNING DIV. 03.12.18 PC Meeting Item 6b CUP to install new wireless facility (antenna & eqpt.) Right-of-way adjacent to 701 Winchester Dr. Right-of-way adjacent to 1800 Hillside Dr. Page 1 of 2 Perhaps an Inventory of Existing Conditions could help in drafting a Scope of Work. I suggest including the following Mapping and overlay information to identify the preferred and most suitable and unsuitable areas: 1. Mapped inventory of existing City owned poles (identifying those with meters and those without) 2. Locating PG&E power poles in the city. 3. Interested cellular carriers to provide- map showing existing coverage areas; areas currently with holes in coverage; and projected areas in need of coverage (based on zoning/increased development proposals, higher density project areas). 4. Special Decorative Streets / Streetscape Areas identified. 5. Map of prioritized list of streets that the City has identified for undergrounding power lines. Comments specific to current ATT projects 1. The proposed projects are incomplete including “Project Descriptions”. For example, these sites require overhead fiber connecting all of them. AT&T confirms that no overhead fiber route plan has been provided which is part of the project, thereby leaving this proposed project incomplete. The projects therefore should not be “accepted for processing” in its current form. 2. The proposed projects are the lowest on the Location Preference Order (see Telecom Ordinance.) There is no detailed explanation why other locations and technologies could not have been used to achieve the preferred locations in the city. Instead, the statement merely seems to state because AT&T chose a limiting technology with a limited range, it needed the location to be where it wanted it to be. This was not the intent of the Location Preference Order. The analysis starts with why the other locations are not viable based on any technologies that are commercially available. 3. The Design Criteria are not met. Adverse aesthetic impact with increased bulk and height ( 2’ antenna on 7 ‘ extension on top of existing 39 foot and 29 foot wooden PGE power poles. Equipment includes 5 boxes attached to the pole (3 boxes are 1’ x 2’ in size); a 5” diameter coax cable will also be attached to the pole running the entire length of the pole to the antenna. Note: PG&E often requires guy wires to hold up their poles with all the equipment strapped to the pole. Further, additional aesthetic options such as disguising the project as a fake tree, etc. has not been discussed. Lastly, the photo simulations are misleading in that they are missing the complete simulation of the design (e.g., the metal boxes are either not illustrated on all of the photos or are provided in a perspective that minimizes the actual aesthetic impact of the site.) 4. Hillside Drive is a major (east-west) beautiful tree lined street and a major entrance from Highway 280 to Burlingame. Hillside Drive should be a priority for undergrounding power lines, not adding additional clutter. Where will the overhead fiber be routed? 5. The applicant responses to the city engineer comments, (dated 1/8/18 for items #1 and #2), are inadequate. 03.12.18 PC Meeting Item 6b CUP to install new wireless facility (antenna & eqpt.) Right-of-way adjacent to 701 Winchester Dr. Right-of-way adjacent to 1800 Hillside Dr. Page 2 of 3 COMMUNICATION RECEIVED AFTER PREPARATION OF STAFF REPORT 6. Regarding the PG&E power pole(s) at the Winchester Drive site: the existing condition of the two strapped-together power poles looks dangerous as well as ugly. Please refer to the existing conditions photo in the photo simulations. 7. It is hard to understand how this project could be exempt from CEQA since it does not comply with the Telecom Ordinance. Burlingame is beautiful and we hope the city can be kept special with careful assessment for any telecommunications facilities that locate in the city. Thank you all for your attention to this matter. Yours truly, Marsha Lee, homeowner marshaleemjl@gmail.com 03.12.18 PC Meeting Item 6b CUP to install new wireless facility (antenna & eqpt.) Right-of-way adjacent to 701 Winchester Dr. Right-of-way adjacent to 1800 Hillside Dr. Page 3 of 3 COMMUNICATION RECEIVED AFTER PREPARATION OF STAFF REPORT 701 Winchester Drive, Burlingame, CA 94010 CRAN_RSFR_SFOK2_019 10.23.2017 Your Project. Visualized. www.photosims.com Photo simulation as seen looking west across Oak Grove Avenue proposed AT&T antenna proposed AT&T pole mounted equipment Top of Antenna: 38’ 01” Top of Pole: 29’ 01” Bottom of Power Meter: 07’ 00” Ground Level: 00’ 00” 09’ 00” 701 Winchester Drive, Burlingame, CA 94010 CRAN_RSFR_SFOK2_019 10.23.2017 Your Project. Visualized. www.photosims.com Photo simulation as seen looking northeast along Oak Grove Avenue proposed AT&T antenna proposed AT&T pole mounted equipment (view obscured by existing trees) 240 Stockton Street 3rd floor san francisco, ca 94108 t. 415.989.1102 www.modus-corp.com Burlingame Study Session 3.12 Written Response 1. Provide a description of how this facility relates to the overall wireless network for the carrier(s) it is servicing as well as how this facility relates to other wireless facility projects in process of being constructed and/or planned in or near the City of Burlingame. (BMC Section 25.77.060 (a) (3)). Please see attached propagation map for the proposed node (attached). The propagation map shows the increase in coverage the proposed node will provide, compared to the current state of coverage. The proposed node is necessary in order to improve the capacity of the existing 4G LTE network. These nodes will be configured with a PCS band LTE carrier and a AWS band LTE carrier; this will improve the coverage of our primary capacity spectrum in the localized area. This means that the performance of the 4G LTE network will be substantially improved in the area of focus. This is especially impactful for those who rely on the AT &T network for broadband data services and who increasingly use their mobile phones as their primary communication device (landlines to residences have decreased significantly) and rely on their mobile phones to do more (E911, GPS, web access, text, etc.). The proposed site will assist with off -loading traffic from the macro sites (shown in the Burlingame node map) and provide substantial improvement in service to residents in the area that will allow them to fully experience the advantage of AT &T’s high speed 4G LTE. The proposed nodes are Centralized Radio Access Network (CRAN) sites, that differ from Distributed Antenna Systems (DAS) because CRAN are lower powered and provide capacity rather than coverage. The CRAN sites would be used for offloading two macro sites in Burlingame (see attached map). The CRAN sites are strategically placed to improve the network and will be connected to each other with overhead fiber. 2. Include a description of how the proposed wireless communication facility fits into the individual service provider’s network of existing and proposed wireless communication facility sites within a tentative two (2) year plan. (BMC Section 025.77.060 (a) (5)). AT&T will be proposing 9 additional site locations in Burlingame over the next two years. The nodes will likely be placed on City-owned assets, although the locations are still being finalized. The propagation map (attached) details precisely how the proposed 7 nodes fit into this plan, and details exactly where the nodes will be providing coverage. 3. Provide an explanation of the reason that the proposed facilities cannot be deployed at a higher-preference location. In determining the location of proposed wireless communication facilities, applicants should use best efforts to comply with the location preference order outlined in BMC Section 25.77.080: a. Non-Residential Zoning Districts which are more than 500 feet from Residential Zoning Districts or the Burlingame Downtown Districts. b. Non-Residential Zoning Districts within 500 feet from Residential Zoning Districts or the Burlingame Downtown Districts. c. Residential Zoning Districts. These CRAN sites have a maximum effective radius of 300 feet and therefore require the sites to be much closer together than the larger macro sites. These small cell facilities are not meant to increase the coverage area but to assist with unloading traffic from the macro site, which is why each site was carefully selected by AT&T’s radio frequency engineer. Small cell facilities increase data speed and decrease the number of dropped calls. Because of this they are placed in specific locations of need, in order to service a targeted community. T he target community for these sites are specific residential areas, intersections, and El Camino Real, which can only be reached by these proposed node locations. The proposed project will utilize the least intrusive design for this type of wireless faci lity and the antenna will be painted to match the color of the existing wood pole. The facility will use RRUs - 32s that produce no sound, significantly below the 47 decibel limit in the “quietest residential zone” in Burlingame, and therefore will not disturb residents. The proposed cylindrical antenna will match the approximate shape and diameter of the pole, as well as be painted to match the brown wood pole color. The radio units mounted on the pole will also be painted to match the color of the pole. Right-of-Way Adjacent to 701 Winchester Drive City of Burlingame Conditional Use Permit Address: Right-of-Way Adjacent to 701 Winchester Drive Meeting Date: June 11, 2018 Request: Application for a Conditional Use Permit to install a new wireless facility (antenna and equipment) on an existing wood utility pole located within the right-of-way adjacent to 701 Winchester Drive (existing utility pole is located along Oak Grove Avenue). Applicant: Abigail Reed, Modus LLC APN: N/A, in right-of-way Property Owner: Joint Pole Association Lot Area: N/A Architect: Borges Architectural Group Zoning: R-1 General Plan: Low Density Residential Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303, New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, Class 3, consists of construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures; installation of small new equipment and facilities in small structures; and the conversion of existing small structures from one use to another where only minor modifications are made in the exterior of the structure. Planning Commission Review: While the Planning Commission generally does not review projects or improvements proposed within the right-of-way, the Wireless Communications Ordinance states that a conditional use permit for a wireless communication facility may be granted only after a public hearing before and approval by the Burlingame Planning Commission (Code Section 25.77.050 (c)). The Planning Commission is limited to reviewing and discussing the proposed design of the wireless facility and not the radio frequency (“RF”) emissions since the proposed wireless facility complies with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) RF emissions regulations. Federal law prohibits cities from considering RF emissions as a basis for denying or restricting cellular facilities. The Planning Commission should limit and focus their comments on the design of the wireless facility based on the design criteria listed on pages 6 and 7. Wireless Communications Ordinance: Wireless telecommunications facilities are licensed and regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission and the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996. The City can, within limited discretion, control the time, place, and manner of installation. The Wireless Communications Ordinance was adopted by the City Council on February 6, 2012 (Chapter 25.77 – Wireless Communications Facilities is attached for review). The purpose of this ordinance is to maintain and more importantly, to facilitate modernization of Burlingame’s communications infrastructure in a manner that improves the quality of the City’s environment, the pleasant aesthetics of the City’s neighborhoods, the City’s architectural traditions dating to the early 20th century and the visual quality in the non-residential areas of the City. More specifically, the purpose of this ordinance is to regulate, as allowed by state and federal law and regulations, the location of communications facilities in the City of Burlingame in a manner that recognizes the community benefits of communications technology, which provides clear guidance to the communications industry but also recognizes the strong need to preserve the City’s aesthetic traditions. Background: In recent years, wireless telecommunication service providers have indicated they are experiencing increased customer demand, particularly with respect to data capacity and wireless broadband speed. In order to address this demand, wireless providers are installing small cell antennas placed in densely populated areas that have been determined to need additional network capacity, such as downtowns, heavily used traffic corridors or areas that cannot be effectively served by traditional macro cells. These small cell wireless antennas are not intended to replace macro cell sites, but to fill in areas that do not have sufficient capacity. Item No. 8a.1 Regular Action Item Conditional Use Permit Right-of-Way Adjacent to 701 Winchester Drive 2 AT&T has submitted several applications for new wireless facilities in or near residential zones throughout the City. These applications consist of adding an antenna and associated equipment onto existing PG&E owned wood utility poles located within the public right-of-way. The proposed locations include existing PG&E utility poles adjacent to properties located at: 1505 Bernal Avenue 1800 Hillside Drive 1210 Oak Grove Avenue 1480 Broadway 937 Larkspur Drive 701 Winchester Drive 977 El Camino Drive At the request of the applicant, Planning staff is first bringing forward the proposed applications adjacent to 701 Winchester Drive and 1800 Hillside Drive for review by the Planning Commission. The remaining applications will be presented at future Planning Commission meetings. Staff would also note that Verizon recently submitted 12 similar small cell wireless antenna applications for installations on PG&E utility poles in the right-of-way; staff is currently reviewing those applications for completeness. This brings the total number of applications currently being reviewed to 19; staff anticipates additional applications to be submitted. Lastly, on March 5th the City Council reviewed information pertaining to the placement of wireless cell antennas and related equipment on City-owned utility poles (street light poles). The Council directed staff to provide additional information, but indicated that based on the information provided it may consider allowing installations on City-owned utility poles in the future. Currently there is one similar wireless facility installation on an existing utility pole located at the corner of Peninsula Avenue and Stanley Road. This wireless facility was installed prior to adoption of the Wireless Communications Ordinance, which at that time only required an encroachment permit. Study Meeting: At the March 12, 2018 Planning Commission study meeting, the Commission asked the applicant to provide responses to the questions listed below about the proposed application (see attached March 12, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes). Responses to these questions can be found in the attached response letter, date stamped May 24, 2018. There were no changes to the plans reviewed at the study meeting. Concerned about aesthetics. Not seeing the entire picture since the information regarding fiber-optic cable is not included in the information. Can be a significant difference between what is shown in the exhibits. We don't know where all of the installations are going to be installed - are providing what the customers are requesting to be provided. Need to see the full picture of what the installations will look like. Need some proof regarding why the sites have been selected. Agreed with comments regarding the Commission's role in reviewing the applications. Need to investigate locations that are not as visible. Why can't facilities be shared? There must be something that can be used for multiple servers. Provide information on improvements in technology. The Planning Commission expressed a concern about what happens when installations become obsolete. Specifically, who is responsible for removing the facility and how does the City decide when the facility should be removed. Burlingame Municipal Code Section 25.77.170 (Cessation of Operations) provides the following requirements for vacating or ceasing operations: (a) Vacation. The service provider shall notify the Community Development Director of the intent to vacate a site at least thirty (30) days prior to the vacation. Conditional Use Permit Right-of-Way Adjacent to 701 Winchester Drive 3 (b) Cessation of Operations. If a wireless communication facilities site is not operated for a continuous period of twelve (12) months, the conditional or administrative use permit for that facility shall be deemed terminated unless before the end of the twelve (12) month period: (1) The Community Development Director has determined that the same operator resumed operation; or (2) The City has received an application to transfer the permit to another service provider. (c) No later than ninety (90) days from the date the facility is determined to have ceased operation or the Provider has notified the Community Development Director of the intent to vacate the site, the owner of the wireless communication facilities or the owner of the property on which the facilities are sited shall remove all equipment and improvements associated with the use and shall restore the site to its original condition as required by the Community Development Director. The provider or owner may use any bond or other assurances provided by the operator to do so. The owner or his or her agent shall provide written verification of the removal of the facilities within thirty (30) days of the date the removal is completed. (d) If the facility is not removed within thirty (30) days after the permit has been discontinued pursuant to either subsection (a) or (b) of this section, the site shall be deemed to be a nuisance pursuant to Chapter 1.18 of the Burlingame Municipal Code, Nuisance Abatement, and the City may cause the facility to be removed at the owners’ expense or by calling any bond or other financial assurance to pay for removal. If there are two (2) or more users of a single tower, then this provision shall apply to the abandoned antenna but not become effective for the tower until all users cease using the tower. The requirement for removal of equipment in compliance with this section shall be included as a provision in any lease of private property for placement of wireless communication facilities. (Ord. 1870 § 2, (2012); Ord. 1869 § 3, (2012)) The Commission also expressed a concern that the City does not have a master plan for this type of installation, noting that although the City can't ask the vendors to prepare a master plan, the City may want to consider engaging an independent engineer to work on the City's behalf to address this type of application. Planning staff would note that cities either don’t have a master plan in place or are in the process of creating a master plan for these facilities. Project Description: The applicant, Abigail Reed, agent for AT&T, is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit to install a new wireless communication facility (wireless facility) on an existing wood utility pole owned by the Joint Pole Association. The existing utility pole also contains a street light, which is operated by PG&E. The proposal includes installing a cylindrical antenna and extension on top of an existing utility pole and associated equipment and cabling mounted on the side of the utility pole. An application for a Conditional Use Permit is required because the project consists of installing a new wireless facility (not a co-location) and because it is located in a residential zoning district. The PG&E utility pole is located within the right-of-way at the corner of Winchester Drive and Oak Grove Avenue, adjacent to the parcel with an address of 701 Winchester Drive. The utility pole is located along Oak Grove Avenue, in the planter strip between the sidewalk and street. The proposed site is surrounded by single family and duplex residential uses to the north and Burlingame High School athletic facilities to the south. There are existing street trees on either side of the utility pole, which would not need to be removed to accommodate the proposed wireless facility. In their responses to plan review comments, AT&T notes that “the proposed site will assist with off-loading traffic from the macro sites and provide substantial improvement in service to residents in the area that will allow them to fully experience the advantage of AT&T’s high speed 4G LTE. This is especially impactful for those who rely Conditional Use Permit Right-of-Way Adjacent to 701 Winchester Drive 4 on the AT&T network for broadband data services and who increasingly use their mobile phones as their primary communication device and rely on their mobile phones to do more.” Visual simulations depicting existing and proposed site conditions are attached to the staff report for review. The proposed antenna, equipment and cabling are proposed to be painted to match the utility pole. The proposed wireless facility application consists of the following: 1) Install one (1) new cylindrical antenna and extension on top of an existing wood utility pole. The antenna measures 9.45” in diameter and 23.63” tall. In order to comply with minimum clearance requirements, the antenna is installed on a 7’-0” wooden extension and mounting bracket on top of the utility pole (see existing and proposed elevations on sheets A-3.1 and A-3.2). The top of the existing utility pole measures 29’-1” in height. The proposed antenna, extension and mounting bracket increases the overall height of the pole to 38’-1” above grade, or 9’-0” above the top of the existing pole. There are no cabinets proposed at grade within the right-of-way. 2) Install equipment associated with the antenna onto the side of the existing utility pole using a mounting bracket. The equipment includes two (2) twin duplexers, two (2) radio remote units, one (1) fiber distribution panel, one (1) electric load center and one (1) power meter, with the following dimensions: Twin duplexers: 0’-8⅜” wide x 0’-4⅝” tall x 0’-3½” deep Radio remote units: 1’-0” wide x 2’-0” tall x 0’-6” deep Fiber distribution panel: 0’-8” wide x 0’-10” tall x 0’-4½” deep Electric load center: 0’-9” wide x 1’-1” tall x 0’-4½” deep Power meter: 1’-0” wide x 2’-0” tall x 0’-4⅝” deep Including the mounting bracket, the equipment extends approximately 1’-8” from the face of the utility pole. The equipment is proposed to be mounted on the side of the utility pole facing the sidewalk. As proposed, the equipment would not extend into the sidewalk area; a minimum clearance of 7’-0” is provided between the ground and the bottom of the equipment. 3) Install coaxial cables associated with the antenna and equipment in 1½” and 3” conduits mounted on the utility pole. As previously noted, AT&T has submitted a total of seven applications for new wireless facilities to be installed on wood utility poles located within the right-of-way. The applicant provided a map showing AT&T’s existing and proposed wireless facility locations over the next two years, including installations within the downtown, Rollins Road and Bayfront areas. AT&T also provided a propagation map which shows the increased coverage the proposed node adjacent to 701 Winchester Drive will provide compared to existing conditions. Propagation maps for the remaining six locations are provided for reference. The applicant notes that “small cell technology has a maximum effective radius of 300 feet and therefore requires the sites to be much closer together than the larger macro sites. These small cell facilities are not meant to increase the coverage area but to assist with unloading traffic from the macro site, which is why each site was carefully selected by AT&T’s radio frequency engineer. Small cell facilities increase data speed and decrease the number of dropped calls. Because of this they are placed in specific locations of need, in order to service a targeted community. The target community for these sites are specific residential areas, intersections, and El Camino Real, which can only be reached by these proposed node locations.” The applicant also notes that “the proposed facilities are Centralized Radio Access Network (CRAN) sites. These differ from Distributed Antenna Systems (DAS) because CRAN are lower powered and provide capacity Conditional Use Permit Right-of-Way Adjacent to 701 Winchester Drive 5 rather than coverage. The CRAN sites are strategically placed to improve the network and will be connected to each other with overhead fiber.” The fiber is 0.8-inch thick and will be painted to match the pole color. The applicant notes that most of the sites will have above ground fiber, while one will be underground. “Overhead fiber will pull from, or extend, existing fiber located at the communication level along the existing lines and travel down the pole to the fiber distribution panel”. The fiber/cables will be installed under separate permits; fiber routes are unknown at this time. Public Outreach: Pursuant to the City’s ordinance, the applicant is encouraged to perform an early stage outreach with residents and property owners near the proposed wireless facility in order to address and, if possible, resolve any impacts of the proposed facilities on the surrounding neighborhood. The applicant sent out an informational notice to all residents/property owners within 300 feet of the proposed wireless facility (see attached copy of notice). The notice provides a description of the proposed facility and AT&T contact information for individuals with comments or questions about proposed facility. The applicant reported that they did not receive any comments or questions for this proposed installation prior to the study meeting. After hearing concerns expressed by neighbors at the March 12, 2018 study meeting, the applicant invited concerned residents to a meeting at the project site on April 19, 2018. Several residents attended the meeting to ask questions and discuss the proposed project with the applicant and a representative from Hammett & Edison (preparers of the radio-frequency report). Additional information about the design and radio-frequency exposure levels was provided in a follow-up email to those who attended. Location Preference Order: The City’s ordinance requires that in determining the location of proposed wireless communication facilities, applicants should use best efforts to comply with the location preference order listed below. Wireless communication facilities must be located where feasible in the locations listed below by descending priority. Per the current ordinance, placement on existing utility poles is low in preference, if not the lowest in certain areas. If applicable, the applicant shall include an explanation of the reason that the proposed facilities cannot be deployed at a higher-preference location. Please refer to the attached document title ‘Burlingame Study Session 3.12 Written Response’ date stamped March 7, 2018 for reasons this location was chosen. 1) Locations within Non-Residential Zoning Districts, which are more than five hundred (500) feet from Residential Zoning Districts or the Burlingame Downtown Districts and which are not within the Burlingame Downtown Districts. (A) Completely enclosed within existing, permitted buildings. (B) Located on electric power transmission towers. (C) Co-located on existing wireless communications facilities. (D) The roof of existing structures (buildings, water tanks, etc), designed to blend in with the building, camouflaged or screened from the public right-of-way which constitutes a pedestrian travel corridor. (E) The side of existing structures (buildings, water tanks, etc.), designed to blend in with the building, camouflaged or screened from the public right-of-way which constitutes a pedestrian travel corridor. (F) Camouflaged stealth structure (a false tree, building, artifice, etc). (G) Existing utility poles, with all ancillary equipment placed underground if feasible, camouflaged or screened. (H) Existing utility distribution poles and street lights. (I) Slim line monopole, with antennas in a canister at the same diameter as the pole. (J) Standard monopole with attached flush-mounted (not extending more than twenty-four (24) inches from the pole) antenna elements. Conditional Use Permit Right-of-Way Adjacent to 701 Winchester Drive 6 2) Non-Residential Zoning Districts within five hundred (500) feet of Residential Zoning Districts or the Burlingame Downtown Districts, and the Burlingame Downtown Districts. (A) Integrated into non-residential uses (libraries, churches, temples, etc.) designed to blend in with open space (playing fields, parking lots, parks, etc.); hidden from pedestrian view by means of stealth design, stealth structures, architectural integration or screening. (B) Co-located on existing wireless communications facilities which are in compliance with the provision of this chapter. (C) In public right-of-way, within new light poles with interior stealth installations of cabling and antenna, and to the extent feasible, control equipment. (D) In public right-of-way, on existing utility or light poles, with all ancillary equipment either underground, if feasible, camouflaged, screened or painted to blend into the surrounding structure. 3) Residential Zoning Districts. If located within a residential zoning district, the following guidelines apply: (A) Integrated into non-residential uses (libraries, churches, temples, etc.) or designed to blend in with open space (playing fields, parking lots, parks, etc.); hidden from view by means of stealth design, stealth structures, architectural integration or screening. (B) Co-located in existing wireless communications facilities which are in compliance with the provisions of this chapter. (C) In public right-of-way, within new light poles with interior stealth installations of cabling and antennae, and to the extent feasible, control equipment. (D) In public right-of-way, on existing utility or light poles, with all ancillary equipment either underground, if feasible, camouflaged, screened or painted to blend into the surrounding structure. Design Criteria: The goal of the City’s regulations is to reduce to the greatest extent possible all visual impacts resulting from the installation of wireless communications facilities. Stealth design and stealth structures for these facilities shall be considered the normal standard for all wireless communications facilities. Non-stealth designs and structures shall not be approved without evidence, independently verified, that it is not possible (using best efforts by applicant) to stealth such facilities. Applications shall be reviewed to determine compliance with the following criteria. If the applicant’s proposed facility cannot comply with the following criteria, the application shall include a detailed explanation of why it is not reasonably feasible to comply with the criteria. Please refer to the attached document title ‘Burlingame Study Session 3.12 Written Response’ date stamped March 7, 2018 for reasons some of the criteria were not met. (a) Wireless communication facilities should be co-located where feasible and where the co-location does not create an adverse aesthetic impact due to such factors as increasing the bulk, the height or the amount of noise created by the proposed co-located facilities. (b) Wireless communication facilities should to the greatest extent feasible, not be located in Residential Zoning Districts. However, staff would note that the California Public Utilities Commission has determined that wireless providers are a utility and therefore have rights of use of public right-of-ways as other utility. (c) Wireless communication facilities should be designed, located and constructed in a manner that minimizes visual and auditory impacts of the facilities. The wireless communication facilities shall blend into the surrounding environment and/or shall be architecturally integrated into a structure, considering the color, design and character of the surrounding context (e.g., public art, clock towers, Conditional Use Permit Right-of-Way Adjacent to 701 Winchester Drive 7 flagpoles, trees/vegetation, rocks, water tank, existing office/industrial buildings, and church steeples). Specifically, the proposed facilities shall comply, to the greatest extent feasible, with the following: (1) The facilities should be concealed, screened or camouflaged by the surrounding topography, vegetation, buildings, or other setting. (2) The facilities should be proportional in size relative to surrounding and supporting structures and ability for co-location by other providers. (3) Roof-mounted facilities should be, out of view and screened; these facilities shall be set back at least one foot from the edge of the roof for every one foot of antenna height and shall not exceed ten (10) feet in height above the roof surface. (4) Wall-mounted facilities should be compatible in scale and design with the building, shall be flush mounted, i.e., not extending from the face of the building more than twenty-four (24) inches and shall be painted and/or textured to match the wall of the building. All cables and brackets, wires, shall also be hidden. (5) All facilities should be constructed of graffiti-resistant materials. (6) All concealing, screening, painting, camouflaging and/or use of stealth designs and stealth structures should be consistent with Section 25.77.010 (Purpose) including, but not limited to, promoting wholesome, attractive, harmonious and economic use of property, building construction, civic service, activities and operations in conformity with and preserving the overall aesthetics of City neighborhoods including its character and its century old architectural traditions. (d) Where applicable, appropriate landscaping should be installed in and around the proposed wireless communication facilities. (e) Any exterior lighting on the facilities should have a manual on/off switch and be contained on-site. (f) Ground equipment of the facilities should be concealed, screened, camouflaged or hidden using stealth design, stealth structures, underground installation or landscaping and fencing. (g) Signage in, on or near any facilities should be prohibited with the exception of warning and informational signs, which shall be designed with minimal aesthetic impact. (h) Wireless communication facilities should be discouraged in areas subject to the City’s hillside construction permit as designated in Section 25.61.010; if facilities cannot be avoided in the hillside areas, then visual impacts should be eliminated through stealth design, stealth structures and landscaping. (i) Support wires for structures should be discouraged. (j) The wireless communication facilities should be designed to discourage unauthorized access. Radio Frequency Study: Staff would note that cities may not regulate placement, construction or modification of wireless communications facilities based on radio frequency (“RF”) emissions if the proposed wireless facility complies with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) RF emissions regulations. Federal law prohibits cities from considering RF emissions as a basis for denying or restricting cellular facilities. An evaluation of the proposed wireless facility was prepared by Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers, dated November 17, 2017, for compliance with appropriate guidelines limiting human exposure to radio frequency (“RF”) electromagnetic fields (see attached full report). The report concluded that operation of the node proposed by AT&T at this location “will comply with the prevailing standards for limiting public exposure to Conditional Use Permit Right-of-Way Adjacent to 701 Winchester Drive 8 radio frequency energy and, therefore, need not for this reason cause a significant impact on the environment. The highest calculated level in publicly accessible areas is much less than the prevailing standards allow for exposures of unlimited duration. This finding is consistent with measurements of actual exposure conditions taken at other operating nodes.” The evaluation prepared by Hammett & Edison, Inc. concludes that the proposed wireless facility will be compliant with Radiofrequency Radiation Exposure Limits established by the FCC. Therefore, the City cannot use RF emissions as a reason for denying the modification request. Staff Comments: See attached memos from the Engineering and Parks Divisions. The application was reviewed by the Public Works Department and determined that the proposed facilities will not interfere with, present a hazard to, or otherwise incommode the use of the right-of-way. The Building, Fire and Stormwater Divisions had no comment on the proposed application. Findings for a Conditional Use Permit: In order to grant a Conditional Use Permit, the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.52.020, a-c): (a) The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience; (b) The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Burlingame general plan and the purposes of this title; (c) The planning commission may impose such reasonable conditions or restrictions as it deems necessary to secure the purposes of this title and to assure operation of the use in a manner compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the application, and consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report. Action should include specific findings supporting the Planning Commission’s decision, and should be affirmed by resolution of the Planning Commission. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: 1. that the conditional use permit to install a new wireless communication facility within the right-of-way on an existing PG&E wood utility pole, consisting of a cylindrical antenna, extension on top of the utility pole, two (2) twin diplexers, two (2) radio remote units, one (1) fiber distribution panel, one (1) electric load center and one (1) power meter, shall be valid for ten (10) years from the date of approval. At least one hundred twenty (120) days prior to the expiration of the initial ten (10) year term, the applicant shall complete and submit a renewal application to the Community Development Director; 2. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped March 2, 2018, sheets T-1, GN-1, C1, A-1 through A-7, E-1 and E-2; 3. that the conditions of the Engineering Division’s November 3, 2017 and January 8, 2018 memos shall be met; 4. that prior to commencing any work at the site, the contractor commissioned by the applicant to perform the work shall obtain all required permits, such as a construction Encroachment Permit and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Permit from the Department of Public Works – Engineering Division; Conditional Use Permit Right-of-Way Adjacent to 701 Winchester Drive 9 5. that all units must be at least seven (7) feet clear and above the highest adjacent finished grade, no exceptions shall be allowed; 6. that the wireless communication facility shall operate in conformance with all applicable provisions of Chapter 25.77 of the Burlingame Municipal Code (Wireless Communications); where any conflicts exist between the applicable provisions of that chapter and this approval, the more restrictive provision shall apply; 7. that the facility shall meet or exceed current standards and regulations of the FCC, the FAA, and any other agency of the state or federal government with the authority to regulate wireless communication facilities. If such standards and regulations are changed and are made applicable to existing facilities, the owners of the facilities governed by this chapter shall bring such facilities into compliance with such revised standards and regulations within six (6) months of the effective date of such standards and regulations, unless a different compliance schedule is mandated by the controlling state or federal agency. Failure to bring the facility into compliance with such revised standards and regulations shall constitute grounds for the removal of the facilities at the owner’s expense, revocation of any permit or imposition of any other applicable penalty; 8. that the facility shall be constructed of graffiti-resistant materials and shall be painted a non-reflective material consistent with the color scheme on the utility pole; 9. that signage in, on or near the facility shall be prohibited with the exception of warning and informational signs, which shall be designed with minimal aesthetic impact; 10. that within forty-five (45) days of commencement of the facility operation, the applicant shall provide verification by independent qualified experts that the RF (radio frequency) levels of the facility complies with FCC regulations and with the City noise regulations; 11. that the applicant shall conduct a post‐installation field test to confirm that the radio frequency (RF) exposure levels comply with FCC Rules and Regulations, shall submit the comprehensive report to the City, and if necessary, agree to promptly correct any noncompliance; 12. that the applicant shall report to the City every five (5) years from the date of commencement of the facility operation, a review of the condition of the facility, of the facility’s compliance with federal and state regulations and of the facility’s compliance with the provisions of this chapter and the conditions of approval. The applicant shall also provide updated contact information for the owner and the applicant and verifiable confirmation information as to what carrier(s) are using the facility; 13. that the applicant shall procure and maintain a City business license, contact information for the applicant, for the agent responsible for maintenance of the facility and for emergency contact; 14. that the applicant shall either secure a bond, letter of credit or other similar financial assurance, in a form acceptable to the City, for the removal of the facility in the event that its use is abandoned, its operation is ceased or the approval is terminated; 15. that maintenance and repairs to facility shall be permitted provided that such maintenance and repair does not enlarge or extend the facility structure or equipment enclosures or change the number, type, dimensions, of the antenna or related equipment; 16. that current contact information of the person or entity responsible for maintaining and repairing the facility shall be provided to and maintained by the Community Development Department; Conditional Use Permit Right-of-Way Adjacent to 701 Winchester Drive 10 17. that the facility shall be kept clean and free of graffiti, litter and debris. Lighting, walls, fences, shields, cabinets, and poles, shall be maintained in good repair and free of graffiti and other forms of vandalism, and any damage from any cause, including degradation from wind and weather, shall be repaired as soon as reasonably possible to minimize occurrences of dangerous conditions or visual blight. Graffiti shall be removed from any facility as soon as practicable, and in no instance more than two (2) business days from the time of notification by any person or entity; 18. that except for emergency repairs, testing and maintenance activities that will be audible beyond the property line shall only occur between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Monday through Friday, excluding holidays; 19. that the service provider shall notify the Community Development Director of the intent to vacate a site at least thirty (30) days prior to the vacation; 20. that if the facility site is not operated for a continuous period of twelve (12) months, the Conditional Use Permit shall be deemed terminated unless before the end of the twelve (12) month period: (1) The Community Development Director has determined that the same operator resumed operation; or (2) The City has received an application to transfer the permit to another service provider. 21. that no later than ninety (90) days from the date the facility is determined to have ceased operation or the Provider has notified the Community Development Director of the intent to vacate the site, the owner of the wireless communication facilities or the owner of the property on which the facility is sited shall remove all equipment and improvements associated with the use and shall restore the site to its original condition as required by the Community Development Director. The provider or owner may use any bond or other assurances provided by the operator to do so. The owner or his or her agent shall provide written verification of the removal of the facility within thirty (30) days of the date the removal is completed. Ruben Hurin Senior Planner c. Abigail Reed, applicant Conditional Use Permit Right-of-Way Adjacent to 701 Winchester Drive 11 Attachments: March 12, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes Applicant’s Response Letter and Attachments, dated May 24, 2018 and June 5, 2018 Letter Submitted by Matteo and Clydie Rizzo, date stamped March 28, 2018 Email Submitted by Steve Lamont, dated March 10, 2018 Letter Submitted by Marsha Lee, dated March 11, 2018 Chapter 25.77 – Wireless Communications Facilities Application to the Planning Commission Northern California Joint Pole Association Membership Status and Letters of Authorization Scope of Work/Project Description, date stamped September 28, 2017 Conditional Use Permit Application Proof of Outreach, Information Notice prepared by applicant, dated January 17, 2018 Visual Simulations Burlingame Study Session 3.12 Written Response, date stamped March 7, 2018 Existing and Proposed Facility Maps Propagation Maps, dated November 13, 2017 Evaluation of Proposed Wireless Facility, prepared by Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers, dated November 17, 2017 Staff Comments Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed June 1, 2018 Aerial Photo BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, March 12, 2018 b.Application for Conditional Use Permits to install a new wireless facility (antenna and equipment) on an existing wood utility pole located within the right-of-way at the locations listed below. The proposals consist of installing one antenna on top of an existing utility pole and associated equipment attached to the side of the utility pole. (Abigail Reed, Modus LLC, applicant; Joint Pole Association, owner; Borges Architectural Group, architect) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin 1. In right-of-way adjacent to 701 Winchester Drive, zoned R-1 (pole is located on Oak Grove Avenue) (39 noticed) 2. In right-of-way adjacent to 1800 Hillside Drive, zoned R-1 (51 noticed) Chair Gum recused himself from the discussion of this item as he resides within 500-feet of the proposed installation at 701 Winchester Drive; Commissioner Sargent recused himself as he lives within 500-feet of the installation at 1800 Hillside Drive; they left the Council Chambers. All Commissioners had visited the properties. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Community Development Director Meeker provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: There were no questions of staff. Vice-Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Angela Kahn and Helene Nagazarian represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: > Does the San Francisco example that was shown have fiber-optic cable running to it? How will it run in Burlingame's installations? (Kahn: it is buried in that instance. In Burlingame, a separate entity from AT&T will run the fiber-optic cable overhead. The fiber-optic cable will need to run closer to the antenna, above the PG&E lines.) > Clarified that this is not a co-located facility; other providers will seek additional locations and likely run fiber-optic cable to there antennae. > What is the radius served by the installations? (Kahn: 300-500 feet.) Public Comments: Doug Luftman, 2615 Easton Drive: noted that the City worked with residents five-years ago to draft the ordinance. Offered assistance in this matter. Encouraged following the ordinance very closely. Not certain all aspects have been addressed. The ordinance encourages public engagement. The process is moving forward in a piecemeal manner. A master plan approach is needed. The ordinance makes it clear that aesthetics and location are of importance. The most ideal locations within residential areas are in Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 6/5/2018 March 12, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes easements behind properties; though every effort should be taken to keep the installations out of the residential areas. There is no accurate depiction in the application of the installations, the stealth design is not considered, there is a lack of justification regarding location; why are residential areas selected? Should be more engagement of the community and there should be more of a focus on aesthetics. Prakash Amani: not supportive. Every carrier will have their own installations. Is across from a church property with a lot of traffic. Sought more information regarding the radiation emission. There are other alternatives possible. Tom Santoro, 1804 Hillside Drive: lives on Hillside Drive. No one has discussed the radiation and cancer-causing impacts. Will the radiation hurt those children that pass by to go to Our Lady of Angels. Are there any studies that show that the installations are safe? Doesn't want anyone to experience health problems down the road. Perhaps AT&T has studies. Should approach the nearby church and school to discuss with them. Amit Chibber, 1406 Drake Avenue: agreed with prior speakers. What is the dispersal of the radiation from the installation; how much can be expected to enter the nearby homes? Bill Hemet: is an engineer that works with AT&T and other providers. There is no energy emitted from the boxes on the poles, only from the antenna on the top. Have projected exposure levels for every tenth of a meter from the installation. The maximum level of radiation at the ground is .7%; .8% at a nearby home, well below the safe exposure level. Vice-Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: > Noted that a discussion or radio frequencies is "off the table"; meets the standards of the FCC. > Can look at time, place and manner. Concerned about aesthetics. Not seeing the entire picture since the information regarding fiber-optic cable is not included in the information. Can be a significant difference between what is shown in the exhibits. We don't know where all of the installations are going to be installed - are providing what the customers are requesting to be provided. > Concerned when reference is made to potential failure of 911 systems; knows that this is not the full picture. Data is a big need. > Need to see the full picture of what the installations will look like. > Concerned that the City doesn't have a master plan for this type of installation. Has Hillsborough done anything similar to a master plan? > Agrees that a master plan is needed. Individual providers will likely provide plans that the City will need to coordinate. Also need some proof regarding why the sites have been selected. > Agreed with comments regarding the Commission's role in reviewing the applications. Need to investigate locations that are not as visible. > Why can't facilities be shared? There must be something that can be used for multiple servers. > Provide information on improvements in technology. > What happens when the installations become obsolete? Who will remove them? How does the City decide when to remove them? > Can't ask the vendors to prepare a master plan; stuck in a situation where an independent engineer will need to be engaged to work on the City's behalf. > Need to see the full picture. No action is required on this item. Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 6/5/2018 Burlingame ATT Proposed Wood Pole Nodes From: smlamont@gmail.com [mailto:smlamont@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Steve Lamont Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2018 4:37 PM To: GRP-Planning Commissioners <PlanningCommissioners@burlingame.org> Cc: PW/ENG-Syed Murtuza <SMurtuza@burlingame.org>; CD/PLG-Ruben Hurin <RHurin@burlingame.org>; CD/PLG-Bill Meeker <wmeeker@burlingame.org> Subject: Request to table Wireless Antenna discussion pending having a plan With regard to your agenda item 6b at your meeting Monday 12 March 2018: Application for Conditional Use Permits to install a new wireless facility (antenna and equipment) on an existing wood utility pole located within the right-of-way. I respectfully request that the Planning Commission table the discussion and approval of the wireless sites until such time as the City of Burlingame has a strategy to deal with the impending applications for networks of sites. Dealing with these two applications (701 Winchester Drive and 1800 Hillside Drive) early, solely because no citizens protested these particular sites, risks setting a dangerous precedent that could affect the scores of applications the City will face in the coming years. I support the need to improve wireless coverage and capacity within Burlingame, and understand the City must work within the Federal and States laws regulating the placement of wireless antennas in our neighborhoods. At the same time our City has an opportunity to reduce the visual impact and establish the best arrangement for all parties. Burlingame City Council, in their discussion last week, wisely noted that there will likely be applications for many sites over the coming years. The two sites up for discussion are the first of seven applications from AT&T Wireless, who have also predicted nine more over the next two years. We have just received applications from Verizon for seven sites. And we can predict that T-Mobile and Sprint will come along soon. With each site covering a radius of 300 feet and four carriers, we could easily see up to six sites per block on average in our residential district (assuming 1,000 feet/block as in Easton Addition) within a few years. We must plan for this future and avoid setting precedents that will be difficult to undo. Setting the right precedent is important because there are many variables in play at the same time. Burlingame has some influence over the location of the sites, the aesthetics, monthly lease fees and terms for City-owned poles, network design, and more. We must negotiate from strength to reach a fair balance. Leaving any of the elements off the table or approving the networks piecemeal reduces our leverage considerably. 03.12.18 PC Meeting Item 6b CUP to install new wireless facility (antenna & eqpt.) Right-of-way adjacent to 701 Winchester Dr. Right-of-way adjacent to 1800 Hillside Dr. Page 1 of 2 COMMUNICATION RECEIVED AFTER PREPARATION OF STAFF REPORT RECEIVED MAR 12 2018 CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD – PLANNING DIV. Regarding these particular applications, we would like to see more discussions about the time, place, and manner: 1. Regarding placement, the ordinance clearly indicates a preference for carriers to use the easements. The planning department asked the question of AT&T, but the answer was inadequate. We should be able to ask them to demonstrate factually why the nearest easement will not meet their needs. From their coverage maps it should make little difference to the number of homes covered by an alternative site. 2. The ordinance also favors camouflaged locations, including in buildings such as church steeples and playing field scoreboards. I have heard no evidence that the carriers or the City have explored such locations to mutual advantage. 3. There does not appear to have been discussion about co-location, which could considerably reduce the number of sites ultimately required. From what we understand one pole can support multiple carriers, even if it requires the addition of more radio remote boxes. The net visual impact of co-located sites is likely far less than having individual sites for each carrier. 4. Beyond these other factors there are likely many ways to reduce the visual effect of an antenna and support equipment on a residential street. We have yet to push the envelope to determine whether carriers can design equipment boxes to fit inside the poles; apply newer, more compact technology to reduce the size of boxes; or bury some of the equipment. Yes, these options will be more costly for the carriers, so it is natural their first applications will be biased to reducing their costs. Each application under consideration will add about 10.3 cubic feet of mass above ground (3.4 cu ft for the boxes, 3.2 cu ft for the pole extension and antenna, and 3.7 cu ft for the conduits), without including the additional fiber optic lines they will hang through the neighborhood to deliver the signal. When City Council asked the AT&T contractor at the meeting last week whether there were other equipment options, he said "yes, some of the boxes can be as small as six inches", although he did not provide all the dimensions. This suggests there is considerable room to move away from multiple hanging boxes that are each 2 ft X 1 ft X 6 inches. The bottom line is we have only begun to negotiate the best terms and conditions for what will be many applications. The first sites the City approves will set the standard. Let us pause and do this properly. Steve Lamont :: 415-354-9723 03.12.18 PC Meeting Item 6b CUP to install new wireless facility (antenna & eqpt.) Right-of-way adjacent to 701 Winchester Dr. Right-of-way adjacent to 1800 Hillside Dr. Page 2 of 2 COMMUNICATION RECEIVED AFTER PREPARATION OF STAFF REPORT March 11, 2018 Ruben Hurin, Senior Planner Community Development Department-Planning Division City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California 94010 RE: Comments for Planning Commission Meeting, March 12, 2018; Study Item 6. b. 1 and 2. Application for CUP to install new wireless facilities (antenna and equipment) on existing PG&E wood utility poles, located at 1800 Hillside Drive and 701 Winchester Drive. Dear Mr. Hurin, Please distribute the following comments to the Planning Commission and cc. the City Council, city manager, city attorney, city engineer, planning director and planning manager. Dear Planning Commission Members, Thank you for having this Study Session on this important issue – the location of “small cell technology” sites. First I discuss general comments on the need for a comprehensive plan to the location of these facilities in the City of Burlingame. I then will discuss specific comments as to the specific proposed projects. General Comments for a Technologically sound Burlingame. What we know: Burlingame is in the center of Silicon Valley and has more and more high tech companies and businesses that require dependable service. Providing good service to all residents and businesses is imperative. Technology will keep evolving and today we are all dependent on cellular facilities for our communication needs. We appreciate that there are 4 major carriers currently servicing our city and each will require upgrades, and will continue to need to do so in the future. Burlingame’s five your old Telecommunications Ordinance is excellent. It was jointly drafted by the City, residents and industry involvement and takes a balanced approach to the needs to preserve the aesthetics of our neighborhood while at the same time providing a means for cell phone providers to upgrade their telecommunication infrastructure. What we need to know: Since I come from an Urban/Environmental Planning background, my first reaction is to suggest that the City prepare and overall telecommunication master plan that incorporates the cell phone carriers needs, the residents’ priorities and the City’s approach to its master planning process. This might include locating areas required for enhanced service now and projected for some time in the future and what different types of technologies may be available today or in the near future to address those needs. 11.27.17 PC Meeting Item 9b 2115 Roosevelt Avenue Page 1 of 1 COMMUNICATION RECEIVED AFTER PREPARATION OF STAFF REPORT RECEIVED MAR 12 2018 CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD – PLANNING DIV. 03.12.18 PC Meeting Item 6b CUP to install new wireless facility (antenna & eqpt.) Right-of-way adjacent to 701 Winchester Dr. Right-of-way adjacent to 1800 Hillside Dr. Page 1 of 2 Perhaps an Inventory of Existing Conditions could help in drafting a Scope of Work. I suggest including the following Mapping and overlay information to identify the preferred and most suitable and unsuitable areas: 1. Mapped inventory of existing City owned poles (identifying those with meters and those without) 2. Locating PG&E power poles in the city. 3. Interested cellular carriers to provide- map showing existing coverage areas; areas currently with holes in coverage; and projected areas in need of coverage (based on zoning/increased development proposals, higher density project areas). 4. Special Decorative Streets / Streetscape Areas identified. 5. Map of prioritized list of streets that the City has identified for undergrounding power lines. Comments specific to current ATT projects 1. The proposed projects are incomplete including “Project Descriptions”. For example, these sites require overhead fiber connecting all of them. AT&T confirms that no overhead fiber route plan has been provided which is part of the project, thereby leaving this proposed project incomplete. The projects therefore should not be “accepted for processing” in its current form. 2. The proposed projects are the lowest on the Location Preference Order (see Telecom Ordinance.) There is no detailed explanation why other locations and technologies could not have been used to achieve the preferred locations in the city. Instead, the statement merely seems to state because AT&T chose a limiting technology with a limited range, it needed the location to be where it wanted it to be. This was not the intent of the Location Preference Order. The analysis starts with why the other locations are not viable based on any technologies that are commercially available. 3. The Design Criteria are not met. Adverse aesthetic impact with increased bulk and height ( 2’ antenna on 7 ‘ extension on top of existing 39 foot and 29 foot wooden PGE power poles. Equipment includes 5 boxes attached to the pole (3 boxes are 1’ x 2’ in size); a 5” diameter coax cable will also be attached to the pole running the entire length of the pole to the antenna. Note: PG&E often requires guy wires to hold up their poles with all the equipment strapped to the pole. Further, additional aesthetic options such as disguising the project as a fake tree, etc. has not been discussed. Lastly, the photo simulations are misleading in that they are missing the complete simulation of the design (e.g., the metal boxes are either not illustrated on all of the photos or are provided in a perspective that minimizes the actual aesthetic impact of the site.) 4. Hillside Drive is a major (east-west) beautiful tree lined street and a major entrance from Highway 280 to Burlingame. Hillside Drive should be a priority for undergrounding power lines, not adding additional clutter. Where will the overhead fiber be routed? 5. The applicant responses to the city engineer comments, (dated 1/8/18 for items #1 and #2), are inadequate. 03.12.18 PC Meeting Item 6b CUP to install new wireless facility (antenna & eqpt.) Right-of-way adjacent to 701 Winchester Dr. Right-of-way adjacent to 1800 Hillside Dr. Page 2 of 3 COMMUNICATION RECEIVED AFTER PREPARATION OF STAFF REPORT 6. Regarding the PG&E power pole(s) at the Winchester Drive site: the existing condition of the two strapped-together power poles looks dangerous as well as ugly. Please refer to the existing conditions photo in the photo simulations. 7. It is hard to understand how this project could be exempt from CEQA since it does not comply with the Telecom Ordinance. Burlingame is beautiful and we hope the city can be kept special with careful assessment for any telecommunications facilities that locate in the city. Thank you all for your attention to this matter. Yours truly, Marsha Lee, homeowner marshaleemjl@gmail.com 03.12.18 PC Meeting Item 6b CUP to install new wireless facility (antenna & eqpt.) Right-of-way adjacent to 701 Winchester Dr. Right-of-way adjacent to 1800 Hillside Dr. Page 3 of 3 COMMUNICATION RECEIVED AFTER PREPARATION OF STAFF REPORT 701 Winchester Drive, Burlingame, CA 94010 CRAN_RSFR_SFOK2_019 10.23.2017 Your Project. Visualized. www.photosims.com Photo simulation as seen looking west across Oak Grove Avenue proposed AT&T antenna proposed AT&T pole mounted equipment Top of Antenna: 38’ 01” Top of Pole: 29’ 01” Bottom of Power Meter: 07’ 00” Ground Level: 00’ 00” 09’ 00” 701 Winchester Drive, Burlingame, CA 94010 CRAN_RSFR_SFOK2_019 10.23.2017 Your Project. Visualized. www.photosims.com Photo simulation as seen looking northeast along Oak Grove Avenue proposed AT&T antenna proposed AT&T pole mounted equipment (view obscured by existing trees) 240 Stockton Street 3rd floor san francisco, ca 94108 t. 415.989.1102 www.modus-corp.com Burlingame Study Session 3.12 Written Response 1. Provide a description of how this facility relates to the overall wireless network for the carrier(s) it is servicing as well as how this facility relates to other wireless facility projects in process of being constructed and/or planned in or near the City of Burlingame. (BMC Section 25.77.060 (a) (3)). Please see attached propagation map for the proposed node (attached). The propagation map shows the increase in coverage the proposed node will provide, compared to the current state of coverage. The proposed node is necessary in order to improve the capacity of the existing 4G LTE network. These nodes will be configured with a PCS band LTE carrier and a AWS band LTE carrier; this will improve the coverage of our primary capacity spectrum in the localized area. This means that the performance of the 4G LTE network will be substantially improved in the area of focus. This is especially impactful for those who rely on the AT &T network for broadband data services and who increasingly use their mobile phones as their primary communication device (landlines to residences have decreased significantly) and rely on their mobile phones to do more (E911, GPS, web access, text, etc.). The proposed site will assist with off -loading traffic from the macro sites (shown in the Burlingame node map) and provide substantial improvement in service to residents in the area that will allow them to fully experience the advantage of AT &T’s high speed 4G LTE. The proposed nodes are Centralized Radio Access Network (CRAN) sites, that differ from Distributed Antenna Systems (DAS) because CRAN are lower powered and provide capacity rather than coverage. The CRAN sites would be used for offloading two macro sites in Burlingame (see attached map). The CRAN sites are strategically placed to improve the network and will be connected to each other with overhead fiber. 2. Include a description of how the proposed wireless communication facility fits into the individual service provider’s network of existing and proposed wireless communication facility sites within a tentative two (2) year plan. (BMC Section 025.77.060 (a) (5)). AT&T will be proposing 9 additional site locations in Burlingame over the next two years. The nodes will likely be placed on City-owned assets, although the locations are still being finalized. The propagation map (attached) details precisely how the proposed 7 nodes fit into this plan, and details exactly where the nodes will be providing coverage. 3. Provide an explanation of the reason that the proposed facilities cannot be deployed at a higher-preference location. In determining the location of proposed wireless communication facilities, applicants should use best efforts to comply with the location preference order outlined in BMC Section 25.77.080: a. Non-Residential Zoning Districts which are more than 500 feet from Residential Zoning Districts or the Burlingame Downtown Districts. b. Non-Residential Zoning Districts within 500 feet from Residential Zoning Districts or the Burlingame Downtown Districts. c. Residential Zoning Districts. These CRAN sites have a maximum effective radius of 300 feet and therefore require the sites to be much closer together than the larger macro sites. These small cell facilities are not meant to increase the coverage area but to assist with unloading traffic from the macro site, which is why each site was carefully selected by AT&T’s radio frequency engineer. Small cell facilities increase data speed and decrease the number of dropped calls. Because of this they are placed in specific locations of need, in order to service a targeted community. T he target community for these sites are specific residential areas, intersections, and El Camino Real, which can only be reached by these proposed node locations. The proposed project will utilize the least intrusive design for this type of wireless faci lity and the antenna will be painted to match the color of the existing wood pole. The facility will use RRUs - 32s that produce no sound, significantly below the 47 decibel limit in the “quietest residential zone” in Burlingame, and therefore will not disturb residents. The proposed cylindrical antenna will match the approximate shape and diameter of the pole, as well as be painted to match the brown wood pole color. The radio units mounted on the pole will also be painted to match the color of the pole. Right-of-Way Adjacent to 701 Winchester Drive From: m lee [mailto:marshaleemjl@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2018 9:05 AM To: PLG Comm-Brenden Kelly <bkelly@burlingame.org>; pgum@burlingame.org; PLG Comm-Sandy Comaroto <scomaroto@burlingame.org>; PLG Comm-Richard Terrones <rterrones@burlingame.org>; PLG Comm-William Loftis <wloftis@burlingame.org>; PLG Comm-Rich Sargent <rsargent@burlingame.org>; PLG Comm-Michael Gaul <mgaul@burlingame.org>; COUNCIL-Michael Brownrigg <mbrownrigg@burlingame.org>; COUNCIL-Emily Beach <ebeach@burlingame.org>; COUNCIL-Donna Colson <dcolson@burlingame.org>; COUNCIL-Ann Keighran <akeighran@burlingame.org>; COUNCIL-Ricardo Ortiz <rortiz@burlingame.org>; ATTY-Kathleen Kane <kkane@burlingame.org>; MGR-Lisa Goldman <lgoldman@burlingame.org>; CD/PLG-Kevin Gardiner <kgardiner@burlingame.org>; CD/PLG-Bill Meeker <wmeeker@burlingame.org>; CD/PLG-Ruben Hurin <RHurin@burlingame.org> Subject: Re: AT&T cellular CRAN projects (to PC on June 11, 2018) Dear Burlingame Planning Commission and City Council, I am unable to attend the June 11, 2018 Planning Commission meeting and provide the following comments for your consideration. The proposed CRAN cellular projects would be precedent setting. There are 28 proposed projects from Verizon and AT&T projects submitted, and many more applications will follow. After reviewing the staff report and project proponent responses I am disappointed that information requested by the Planning Commission was not provided. 1. The findings can not be supported. 2. There is no coordinated approach (Plan) for the implementation of the CRAN system for a variety of carriers. Please provide some insights on how the city is approaching the cumulative effects of this roll- out. A Categorical Exemption (CE) is not adequate under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The cumulative effects of the "entire" project were not reviewed. 3. The location preference and siting analysis is inadequate. Where is the "investigation for locations not visible" per the Planning Commission request? Where is a discussion of why a macro site installed in the open areas (parks/fields) can't be used effectively to fill in the residential areas? Why can't the easements that run around the neighborhoods be used? Maybe construction is more costly but our neighborhood visual quality shall be maintained per the Burlingame Telecommunications Ordinance and General Plan. 06.11.18 PC Meeting Item 8a CUP to install new wireless facility (antenna & eqpt) Right of way adjacent to 701 Winchester & to 1800 Hillside Page 1 of 2 COMMUNICATION RECEIVED AFTER PREPARATION OF STAFF REPORT RECEIVED JUN 11 2018 CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD – PLANNING DIV. The photos provided by the applicant show the existing clutter of power lines, boxes, cables, guy wires, already on the PG&E poles. They can't just keep adding--This is visual blight and the power poles have structural limits. Adding more and more guy wires and larger poles to hold up all the wires and equipment is unacceptable. The City should be looking at undergrounding lines rather than adding more and more clutter. Please prepare a "prioritized list of streets to underground power lines" that could be used for the dollars that PG&E gives to the cities for this purpose. 4. The photo simulations are still inadequate since it is impossible to determine the visual impact. 10.3 cubic feet of mass above ground and no overhead fiber connections identified. A 3-dimensional scaled model (like architects models for buildings) would show government officials and residents what these structures (potentially occurring every 300 feet all over the city) will look like. Will these look like the very poor example on Stanley and Peninsula Ave? The applicant stated the industry has smaller support equipment. 5. The full PROJECT description is still not provided. Where are the overhead fiber cables located? If all the CRAN sites need to be linked together, and the applications for the sites are submitted, what is the "confidential information" that the applicant can't show? It seems like a waste of staff time, residents time, and taxpayer dollars to bring these applications forward when all the required ordinance information is not provided. I would be much more helpful if the staff reports for public hearing were available for public review for at least a week prior to meetings. Two days over a weekend is too difficult to adequately review. Burlingame's Telecommunications Ordinance aims at protection of Neighborhood aesthetics, promoting the city's quality of the environment, and preserving aesthetic traditions. Please keep this in mind and do not move these 2 projects forward. Sincerely, Marsha Lee marshaleemjl@gmail.com Brian Lee Sent from my iPhone 06.11.18 PC Meeting Item 8a CUP to install new wireless facility (antenna & eqpt) Right of way adjacent to 701 Winchester & to 1800 Hillside Page 2 of 2 From: Stephanie Stephens-Litke [mailto:senoramaldonado@icloud.com] Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2018 1:27 PM To: GRP-Planning Commissioners <PlanningCommissioners@burlingame.org> Subject: Cell sites in Burlingame residential neighborhoods Good afternoon, I understand that ATT is proposing cell sites in multiple Burlingame neighborhoods. I recently moved my family, including an infant, down to Burlingame in part to get away from the cell sites and other tech over population that is rampant in SF. I ask that you seriously consider and fight these applications as you did with Extenent in 2015. Our specific concerns about these applications include: 1. No Progress in Design. The applications are unfortunately similar in placement and appearance to those proposed by Extenet, which the City blocked and fought in court. 2. Worst Locations. The proposed locations are the least-desirable specified in the ordinance. The ordinance makes it clear that the City prefers non-residential placements, stealth installations such as within public buildings, use of Easements, co-locating with existing wireless services, and camouflaged installations. These applications fit none of these. 3. Bad Design and Technology Choices. We believe the carriers can use better technology choices to reduce the visual effect. AT&T has yet to provide realistic photos or 3-D models that would show how each pole would look. The additions to each pole add up to 7.8 cubic feet (1.8 cu.ft. for the antenna and pole extensions, 3.4 cu.ft. for the control boxes, and 1.6 cu.ft. for the conduits). There will also be additional fiber and power lines to run the sites, which are not included in the applications. We know there are alternative technologies that would mount the electronics within the pole, and advances in miniaturization of circuit boards should lead to smaller boxes than we saw six years ago. 4. Lack of Master Plan. If there will be many dozens of wireless facilities in Burlingame over the next few years, we want to see a master plan rather than one-off applications. We believe the citizens of Burlingame deserve to see the total effect. And with a master plan we believe there will be better opportunities to identify better locations, co-locate facilities, and other steps to reduce the blight of these towers. Thank you for your time and diligence. Have a wonderful week. Stephanie, Oscar & Eva Jane Sent with minimal typos from my iPhone 06.11.18 PC Meeting Item 8a CUP to install new wireless facility (antenna & eqpt) Right of way adjacent to 701 Winchester & to 1800 Hillside Page 1 of 1 COMMUNICATION RECEIVED AFTER PREPARATION OF STAFF REPORT RECEIVED JUN 11 2018 CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD – PLANNING DIV. -----Original Message----- From: Lynn Israelit [mailto:lisraelit@att.net] Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2018 4:19 PM To: GRP-Planning Commissioners <PlanningCommissioners@burlingame.org> Subject: Proposed Cell Antenna Installations Dear City Council Members, I would like to voice my concern about the proposed ATT cell antenna installations. I feel that we need to continue to push cell service carriers to come up with better-appearing equipment that is less visually imposing. I also feel we need a master plan as each provider applies for installation of their own equipment on the utility poles of our attractive suburban streets. I know the council has taken a strong and reasonable stand on this issue so far, and I support your efforts in continuing to consider how these installations will affect the Burlingame community. Best wishes, Lynn Israelit 1560 Columbus Ave 06.11.18 PC Meeting Item 8a CUP to install new wireless facility (antenna & eqpt) Right of way adjacent to 701 Winchester & to 1800 Hillside Page 1 of 1 COMMUNICATION RECEIVED AFTER PREPARATION OF STAFF REPORT RECEIVED JUN 11 2018 CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD – PLANNING DIV. -----Original Message----- From: Stewart Perry [mailto:andersonnative@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2018 5:58 PM To: GRP-Planning Commissioners <PlanningCommissioners@burlingame.org> Subject: Re: Neighborhood Cellular Hi Planning Commissioners, Just wanting to write in support of additional cell towers in the neighborhood. I know there are campaigns in opposition. The opposition claims to not be opposed to additional towers and raises all sorts of concerns. Bad site selection. Bad technology. Lack of Community involvement. Etc…. I believe their ultimate goal is to be as restrictive as possible. The current cell coverage in Burlingame is inadequate. I often get only 1 bar reception. Sometimes none at all. And rarely work with more than 3 bars. The lack of coverage is not only frustrating but also dangerous. Of course it is frustrating to have to “step outside” to take calls sometimes. I worry about the potential of dropped calls in emergency situations. I also notice that some people express concerns about cell signals on health. I believe the studies show that there can be a adverse impact on health from too much exposure to cellular technology. But the studies indicate that the biggest risks are using them when they are struggling to get a signal. The best defense against that is good coverage. So I hope that the planning commission will not allow a few well-intentioned but misinformed citizens obstruct reasonable and necessary technological infrastructure improvements in the area. Regards, Stewart Perry 1425 Palm Drive Burlingame 06.11.18 PC Meeting Item 8a CUP to install new wireless facility (antenna & eqpt) Right of way adjacent to 701 Winchester & to 1800 Hillside Page 1 of 1 COMMUNICATION RECEIVED AFTER PREPARATION OF STAFF REPORT RECEIVED JUN 11 2018 CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD – PLANNING DIV. From: Mark Haberecht [mailto:mhabs@comcast.net] Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2018 8:53 PM To: GRP-Planning Commissioners <PlanningCommissioners@burlingame.org> Cc: GRP-Council <council@burlingame.org>; CD/PLG-Ruben Hurin <RHurin@burlingame.org> Subject: June 11, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Item 8a June 10, 2018 Burlingame Planning Commission Cc: Burlingame City Council Dear Sirs and Mesdames, I believe the applications for a Conditional Use Permit for small cell sites as currently proposed to the Commission, should be denied pending the applicant providing answers to the key questions raised by the issues below and the overall community at large. The issues are as follows: Alternative, less invasive locations must be identified to comply with Burlingame’s cell tower ordinance; Burlingame’s Municipal Code outlines that City prefers that cell towers and sites be in non- residential areas, include installations within public buildings/easements, co-locating them with existing wireless services, and camouflage the installations as much as possible. It is clear that the small cell site applications as currently proposed, violate Chapter 25.77 of the Burlingame Municipal Code. The application should include identification of feasible alternatives with respect to 1) location including choosing places near schools, parks, churches, commercial areas (essentially more “open” areas which also help allieve the applicant’s self-identified tree obstruction/foliage problem); 2) camouflage/less aesthetically invasive designs as seen in other Bay Area and California cities. Local and Municipal Laws have been found by the Courts to be the final Governing Law: There is ample case law within Burlingame itself (ExtNet litigation) and other California cities on the small cell citing issue supporting local laws to govern cell site locations, including the impact on aesthetics and well being of a community’s residents. Wireless carriers' attempts to circumvent local laws would be subject to legal challenge from both the City of Burlingame and Burlingame Residents (thereby potentially making less invasive cell/camouflaged options lower cost options from the telecommunications’ firms perspectives). Equipment Noise: Many small cells feature large cabinets and noisy cooling fans to cool equipment (computers or lead-acid battery packs). These fans can generate noises of up to 65 decibels (see references below). The proposed sites do not include much in way of discussion potential noise/magnitude nor its mitigation, particularly that many of these sites are in front of single family residences. We must ensure that any such sites be effectively noiseless, and completely avoid other impacts such as flashing equipment LED/lights. 06.11.18 PC Meeting Item 8a CUP to install new wireless facility (antenna & eqpt) Right of way adjacent to 701 Winchester & to 1800 Hillside Page 1 of 4 COMMUNICATION RECEIVED AFTER PREPARATION OF STAFF REPORT RECEIVED JUN 11 2018 CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD – PLANNING DIV. Comprehensive planning needed for the next generation of services. The current application only references improving "4G” coverage/technology as the reason for the small cell cites. What is left unsaid is that small cell sites are a key enabler for high bandwidth, high capacity 5G services requiring hyper-dense cell placement. Many more such applications for approval will be submitted over the next few years by at least 3 other large telecommunications firms, where there will likely be string of at least dozens of future small cell applications. The rollout of 5G services and the required small cell sites presents three problems: 1) once a utility pole ROW (right of way) is “claimed”, there usually are limited protections precluding the addition of other equipment/boxes needed by the further rollout of 5G; 2) Without a plan for co-location of sites, equipment, you may have 3-4 telecommunications providers seek competing poles, thereby compounding the negative aesthetic, noise, and quality of life impacts; 3) There is nothing preventing any one telecommunications firm securing the ROW on poles for the sole purpose of preventing a competing firm from also installing small cell sites in the most optimal locations. These three issues require a comprehensive city- wide plan for identifying potential cell sites that includes the most non-intrusive locations (commercial areas, schools, parks, churches, stores, gas stations) and maximizes co-location potential. Getting away with the bare minimum: It is evident from the small cell site applications (and analysis of “infeasible” alternatives), that there is minimal intention of trying to improve the aesthetics of the sites. Adding another wood support next to an existing pole (which itself looks like it needs to be replaced), and painting metal equipment a brown color is a far cry from much more effective masking techniques, which have been employed by other Bay Area cities (e.g. San Francisco, see pictures below). The definition of “feasible” vs “infeasible” seems to be determined only by a pole that isn’t shrouded by trees, supported by guy lines, or in a very poor condition. What is “ feasible” is narrowly defined by the applicant by what poles already exist and in what conditions they are in versus what is truly feasible in terms of a workable design that could also include complete replacement of the pole and hiding of the equipment within the pole (see below) at the applicant’s expense. The wireless carriers are expected to spend $275BN in 5G capital expenditures over the next 7 years, so there is ample money to deploy small cells in a way that is far better designed and sensitive to the quaint tree-lined Burlingame residential streets; it cannot be argued that given the monies being spent and what the same firms have already proposed/rolled out in other Cities, that they would be put under any unreasonable financial duress. Moreover, smart co-location strategies can actually help defray the overall combined monetary and externality cost to the public in comparison to having several companies each having dozens of sites to provide the community similar levels of wireless coverage. Examples of well-designed small cell sites (In San Francisco). Note on the bottom photos, the street signs are being used to shroud the equipment boxes. 06.11.18 PC Meeting Item 8a CUP to install new wireless facility (antenna & eqpt) Right of way adjacent to 701 Winchester & to 1800 Hillside Page 2 of 4 06.11.18 PC Meeting Item 8a CUP to install new wireless facility (antenna & eqpt) Right of way adjacent to 701 Winchester & to 1800 Hillside Page 3 of 4 Thank you for your consideration, /s/ Mark Haberecht Mark Haberecht 1505 Balboa Ave References: https://www.fiercewireless.com/wireless/tensions-rise-as-officials-struggle-to-address-small-cell- deployment-challenges https://medium.com/@omarmasry/sb-649-challenges-legislative-pitfalls-a61a4427651a https://datacenterfrontier.com/the-antennas-are-coming-small-cells-are-key-enablers-for-5g- wireless/ https://wia.org/wp-content/uploads/Getting-Ready-for-5G.pdf 06.11.18 PC Meeting Item 8a CUP to install new wireless facility (antenna & eqpt) Right of way adjacent to 701 Winchester & to 1800 Hillside Page 4 of 4 From: Doug Luftman [mailto:doug.luftman@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, June 11, 2018 2:34 AM To: GRP-Planning Commissioners <PlanningCommissioners@burlingame.org> Cc: GRP-Council <council@burlingame.org> Subject: Comments re 701 Winchester Drive and 1800 Hillside Drive applications My name is Doug Luftman and I am a resident of Burlingame (2615 Easton Drive). I unfortunately will not be able to attend the hearing on Monday night and respectfully request that my below written comments be considered by your Commission and submitted into the record. I was encouraged by the Planning Commission’s last hearing on this topic and that it was attempting to avoid the same challenges that we faced so many years ago prior to us having an Ordinance in place. I remain optimistic that the Commission will continue to ask the tough questions to the applicants on this very significant proposed project that will have broad impact and implications for our community. I do remain concerned with the apparent direction and progress of these cell site applications and in the manner that the applicants are attempting to proceed in a piecemeal fashion and not providing altenative approaches to align with the City’s Ordinance (e.g., location preference in particular). As previously stated to the Commission at the last meeting on this topic, I am intimately familiar with the Ordinance because I personally helped draft it with the City and the telecommunication industry a number of years ago. The Ordinance is intended to empower the City to confront these hugely impactful issues for our community in a manner that sets expectations with the applicant that their projects need to be presented in a big picture manner and with an understanding of the City’s priority as to such issues as location and type of aesthetics needed to align with the environment of our City. The Ordinance further sets a tone for the City that it needs to review such applications in a big picture and substantive manner as well. To date, as was summarized nicely by the Action Burlingame group, it is unclear whether such an approach is being fully followed. Admittedly I may not be seeing all of what is being done by the City since I am merely a resident looking from the outside into the City’s process. However, I did want to express concern over how it appears that these applications are being processed: 1) I remain unclear to what extent the City is processing these applications with an eye toward the overall project and not in evaluating the project on a site by site basis, which has been the approach taken before by similar applicants to attempt to obfuscate the significant nature and scope of their overall projects, both with regard to the proposed initial rollout and also with regard to future plans 06.11.18 PC Meeting Item 8a CUP to install new wireless facility (antenna & eqpt) Right of way adjacent to 701 Winchester & to 1800 Hillside Page 1 of 6 COMMUNICATION RECEIVED AFTER PREPARATION OF STAFF REPORT RECEIVED JUN 11 2018 CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD – PLANNING DIV. 2) It also is unclear to what degree the City is processing these applications in a more ministerial manner without setting expectations with the applicant and City staff that more substantive details are needed in order to process these applications. Applicants in the past creatively show the illustrations of the proposed site where the complete aesthetic impact is not fully appreciated. For example, the angles provided and the lack of illustrations of what the site may look like as additional fiber and/or equipment is added, obfuscates the true aesthetic impact of the site. I would expect that the City is (or should be) engaged with a telecom expert familiar with these proposed rollouts to help the City ask the additional tough questions about the proposed projects and why different locations and/or aesthetics are not being applied to these projects. I have the utmost respect for our City staff and hope that they are being provided with the adequate resources, direction and tools from industry experts to help them evaluate these applications. 3) I also am unclear as to whether the City has yet drafted and/or updated the Wireless Communications Facilities Guidelines which the Ordinance states: “By resolution, the City Council will provide Wireless Communications Facilities Guidelines which shall describe and provide pictorial examples of stealth designs for wireless communication facilities, preferred types of screening, landscaping and camouflaging, preferred locations for groundmounted, roofmounted and sidemounted facilities and dimensions for height, setback and bulk.” The reason these Guidelines were incorporated into the Ordinance was to ensure that the Ordinance was aligned with a Master Plan on this topic. It is unclear to what extent the Guidelines and an overall Master Plan on this topic has been pursued. If not, I believe it is critical that such an endeavor be pursued in advance of processing/approving these applications. 4) I understand that cost often is a factor in engaging industry experts and developing such formal and detailed Guidelines and a Master Plans on this subject. In previously speaking to industry representatives on this topic, there has been a suggested willingness to perhaps help fund the City in pursuing its independent development of more detailed Guidelines and a Master Plan on this subject. I would encourage the Commission to please pose in whatever manner is permissible this question to the applicants and to also instruct the City staff to engage with the other industry participants as to their willingness to help accelerate this process through such financial assistance. I remain hopeful that my comments assist in the Commission’s consideration of the applications and I would be happy to further elaborate on and/or assist in any other manner needed. Thank you again for your time and consideration of my comments and for your continued selfless service to our City. 06.11.18 PC Meeting Item 8a CUP to install new wireless facility (antenna & eqpt) Right of way adjacent to 701 Winchester & to 1800 Hillside Page 2 of 6 Regards, Doug Doug Luftman doug@luftman.com 408-205-3500 (mobile) From: Action Burlingame <action.burlingame=gmail.com@mail126.sea61.rsgsv.net> on behalf of Action Burlingame <action.burlingame@gmail.com> Reply-To: <action.burlingame@gmail.com> Date: Sunday, June 10, 2018 at 12:58 PM To: <Doug@Luftman.com> Subject: Act Now to Redirect 19 Neighborhood Cellular Antenna Sites to be Installed in Front of Burlingame Homes Act Now to Redirect 19 Neighborhood Cellular Antenna Sites to be Installed in Front of Burlingame Homes The Planning Commission meeting on Monday June 11, 2018 at 7pm in the City Hall Council Chambers, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA will address two applications for residential wireless cellular site installations. It is important for you to voice your views or concerns by either submitting your comments to the Planning Commission (group email: PlanningCommissioners@burlingame.org) or attending the meeting if you want the City to stand up to AT&T. The two initial sites to be in front of Burlingame homes are: • In right-of-way adjacent to 701 Winchester Drive (pole is located on Oak Grove Avenue) • In right-of-way adjacent to 1800 Hillside Drive AT&T has five additional residential applications in the pipeline, including: 06.11.18 PC Meeting Item 8a CUP to install new wireless facility (antenna & eqpt) Right of way adjacent to 701 Winchester & to 1800 Hillside Page 3 of 6 • 1505 Bernal Avenue • 1210 Oak Grove Avenue • 1480 Broadway • 937 Larkspur Drive • 977 El Camino Drive Verizon has submitted twelve additional residential-area applications. Planning Staff say they expect more applications over time, as each one covers a small area. We support additional wireless coverage and capacity for our neighborhood. We also recognize that Burlingame is restricted by law to just time and manner considerations for how the carriers may implement wireless facilities, rather than having the ability to deny them. Just the same, Burlingame has an effective ordinance for wireless facilities, and successfully defended it in court against Extenet in 2015. It is important that Burlingame residents share their concerns with the Planning Commission and with the City. Without public action, the path of least resistance for the Planning Department is simply to approve all applications as-is. And without pushback from the City, the carriers will choose the lowest-cost and easiest path forward. These initial applications will establish a precedent that could affect many dozens of wireless facilities that may come into our town. Our specific concerns about these applications include: 1. No Progress in Design. The applications are unfortunately similar in placement and appearance to those proposed by Extenet, which the City blocked and fought in court. 2. Worst Locations. The proposed locations are the least-desirable specified in the ordinance. The ordinance makes it clear that the City prefers non-residential placements, stealth installations such as within public buildings, use of Easements, co-locating with existing wireless services, and camouflaged installations. These applications fit none of these. 06.11.18 PC Meeting Item 8a CUP to install new wireless facility (antenna & eqpt) Right of way adjacent to 701 Winchester & to 1800 Hillside Page 4 of 6 3. Bad Design and Technology Choices. We believe the carriers can use better technology choices to reduce the visual effect. AT&T has yet to provide realistic photos or 3-D models that would show how each pole would look. The additions to each pole add up to 7.8 cubic feet (1.8 cu.ft. for the antenna and pole extensions, 3.4 cu.ft. for the control boxes, and 1.6 cu.ft. for the conduits). There will also be additional fiber and power lines to run the sites, which are not included in the applications. We know there are alternative technologies that would mount the electronics within the pole, and advances in miniaturization of circuit boards should lead to smaller boxes than we saw six years ago. 4. Lack of Master Plan. If there will be many dozens of wireless facilities in Burlingame over the next few years, we want to see a master plan rather than one- off applications. We believe the citizens of Burlingame deserve to see the total effect. And with a master plan we believe there will be better opportunities to identify better locations, co-locate facilities, and other steps to reduce the blight of these towers. For more information, please refer to the Action Burlingame site at https://sites.google.com/site/actionburlingame/. Feel free to contact us at action.burlingame@gmail.com if you want to help or if you have any questions. Be sure to write the planning commissioners at PlanningCommissioners@burlingame.org, and the City Council members at council@burlingame.org. We need your help now! Please come out to the meeting or make your voices heard if you want the City of Burlingame to stand up to these carriers and preserve the beauty of our City. Copyright © 2018 Citizens of Burlingame, All rights reserved. Joined the Yahoo Group - No Cell Towers in Burlingame Our mailing address is: Citizens of Burlingame 1534 Plaza Lane, #113 Burlingame, CA 94010 Add us to your address book Want to change how you receive these emails? You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list. From: Ellie Byrd [mailto:erfbyrd@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, June 11, 2018 1:05 PM To: GRP-Planning Commissioners <PlanningCommissioners@burlingame.org> Cc: GRP-Council <council@burlingame.org> Subject: Maintain Burlingame Ordinance with respect to wireless facilities! Dear Planning Commission members and City Council members, We likely cannot attend the meeting tonight, so we want to make sure our position is shared with you with regard to the applications of ATT and Verizon (and/or other carriers) to install more wireless facilities in our neighborhoods. We are among those whose cell reception when at home is often not good. BUT that said we wholeheartedly agree with the ordinances and preferences stated by the city with regard to placements, co-locating and camouflage, even if it means a bit of extra time, planning and cost for the carriers. In the scheme of things, it is not that much extra cost to the carriers. It is very frustrating to hear that the carriers are or might not be giving you exact renderings of the poles and facilities they plan to install - that seems like a basic requirement that should be provided before receiving a vote of approval from the planning commission. It is easy to keep silent as long as the poles and unsightly boxes are ‘not in my backyard’. The current applications are not in our backyard, BUT this is a community-wide issue of importance. With the demand for wireless in our neighborhood, we think it’s imperative the city stand it’s ground as it has in the past, with regard to these applications. A master plan , identifying locations ahead of time and for the future would be very wise, hopefully save you headaches as individual applications are received. I work at a school in the incorporated area of San Mateo - ATT approached the school about locating a cell tower on the edge of the school property. It’s a large tower, but in the end ATT did work with the school to create a cell tower that was camouflouged with the trees on the property. You are welcome to drive by - 201 Polhemus Road, San Mateo. This particular ATT cell tower might be much larger compared to the facilities being proposed for our neighborhoods, but it shows you what can be accomplished! thank you, Ellie Byrd 2505 Poppy Drive Burlingame 06.11.18 PC Meeting Item 8a CUP to install new wireless facility (antenna & eqpt) Right of way adjacent to 701 Winchester & to 1800 Hillside Page 1 of 2 COMMUNICATION RECEIVED AFTER PREPARATION OF STAFF REPORT RECEIVED JUN 11 2018 CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD – PLANNING DIV. From: Joshua Galanter [mailto:galanter@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, June 11, 2018 6:01 PM To: GRP-Planning Commissioners <PlanningCommissioners@burlingame.org> Subject: Applications for residential wireless cellular site installations Dear planning commission, I am writing as a resident of Burlingame (my address is at 2104 Poppy Dr.) in support of the effort by AT&T and Verizon to install cellular antennas in residential areas in Burlingame. While I cannot speak to the question of whether the locations of the antennas are optimal, and to whether any mitigation measures can be undertaken to minimize the appearance of the antennas. I know many of my neighbors oppose the presence of the antennas because of their perceived visual impact. I am supportive of efforts to mitigate the visual impact of the antennas, to the extent that they can be implemented. However, I want to emphasize the need for improved cell phone coverage in Burlingame, and my support for cell towers in the neighborhood. Too often, a small group of highly motivated residents who are most impacted by the location of the towers offer vociferous opposition, which stymies progress for the rest of us. While I don’t want to minimize their concerns (and want to emphasize that I am supportive of efforts to mitigate the visual impact), I want to emphasize the importance of improving coverage, particularly in residential areas of Burlingame which are currently poorly served by our existing infrastructure. Far too often, “not in my back yard” becomes “not at all”, and all of us lose out by having inadequate coverage. As more people drop their land-lines and switch to cell phone only coverage, the situation will only get worse unless the cell phone infrastructure is improved, and I don’t see how that can be done without installing new towers somewhere. While I still have a land line (for connecting to my alarm), I do not use it for calling. I have tried several methods of improving calls, including installing an AT&T microcell in my house and using Wi-Fi calling on my device, and while that has improved the situation, I still suffer from dropped calls, poor connections, and low connectivity. Moreover, these workarounds do not extend when I walk out of range of my house, and I lose connectivity heading down Adeline or Hillside drive. We are only a few years away from 5G connectivity, which may enable the use of wireless technology to bypass other modes of data delivery for household use, finally introducing meaningful competition to the Comcast monopoly in home broadband. It would be a bad precedent for a small group of highly motivated individuals to be enabled to block progress for the majority of Burlingame residents who would like better cellular service and would love the benefits of 5G. And lastly, since I am sure this may be asked, I would not object to a cell phone tower being placed in the vicinity of my home at 2104 Poppy Dr.; I would welcome the improved cellular reception that it would bring with it. Sincerely, Joshua Galanter Josh Galanter ✉� galanter@gmail.com 🔒🔒 galanter@protonmail.com [secure e-mail] ☎� 650.438.9536 [note new number] | | 06.11.18 PC Meeting Item 8a CUP to install new wireless facility (antenna & eqpt) Right of way adjacent to 701 Winchester & to 1800 Hillside Page 1 of 1 COMMUNICATION RECEIVED AFTER PREPARATION OF STAFF REPORT RECEIVED JUN 11 2018 CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD – PLANNING DIV. T-1 TITLE SHEET TITLE SHEET T-1 SHEET INDEX PROJECT TEAM Agent: Jimmy Stillman Modus-Corporation, Inc. 240 Stockton Street, 3rd Floor San Francisco, CA 94108 ph: (530) 913-9577 email: jstillman@modus-corp.com GENERAL CONTRACTOR NOTES DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS THESE DRAWINGS ARE FORMATTED TO BE FULL SIZE AT 36" x 24" (D1). CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL PLANS AND EXISTING DIMENSIONS AND CONDITIONS ON THE JOBSITE AND SHALL IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE ARCHITECT/ENGINEER IN WRITING OF ANY DISCREPANCIES BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH THE WORK OR MATERIAL ORDERS OR BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SAME. DIRECTIONS FROM AT&T's OFFICE DIRECTIONS FROM AT&T's OFFICE AT 5001 EXECUTIVE PARKWAY, SAN RAMON, CA 1.HEAD NORTHEAST ON BISHOP DR TOWARD SUNSET DR 2.TURN RIGHT ONTO SUNSET DR 3.USE THE MIDDLE LANE TO TURN RIGHT ONTO BOLLINGER CANYON RD 4.USE THE RIGHT LANE TO MERGE ONTO I-680 S VIA THE RAMP TO SAN JOSE 5.MERGE ONTO I-680 S 6.TAKE EXIT 30B TO MERGE ONTO I-580 W TOWARD DUBLIN/OAKLAND 7.KEEP LEFT AT THE FORK TO CONTINUE ON I-238 N, FOLLOW SIGNS FOR I-880 8.USE THE RIGHT 2 LANES TO TAKE EXIT 16A FOR INTERSTATE 880 S TOWARD SAN JOSE/SAN MATEO BRIDGE 9.MERGE ONTO I-880 S 10.USE THE RIGHT 2 LANES TO TAKE EXIT 27 TO MERGE ONTO CA-92 W TOWARD SAN MATEO BRIDGE/JACKSON ST 11.USE THE RIGHT 2 LANES TO TAKE EXIT 13B TO MERGE ONTO US-101 N TOWARD SAN FRANCISCO 12.USE THE RIGHT 2 LANES TO TAKE EXIT 419B FOR BROADWAY 13.TURN RIGHT ONTO BROADWAY 14.TURN RIGHT ONTO CALIFORNIA DR 15.TURN LEFT ONTO GROVE AVENUE 16.TURN RIGHT ONTO EL CAMINO REAL 17.TURN LEFT ONTO HILLSIDE DRIVE 18.1800 HILLSIDE DRIVE VICINITY MAP THIS IS AN UNMANNED WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITY FOR AT&T MOBILITY CONSISTING OF THE INSTALLATION AND OPERATION OF AN ANTENNA AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT ON AN EXISTING WOOD UTILITY POLE IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. OCCUPANCY AND CONSTRUCTION TYPE OCCUPANCY : N/A CONSTRUCTION TYPE: G.O. 128 AND 2009 AASHTO 5TH EDITION STANDARD ALL WORK AND MATERIALS SHALL BE PERFORMED AND INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CURRENT EDITIONS OF THE FOLLOWING CODES AS ADOPTED BY THE LOCAL GOVERNING AUTHORITIES. NOTHING IN THESE PLANS IS TO BE CONSTRUED TO PERMIT WORK NOT CONFORMING TO THESE CODES. 1.2016 CALIFORNIA ADMINISTRATIVE CODES (INCL. TITLES 24 & 25) 2.2016 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE 3.2016 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE 4.2016 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE 5.2016 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE 6.2016 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE 7.2016 CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING CODE 8.2016 CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE 9.2016 SAN FRANCISCO CODE AMENDMENTS 10.2016 SAN FRANCISCO BUILDING CODE AMENDMENTS 11.2016 SAN FRANCISCO ELECTRICAL CODE AMENDMENTS 12.2016 SAN FRANCISCO MECHANICAL CODE AMENDMENTS 13.2016 SAN FRANCISCO PLUMBING CODE AMENDMENTS 14.2016 SAN FRANCISCO FIRE CODE AMENDMENTS 15.2016 SAN FRANCISCO GREEN BUILDING CODE AMENDMENTS 16.2016 SAN FRANCISCO HOUSING CODE DISABLED ACCESS REQUIREMENTS FACILITY IS UNMANNED AND NOT FOR HUMAN HABITATION, ACCESSIBILITY REQUIREMENTS ARE NOT REQUIRED, IN ACCORDANCE WITH CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE, CODE OF REGULATIONS, TITLE 24, PART 2, VOLUME 1, CHAPTER 11B, DIVISION 2, SECTION 11B-203.5 CODE COMPLIANCE SURVEYC-1 Project Manager: Jimmy Stillman Modus-Corporation, Inc. 240 Stockton Street, 3rd Floor San Francisco, CA 94108 ph: (530) 913-9577 email: jstillman@modus-corp.com Construction Manager: Kresston Haynes Modus-Corporation, Inc. 240 Stockton Street, 3rd Floor San Francisco, CA 94108 ph: (209) 938-7251 email: khaynes@modus-corp.com Architect / Engineer of Record: Borges Architectural Group, Inc. 1478 Stone Point Drive, Suite 350 Roseville, CA 95661 contact: Brian K. Winslow ph: (916) 782-7200 email: brian@borgesarch.com AT&T Project Manager: Marc Grabbish, SAQ PM AT&T Mobility 5001 Executive Parkway San Ramon, CA 94583 ph: (925) 549-9671 email: mg387k@att.com RF Manager: Jeric Lizardo AT&T Mobility 5001 Executive Parkway San Ramon, CA 94583 ph: (925) 365-0155 email: j8771@att.com SHEET NO.SHEET TITLE SITE PLANA-1 ENLARGED SITE PLAN & ANTENNA PLANA-2 ELEVATIONSA-3 GENERAL NOTESGN-1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION SCOPE OF WORK & SITE COMPLETION CHECKLIST ·ANTENNA & ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT BOXES - INSTALL A NEW TELECOMMUNICATION ANTENNA AND EQUIPMENT BOXES ON AN EXISTING WOOD UTILITY POLE ON GO95 COMPLIANT STANDOFF BRACKET. INSTALLATION CONSISTS OF (1) CANISTER ANTENNA, (2) RRUs-32, (1) ELECTRICAL METER, (1) LOAD CENTER, (2) DISCONNECT SWITCH. ·CABLING - CABLING TO BE INSTALLED IN A TIDY MANNER WITHOUT EXCESS CABLE LOOPS ·SPACING OF SUPPORT ELEMENTS - SUPPORT EQUIPMENT (E.G. RRUS) TO BE CLUSTERED (VERTICALLY) AS CLOSE AS TECHNICALLY FEASIBLE ON POLE. ·LOGO REMOVAL - ALL EQUIPMENT LOGOS, OTHER THAN THOSE REQUIRED BY REGULATION (E.G. NODE IDENTIFICATION) SHALL BE PAINTED OVER OR REMOVED. RAISED OR DEPRESSED TEXT ON RRUS OR OTHER EQUIPMENT, IF PRESENT, SHALL BE SANDED OFF OR SIMILARLY REMOVED / FILLED. ·SIGNAGE - FCC MANDATED RF WARNING SIGNAGE SHALL FACE OUT TO STREET WHEN PLACED IN FRONT OF, OR NEAR A WINDOW. SIGNAGE SHALL FACE TOWARD A BUILDING IF THERE IS NO WINDOW. ·ALL CABLING, ANTENNAS, AND EQUIPMENT TO BE PAINTED TO MATCH POLE AT&T Construction Manager: Leo Ruazol, CX PM AT&T Mobility 5001 Executive Parkway San Ramon, CA 94583 ph: (650) 787-6814 email: LR2164@att.com SITE 1478 STONE POINT DRIVE, SUITE 350 ROSEVILLE CA 95661 TEL FAX borgesarch.com 916 782 7200 916 773 3037 SHEET NO. SHEET TITLE DRAWN BY: BPM CHECK BY: B.K.W. PROJECT NO.: T-16509-74 STAMP REV DESCRIPTIONDATE 240 STOCKTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108 modus-corp.com 5001 EXECUTIVE PARKWAY SAN RAMON, CA 94583 No. C11535 0 08/25/17 90% CD Submittal SITE NUMBER: SFOK02_014 SITE ADDRESS: ACROSS FROM 1800 HILLSIDE DR BURLINGAME, CA 94010 1 09/13/17 100% CD Submittal 2 09/25/17 100% CD Sub Rev 1 3 02/20/18 100% CD Sub Rev 2 DETAILSA-4 SINGLE LINE DIAGRAM &PANEL SCHEDULEE-1 POLE GROUND & RISER DIAGRAM & DETAILSE-2 SITE NUMBER: SFOK02_014 FA#: 13789365 SITE NAME: CRAN_RSFR_SFOK2_014 SITE ADDRESS: ACROSS FROM 1800 HILLSIDE DR BURLINGAME, CA 94010 COUNTY: SAN MATEO SITE TYPE:PG&E WOOD UTILITY POLE HUB LOCATION:SNFCCA21 611 FOLSOM ST POLE OWNER:JPA PROJECT INFORMATION Property Information: Site Name: CRAN_RSFR_SFOK2_014 Site Number: SFOK02_014 Site Address: ACROSS FROM 1800 HILLSIDE DR BURLINGAME, CA 94010 A.P.N. Number: ---- Current Zoning: N/A - PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY Jurisdiction: CITY OF BURLINGAME Latitude: N 37 40' 08.31" Longitude: W -122 28' 50.08" Elevation: +/- 550.3' AMSL Power Agency: PG&E 1 MARKET STREET, SPEAR TOWER SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105-1126 Telephone Agency: AT&T 525 MARKET STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105 ph: (415) 778-1231 1478 STONE POINT DRIVE, SUITE 350 ROSEVILLE CA 95661 TEL FAX borgesarch.com 916 782 7200 916 773 3037 SHEET NO. SHEET TITLE DRAWN BY: BPM CHECK BY: B.K.W. PROJECT NO.: T-16509-74 STAMP REV DESCRIPTIONDATE 240 STOCKTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108 modus-corp.com 5001 EXECUTIVE PARKWAY SAN RAMON, CA 94583 No. C11535 0 08/25/17 90% CD Submittal SITE NUMBER: SFOK02_014 SITE ADDRESS: ACROSS FROM 1800 HILLSIDE DR BURLINGAME, CA 94010 1 09/13/17 100% CD Submittal 2 09/25/17 100% CD Sub Rev 1 3 02/20/18 100% CD Sub Rev 2 GN-1 GENERAL NOTES 1.THESE NOTES SHALL BE CONSIDERED A PART OF THE WRITTEN SPECIFICATIONS, CONTRACT AND CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS. 2.THE WORK SHALL INCLUDE FURNISHING MATERIALS, EQUIPMENT, APPURTENANCES, AND LABOR NECESSARY TO COMPLETE ALL INSTALLATIONS AS INDICATED ON THE PLANS AND IN THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. 3.PRIOR TO THE SUBMISSION OF BIDS, THE CONTRACTOR(S) SHALL VISIT THE JOB SITE(S) AND BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL CONTRACT DOCUMENTS, FIELD CONDITIONS AND DIMENSIONS, AND CONFIRM THE WORK MAY BE ACCOMPLISHED PER THE CONTRACT DRAWINGS. ANY DISCREPANCIES ARE TO BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE IMPLEMENTATION ENGINEER AND ARCHITECT / ENGINEER PRIOR TO BID SUBMITTAL. 4.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL RECEIVE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION TO PROCEED ON ANY WORK NOT CLEARLY DEFINED OR IDENTIFIED IN THE CONTRACT AND CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS BEFORE STARTING ANY WORK. 5.ALL WORK PERFORMED AND MATERIALS INSTALLED SHALL BE IN STRICT ACCORDANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE CODES, REGULATIONS, AND ORDINANCES, INCLUDING APPLICABLE MUNICIPAL AND UTILITY COMPANY SPECIFICATIONS. 6.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL ALL EQUIPMENT AND MATERIALS IN ACCORDANCE WITH MANUFACTURER RECOMMENDATIONS. IF THE RECOMMENDATIONS ARE IN CONFLICT WITH THE CONTRACT AND CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS AND/OR APPLICABLE CODES OR REGULATIONS, REVIEW AND RESOLVE THE CONFLICT WITH DIRECTION FROM THE IMPLEMENTATION ENGINEER AND ARCHITECT/ENGINEER OF RECORD PRIOR TO PROCEEDING. 7.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL CONSTRUCTION MEANS, METHODS, TECHNIQUES, SEQUENCES, AND PROCEDURES AND FOR COORDINATION OF ALL PORTIONS OF THE WORK UNDER THE CONTRACT INCLUDING CONTACT AND COORDINATION WITH THE IMPLEMENTATION ENGINEER AND WITH THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF ANY OUTSIDE POLE OR PROPERTY OWNER. 8.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAKE NECESSARY PROVISIONS TO PROTECT EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO PAVING, CURBS, VEGETATION, GALVANIZED SURFACE OR OTHER EXISTING ELEMENTS AND UPON COMPLETION OF THE WORK, REPAIR AND DAMAGE THAT OCCURRED DURING CONSTRUCTION TO THE SATISFACTION OF AT&T MOBILITY. 9.CONTRACTOR IS TO KEEP THE GENERAL AREA CLEAN, HAZARD FREE, AND DISPOSE OF ALL DIRT, DEBRIS, RUBBISH, AND REMOVE EQUIPMENT NOT SPECIFIED AS REMAINING ON THE PROPERTY. LEAVE PREMISES IN CLEAN CONDITION DAILY. 10.PLANS ARE INTENDED TO BE DIAGRAMMATIC ONLY AND SHOULD NOT BE SCALED UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. RELY ONLY ON ANNOTATED DIMENSIONS AND REQUEST INFORMATION IF ADDITIONAL DIMENSIONS ARE REQUIRED. 11.THE EXISTENCE AND LOCATION OF UTILITIES AND OTHER AGENCY'S FACILITIES WERE OBTAINED BY A SEARCH OF AVAILABLE RECORDS. OTHER FACILITIES MAY EXIST. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY LOCATIONS PRIOR TO START OF CONSTRUCTION AND USE EXTREME CARE AND PROTECTIVE MEASURES TO PREVENT DAMAGE TO THE FACILITIES. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PROTECTION OF UTILITIES OR OTHER AGENCY'S FACILITIES WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE WORK, WHETHER THEY ARE IDENTIFIED IN THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS OR NOT. 12.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT (800) 227-2600, AT LEAST TWO WORKING DAYS PRIOR TO START OF ANY EXCAVATION. GENERAL NOTES: DEFINITIONS: 1."TYPICAL" OR "TYP" MEANS THAT THIS ITEM IS SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME ACROSS SIMILAR CONDITIONS. "TYP" SHALL BE UNDERSTOOD TO MEAN "TYPICAL WHERE OCCURS" AND SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED AS WITHOUT EXCEPTION OR CONSIDERATION OF SPECIFIC CONDITIONS. 2."SIMILAR" MEANS COMPARABLE TO CHARACTERISTICS FOR THE CONDITION NOTED. VERIFY DIMENSIONS AND ORIENTATION ON PLAN. 3."AS REQUIRED" MEANS AS REQUIRED BY REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS, BY REFERENCES STANDARDS, BY EXISTING CONDITIONS, BY GENERALLY ACCEPTED CONSTRUCTION PRACTICE, OR BY THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. 4."ALIGN" MEANS ACCURATELY LOCATE FINISH FACES OF MATERIALS IN THE SAME PLANE. 5.THE TERM "VERIFY" OF "V.I.F." SHALL BE UNDERSTOOD TO MEAN "VERIFY IN FIELD WITH ENGINEER" AND REQUIRES THAT THE CONTRACTOR CONFIRM INTENTION REGARDING NOTED CONDITION AND PROCEED ONLY AFTER RECEIVING DIRECTION. 6.WHERE THE WORDS "OR EQUAL" OR WORDS OF SIMILAR INTENT FOLLOW A MATERIAL SPECIFICATION, THEY SHALL BE UNDERSTOOD TO REQUIRE SIGNED APPROVAL OF ANY DEVIATION TO SAID SPECIFICATION PRIOR TO CONTRACTOR'S ORDERING OR INSTALLATION OF SUCH PROPOSED EQUAL PRODUCT. 7."FURNISH" MEANS SUPPLY ONLY, OTHERS TO INSTALL. 8."INSTALL" MEANS INSTALL ITEMS FURNISHED BY OTHERS. 9."PROVIDE" MEANS FURNISH AND INSTALL. OFFICE 101 ROOM NUMBER WALL TYPE MARK KEYNOTE, CONSTRUCTION ITEM KEYNOTE, DIMENSION ITEM ROOM NAME WALL SECTION DETAIL W-3 BLDG. SECTIONA-300 1 A-500 D5 A-310 A5 A-113 C1 A-113 C4 A-113 A1 A-113 A4 ELEVATION 3 2 CENTERLINE ELEVATION DATUM TILT-UP PANEL MARK WINDOW SYMBOL DOOR SYMBOL PROPERTY LINE 3 ±0" 001 10 A GRID/COLUMN LINE A-300 1 GROUT OR PLASTER (E) BRICK (E) MASONRY CONCRETE EARTH GRAVEL PLYWOOD SAND PLYWOOD SAND (E) STEEL MATCH LINE GROUND CONDUCTOR TELEPHONE CONDUIT POWER CONDUIT COAXIAL CABLE Tel Pwr Coax CHAIN LINK FENCE OVERHEAD SERVICE CONDUCTORSOH WOOD FENCE SYMBOL LEGEND: A.B.ANCHOR BOLT ABV.ABOVE ACCA ANTENNA CABLE COVER ASSEMBLY ADD'L ADDITIONAL A.F.F.ABOVE FINISHED FLOOR A.F.G.ABOVE FINISHED GRADE ALUM.ALUMINUM ALT.ALTERNATE ANT.ANTENNA APPRX.APPROXIMATE(LY) ARCH.ARCHITECT(URAL) AWG.AMERICAN WIRE GAUGE BLDG.BUILDING BLK.BLOCK BLKG.BLOCKING BM.BEAM B.N.BOUNDARY NAILING BTCW.BARE TINNED COPPER WIRE B.O.F.BOTTOM OF FOOTING B/U BACK-UP CABINET CAB.CABINET CANT.CANTILEVER(ED) C.I.P.CAST IN PLACE CLG.CEILING CLR.CLEAR COL.COLUMN CONC.CONCRETE CONN.CONNECTION(OR) CONST.CONSTRUCTION CONT.CONTINUOUS d PENNY (NAILS) DBL.DOUBLE DEPT.DEPARTMENT D.F.DOUGLAS FIR DIA.DIAMETER DIAG.DIAGONAL DIM.DIMENSION DWG.DRAWING(S) DWL.DOWEL(S) EA.EACH EL.ELEVATION ELEC.ELECTRICAL ELEV.ELEVATOR EMT.ELECTRICAL METALLIC TUBING E.N.EDGE NAIL ENG.ENGINEER EQ.EQUAL EXP.EXPANSION EXST.(E)EXISTING EXT.EXTERIOR FAB.FABRICATION(OR) F.F.FINISH FLOOR F.G.FINISH GRADE FIN.FINISH(ED) FLR.FLOOR FDN.FOUNDATION F.O.C.FACE OF CONCRETE F.O.M.FACE OF MASONRY F.O.S.FACE OF STUD F.O.W.FACE OF WALL F.S.FINISH SURFACE FT.( ' )FOOT (FEET) FTG.FOOTING G.GROWTH (CABINET) GA.GAUGE GI.GALVANIZE(D) G.F.I.GROUND FAULT CIRCUIT INTERRUPTER GLB. (GLU-LAM)GLUE LAMINATED BEAM GPS GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM GRND.GROUND HDR.HEADER HGR.HANGER HT.HEIGHT ICGB.ISOLATED COPPER GROUND BUS IN. ( " )INCH(ES) INT.INTERIOR LB.(#)POUND(S) L.B.LAG BOLTS L.F.LINEAR FEET (FOOT) L.LONG(ITUDINAL) MAS.MASONRY MAX.MAXIMUM M.B.MACHINE BOLT MECH.MECHANICAL MFR.MANUFACTURER MIN.MINIMUM MISC.MISCELLANEOUS MTL.METAL (N)NEW NO.(#)NUMBER N.T.S.NOT TO SCALE O.C.ON CENTER OPNG.OPENING P/C PRECAST CONCRETE PCS PERSONAL COMMUNICATION SERVICES PLY.PLYWOOD PPC POWER PROTECTION CABINET PRC PRIMARY RADIO CABINET P.S.F.POUNDS PER SQUARE FOOT P.S.I.POUNDS PER SQUARE INCH P.T.PRESSURE TREATED PWR.POWER (CABINET) QTY.QUANTITY RAD.(R)RADIUS REF.REFERENCE REINF.REINFORCEMENT(ING) REQ'D/REQUIRED RGS.RIGID GALVANIZED STEEL SCH.SCHEDULE SHT.SHEET SIM.SIMILAR SPEC.SPECIFICATIONS SQ.SQUARE S.S.STAINLESS STEEL STD.STANDARD STL.STEEL STRUC.STRUCTURAL TEMP.TEMPORARY THK.THICK(NESS) T.N.TOE NAIL T.O.A.TOP OF ANTENNA T.O.C.TOP OF CURB T.O.F.TOP OF FOUNDATION T.O.P.TOP OF PLATE (PARAPET) T.O.S.TOP OF STEEL T.O.W.TOP OF WALL TYP.TYPICAL U.G.UNDER GROUND U.L. UNDERWRITERS LABORATORY U.N.O.UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE V.I.F.VERIFY IN FIELD W WIDE (WIDTH) w/WITH WD.WOOD W.P.WEATHERPROOF WT.WEIGHT C CENTERLINE P PLATE, PROPERTY LINE L L ABBREVIATIONS: 17 1/8" = 1'-0" OVERALL SITE PLAN A-2 17 (E) TELEPHONE MANHOLE (E) ELECTRICAL VAULT (E) CONCRETE SIDEWALKC A B R I L L O A V E HILLSIDE DRIVEAPN: 0026-052-090 (E) BUILDING (E) PROPERTY BOUNDARY(P) ANTENNA MOUNTED ON TOP OF (E) UTILITY POLE w/ (2) RRUS 32 WITH PSU-08 MOUNTED ON (E) UTILITY POLE APN: 0026-052-080 (E) BUILDING (E) PROPERTY BOUNDARY(E) TRAFFIC SIGNAL (E) TRAFFIC SIGNAL POLE (E) OVERHEAD UTILITY LINES (E) TRAFFIC SIGNAL POLE (E) CATCH BASIN (E) WOOD UTILITY POLE HT. 38.6'± (E) ELECTRICAL SERVICE LINE (E) SIGN (E) LIP OF GUTTER (E) OVERHEAD UTILITY LINES (E) OVERHEAD UTILITY LINES (E) TREES (E) TREES (E) WOOD UTILITY POLE (E) VAULT (E) TELEPHONE MANHOLE(E) CONCRETE SIDEWALK(E) TREES (E) DRIVEWAY(E) FIRE HYDRANT APN: 0026-056-010 (E) BUILDING A L L E Y (E) LIP OF GUTTER LEGEND: WATER: SANITARY SEWER: STORM DRAIN: OVERHEAD UTILITY LINES: 1478 STONE POINT DRIVE, SUITE 350 ROSEVILLE CA 95661 TEL FAX borgesarch.com 916 782 7200 916 773 3037 SHEET NO. SHEET TITLE DRAWN BY: BPM CHECK BY: B.K.W. PROJECT NO.: T-16509-74 STAMP REV DESCRIPTIONDATE 240 STOCKTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108 modus-corp.com 5001 EXECUTIVE PARKWAY SAN RAMON, CA 94583 No. C11535 0 08/25/17 90% CD Submittal SITE NUMBER: SFOK02_014 SITE ADDRESS: ACROSS FROM 1800 HILLSIDE DR BURLINGAME, CA 94010 1 09/13/17 100% CD Submittal 2 09/25/17 100% CD Sub Rev 1 3 02/20/18 100% CD Sub Rev 2 A-1 SITE PLAN 8'4'8'16' 1/8"=1'-0" 00 N 17 1/2" = 1'-0" ENLARGED SITE PLAN A-2 5 (E) OVERHEAD UTILITY LINES (E) SIGN (E) ELECTRIC SERVICE LINES (E) TELEPHONE MANHOLE (E) TREES (E) TREES TYP. (P) ANTENNA MOUNTED ON TOP OF (E) UTILITY POLE w/ (2) RRUS 32 WITH PSU-08 MOUNTED ON (E) UTILITY POLE LEGEND: WATER: SANITARY SEWER: STORM DRAIN: OVERHEAD UTILITY LINES: 5 1" = 1'-0" ENLARGED ANTENNA PLAN (P) ANTENNA MOUNTED ON TOP OF (E) UTILITY POLE (P) (2) RRUs-32 WITH PSU-08 MOUNTED ON SIDE OF (E) UTILITY POLE (P) 3" COAX RISER (P) 1 1/2" AC POWER RISER 8 1" = 1'-0" RRUS-32 MOUNTING DETAIL 12 3 6 NOTE: 30"X30" UNOBSTRUCTED CLIMBING SPACE (P) 2" SQ. STEEL TUBE (P) 5/8" ANTI-SPLIT GALVANIZED THRU-BOLT (TYP) (P) 3/8" "C" ALUMINUM CHANNEL, 8" WIDE (P) UNISTRUT P1000 OR EQ. (2) (P) AT&T RRUs-32 WITH PSU-08 (E) UTILITY POLE (P) 3" COAX CONDUIT 9 4 " (P) 1 1/2" CONDUIT 3 1" = 1'-0" POWER METER MOUNTING DETAIL 12 3 6 NOTE: 30"X30" UNOBSTRUCTED CLIMBING SPACE (P) 3/8" "C" ALUMINUM CHANNEL, 8" WIDE (P) UNISTRUT P1000 OR EQ. (P) AT&T POWER METER (E) UTILITY POLE 9 (P) 5/8" ANTI-SPLIT GALVANIZED THRU-BOLT (TYP) (P) 2" SQ. STEEL TUBE 4 " (P) 1 1/2" CONDUIT 7 1" = 1'-0" LOAD CENTER MOUNTING DETAIL 12 3 6 NOTE: 30"X30" UNOBSTRUCTED CLIMBING SPACE (P) 3/8" "C" ALUMINUM CHANNEL, 8" WIDE (P) UNISTRUT P1000 OR EQ. (P) ELECTRIC LOAD CENTER (E) UTILITY POLE 9 (P) 5/8" ANTI-SPLIT GALVANIZED THRU-BOLT (TYP) (P) 2" SQ. STEEL TUBE (P) FIBER DISTRIBUTION PANEL 4 " (P) 1 1/2" CONDUIT Plot Date:2/23/2018 8:32:48 AM File NameT:\2016\T-16509_Modus_SF_CRAN_AT&T\SFOK2_014-83\SFOK2_014_83\Sheets\Building A\A-2 Enlarged Site Plan & Antenna Plan.dwg Plotted By:Brian Winslow1478 STONE POINT DRIVE, SUITE 350 ROSEVILLE CA 95661 TEL FAX borgesarch.com 916 782 7200 916 773 3037 SHEET NO. SHEET TITLE DRAWN BY: BPM CHECK BY: B.K.W. PROJECT NO.: T-16509-74 STAMP REV DESCRIPTIONDATE 240 STOCKTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108 modus-corp.com 5001 EXECUTIVE PARKWAY SAN RAMON, CA 94583 No. C11535 0 08/25/17 90% CD Submittal SITE NUMBER: SFOK02_014 SITE ADDRESS: ACROSS FROM 1800 HILLSIDE DR BURLINGAME, CA 94010 1 09/13/17 100% CD Submittal 2 09/25/17 100% CD Sub Rev 1 3 02/20/18 100% CD Sub Rev 2 A-2 ENLARGED SITE PLAN & ANTENNA PLAN 1/2"=1'-0" 01'2'2'4'0 N 1'0.5'1'2'0 1"=1'-0" 0 N 17 1/2" = 1'-0" EXISTING NORTH ELEVATION (E) WOOD UTILITY POLE 0'-0" GRADE LEVEL (E) UTILITY LINES AND ANCHOR POINTS (E) CONCRETE SIDEWALK 32'-3" TOP OF (E) CROSSARM 32'-11" TOP OF (E) INSULATOR 37'-6" TOP OF (E) CROSSARM 38'-10" TOP OF (E) INSULATOR (E) UTILITY LINES AND ANCHOR POINTS 22'-4" TOP OF (E) UTILITY LINE AND ANCHOR POINT 23'-6" TOP OF (E) UTILITY LINE AND ANCHOR POINT 38'-7" TOP OF (E) WOOD UTILITY POLE 9 1/2" = 1'-0" PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION 3 7 9'-0" TOP OF (P) POWER METER 10'-3" TOP OF (P) LOAD CENTER AND FIBER DISTRIBUTION PANEL 22'-4" TOP OF (E) UTILITY LINE AND ANCHOR POINT 23'-6" TOP OF (E) UTILITY LINE AND ANCHOR POINT 0'-0" GROUND LEVEL (P) 2'-0" COMMUNICATIONS SAFETY ZONE PER GO95 (E) UTILITY LINES AND ANCHOR POINTS (E) CONCRETE SIDEWALK 32'-3" TOP OF (E) CROSSARM 32'-11" TOP OF (E) INSULATOR 37'-6" TOP OF (E) CROSSARM (E) UTILITY LINES AND ANCHOR POINTS (2) (P) RRUs -32 WITH PSU-08 MOUNTED TO (E) WOOD POLE (P) GROUND BAR (P) POWER METER (P) AT&T ANTENNA MOUNTED TO (P) 7' EXTENSION ON TOP OF (E) UTILITY POLE (P) 6'-0" POWER SAFETY ZONE PER GO 95 46'-10" RAD CENTER OF (P) AT&T ANTENNA 47'-10" TOP OF (P) AT&T ANTENNA 18'-0" TOP OF (P) DIPLEXERS 13'-8" TOP OF (P) RRU 32 7'-0" BOTTOM OF (P) POWER METER (P) ELECTRIC LOAD CENTER (P) FIBER DISTRIBUTION PANEL 17'-3" TOP OF (P) RRU 32 (P) 3" COAX RISER (2) (P) TWIN DIPLEXERS 7'-4" (E) R.O.W. LINE 38'-10" TOP OF (E) INSULATOR 38'-7" TOP OF (E) WOOD UTILITY POLE (E) WOOD UTILITY POLE (P) RF WARNING SIGN - MINIMUM APPROACH DISTANCE = 4'-0"42'-10" TOP OF (P) RF SIGNAGE 45'-4" TOP OF (P) COAX RISER / BOTTOM OF (P) ANTENNA BRACKET AT&T FIBER P.O.C. (P) FIBER DROP FROM AT&T TO (P) FIBER DEMARK ENCLOSURE NEXT TO LOAD CENTER ON POLE Plot Date:2/23/2018 8:43:39 AM File NameT:\2016\T-16509_Modus_SF_CRAN_AT&T\SFOK2_014-83\SFOK2_014_83\Sheets\Building A\A-3 Elevations.dwg Plotted By:Brian Winslow1478 STONE POINT DRIVE, SUITE 350 ROSEVILLE CA 95661 TEL FAX borgesarch.com 916 782 7200 916 773 3037 SHEET NO. SHEET TITLE DRAWN BY: BPM CHECK BY: B.K.W. PROJECT NO.: T-16509-74 STAMP REV DESCRIPTIONDATE 240 STOCKTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108 modus-corp.com 5001 EXECUTIVE PARKWAY SAN RAMON, CA 94583 No. C11535 0 08/25/17 90% CD Submittal SITE NUMBER: SFOK02_014 SITE ADDRESS: ACROSS FROM 1800 HILLSIDE DR BURLINGAME, CA 94010 1 09/13/17 100% CD Submittal 2 09/25/17 100% CD Sub Rev 1 3 02/20/18 100% CD Sub Rev 2 A-3 ELEVATIONS NOTES: 1.PAINT RRU SOLAR SHIELD, MOUNTING COMPONENTS & CABLE SWEEP TO MATCH (E) POLE. 4 1" = 1'-0" WIRE DIAGRAM CANISTER ANTENNA RETRETRETRETCOAX COAX COAXCOAX COAX COAXCOAXCOAX(P) (4) 1/2" SUPERFLEX COAX (P) (4) 1/2" SUPERFLEX COAX (P) RET CABLE COAXCOAXCOAXCOAX COAXCOAXCOAX COAXPLAN VIEW NEW 3/8" C ALUMINUM CHANNEL, 10" WIDE NEW 2" SQ. STEEL TUBE OR ROUND STOCK. 6" MIN. TYP. OF 4 NEW 1/2"Ø MOUNTING BOLT PER CABINET BOLTING PATTERN NEW UNISTRUT P1000 OR EQUAL (TYP.)- HORIZONTAL - LENGTH AS REQUIRED PER CABINET 5/8" Ø ANTI - SPLIT GALVANIZED THRU BOLT (TYP.) EXISTING WOODEN UTILITY POLE REQUIREDVERIFYPERCABINETBOLTINGPATTERN6" MIN 4" MIN CLEARANCE PER GO 95(E) 1 1/2" CONDUIT 5/8" Ø ANTI - SPLIT GALVANIZED THRU - BOLT (TYP.) NEW 3/8" C ALUMINUM CHANNEL, 6" WIDE MIN. NEW 1/2"Ø MOUNTING BOLT (CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY WITH CABINET MFG. SPEC.) NEW 2" SQ. STL. TUBE STEEL 11'-0"NOTE: ALL CABINETS MOUNTED TO UTILITY POLE SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM TOP & BOTTOM CLEARANCE OF 7". ELEVATION VEW 6"1'-0"2'-5"3'-3"3'-4"1'-0"NEW UNISTRUT P 1000 OR EQUAL (TYP.)- HORIZONTAL - LENGTH AS REQUIRED PER CABINET 17 3/4" = 1'-0" EQUIPMENT MOUNTING DETAIL (N) 3" COAX CONDUIT 9 3/4" = 1'-0" ANTENNA EQUIPMENT FRONT ELEVATION (P) RRUs-32 WITH PSU-08 MOUNTED TO (E) UTILITY POLE 1'-0" (P) GROUND BAR (P) AT&T POWER METER 11'-0"(P) ELECTRIC LOAD CENTER 2'-0"1'-3"1'-6"(2) (P) TWIN DIPLEXERS (P) FIBER DISTRIBUTION PANEL (P) 2'-0" TELECOMMUNICATIONS SAFETY ZONE 2'-0"1'-6"2'-0"10"(P) PLACE SHUT DOWN PROTOCOLS ON THE INSIDE COVER OF THE LOAD CENTER TO BE PROVIDED BY AT&T NEW 5-3/4" SQUARE WOOD EXTENSION FOR (E) WOOD UTILITY POLE 15 1" = 1'-0" CANISTER ANTENNA MOUNTING DETAIL (P) 6"X6"X6"X1/4" TUBE STEEL CAP (2) (P) 5/8" DIA. THRU BOLTS (P) WAGON WHEEL FOR 13" DIA RADOME UPPER BRACKET STEP 5/8'Ø X10" BOLT AND LOCKNUT (SUPPLIED) LOWER BRACKET STEP 13/16" HOLES FOR 3/4" BOLTS BRACKET ADAPTER (FOR POLE TOP DIAMETERS LESS THAN 8") EXISTING POLE EXTENSION BAYONET 5 3/4" SQUARE PRESSURE TREATED DOUGLAS FIR BRACKET ASSEMBLY (SEE DETAIL A) ANTI- SPLIT BOLT EXISTING POLE DETAIL A BRACKET ASSEMBLY NOTE: NEW BRACKET ASSEMBLY TO BE PROVIDED BY UTILITY COMPANY DETAIL B WOOD EXTENSION ASSEMBLY 12" 5" 7-1/2" 7-1/2" 7 3/4" = 1'-0" WOOD POLE EXTENSION TOP FRONT SIDE METER MAKE AND MODEL: MANUFACTURER: B-LINE MODEL: 114TB DIMENSIONS, HxWxD.in: 24" x12" x 4 5/8" WEIGHT: UNKNOWN METER SOCKET 1'-0"MOUNTING BRACKET FOR (P) EQUIPMENT 4 5/8"2'-0"1" = 1'-0" 14 1 1/2" = 1'-0" CONDUIT STRAP DETAIL (E) WOOD UTILITY POLE (P) 1/2" DIA. 3" ANTI-SPLIT LAG SCREW (P) 2-HOLE GALVANIZED CONDUIT STRAP (P) 3" COAX RISER 5 1' = 1'-0" NOTICE SIGNAGE NOTICE Transmitting Antenna(s) Radio frequency fields beyond this point MAY EXCEED the FCC General Population exposure limit. Obey all posted signs and site guidelines Call AT&T Mobility at 1 800-832-6662 PRIOR to working beyond this point. STATE:________SWITCH:__________________ SITE ID:_________________________________ SECTOR / NODE: ________________________ MINIMUM APPROACH DISTANCE = 6'-0" NOTE: SIGN BACKGROUND COLOR TO MATCH (E) POLE ALL TEXT AND SYMBOLS TO BE WHITE MINIMUM APPROACH DISTANCE - 6' SFOK02_014 1 1' = 1'-0" SHUT DOWN PROTOCOL SIGNAGE NORMAL SHUT-DOWN PROTOCOLS: 1.CALL (800) 638-2588 NOC 24 HRS. PRIOR TO SCHEDULE A SHUT-DOWN DAY AND TIME. 2.GIVE NOC THE NODE NUMBER _______________ 3.ON SCHEDULED DAY OF SHUT-DOWN, PULL THE DISCONNECT HANDLE TO THE *OFF* POSITION. 4.CAL NOC WHEN WORK IS COMPLETED. EMERGENCY SHUT-DOWN PROTOCOLS: 1.CALL NOC (800) 638-2588 2.GIVE NOC THE NODE NUMBER _______________ 3.PULL THE DISCONNECT HANDLE TO THE OFF POSITION. 4.CALL NOC WHEN WORK IS COMPLETED. NOTE: INSIDE AND OUTSIDE PANEL DOOR SHOWING SHUT-DOWN PROTOCOL ON 3"X4" LABEL SHUT DOWN DISCONNECT FRONT SIDE ELEC LOAD CENTER MAKE AND MODEL: MANUFACTURER: SQUARE D MODEL: QO612L100RB DIMENSIONS, HxWxD.in: 12.64" x8.9" x 4.27" WEIGHT: 9.7 lbs 12 1" = 1'-0" ELEC LOAD CENTER DETAIL MOUNTING BRACKET FOR (P) EQUIPMENT ELEC LOAD CENTER 8.9" TOP 12.64"4.27" NOTE: RF SHUTDOWN SIGNAGE TO BE ON THE INSIDE AND OUTSIDE OF THE LOAD CENTER ERICSSON RRU-32 WITH PSU-08 MODEL: RRUS 32 WITH PSU-08 COLOR:WHITE DIMENSIONS:26.7" TALL X 12.1" WIDE X 6.7" DEEP (INCLUDING SUNSHIELD) WIEGHT:+/- 80.4 LBS. (INCLUDING MOUNTING HARDWARE) 12.1"26.7"FRONT VIEW SIDE VIEW TOP VIEW P1000 UNISTRUT AS ALTERNATE ATTACHMENT SUNSHIELD PSU-08 SUNSHIELD MFR'S STANDARD MOUNTING BRACKETS P1000 UNISTRUT AS ALTERNATE ATTACHMENT 19 1 1/2" = 1'-0" RRUS 32 WITH PSU-08 MOUNTING DETAIL PSU-08 1'-0" 11 3" = 1'-0" TWIN DIPLEXER DETAIL TWIN DIPLEXER MAKE AND MODEL: MANUFACTURER: COMMSCOPE MODEL: CBC1923T-4310-E11F13P06 DIMENSIONS, HxWxD: 8.3" x 4.6" x 1.8" WEIGHT: 5.5 lbs PER UNIT 4 5/8"2 1/2"1 3/4"TOP: SIDE:FRONT: 8 3/8"8 7/8"(2) TWIN DIPLEXERS 3 1 1/2" = 1'-0" CANISTER ANTENNA 9.45" ANTENNA =CANISTER ANTENNA WEIGHT =33.1 LBS CONNECTOR =10 X 4.3-10 DIN (FEMALE) / BOTTOM DIMENSIONS =9.45"(DIA.) X 23.63"23.63"Plot Date:2/23/2018 9:08:04 AM File NameT:\2016\T-16509_Modus_SF_CRAN_AT&T\SFOK2_014-83\SFOK2_014_83\Sheets\Building A\A-4 Details.dwg Plotted By:Brian Winslow1478 STONE POINT DRIVE, SUITE 350 ROSEVILLE CA 95661 TEL FAX borgesarch.com 916 782 7200 916 773 3037 SHEET NO. SHEET TITLE DRAWN BY: BPM CHECK BY: B.K.W. PROJECT NO.: T-16509-74 STAMP REV DESCRIPTIONDATE 240 STOCKTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108 modus-corp.com 5001 EXECUTIVE PARKWAY SAN RAMON, CA 94583 No. C11535 0 08/25/17 90% CD Submittal SITE NUMBER: SFOK02_014 SITE ADDRESS: ACROSS FROM 1800 HILLSIDE DR BURLINGAME, CA 94010 1 09/13/17 100% CD Submittal 2 09/25/17 100% CD Sub Rev 1 3 02/20/18 100% CD Sub Rev 2 A-4 DETAILS EMERGENCY SHUTDOWN DISCONNECT SWITCH LOCATED ABOVE ELECTRIC LOAD CENTER 3"4" NOTE: NEW VINYL SIGN TO BE PROVIDED BY AT&T AND BE LOCATED ON THE SIDE OF THE METER BOX. SIGN TO BE YELLOW. 4 NOT TO SCALE SHUTDOWN DISCONNECT SIGNAGE Plot Date:2/23/2018 9:10:25 AM File NameT:\2016\T-16509_Modus_SF_CRAN_AT&T\SFOK2_014-83\SFOK2_014_83\Sheets\Building A\E-1 Single Line Diagram and Notes.dwg Plotted By:Brian Winslow1478 STONE POINT DRIVE, SUITE 350 ROSEVILLE CA 95661 TEL FAX borgesarch.com 916 782 7200 916 773 3037 SHEET NO. SHEET TITLE DRAWN BY: BPM CHECK BY: B.K.W. PROJECT NO.: T-16509-74 STAMP REV DESCRIPTIONDATE 240 STOCKTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108 modus-corp.com 5001 EXECUTIVE PARKWAY SAN RAMON, CA 94583 No. C11535 0 08/25/17 90% CD Submittal SITE NUMBER: SFOK02_014 SITE ADDRESS: ACROSS FROM 1800 HILLSIDE DR BURLINGAME, CA 94010 1 09/13/17 100% CD Submittal 2 09/25/17 100% CD Sub Rev 1 3 02/20/18 100% CD Sub Rev 2 E-1 SINGLE LINE DIAGRAM AND NOTES 5 N.T.S. ELECTRICAL NOTES ELECTRICAL NOTES GENERAL REQUIREMENTS: 1. ALL WORK AND MATERIALS SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LATEST RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE AND ALL STATE AND LOCAL CODES. NOTHING IN THESE PLANS OR SPECIFICATIONS SHALL BE CONSTRUED AS TO PERMIT WORK NOT CONFORMING TO THE MOST STRINGENT OF THESE CODES. SHOULD CHANGES BE NECESSARY IN THE DRAWINGS OR SPECIFICATIONS TO MAKE THE WORK COMPLY WITH THESE REQUIREMENTS, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE ARCHITECT IN WRITING AND CEASE WORK ON PARTS OF THE CONTRACT WHICH ARE AFFECTED. 2. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAKE A SITE VISIT PRIOR TO BIDDING AND CONSTRUCTION TO VERIFY ALL EXISTING CONDITIONS AND SHALL NOTIFY ARCHITECT IMMEDIATELY UPON DISCOVERY OF ANY DISCREPANCIES. THE CONTRACTOR ASSUMES ALL LIABILITY FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THIS PROVISION. 3. THE EXTENT OF THE WORK IS INDICATED BY THE DRAWINGS, SCHEDULES, AND SPECIFICATIONS AND IS SUBJECT TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE CONTRACT. THE WORK SHALL CONSIST OF FURNISHING ALL LABOR, EQUIPMENT, MATERIALS, AND SUPPLIES NECESSARY FOR A COMPLETE AND OPERATIONAL ELECTRICAL SYSTEM. THE WORK SHALL ALSO INCLUDE THE COMPLETION OF ALL ELECTRICAL WORK NOT MENTIONED OR SHOWN WHICH IS NECESSARY FOR SUCCESSFUL OPERATION OF ALL SYSTEMS. 4. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PREPARE A BID FOR A COMPLETE AND OPERATIONAL SYSTEM, WHICH INCLUDES THE COST FOR MATERIAL AND LABOR. 5. WORKMANSHIP AND NEAT APPEARANCE SHALL BE AS IMPORTANT AS THE OPERATION. DEFECTIVE OR DAMAGED MATERIALS SHALL BE REPLACED OR REPAIRED PRIOR TO FINAL ACCEPTANCE IN A MANNER ACCEPTABLE TO OWNER AND ENGINEER. 6. COMPLETE THE ENTIRE INSTALLATION AS SOON AS THE PROGRESS OF THE WORK WILL PERMIT. ARRANGE ANY OUTAGE OF SERVICE WITH THE OWNER AND BUILDING MANAGER IN ADVANCE. MINIMIZE DOWNTIME ON THE BUILDING ELECTRICAL SYSTEM. 7. THE ENTIRE ELECTRICAL SYSTEM INSTALLED UNDER THIS CONTRACT SHALL BE DELIVERED IN PROPER WORKING ORDER. REPLACE, WITHOUT ADDITIONAL COST TO THE OWNER, ANY DEFECTIVE MATERIAL AND EQUIPMENT WITHIN ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE OF FINAL ACCEPTANCE. 8. ANY ERROR, OMISSION OR DESIGN DESCREPANCY ON THE DRWINGS SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE ENGINEER FOR CLARIFICATION OR CORRECTION BEFORE CONSTRUCTION. 9. "PROVIDE" INDICATES THAT ALL ITEMS ARE TO BE FURNISHED, INSTALLED AND CONNECTED IN PLACE. 10. CONTRACTOR SHALL SECURE ALL NECESSARY BUILDING PERMITS AND PAY ALL REQUIRED FEES. EQUIPMENT LOCATION: 1. THE DRAWINGS INDICATE DIAGRAMMATICALLY THE DESIRED LOCATIONS OR ARRANGEMENTS OF CONDUIT RUNS, OUTLETS, EQUIPMENT, ETC., AND ARE TO BE FOLLOWED AS CLOSELY AS POSSIBLE. PROPER JUDGEMENT MUST BE EXERCISED IN EXECUTING THE WORK SO AS TO SECURE THE BEST POSSIBLE INSTALLATION IN THE AVAILABLE SPACE LIMITATIONS OR INTERFERENCE OF STRUCTURE CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. 2. IN THE EVENT CHANGES IN THE INDICATED LOCATIONS OR ARRANGEMENTS ARE NECESSARY, DUE TO FIELD CONDITIONS IN THE BUILDING CONSTRUCTION OR REARRANGEMENT OF FURNISHINGS OR EQUIPMENT, SUCH CHANGES SHALL BE MADE WITHOUT COST, PROVIDING THE CHANGE IS ORDERED BEFORE THE CONDUIT RUNS, ETC., AND WORK DIRECTLY CONNECTED TO THE SAME IS INSTALLED AND NO EXTRA MATERIALS ARE REQUIRED. 3. LIGHTING FIXTURES ARE SHOWN IN THEIR APPROXIMATE LOCATIONS ONLY. COORDINATE THE FIXTURE LOCATION WITH MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT TO AVOID INTERFERENCE. 4. COORDINATE THE WORK OF THIS SECTION WITH THAT OF ALL OTHER TRADES, WHERE CONFLICTS OCCUR, CONSULT WITH THE RESPECTIVE CONTRACTOR AND COME TO AGREEMENT AS TO CHANGES NECESSARY, OBTAIN WRITTEN ACCEPTANCE FROM ENGINEER FOR THE PROPOSED CHANGES BEFORE PROCEEDING. SHOP DRAWINGS: 1. N/A UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. SUBSTITUTIONS: 1. NO SUBSTITUTIONS ARE ALLOWED TESTS: 1. BEFORE FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WORK, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSURE THAT ALL EQUIPMENT, SYSTEMS, FIXTURES, ETC., ARE WORKING SATISFACTORILY AND TO THE INTENT OF THE DRAWINGS. PERMITS: 1. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR TAKING OUT AND PAYING FOR ALL REQUIRED PERMITS, INSPECTION AND EXAMINATION WITHOUT ADDITIONAL EXPENSE TO THE OWNER. GROUNDING: 1. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE A COMPLETE, AND APPROVED GROUNDING SYSTEM INCLUDING ELECTRODES, ELECTRODE CONDUCTOR, BONDING CONDUCTORS, AND EQUIPMENT CONDUCTORS AS REQUIRED BY ARTICLE 250 OF THE NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE. 2. CONDUITS CONNECTED TO EQUIPMENT AND DEVICES SHALL BE METALICALY JOINED TOGETHER TO PROVIDE EFFECTIVE ELECTRICAL CONTINUITY. 3. FEEDERS AND BRANCH CIRCUIT WIRING INSTALLED IN A NONMETALLIC CONDUIT SHALL INCLUDE A CODE SIZED GROUNDING CONDUCTOR HAVING GREEN INSULATION. THE GROUND CONDUCTOR SHALL BE PROPERLY CONNECTED AT BOTH ENDS TO MAINTAIN ELECTRICAL CONTINUITY. 4. REFER TO GROUND BUS DETAILS. PROVIDE NEW GROUND SYSTEM COMPLETE WITH CONDUCTORS, GROUND ROD AND DESCRIBED TERMINATIONS. 5. ALL GROUNDING CONDUCTORS SHALL BE SOLID TINNED COPPER AND ANNEALED #2 UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. 6. ALL NON-DIRECT BURIED TELEPHONE EQUIPMENT GROUND CONDUCTORS SHALL BE #2 STRANDED THHN (GREEN) INSULATION. 7. ALL GROUND CONNECTIONS SHALL BE MADE WITH "HYGROUND" COMPRESSION SYSTEM BURNDY CONNECTORS EXCEPT WHERE NOTED OTHERWISE. 8. PAINT AT ALL GROUND CONNECTIONS SHALL BE REMOVED. 9. GROUNDING SYSTEM RESISTANCE SHALL NOT EXCEED 5 OHMS. IF THE RESISTANCE VALUE IS EXCEEDED, NOTIFY THE OWNER FOR FUTURE INSTRUCTION ON METHODS FOR REDUCING THE RESISTANCE VALUE. SUBMIT TEST REPORTS AND FURNISH TO SMART SMR ONE COMPLETE SET OF PRINTS SHOWING "INSTALLED WORK". UTILITY SERVICE: 1. TELEPHONE AND ELECTRICAL METERING FACILITIES SHALL CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SERVING UTILITY COMPANIES. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY SERVICE LOCATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS. SERVICE INFORMATION WILL BE FURNISHED BY THE SERVING UTILITIES. 2. CONFORM TO ALL REQUIREMENTS OF THE SERVING UTILITY COMPANIES. PRODUCTS: 1. ALL MATERIALS SHALL BE NEW, CONFORMING WITH NEC, ANSI, NEMA, AND THEY SHALL BE U.L. LISTED AND LABELED. 2. CONDUIT: A) RIGID CONDUIT SHALL BE U.L. LABEL GALVANIZED ZINC COATED WITH ZINC INTERIOR AND SHALL BE USED WHEN INSTALLED IN OR UNDER CONCRETE SLABS, IN CONTACT WITH THE EARTH, UNDER PUBLIC ROADWAYS, IN MASONRY WALLS OR EXPOSED ON BUILDING EXTERIOR, RIGID CONDUIT IN CONTACT WITH EARTH SHALL BE 1/2 LAPPED WRAPPED WITH HUNTS WRAP PROCESS NO. 3. B) ELECTRICAL METALLIC TUBING SHALL U.L. LABEL, FITTINGS SHALL BE COMPRESSION TYPE. EMT SHALL BE USED ONLY FOR INTERIOR RUNS. C) FLEXIBLE METALLIC CONDUIT SHALL HAVE U.L. LISTED LABEL AND MAY BE USED WHERE PERMITTED BY CODE. FITTINGS SHALL BE "JAKE" OR "SQUEEZE" TYPE. SEAL TIGHT FLEXIBLE CONDUIT. ALL CONDUIT EXCESS OF SIX FEET IN LENGTH SHALL HAVE FULL SIZE GROUND WIRE. D) CONDUIT RUNS MAY BE SURFACE MOUNTED IN CEILING OR WALLS UNLESS INDICATED OTHERWISE. CONDUIT INDICATED SHALL RUN PARALLEL OR AT RIGHT ANGLES TO CEILING, FLOOR OR BEAMS. VERIFY EXACT ROUTING OF ALL EXPOSED CONDUIT WITH ARCHITECT PRIOR TO INSTALLING. E) ALL UNDERGROUND CONDUITS SHALL BE PVC SCHEDULE 40 (UNLEES NOTED OTHERWISE) AT A MINIMUM DEPTH OF 24" BELOW GRADE F) ALL CONDUIT ONLY (C.O.) SHALL HAVE PULL ROPE. G) CONDUITS RUN ON ROOFS SHALL BE INSTALLED ON 4x4 REDWOOD SLEEPERS, 6'-0" ON CENTER, SET IN NON-HARDENING MASTIC. 3. ALL WIRE AND CABLE SHALL BE COPPER, 600 VOLT, #12 AWG MINIMUM UNLESS SPECIFICALLY NOTED OTHERWISE ON THE DRAWINGS. CONDUCTORS #10 AWG AND SMALLER SHALL BE SOLID. CONDUCTORS #8 AWG AND LARGER SHALL BE STRANDED. TYPE THHN INSULATION USED UNLESS CONDUCTORS INSTALLED IN CONDUIT EXPOSED TO WEATHER, IN WHICH CASE TYPE THWN INSULATION SHALL BE USED. 4. PROVIDE GALVANIZED COATED STEEL BOXES AND ACCESSORIES SIZED PER CODE TO ACCOMMODATE ALL DEVICES AND WIRING. 5. DUPLEX RECEPTACLES SHALL BE SPECIFICATION GRADE WITH WHITE FINISH (UNLESS NOTED BY ENGINEER), 20 AMP, 125 VOLT, THREE WIRE GROUNDING TYPE, NEMA 5-20R. MOUNT RECEPTACLE AT +12" ABOVE FINISHED FLOOR UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED ON DRAWINGS OR IN DETAILS. WEATHERPROOF RECEPTACLES SHALL BE GROUND FAULT INTERRUPTER TYPE WITH SIERRA #WPD-8 LIFT COVERPLATES. 6. TOGGLE SWITCHES SHALL BE 20 AMP, 120 VOLT AC, SPECIFICATION GRADE WHITE (UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE) FINISH. MOUNT SWITCHES AT +48" ABOVE FINISHED FLOOR. 7. PANELBOARDS SHALL BE DEAD FRONT SAFETY TYPE WITH ANTI-BURN SOLDERLESS COMPRESSION APPROVED FOR COPPER CONDUCTORS, COPPER BUS BARS, FULL SIZED NEUTRAL BUS, GROUND BUS AND EQUIPPED WITH QUICK-MAKE QUICK-BREAK BOLT-IN TYPE THERMAL MAGNETIC CIRCUIT BREAKERS. MOUNT TOP OF THE PANELBOARDS AT 6'-3" ABOVE FINISHED FLOOR. PROVIDE TYPE WRITTEN CIRCUIT DIRECTORY. 8. ALL CIRCUIT BREAKERS, MAGNETIC STARTERS AND OTHER ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT SHALL HAVE AN INTERRUPTING RATING NOT LESS THAN MAXIMUM SHORT CIRCUIT CURRENT TO WHICH THEY MAY BE SUBJECTED. 9. GROUND RODS SHALL BE COPPER CLAD STEEL, 5/8" ROUND AND 10' LONG. COPPERWELD OR APPROVED EQUAL. INSTALLATION: 1. PROVIDE SUPPORTING DEVICES FOR ALL ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT, FIXTURES, BOXES, PANEL, ETC., SUPPORT LUMINARIES FROM UNDERSIDE OF STRUCTURAL CEILING, EQUIPMENT SHALL BE BRACED TO WITHSTAND HORIZONTAL FORCES IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATE AND LOCAL CODE REQUIREMENTS. PROVIDE PRIOR ALIGNMENT AND LEVELING OF ALL DEVICES AND FIXTURES. 2. CUTTING, PATCHING, CHASES, OPENINGS: PROVIDE LAYOUT IN ADVANCE TO ELIMINATE UNNECESSARY CUTTING OR DRILLING OF WALLS, FLOORS CEILINGS, AND ROOFS. ANY DAMAGE TO BUILDING STRUCTURE OR EQUIPMENT SHALL BE REPAIRED BY THE CONTRACTOR. OBTAIN PERMISSION FROM THE ENGINEER BEFORE CORING. 3. IN DRILLING HOLES INTO CONCRETE WHETHER FOR FASTENING OR ANCHORING PURPOSES, OR PENETRATIONS THROUGH THE FLOOR FOR CONDUIT RUNS, PIPE RUNS, ETC., IT MUST BE CLEARLY UNDERSTOOD THAT TENDONS AND/OR REINFORCING STEEL WILL NOT BE DRILLED INTO, CUT OR DAMAED UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES. 4. LOCATION OF TENDONS AND/OR REINFORCING STEEL ARE NOT DEFINITELY KNOWN AND THEREFORE, MUST BE SEARCHED FOR BY APPROPRIATE METHODS AND EQUIPMENT VIA X-RAY OR OTHER DEVICES THAT CAN ACCURATELY LOCATE THE REINFORCING AND/OR STEEL TENDONS. 5. PENETRATIONS IN FIRE RATED WALLS SHALL BE FIRE STOPPED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE C.B.C. PROJECT CLOSEOUT: 1. UPON COMPLETION OF WORK, CONDUCT CONTINUITY, SHORT CIRCUIT, AND FALL POTENTIAL GROUNDING TESTS FOR APPROVAL. SUBMIT TEST REPORTS TO PROJECT MANAGER. CLEAN PREMISES OF ALLS DEBRIS RESULTING FROM WORK AND LEAVE WORK IN A COMPLETE AND UNDAMAGED CONDITION. 2. PROVIDE PROJECT MANAGER WITH ONE SET OF COMPLETE ELECTRICAL "AS INSTALLED" DRAWINGS AT THE COMPLETION OF THE JOB, SHOWING ACTUAL DIMENSIONS, ROUTINGS AND CIRCUITS. 3. ALL BROCHURES, OPERATING MANUALS, CATALOG, SHOP DRAWINGS, ETC., SHALL BE TURNED OVER TO OWNER AT JOB COMPLETION. GROUNDING NOTES: 1. ALL DETAILS ARE SHOWN IN GENERAL TERMS. ACTUAL GROUNDING INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS AND CONSTRUCTION ACCORDING TO SITE CONDITIONS. 2. ALL GROUNDING CONDUCTORS: #2 AWG SOLID BARE TINNED COPPER WIRE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 3. GROUND BAR LOCATED IN BASE OF EQUIPMENT WILL BE PROVIDED, FURNISHED AND INSTALLED BY THE VENDOR. 4. ALL BELOW GRADE CONNECTIONS: EXOTHERMIC WELD TYPE, ABOVE GRADE CONNECTIONS: EXOTHERMIC WELD TYPE. 5. GROUND RING SHALL BE LOCATED A MINIMUM OF 24" BELOW GRADE OR 6" MINIMUM BELOW THE FROST LINE. 6. INSTALL GROUND CONDUCTORS AND GROUND ROD MINIMUM OF 1'-0" FROM EQUIPMENT CONCRETE SLAB, SPREAD FOOTING, OR FENCE. 7. EXOTHERMIC WELD GROUND CONNECTION TO FENCE POST: TREAT WITH A COLD GALVANIZED SPRAY. 8. GROUND BARS: A) EQUIPMENT GROUND BUS BAR (EGB) LOCATED AT THE BOTTOM OF ANTENNA POLE/MAST FOR MAKING GROUNDING JUMPER CONNECTIONS TO COAX FEEDER CABLES SHALL BE FURNISHED AND INSTALLED BY ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR. JUMPERS (FURNISHED BY OWNERS) SHALL BE INSTALLED AND CONNECTED BY ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR. 9. ALL GROUNDING INSTALLATIONS AND CONNECTIONS SHALL BE MADE BY ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR. 10. OBSERVE N.E.C. AND LOCAL UTILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR ELECTRICAL SERVICE GROUNDING. 11. GROUNDING ATTACHMENT TO TOWER SHALL BE AS PER MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS OR AT GROUNDING POINTS PROVIDED (2 MINIMUM). 12. IF EQUIPMENT IS IN A C.L. FENCE ENCLOSURE, GROUND ONLY CORNER POSTS AND SUPPORT POSTS OF GATE. IF CHAIN LINK LID IS USED, THEN GROUND LID ALSO. 13. GROUNDING AT PPC CABINET SHALL BE VERTICALLY INSTALLED. 14. ALL GROUNDING FOR ANTENNAS SHALL BE CONNECTED SO THAT IT WILL BY-PASS MAIN BUSS BAR. 15. ALL EMT RUNS SHALL BE GROUNDED AND HAVE A BUSHING, NO PVC ABOVE GROUND. 16. USE SEPARATE HOLES FOR GROUNDING AT BUSS BAR. NO "DOUBLE-UP" OF LUGS. 17. POWER AND TELCO CABINETS SHALL BE GROUNDED (BONDED) TOGETHER. 18. NO LB'S ALLOWED ON GROUNDING. 19. PROVIDE STAINLESS STEEL CLAMP AND BRASS TAGS ON COAX AT ANTENNAS AND DOGHOUSE. M (1) 3" C (2) 4/0 THWN AL (1) 1/0 AL NEUTRAL METER N G #2 GROUNDING ELECTRODE, #2 BOND TO GROUNDING ROD UTILITY DISTRIBUTION PANEL 100 AMP, 1 PHASE, 120/240V AC 6 POSITION LOAD CENTER N G 30/2 #2 GROUNDING ELECTRODE CONDUCTOR TO GROUND RING 100/2 - MAIN BREAKER RG 30/2 RRH RRH (2) RRH (1) 4" C (4) 1/2" COAX 1 1/2" C (3) #3/0, (1) #2 GROUND 1 1/2" C (3) #10, (1) #10 GROUND 1 1/2" C (3) #10, (1) #10 GROUND ANTENNA NEW 3/8" DIA. HARDWOOD MOLDING NEW GALV IRON MOLDING STAPLE TYP NEW 1/2" PVC CONDUIT FOR METER GROUND 6" MIN TYP MECHANICAL CONNECTION 5/8" DIA. X 10' GROUND ROD NEW GROUND CONDUCTOR #2 GREEN COATED SOLID COPPER WIRE18"GROUND LEGEND MECHANICAL CONNECTION EXOTHERMIC CADWELD TYP 5/8" DIA. X 10' LONG COPPER CLAD GROUND ROD AT 10' O.C. MAX AND 18" MIN BELOW FINISH GRADE 15 1" = 1'-0" GROUND DETAIL EXISTING GRADE 5 1/2" = 1'-0" GROUNDING PLAN (P) 5/8" X 10" GROUNDING ROD (P) CADWELD CONNECTION TYPE "GRI" MOLD (P) MECHANICAL CONNECTION (P) #2 GREEN COATED SOLID COPPER WIRE ENCASED WITHIN WOODEN MOLDING CONNECTED WITH GALVANIZED STEEL STRAPS AT 3'-0" O.C. PER PG& E REQUIREMENTS (P) ANTENNA GROUND (P) ANTENNA MAST GROUND Plot Date:2/23/2018 9:13:56 AM File NameT:\2016\T-16509_Modus_SF_CRAN_AT&T\SFOK2_014-83\SFOK2_014_83\Sheets\Building A\E-2 Pole Ground & Details.dwg Plotted By:Brian Winslow1478 STONE POINT DRIVE, SUITE 350 ROSEVILLE CA 95661 TEL FAX borgesarch.com 916 782 7200 916 773 3037 SHEET NO. SHEET TITLE DRAWN BY: BPM CHECK BY: B.K.W. PROJECT NO.: T-16509-74 STAMP REV DESCRIPTIONDATE 240 STOCKTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108 modus-corp.com 5001 EXECUTIVE PARKWAY SAN RAMON, CA 94583 No. C11535 0 08/25/17 90% CD Submittal SITE NUMBER: SFOK02_014 SITE ADDRESS: ACROSS FROM 1800 HILLSIDE DR BURLINGAME, CA 94010 1 09/13/17 100% CD Submittal 2 09/25/17 100% CD Sub Rev 1 3 02/20/18 100% CD Sub Rev 2 E-2 POLE GROUND & DETAILS T-1 TITLE SHEET TITLE SHEET T-1 SHEET INDEX PROJECT TEAM Agent: Jimmy Stillman Modus-Corporation, Inc. 240 Stockton Street, 3rd Floor San Francisco, CA 94108 ph: (530) 913-9577 email: jstillman@modus-corp.com GENERAL CONTRACTOR NOTES DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS THESE DRAWINGS ARE FORMATTED TO BE FULL SIZE AT 36" x 24" (D1). CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL PLANS AND EXISTING DIMENSIONS AND CONDITIONS ON THE JOBSITE AND SHALL IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE ARCHITECT/ENGINEER IN WRITING OF ANY DISCREPANCIES BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH THE WORK OR MATERIAL ORDERS OR BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SAME. DIRECTIONS FROM AT&T's OFFICE DIRECTIONS FROM AT&T's OFFICE AT 5001 EXECUTIVE PARKWAY, SAN RAMON, CA 1.TURN RIGHT ONTO SUNSET DR 2.TURN RIGHT ONTO BOLLINGER CANYON RD 3.MERGE ONTO I-680 S VIA THE RAMP TO SAN JOSE 4.TAKE EXIT 30B TO MERGE ONTO I-580 W TOWARD DUBLIN/OAKLAND 5.KEEP LEFT AT THE FORK TO CONTINUE ON I-238 N, FOLLOW SIGNS FOR I-880 6.TAKE EXIT 16A FOR INTERSTATE 880 S TOWARD SAN JOSE/SAN MATEO BRIDGE 7.TAKE EXIT 27 TO MERGE ONTO CA-92 W TOWARD SAN MATEO BRIDGE/JACKSON ST 8.TAKE EXIT 13B TO MERGE ONTO US-101 N TOWARD SAN FRANCISCO 9.TAKE EXIT 417B FOR PENINSULA AVE 10.SHARP RIGHT ONTO AIRPORT BLVD (SIGNS FOR COYOTE POINT DRIVE/AIRPORT BOULEVARD) 11.TURN RIGHT ONTO PENINSULA AVE 12.TURN RIGHT ONTO N HUMBOLDT ST 13.TURN LEFT ONTO ROLLINS RD 14.TURN LEFT ONTO BLOOMFIELD RD/OAK GROVE AVE 15.TURN RIGHT ONTO OAK GROVE AVE 16.TURN RIGHT ONTO WINCHESTER DR VICINITY MAP THIS IS AN UNMANNED WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITY FOR AT&T MOBILITY CONSISTING OF THE INSTALLATION AND OPERATION OF AN ANTENNA AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT ON AN EXISTING WOOD UTILITY POLE IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. OCCUPANCY AND CONSTRUCTION TYPE OCCUPANCY : N/A CONSTRUCTION TYPE: G.O. 128 AND 2009 AASHTO 5TH EDITION STANDARD ALL WORK AND MATERIALS SHALL BE PERFORMED AND INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CURRENT EDITIONS OF THE FOLLOWING CODES AS ADOPTED BY THE LOCAL GOVERNING AUTHORITIES. NOTHING IN THESE PLANS IS TO BE CONSTRUED TO PERMIT WORK NOT CONFORMING TO THESE CODES. 1.2016 CALIFORNIA ADMINISTRATIVE CODES (INCL. TITLES 24 & 25) 2.2016 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE 3.2016 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE 4.2016 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE 5.2016 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE 6.2016 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE 7.2016 CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING CODE 8.2016 CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE 9.2016 SAN FRANCISCO CODE AMENDMENTS 10.2016 SAN FRANCISCO BUILDING CODE AMENDMENTS 11.2016 SAN FRANCISCO ELECTRICAL CODE AMENDMENTS 12.2016 SAN FRANCISCO MECHANICAL CODE AMENDMENTS 13.2016 SAN FRANCISCO PLUMBING CODE AMENDMENTS 14.2016 SAN FRANCISCO FIRE CODE AMENDMENTS 15.2016 SAN FRANCISCO GREEN BUILDING CODE AMENDMENTS 16.2016 SAN FRANCISCO HOUSING CODE DISABLED ACCESS REQUIREMENTS FACILITY IS UNMANNED AND NOT FOR HUMAN HABITATION, ACCESSIBILITY REQUIREMENTS ARE NOT REQUIRED, IN ACCORDANCE WITH CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE, CODE OF REGULATIONS, TITLE 24, PART 2, VOLUME 1, CHAPTER 11B, DIVISION 2, SECTION 11B-203.5 CODE COMPLIANCE SURVEYC-1 Project Manager: Jimmy Stillman Modus-Corporation, Inc. 240 Stockton Street, 3rd Floor San Francisco, CA 94108 ph: (530) 913-9577 email: jstillman@modus-corp.com Construction Manager: Kresston Haynes Modus-Corporation, Inc. 240 Stockton Street, 3rd Floor San Francisco, CA 94108 ph: (209) 938-7251 email: khaynes@modus-corp.com Architect / Engineer of Record: Borges Architectural Group, Inc. 1478 Stone Point Drive, Suite 350 Roseville, CA 95661 contact: Brian K. Winslow ph: (916) 782-7200 email: brian@borgesarch.com AT&T Project Manager: Marc Grabisch, SAQ PM AT&T Mobility 5001 Executive Parkway San Ramon, CA 94583 ph: (925) 549-9671 email: mg387k@att.com RF Manager: Jeric Lizardo AT&T Mobility 5001 Executive Parkway San Ramon, CA 94583 ph: (925) 365-0155 email: j8771@att.com SHEET NO.SHEET TITLE SITE PLANA-1 ENLARGED SITE PLAN & ANTENNA PLANA-2 FRONT ELEVATIONSA-3.1 GENERAL NOTESGN-1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION SCOPE OF WORK & SITE COMPLETION CHECKLIST ·ANTENNA & ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT BOXES - INSTALL A NEW TELECOMMUNICATION ANTENNA AND EQUIPMENT BOXES ON AN EXISTING WOOD UTILITY POLE ON GO95 COMPLIANT STANDOFF BRACKET. INSTALLATION CONSISTS OF (1) CANISTER ANTENNA, (2) RRUs-32, (1) ELECTRICAL METER, (1) LOAD CENTER, (2) DISCONNECT SWITCH. ·CABLING - CABLING TO BE INSTALLED IN A TIDY MANNER WITHOUT EXCESS CABLE LOOPS ·SPACING OF SUPPORT ELEMENTS - SUPPORT EQUIPMENT (E.G. RRUS) TO BE CLUSTERED (VERTICALLY) AS CLOSE AS TECHNICALLY FEASIBLE ON POLE. ·LOGO REMOVAL - ALL EQUIPMENT LOGOS, OTHER THAN THOSE REQUIRED BY REGULATION (E.G. NODE IDENTIFICATION) SHALL BE PAINTED OVER OR REMOVED. RAISED OR DEPRESSED TEXT ON RRUS OR OTHER EQUIPMENT, IF PRESENT, SHALL BE SANDED OFF OR SIMILARLY REMOVED / FILLED. ·SIGNAGE - FCC MANDATED RF WARNING SIGNAGE SHALL FACE OUT TO STREET WHEN PLACED IN FRONT OF, OR NEAR A WINDOW. SIGNAGE SHALL FACE TOWARD A BUILDING IF THERE IS NO WINDOW. ·ALL CABLING, ANTENNAS, AND EQUIPMENT TO BE PAINTED TO MATCH POLE AT&T Construction Manager: Leo Ruazol, CX PM AT&T Mobility 5001 Executive Parkway San Ramon, CA 94583 ph: (650) 787-6814 email: LR2164@att.com SITE Plot Date:2/23/2018 3:43:43 PM File NameT:\2016\T-16509_Modus_SF_CRAN_AT&T\SFOK2_019-88\SFOK2_019\Sheets\Building A\T-1 Title Sheet.dwg Plotted By:Brian Winslow1478 STONE POINT DRIVE, SUITE 350 ROSEVILLE CA 95661 TEL FAX borgesarch.com 916 782 7200 916 773 3037 SHEET NO. SHEET TITLE DRAWN BY: B.P.M. CHECK BY: B.K.W. PROJECT NO.: T-16509-88 STAMP REV DESCRIPTIONDATE 240 STOCKTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108 modus-corp.com 5001 EXECUTIVE PARKWAY SAN RAMON, CA 94583 No. C11535 0 10/02/17 90% CD Submittal SITE NUMBER: SFOK02_019 SITE ADDRESS: ADJ. TO 701 WINCHESTER DRIVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 1 12/04/17 100% CD Submittal 2 02/22/18 100% CD Rev 1 DETAILSA-4 SINGLE LINE DIAGRAM &PANEL SCHEDULEE-1 POLE GROUND & RISER DIAGRAM & DETAILSE-2 SITE NUMBER: SFOK02_019 SITE NAME: CRAN_RSFR_SFOK2_019 SITE ADDRESS: ADJ. TO 701 WINCHESTER DRIVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 COUNTY: SAN MATEO SITE TYPE:PG&E WOOD UTILITY POLE POLE OWNER:JPA PROJECT INFORMATION Property Information: Site Name: CRAN_RSFR_SFOK2_019 Site Number: SFOK02_019 Site Address: ADJ. TO 701 WINCHESTER DRIVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 A.P.N. Number: ---- Current Zoning: N/A - PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY Jurisdiction: CITY OF BURLINGAME Latitude: N 37 35' 03.72" Longitude: W -122 20' 53.59" Elevation: +/- 19.3' AMSL Power Agency: SFPUC 525 GOLDEN GATE AVENUE SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94120 Telephone Agency: AT&T 525 MARKET STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105 ph: (415) 778-1231 SIDE ELEVATIONSA-3.2 Plot Date:2/23/2018 3:44:26 PM File NameT:\2016\T-16509_Modus_SF_CRAN_AT&T\SFOK2_019-88\SFOK2_019\Sheets\Building A\GN-1 General Notes.dwg Plotted By:Brian Winslow1478 STONE POINT DRIVE, SUITE 350 ROSEVILLE CA 95661 TEL FAX borgesarch.com 916 782 7200 916 773 3037 SHEET NO. SHEET TITLE DRAWN BY: B.P.M. CHECK BY: B.K.W. PROJECT NO.: T-16509-88 STAMP REV DESCRIPTIONDATE 240 STOCKTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108 modus-corp.com 5001 EXECUTIVE PARKWAY SAN RAMON, CA 94583 No. C11535 0 10/02/17 90% CD Submittal SITE NUMBER: SFOK02_019 SITE ADDRESS: ADJ. TO 701 WINCHESTER DRIVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 1 12/04/17 100% CD Submittal 2 02/22/18 100% CD Rev 1 GN-1 GENERAL NOTES 1.THESE NOTES SHALL BE CONSIDERED A PART OF THE WRITTEN SPECIFICATIONS, CONTRACT AND CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS. 2.THE WORK SHALL INCLUDE FURNISHING MATERIALS, EQUIPMENT, APPURTENANCES, AND LABOR NECESSARY TO COMPLETE ALL INSTALLATIONS AS INDICATED ON THE PLANS AND IN THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. 3.PRIOR TO THE SUBMISSION OF BIDS, THE CONTRACTOR(S) SHALL VISIT THE JOB SITE(S) AND BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL CONTRACT DOCUMENTS, FIELD CONDITIONS AND DIMENSIONS, AND CONFIRM THE WORK MAY BE ACCOMPLISHED PER THE CONTRACT DRAWINGS. ANY DISCREPANCIES ARE TO BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE IMPLEMENTATION ENGINEER AND ARCHITECT / ENGINEER PRIOR TO BID SUBMITTAL. 4.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL RECEIVE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION TO PROCEED ON ANY WORK NOT CLEARLY DEFINED OR IDENTIFIED IN THE CONTRACT AND CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS BEFORE STARTING ANY WORK. 5.ALL WORK PERFORMED AND MATERIALS INSTALLED SHALL BE IN STRICT ACCORDANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE CODES, REGULATIONS, AND ORDINANCES, INCLUDING APPLICABLE MUNICIPAL AND UTILITY COMPANY SPECIFICATIONS. 6.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL ALL EQUIPMENT AND MATERIALS IN ACCORDANCE WITH MANUFACTURER RECOMMENDATIONS. IF THE RECOMMENDATIONS ARE IN CONFLICT WITH THE CONTRACT AND CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS AND/OR APPLICABLE CODES OR REGULATIONS, REVIEW AND RESOLVE THE CONFLICT WITH DIRECTION FROM THE IMPLEMENTATION ENGINEER AND ARCHITECT/ENGINEER OF RECORD PRIOR TO PROCEEDING. 7.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL CONSTRUCTION MEANS, METHODS, TECHNIQUES, SEQUENCES, AND PROCEDURES AND FOR COORDINATION OF ALL PORTIONS OF THE WORK UNDER THE CONTRACT INCLUDING CONTACT AND COORDINATION WITH THE IMPLEMENTATION ENGINEER AND WITH THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF ANY OUTSIDE POLE OR PROPERTY OWNER. 8.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAKE NECESSARY PROVISIONS TO PROTECT EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO PAVING, CURBS, VEGETATION, GALVANIZED SURFACE OR OTHER EXISTING ELEMENTS AND UPON COMPLETION OF THE WORK, REPAIR AND DAMAGE THAT OCCURRED DURING CONSTRUCTION TO THE SATISFACTION OF AT&T MOBILITY. 9.CONTRACTOR IS TO KEEP THE GENERAL AREA CLEAN, HAZARD FREE, AND DISPOSE OF ALL DIRT, DEBRIS, RUBBISH, AND REMOVE EQUIPMENT NOT SPECIFIED AS REMAINING ON THE PROPERTY. LEAVE PREMISES IN CLEAN CONDITION DAILY. 10.PLANS ARE INTENDED TO BE DIAGRAMMATIC ONLY AND SHOULD NOT BE SCALED UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. RELY ONLY ON ANNOTATED DIMENSIONS AND REQUEST INFORMATION IF ADDITIONAL DIMENSIONS ARE REQUIRED. 11.THE EXISTENCE AND LOCATION OF UTILITIES AND OTHER AGENCY'S FACILITIES WERE OBTAINED BY A SEARCH OF AVAILABLE RECORDS. OTHER FACILITIES MAY EXIST. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY LOCATIONS PRIOR TO START OF CONSTRUCTION AND USE EXTREME CARE AND PROTECTIVE MEASURES TO PREVENT DAMAGE TO THE FACILITIES. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PROTECTION OF UTILITIES OR OTHER AGENCY'S FACILITIES WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE WORK, WHETHER THEY ARE IDENTIFIED IN THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS OR NOT. 12.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT (800) 227-2600, AT LEAST TWO WORKING DAYS PRIOR TO START OF ANY EXCAVATION. GENERAL NOTES: DEFINITIONS: 1."TYPICAL" OR "TYP" MEANS THAT THIS ITEM IS SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME ACROSS SIMILAR CONDITIONS. "TYP" SHALL BE UNDERSTOOD TO MEAN "TYPICAL WHERE OCCURS" AND SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED AS WITHOUT EXCEPTION OR CONSIDERATION OF SPECIFIC CONDITIONS. 2."SIMILAR" MEANS COMPARABLE TO CHARACTERISTICS FOR THE CONDITION NOTED. VERIFY DIMENSIONS AND ORIENTATION ON PLAN. 3."AS REQUIRED" MEANS AS REQUIRED BY REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS, BY REFERENCES STANDARDS, BY EXISTING CONDITIONS, BY GENERALLY ACCEPTED CONSTRUCTION PRACTICE, OR BY THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. 4."ALIGN" MEANS ACCURATELY LOCATE FINISH FACES OF MATERIALS IN THE SAME PLANE. 5.THE TERM "VERIFY" OF "V.I.F." SHALL BE UNDERSTOOD TO MEAN "VERIFY IN FIELD WITH ENGINEER" AND REQUIRES THAT THE CONTRACTOR CONFIRM INTENTION REGARDING NOTED CONDITION AND PROCEED ONLY AFTER RECEIVING DIRECTION. 6.WHERE THE WORDS "OR EQUAL" OR WORDS OF SIMILAR INTENT FOLLOW A MATERIAL SPECIFICATION, THEY SHALL BE UNDERSTOOD TO REQUIRE SIGNED APPROVAL OF ANY DEVIATION TO SAID SPECIFICATION PRIOR TO CONTRACTOR'S ORDERING OR INSTALLATION OF SUCH PROPOSED EQUAL PRODUCT. 7."FURNISH" MEANS SUPPLY ONLY, OTHERS TO INSTALL. 8."INSTALL" MEANS INSTALL ITEMS FURNISHED BY OTHERS. 9."PROVIDE" MEANS FURNISH AND INSTALL. OFFICE 101 ROOM NUMBER WALL TYPE MARK KEYNOTE, CONSTRUCTION ITEM KEYNOTE, DIMENSION ITEM ROOM NAME WALL SECTION DETAIL W-3 BLDG. SECTIONA-300 1 A-500 D5 A-310 A5 A-113 C1 A-113 C4 A-113 A1 A-113 A4 ELEVATION 3 2 CENTERLINE ELEVATION DATUM TILT-UP PANEL MARK WINDOW SYMBOL DOOR SYMBOL PROPERTY LINE 3 ±0" 001 10 A GRID/COLUMN LINE A-300 1 GROUT OR PLASTER (E) BRICK (E) MASONRY CONCRETE EARTH GRAVEL PLYWOOD SAND PLYWOOD SAND (E) STEEL MATCH LINE GROUND CONDUCTOR TELEPHONE CONDUIT POWER CONDUIT COAXIAL CABLE Tel Pwr Coax CHAIN LINK FENCE OVERHEAD SERVICE CONDUCTORSOH WOOD FENCE SYMBOL LEGEND: A.B.ANCHOR BOLT ABV.ABOVE ACCA ANTENNA CABLE COVER ASSEMBLY ADD'L ADDITIONAL A.F.F.ABOVE FINISHED FLOOR A.F.G.ABOVE FINISHED GRADE ALUM.ALUMINUM ALT.ALTERNATE ANT.ANTENNA APPRX.APPROXIMATE(LY) ARCH.ARCHITECT(URAL) AWG.AMERICAN WIRE GAUGE BLDG.BUILDING BLK.BLOCK BLKG.BLOCKING BM.BEAM B.N.BOUNDARY NAILING BTCW.BARE TINNED COPPER WIRE B.O.F.BOTTOM OF FOOTING B/U BACK-UP CABINET CAB.CABINET CANT.CANTILEVER(ED) C.I.P.CAST IN PLACE CLG.CEILING CLR.CLEAR COL.COLUMN CONC.CONCRETE CONN.CONNECTION(OR) CONST.CONSTRUCTION CONT.CONTINUOUS d PENNY (NAILS) DBL.DOUBLE DEPT.DEPARTMENT D.F.DOUGLAS FIR DIA.DIAMETER DIAG.DIAGONAL DIM.DIMENSION DWG.DRAWING(S) DWL.DOWEL(S) EA.EACH EL.ELEVATION ELEC.ELECTRICAL ELEV.ELEVATOR EMT.ELECTRICAL METALLIC TUBING E.N.EDGE NAIL ENG.ENGINEER EQ.EQUAL EXP.EXPANSION EXST.(E)EXISTING EXT.EXTERIOR FAB.FABRICATION(OR) F.F.FINISH FLOOR F.G.FINISH GRADE FIN.FINISH(ED) FLR.FLOOR FDN.FOUNDATION F.O.C.FACE OF CONCRETE F.O.M.FACE OF MASONRY F.O.S.FACE OF STUD F.O.W.FACE OF WALL F.S.FINISH SURFACE FT.( ' )FOOT (FEET) FTG.FOOTING G.GROWTH (CABINET) GA.GAUGE GI.GALVANIZE(D) G.F.I.GROUND FAULT CIRCUIT INTERRUPTER GLB. (GLU-LAM)GLUE LAMINATED BEAM GPS GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM GRND.GROUND HDR.HEADER HGR.HANGER HT.HEIGHT ICGB.ISOLATED COPPER GROUND BUS IN. ( " )INCH(ES) INT.INTERIOR LB.(#)POUND(S) L.B.LAG BOLTS L.F.LINEAR FEET (FOOT) L.LONG(ITUDINAL) MAS.MASONRY MAX.MAXIMUM M.B.MACHINE BOLT MECH.MECHANICAL MFR.MANUFACTURER MIN.MINIMUM MISC.MISCELLANEOUS MTL.METAL (N)NEW NO.(#)NUMBER N.T.S.NOT TO SCALE O.C.ON CENTER OPNG.OPENING P/C PRECAST CONCRETE PCS PERSONAL COMMUNICATION SERVICES PLY.PLYWOOD PPC POWER PROTECTION CABINET PRC PRIMARY RADIO CABINET P.S.F.POUNDS PER SQUARE FOOT P.S.I.POUNDS PER SQUARE INCH P.T.PRESSURE TREATED PWR.POWER (CABINET) QTY.QUANTITY RAD.(R)RADIUS REF.REFERENCE REINF.REINFORCEMENT(ING) REQ'D/REQUIRED RGS.RIGID GALVANIZED STEEL SCH.SCHEDULE SHT.SHEET SIM.SIMILAR SPEC.SPECIFICATIONS SQ.SQUARE S.S.STAINLESS STEEL STD.STANDARD STL.STEEL STRUC.STRUCTURAL TEMP.TEMPORARY THK.THICK(NESS) T.N.TOE NAIL T.O.A.TOP OF ANTENNA T.O.C.TOP OF CURB T.O.F.TOP OF FOUNDATION T.O.P.TOP OF PLATE (PARAPET) T.O.S.TOP OF STEEL T.O.W.TOP OF WALL TYP.TYPICAL U.G.UNDER GROUND U.L. UNDERWRITERS LABORATORY U.N.O.UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE V.I.F.VERIFY IN FIELD W WIDE (WIDTH) w/WITH WD.WOOD W.P.WEATHERPROOF WT.WEIGHT C CENTERLINE P PLATE, PROPERTY LINE L L ABBREVIATIONS: 17 1/8" = 1'-0" OVERALL SITE PLAN A-2 17 (P) ANTENNA MOUNTED ON TOP OF (E) UTILITY POLE w/ (2) RRUS 32 WITH PSU-08 MOUNTED ON (E) UTILITY POLE (E) WOOD UTILITY POLE W/STREET LIGHT HT. 29'± (E) BUILDING (E) BUILDING APN: 029-062-170 APN: 029-073-140 APN: 029-141-010 (E) "STOP" SIGN (E) OVERHEAD UTILITY LINES (E) OVERHEAD UTILITY LINES (E) SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE (E) SIGN (E) SAWED OFF UTILITY POLE HT. 1.3' (E) SAWED OFF UTILITY POLE HT. 22.8' (E) WATER VALVE (E) BRICK PILLAR (E) OVERHEAD UTILITY LINES (E) LIP OF GUTTER (E) UTILITY POLE (E) "STOP" SIGN (E) TREES (E) TREES (E) TREES (E) TREES (E) TREES (E) FENCE(E) C O N C R E T E SI D E W AL K (E) C O N C R E T E SI D E W AL K DRI V E W A Y LEGEND: WATER: SANITARY SEWER: STORM DRAIN: OVERHEAD UTILITY LINES:Plot Date:2/23/2018 3:45:23 PM File NameT:\2016\T-16509_Modus_SF_CRAN_AT&T\SFOK2_019-88\SFOK2_019\Sheets\Building A\A-1 Site Plan.dwg Plotted By:Brian Winslow1478 STONE POINT DRIVE, SUITE 350 ROSEVILLE CA 95661 TEL FAX borgesarch.com 916 782 7200 916 773 3037 SHEET NO. SHEET TITLE DRAWN BY: B.P.M. CHECK BY: B.K.W. PROJECT NO.: T-16509-88 STAMP REV DESCRIPTIONDATE 240 STOCKTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108 modus-corp.com 5001 EXECUTIVE PARKWAY SAN RAMON, CA 94583 No. C11535 0 10/02/17 90% CD Submittal SITE NUMBER: SFOK02_019 SITE ADDRESS: ADJ. TO 701 WINCHESTER DRIVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 1 12/04/17 100% CD Submittal 2 02/22/18 100% CD Rev 1 A-1 SITE PLAN 8'4'8'16' 1/8"=1'-0" 00 N 17 1/2" = 1'-0" ENLARGED SITE PLAN A-2 5 (E) WOOD UTILITY POLE HT. 29'± (E) OVERHEAD UTILITY LINES (E) SIGN (E) TREES (P) ANTENNA MOUNTED ON TOP OF (E) UTILITY POLE w/ (2) RRUS 32 WITH PSU-08 MOUNTED ON (E) UTILITY POLE (E) SAWED OFF UTILITY POLE HT. 1.3' (E) SAWED OFF UTILITY POLE HT. 22.8' (E) TREES (E) FENCE (E) WATER VALVE LEGEND: WATER: SANITARY SEWER: STORM DRAIN: OVERHEAD UTILITY LINES: 5 1" = 1'-0" ENLARGED ANTENNA PLAN (P) ANTENNA MOUNTED ON TOP OF (E) UTILITY POLE (P) (2) RRUs-32 WITH PSU-08 MOUNTED ON SIDE OF (E) UTILITY POLE (P) 3" COAX RISER (P) 1 1/2" AC POWER RISER (E) STREET LIGHT 8 1" = 1'-0" RRUS-32 MOUNTING DETAIL 12 3 6 NOTE: 30"X30" UNOBSTRUCTED CLIMBING SPACE (P) 2" SQ. STEEL TUBE (P) 5/8" ANTI-SPLIT GALVANIZED THRU-BOLT (TYP) (P) 3/8" "C" ALUMINUM CHANNEL, 8" WIDE (P) UNISTRUT P1000 OR EQ. (2) (P) AT&T RRUs-32 WITH PSU-08 (E) UTILITY POLE (P) 3" COAX CONDUIT 9 4 " (P) 1 1/2" CONDUIT 3 1" = 1'-0" POWER METER MOUNTING DETAIL 12 3 6 NOTE: 30"X30" UNOBSTRUCTED CLIMBING SPACE (P) 3/8" "C" ALUMINUM CHANNEL, 8" WIDE (P) UNISTRUT P1000 OR EQ. (P) AT&T POWER METER (E) UTILITY POLE 9 (P) 5/8" ANTI-SPLIT GALVANIZED THRU-BOLT (TYP) (P) 2" SQ. STEEL TUBE 4 " (P) 1 1/2" CONDUIT 7 1" = 1'-0" LOAD CENTER MOUNTING DETAIL 12 3 6 NOTE: 30"X30" UNOBSTRUCTED CLIMBING SPACE (P) 3/8" "C" ALUMINUM CHANNEL, 8" WIDE (P) UNISTRUT P1000 OR EQ. (P) ELECTRIC LOAD CENTER (E) UTILITY POLE 9 (P) 5/8" ANTI-SPLIT GALVANIZED THRU-BOLT (TYP) (P) 2" SQ. STEEL TUBE (P) FIBER DISTRIBUTION PANEL 4 " (P) 1 1/2" CONDUIT Plot Date:2/23/2018 3:46:17 PM File NameT:\2016\T-16509_Modus_SF_CRAN_AT&T\SFOK2_019-88\SFOK2_019\Sheets\Building A\A-2 Enlarged Site Plan & Antenna Plan.dwg Plotted By:Brian Winslow1478 STONE POINT DRIVE, SUITE 350 ROSEVILLE CA 95661 TEL FAX borgesarch.com 916 782 7200 916 773 3037 SHEET NO. SHEET TITLE DRAWN BY: B.P.M. CHECK BY: B.K.W. PROJECT NO.: T-16509-88 STAMP REV DESCRIPTIONDATE 240 STOCKTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108 modus-corp.com 5001 EXECUTIVE PARKWAY SAN RAMON, CA 94583 No. C11535 0 10/02/17 90% CD Submittal SITE NUMBER: SFOK02_019 SITE ADDRESS: ADJ. TO 701 WINCHESTER DRIVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 1 12/04/17 100% CD Submittal 2 02/22/18 100% CD Rev 1 A-2 ENLARGED SITE PLAN & ANTENNA PLAN 1/2"=1'-0" 01'2'2'4'0 N 1'0.5'1'2'0 1"=1'-0" 0 N ############## ####################### 22'-9" TOP OF (E) SAWED OFF UTILITY POLE 23'-1" TOP OF (E) UTILITY LINE AND ANCHOR POINT 0'-0" GRADE LEVEL 21'-4" TOP OF (E) UTILITY LINE AND ANCHOR POINT 26'-1" BOTTOM OF (E) STREET LIGHT ARM 23'-3" BOTTOM OF (E) CROSSARM 26'-7" TOP OF (E) STREET LIGHT 29'-1" TOP OF (E) WOOD UTILITY POLE (E) GUY WIRE (E) SIDEWALK ############# ####################### 9'-0" TOP OF (P) POWER METER 10'-3" TOP OF (P) LOAD CENTER AND FIBER DISTRIBUTION PANEL (2) (P) RRUs -32 WITH PSU-08 MOUNTED TO (E) WOOD POLE (P) GROUND BAR (P) POWER METER 18'-0" TOP OF (P) DIPLEXERS 13'-8" TOP OF (P) RRU 32 7'-0" BOTTOM OF (P) POWER METER (P) ELECTRIC LOAD CENTER (P) FIBER DISTRIBUTION PANEL 17'-3" TOP OF (P) RRU 32 (2) (P) TWIN DIPLEXERS 3 7 (P) AT&T ANTENNA MOUNTED TO (P) 7' EXTENSION ON TOP OF (E) UTILITY POLE (P) 6'-0" POWER SAFETY ZONE PER GO 95 37'-0" RAD CENTER OF (P) AT&T ANTENNA 38'-1" TOP OF (P) AT&T ANTENNA (E) WOOD UTILITY POLE (P) 3" COAX RISER (E) GUY WIRE (E) SIDEWALK 22'-10" TOP OF (E) SAWED OFF UTILITY POLE 21'-4" TOP OF (E) UTILITY LINE AND ANCHOR POINT 26'-1" BOTTOM OF (E) STREET LIGHT ARM 23'-2" BOTTOM OF (E) CROSSARM 26'-7" TOP OF (E) STREET LIGHT 29'-1" TOP OF (E) WOOD UTILITY POLE 23'-0" TOP OF (E) SAWED OFF UTILITY POLE 0'-0" GRADE LEVEL (P) RF WARNING SIGN - MINIMUM APPROACH DISTANCE = 5'-0" (P) AT&T FIBER P.O.C. (P) 2" FIBER RISER FROM AT&T TO (P) FIBER DEMARK ENCLOSURE NEXT TO LOAD CENTER ON POLE 35'-6" TOP OF COAX RISER / BOTTOM OF (P) ANTENNA BRACKET 33'-2" RAD CENTER OF (P) AT&T ANTENNA Plot Date:2/23/2018 3:51:28 PM File NameT:\2016\T-16509_Modus_SF_CRAN_AT&T\SFOK2_019-88\SFOK2_019\Sheets\Building A\A-3 Elevations.dwg Plotted By:Brian Winslow1478 STONE POINT DRIVE, SUITE 350 ROSEVILLE CA 95661 TEL FAX borgesarch.com 916 782 7200 916 773 3037 SHEET NO. SHEET TITLE DRAWN BY: B.P.M. CHECK BY: B.K.W. PROJECT NO.: T-16509-88 STAMP REV DESCRIPTIONDATE 240 STOCKTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108 modus-corp.com 5001 EXECUTIVE PARKWAY SAN RAMON, CA 94583 No. C11535 0 10/02/17 90% CD Submittal SITE NUMBER: SFOK02_019 SITE ADDRESS: ADJ. TO 701 WINCHESTER DRIVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 1 12/04/17 100% CD Submittal 2 02/22/18 100% CD Rev 1 A-3.1 FRONT ELEVATIONS NOTES: 1.PAINT RRU SOLAR SHIELD, MOUNTING COMPONENTS & CABLE SWEEP TO MATCH (E) POLE. 17 3/8" = 1'-0" EXISTING SOUTH ELEVATION 22'-10" TOP OF (E) SAWED OFF UTILITY POLE TOP OF (E) UTILITY LINE AND ANCHOR POINT 0'-0" GRADE LEVEL 21'-4" TOP OF (E) UTILITY LINE AND ANCHOR POINT BOTTOM OF (E) STREET LIGHT ARM BOTTOM OF (E) CROSSARM TOP OF (E) STREET LIGHT TOP OF (E) WOOD UTILITY POLE (E) SIDEWALK 9 3/8" = 1'-0" PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATION 22'-10" TOP OF (E) SAWED OFF UTILITY POLE 23'-0" TOP OF (E) UTILITY LINE AND ANCHOR POINT 0'-0" GRADE LEVEL 21'-4" TOP OF (E) UTILITY LINE AND ANCHOR POINT 26'-1" BOTTOM OF (E) STREET LIGHT ARM 23'-2" BOTTOM OF (E) CROSSARM 26'-7" TOP OF (E) STREET LIGHT 29'-1" TOP OF (E) WOOD UTILITY POLE 9'-0" TOP OF (P) POWER METER 10'-3" TOP OF (P) LOAD CENTER AND FIBER DISTRIBUTION PANEL (2) (P) RRUs -32 WITH PSU-08 MOUNTED TO (E) WOOD POLE (P) GROUND BAR (P) POWER METER 18'-0" TOP OF (P) DIPLEXERS 13'-8" TOP OF (P) RRU 32 7'-0" BOTTOM OF (P) POWER METER (P) ELECTRIC LOAD CENTER (P) FIBER DISTRIBUTION PANEL 17'-3" TOP OF (P) RRU 32 (2) (P) TWIN DIPLEXERS 3 7 (P) AT&T ANTENNA MOUNTED TO (P) 7' EXTENSION ON TOP OF (E) UTILITY POLE (P) 6'-0" POWER SAFETY ZONE PER GO 95 37'-0" RAD CENTER OF (P) AT&T ANTENNA 38'-1" TOP OF (P) AT&T ANTENNA (E) WOOD UTILITY POLE (P) 3" COAX RISER 22'-10" TOP OF (E) SAWED OFF UTILITY POLE 21'-4" TOP OF (E) UTILITY LINE AND ANCHOR POINT 26'-1" BOTTOM OF (E) STREET LIGHT ARM 23'-2" BOTTOM OF (E) CROSSARM 26'-7" TOP OF (E) STREET LIGHT 29'-1" TOP OF (E) WOOD UTILITY POLE 23'-0" TOP OF (E) UTILITY LINE AND ANCHOR POINT 0'-0" GRADE LEVEL (P) RF WARNING SIGN - MINIMUM APPROACH DISTANCE = 6'-0"Plot Date:2/23/2018 3:55:14 PM File NameT:\2016\T-16509_Modus_SF_CRAN_AT&T\SFOK2_019-88\SFOK2_019\Sheets\Building A\A-3.2 SIDE ELEVATIONS.dwg Plotted By:Brian Winslow1478 STONE POINT DRIVE, SUITE 350 ROSEVILLE CA 95661 TEL FAX borgesarch.com 916 782 7200 916 773 3037 SHEET NO. SHEET TITLE DRAWN BY: B.P.M. CHECK BY: B.K.W. PROJECT NO.: T-16509-88 STAMP REV DESCRIPTIONDATE 240 STOCKTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108 modus-corp.com 5001 EXECUTIVE PARKWAY SAN RAMON, CA 94583 No. C11535 0 10/02/17 90% CD Submittal SITE NUMBER: SFOK02_019 SITE ADDRESS: ADJ. TO 701 WINCHESTER DRIVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 1 12/04/17 100% CD Submittal 2 02/22/18 100% CD Rev 1 SIDE ELEVATIONS A-3.2 4 1" = 1'-0" WIRE DIAGRAM CANISTER ANTENNA RETRETRETRETCOAX COAX COAXCOAX COAX COAXCOAXCOAX(P) (4) 1/2" SUPERFLEX COAX (P) (4) 1/2" SUPERFLEX COAX (P) RET CABLE COAXCOAXCOAXCOAX COAXCOAXCOAX COAXPLAN VIEW NEW 3/8" C ALUMINUM CHANNEL, 10" WIDE NEW 2" SQ. STEEL TUBE OR ROUND STOCK. 6" MIN. TYP. OF 4 NEW 1/2"Ø MOUNTING BOLT PER CABINET BOLTING PATTERN NEW UNISTRUT P1000 OR EQUAL (TYP.)- HORIZONTAL - LENGTH AS REQUIRED PER CABINET 5/8" Ø ANTI - SPLIT GALVANIZED THRU BOLT (TYP.) EXISTING WOODEN UTILITY POLE REQUIREDVERIFYPERCABINETBOLTINGPATTERN6" MIN 4" MIN CLEARANCE PER GO 95(E) 1 1/2" CONDUIT 5/8" Ø ANTI - SPLIT GALVANIZED THRU - BOLT (TYP.) NEW 3/8" C ALUMINUM CHANNEL, 6" WIDE MIN. NEW 1/2"Ø MOUNTING BOLT (CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY WITH CABINET MFG. SPEC.) NEW 2" SQ. STL. TUBE STEEL 11'-0"NOTE: ALL CABINETS MOUNTED TO UTILITY POLE SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM TOP & BOTTOM CLEARANCE OF 7". ELEVATION VEW 6"1'-0"2'-5"3'-3"3'-4"1'-0"NEW UNISTRUT P 1000 OR EQUAL (TYP.)- HORIZONTAL - LENGTH AS REQUIRED PER CABINET 17 3/4" = 1'-0" EQUIPMENT MOUNTING DETAIL (N) 3" COAX CONDUIT 9 3/4" = 1'-0" ANTENNA EQUIPMENT FRONT ELEVATION (P) RRUs-32 WITH PSU-08 MOUNTED TO (E) UTILITY POLE 1'-0" (P) GROUND BAR (P) AT&T POWER METER 11'-0"(P) ELECTRIC LOAD CENTER 2'-0"1'-3"1'-6"(2) (P) TWIN DIPLEXERS (P) FIBER DISTRIBUTION PANEL (P) 2'-0" TELECOMMUNICATIONS SAFETY ZONE 2'-0"1'-6"2'-0"10"(P) PLACE SHUT DOWN PROTOCOLS ON THE INSIDE COVER OF THE LOAD CENTER TO BE PROVIDED BY AT&T NEW 5-3/4" SQUARE WOOD EXTENSION FOR (E) WOOD UTILITY POLE 15 1" = 1'-0" CANISTER ANTENNA MOUNTING DETAIL (P) 6"X6"X6"X1/4" TUBE STEEL CAP (2) (P) 5/8" DIA. THRU BOLTS (P) WAGON WHEEL FOR 13" DIA RADOME UPPER BRACKET STEP 5/8'Ø X10" BOLT AND LOCKNUT (SUPPLIED) LOWER BRACKET STEP 13/16" HOLES FOR 3/4" BOLTS BRACKET ADAPTER (FOR POLE TOP DIAMETERS LESS THAN 8") EXISTING POLE EXTENSION BAYONET 5 3/4" SQUARE PRESSURE TREATED DOUGLAS FIR BRACKET ASSEMBLY (SEE DETAIL A) ANTI- SPLIT BOLT EXISTING POLE DETAIL A BRACKET ASSEMBLY NOTE: NEW BRACKET ASSEMBLY TO BE PROVIDED BY UTILITY COMPANY DETAIL B WOOD EXTENSION ASSEMBLY 12" 5" 7-1/2" 7-1/2" 7 3/4" = 1'-0" WOOD POLE EXTENSION TOP FRONT SIDE METER MAKE AND MODEL: MANUFACTURER: B-LINE MODEL: 114TB DIMENSIONS, HxWxD.in: 24" x12" x 4 5/8" WEIGHT: UNKNOWN METER SOCKET 1'-0"MOUNTING BRACKET FOR (P) EQUIPMENT 4 5/8"2'-0"1" = 1'-0" 14 1 1/2" = 1'-0" CONDUIT STRAP DETAIL (E) WOOD UTILITY POLE (P) 1/2" DIA. 3" ANTI-SPLIT LAG SCREW (P) 2-HOLE GALVANIZED CONDUIT STRAP (P) 3" COAX RISER 5 1' = 1'-0" NOTICE SIGNAGE NOTICE Transmitting Antenna(s) Radio frequency fields beyond this point MAY EXCEED the FCC General Population exposure limit. Obey all posted signs and site guidelines Call AT&T Mobility at 1 800-832-6662 PRIOR to working beyond this point. STATE:________SWITCH:__________________ SITE ID:_________________________________ SECTOR / NODE: ________________________ MINIMUM APPROACH DISTANCE = 6'-0" NOTE: SIGN BACKGROUND COLOR TO MATCH (E) POLE ALL TEXT AND SYMBOLS TO BE WHITE MINIMUM APPROACH DISTANCE - 6' SFOK02_019 1 1' = 1'-0" SHUT DOWN PROTOCOL SIGNAGE NORMAL SHUT-DOWN PROTOCOLS: 1.CALL (800) 638-2822 NOC 24 HRS. PRIOR TO SCHEDULE A SHUT-DOWN DAY AND TIME. 2.GIVE NOC THE NODE NUMBER _______________ 3.ON SCHEDULED DAY OF SHUT-DOWN, PULL THE DISCONNECT HANDLE TO THE *OFF* POSITION. 4.CAL NOC WHEN WORK IS COMPLETED. EMERGENCY SHUT-DOWN PROTOCOLS: 1.CALL NOC (800) 638-2822 2.GIVE NOC THE NODE NUMBER _______________ 3.PULL THE DISCONNECT HANDLE TO THE OFF POSITION. 4.CALL NOC WHEN WORK IS COMPLETED. NOTE: INSIDE AND OUTSIDE PANEL DOOR SHOWING SHUT-DOWN PROTOCOL ON 3"X4" LABEL SHUT DOWN DISCONNECT FRONT SIDE ELEC LOAD CENTER MAKE AND MODEL: MANUFACTURER: SQUARE D MODEL: QO612L100RB DIMENSIONS, HxWxD.in: 12.64" x8.9" x 4.27" WEIGHT: 9.7 lbs 12 1" = 1'-0" ELEC LOAD CENTER DETAIL MOUNTING BRACKET FOR (P) EQUIPMENT ELEC LOAD CENTER 8.9" TOP 12.64"4.27" NOTE: RF SHUTDOWN SIGNAGE TO BE ON THE INSIDE AND OUTSIDE OF THE LOAD CENTER ERICSSON RRU-32 WITH PSU-08 MODEL: RRUS 32 WITH PSU-08 COLOR:WHITE DIMENSIONS:26.7" TALL X 12.1" WIDE X 6.7" DEEP (INCLUDING SUNSHIELD) WIEGHT:+/- 80.4 LBS. (INCLUDING MOUNTING HARDWARE) 12.1"26.7"FRONT VIEW SIDE VIEW TOP VIEW P1000 UNISTRUT AS ALTERNATE ATTACHMENT SUNSHIELD PSU-08 SUNSHIELD MFR'S STANDARD MOUNTING BRACKETS P1000 UNISTRUT AS ALTERNATE ATTACHMENT 19 1 1/2" = 1'-0" RRUS 32 WITH PSU-08 MOUNTING DETAIL PSU-08 1'-0" 11 3" = 1'-0" TWIN DIPLEXER DETAIL TWIN DIPLEXER MAKE AND MODEL: MANUFACTURER: COMMSCOPE MODEL: CBC1923T-4310-E11F13P06 DIMENSIONS, HxWxD: 8.3" x 4.6" x 1.8" WEIGHT: 5.5 lbs PER UNIT 4 5/8"2 1/2"1 3/4"TOP: SIDE:FRONT: 8 3/8"8 7/8"(2) TWIN DIPLEXERS 3 1 1/2" = 1'-0" CANISTER ANTENNA 9.45" ANTENNA =CANISTER WEIGHT =33.1 LBS CONNECTOR =10 X 4.3-10 DIN (FEMALE) / BOTTOM DIMENSIONS =9.45"(DIA.) X 23.63"23.63"Plot Date:2/23/2018 3:57:25 PM File NameT:\2016\T-16509_Modus_SF_CRAN_AT&T\SFOK2_019-88\SFOK2_019\Sheets\Building A\A-4 Details.dwg Plotted By:Brian Winslow1478 STONE POINT DRIVE, SUITE 350 ROSEVILLE CA 95661 TEL FAX borgesarch.com 916 782 7200 916 773 3037 SHEET NO. SHEET TITLE DRAWN BY: B.P.M. CHECK BY: B.K.W. PROJECT NO.: T-16509-88 STAMP REV DESCRIPTIONDATE 240 STOCKTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108 modus-corp.com 5001 EXECUTIVE PARKWAY SAN RAMON, CA 94583 No. C11535 0 10/02/17 90% CD Submittal SITE NUMBER: SFOK02_019 SITE ADDRESS: ADJ. TO 701 WINCHESTER DRIVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 1 12/04/17 100% CD Submittal 2 02/22/18 100% CD Rev 1 A-4 DETAILS EMERGENCY SHUTDOWN DISCONNECT SWITCH LOCATED ABOVE ELECTRIC LOAD CENTER 3"4" NOTE: NEW VINYL SIGN TO BE PROVIDED BY AT&T AND BE LOCATED ON THE SIDE OF THE METER BOX. SIGN TO BE YELLOW. 4 NOT TO SCALE SHUTDOWN DISCONNECT SIGNAGE Plot Date:2/23/2018 3:57:59 PM File NameT:\2016\T-16509_Modus_SF_CRAN_AT&T\SFOK2_019-88\SFOK2_019\Sheets\Building A\E-1 Single Line Diagram and Notes.dwg Plotted By:Brian Winslow1478 STONE POINT DRIVE, SUITE 350 ROSEVILLE CA 95661 TEL FAX borgesarch.com 916 782 7200 916 773 3037 SHEET NO. SHEET TITLE DRAWN BY: B.P.M. CHECK BY: B.K.W. PROJECT NO.: T-16509-88 STAMP REV DESCRIPTIONDATE 240 STOCKTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108 modus-corp.com 5001 EXECUTIVE PARKWAY SAN RAMON, CA 94583 No. C11535 0 10/02/17 90% CD Submittal SITE NUMBER: SFOK02_019 SITE ADDRESS: ADJ. TO 701 WINCHESTER DRIVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 1 12/04/17 100% CD Submittal 2 02/22/18 100% CD Rev 1 E-1 SINGLE LINE DIAGRAM AND NOTES 5 N.T.S. ELECTRICAL NOTES ELECTRICAL NOTES GENERAL REQUIREMENTS: 1. ALL WORK AND MATERIALS SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LATEST RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE AND ALL STATE AND LOCAL CODES. NOTHING IN THESE PLANS OR SPECIFICATIONS SHALL BE CONSTRUED AS TO PERMIT WORK NOT CONFORMING TO THE MOST STRINGENT OF THESE CODES. SHOULD CHANGES BE NECESSARY IN THE DRAWINGS OR SPECIFICATIONS TO MAKE THE WORK COMPLY WITH THESE REQUIREMENTS, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE ARCHITECT IN WRITING AND CEASE WORK ON PARTS OF THE CONTRACT WHICH ARE AFFECTED. 2. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAKE A SITE VISIT PRIOR TO BIDDING AND CONSTRUCTION TO VERIFY ALL EXISTING CONDITIONS AND SHALL NOTIFY ARCHITECT IMMEDIATELY UPON DISCOVERY OF ANY DISCREPANCIES. THE CONTRACTOR ASSUMES ALL LIABILITY FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THIS PROVISION. 3. THE EXTENT OF THE WORK IS INDICATED BY THE DRAWINGS, SCHEDULES, AND SPECIFICATIONS AND IS SUBJECT TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE CONTRACT. THE WORK SHALL CONSIST OF FURNISHING ALL LABOR, EQUIPMENT, MATERIALS, AND SUPPLIES NECESSARY FOR A COMPLETE AND OPERATIONAL ELECTRICAL SYSTEM. THE WORK SHALL ALSO INCLUDE THE COMPLETION OF ALL ELECTRICAL WORK NOT MENTIONED OR SHOWN WHICH IS NECESSARY FOR SUCCESSFUL OPERATION OF ALL SYSTEMS. 4. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PREPARE A BID FOR A COMPLETE AND OPERATIONAL SYSTEM, WHICH INCLUDES THE COST FOR MATERIAL AND LABOR. 5. WORKMANSHIP AND NEAT APPEARANCE SHALL BE AS IMPORTANT AS THE OPERATION. DEFECTIVE OR DAMAGED MATERIALS SHALL BE REPLACED OR REPAIRED PRIOR TO FINAL ACCEPTANCE IN A MANNER ACCEPTABLE TO OWNER AND ENGINEER. 6. COMPLETE THE ENTIRE INSTALLATION AS SOON AS THE PROGRESS OF THE WORK WILL PERMIT. ARRANGE ANY OUTAGE OF SERVICE WITH THE OWNER AND BUILDING MANAGER IN ADVANCE. MINIMIZE DOWNTIME ON THE BUILDING ELECTRICAL SYSTEM. 7. THE ENTIRE ELECTRICAL SYSTEM INSTALLED UNDER THIS CONTRACT SHALL BE DELIVERED IN PROPER WORKING ORDER. REPLACE, WITHOUT ADDITIONAL COST TO THE OWNER, ANY DEFECTIVE MATERIAL AND EQUIPMENT WITHIN ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE OF FINAL ACCEPTANCE. 8. ANY ERROR, OMISSION OR DESIGN DESCREPANCY ON THE DRWINGS SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE ENGINEER FOR CLARIFICATION OR CORRECTION BEFORE CONSTRUCTION. 9. "PROVIDE" INDICATES THAT ALL ITEMS ARE TO BE FURNISHED, INSTALLED AND CONNECTED IN PLACE. 10. CONTRACTOR SHALL SECURE ALL NECESSARY BUILDING PERMITS AND PAY ALL REQUIRED FEES. EQUIPMENT LOCATION: 1. THE DRAWINGS INDICATE DIAGRAMMATICALLY THE DESIRED LOCATIONS OR ARRANGEMENTS OF CONDUIT RUNS, OUTLETS, EQUIPMENT, ETC., AND ARE TO BE FOLLOWED AS CLOSELY AS POSSIBLE. PROPER JUDGEMENT MUST BE EXERCISED IN EXECUTING THE WORK SO AS TO SECURE THE BEST POSSIBLE INSTALLATION IN THE AVAILABLE SPACE LIMITATIONS OR INTERFERENCE OF STRUCTURE CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. 2. IN THE EVENT CHANGES IN THE INDICATED LOCATIONS OR ARRANGEMENTS ARE NECESSARY, DUE TO FIELD CONDITIONS IN THE BUILDING CONSTRUCTION OR REARRANGEMENT OF FURNISHINGS OR EQUIPMENT, SUCH CHANGES SHALL BE MADE WITHOUT COST, PROVIDING THE CHANGE IS ORDERED BEFORE THE CONDUIT RUNS, ETC., AND WORK DIRECTLY CONNECTED TO THE SAME IS INSTALLED AND NO EXTRA MATERIALS ARE REQUIRED. 3. LIGHTING FIXTURES ARE SHOWN IN THEIR APPROXIMATE LOCATIONS ONLY. COORDINATE THE FIXTURE LOCATION WITH MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT TO AVOID INTERFERENCE. 4. COORDINATE THE WORK OF THIS SECTION WITH THAT OF ALL OTHER TRADES, WHERE CONFLICTS OCCUR, CONSULT WITH THE RESPECTIVE CONTRACTOR AND COME TO AGREEMENT AS TO CHANGES NECESSARY, OBTAIN WRITTEN ACCEPTANCE FROM ENGINEER FOR THE PROPOSED CHANGES BEFORE PROCEEDING. SHOP DRAWINGS: 1. N/A UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. SUBSTITUTIONS: 1. NO SUBSTITUTIONS ARE ALLOWED TESTS: 1. BEFORE FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WORK, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSURE THAT ALL EQUIPMENT, SYSTEMS, FIXTURES, ETC., ARE WORKING SATISFACTORILY AND TO THE INTENT OF THE DRAWINGS. PERMITS: 1. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR TAKING OUT AND PAYING FOR ALL REQUIRED PERMITS, INSPECTION AND EXAMINATION WITHOUT ADDITIONAL EXPENSE TO THE OWNER. GROUNDING: 1. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE A COMPLETE, AND APPROVED GROUNDING SYSTEM INCLUDING ELECTRODES, ELECTRODE CONDUCTOR, BONDING CONDUCTORS, AND EQUIPMENT CONDUCTORS AS REQUIRED BY ARTICLE 250 OF THE NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE. 2. CONDUITS CONNECTED TO EQUIPMENT AND DEVICES SHALL BE METALICALY JOINED TOGETHER TO PROVIDE EFFECTIVE ELECTRICAL CONTINUITY. 3. FEEDERS AND BRANCH CIRCUIT WIRING INSTALLED IN A NONMETALLIC CONDUIT SHALL INCLUDE A CODE SIZED GROUNDING CONDUCTOR HAVING GREEN INSULATION. THE GROUND CONDUCTOR SHALL BE PROPERLY CONNECTED AT BOTH ENDS TO MAINTAIN ELECTRICAL CONTINUITY. 4. REFER TO GROUND BUS DETAILS. PROVIDE NEW GROUND SYSTEM COMPLETE WITH CONDUCTORS, GROUND ROD AND DESCRIBED TERMINATIONS. 5. ALL GROUNDING CONDUCTORS SHALL BE SOLID TINNED COPPER AND ANNEALED #2 UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. 6. ALL NON-DIRECT BURIED TELEPHONE EQUIPMENT GROUND CONDUCTORS SHALL BE #2 STRANDED THHN (GREEN) INSULATION. 7. ALL GROUND CONNECTIONS SHALL BE MADE WITH "HYGROUND" COMPRESSION SYSTEM BURNDY CONNECTORS EXCEPT WHERE NOTED OTHERWISE. 8. PAINT AT ALL GROUND CONNECTIONS SHALL BE REMOVED. 9. GROUNDING SYSTEM RESISTANCE SHALL NOT EXCEED 5 OHMS. IF THE RESISTANCE VALUE IS EXCEEDED, NOTIFY THE OWNER FOR FUTURE INSTRUCTION ON METHODS FOR REDUCING THE RESISTANCE VALUE. SUBMIT TEST REPORTS AND FURNISH TO SMART SMR ONE COMPLETE SET OF PRINTS SHOWING "INSTALLED WORK". UTILITY SERVICE: 1. TELEPHONE AND ELECTRICAL METERING FACILITIES SHALL CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SERVING UTILITY COMPANIES. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY SERVICE LOCATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS. SERVICE INFORMATION WILL BE FURNISHED BY THE SERVING UTILITIES. 2. CONFORM TO ALL REQUIREMENTS OF THE SERVING UTILITY COMPANIES. PRODUCTS: 1. ALL MATERIALS SHALL BE NEW, CONFORMING WITH NEC, ANSI, NEMA, AND THEY SHALL BE U.L. LISTED AND LABELED. 2. CONDUIT: A) RIGID CONDUIT SHALL BE U.L. LABEL GALVANIZED ZINC COATED WITH ZINC INTERIOR AND SHALL BE USED WHEN INSTALLED IN OR UNDER CONCRETE SLABS, IN CONTACT WITH THE EARTH, UNDER PUBLIC ROADWAYS, IN MASONRY WALLS OR EXPOSED ON BUILDING EXTERIOR, RIGID CONDUIT IN CONTACT WITH EARTH SHALL BE 1/2 LAPPED WRAPPED WITH HUNTS WRAP PROCESS NO. 3. B) ELECTRICAL METALLIC TUBING SHALL U.L. LABEL, FITTINGS SHALL BE COMPRESSION TYPE. EMT SHALL BE USED ONLY FOR INTERIOR RUNS. C) FLEXIBLE METALLIC CONDUIT SHALL HAVE U.L. LISTED LABEL AND MAY BE USED WHERE PERMITTED BY CODE. FITTINGS SHALL BE "JAKE" OR "SQUEEZE" TYPE. SEAL TIGHT FLEXIBLE CONDUIT. ALL CONDUIT EXCESS OF SIX FEET IN LENGTH SHALL HAVE FULL SIZE GROUND WIRE. D) CONDUIT RUNS MAY BE SURFACE MOUNTED IN CEILING OR WALLS UNLESS INDICATED OTHERWISE. CONDUIT INDICATED SHALL RUN PARALLEL OR AT RIGHT ANGLES TO CEILING, FLOOR OR BEAMS. VERIFY EXACT ROUTING OF ALL EXPOSED CONDUIT WITH ARCHITECT PRIOR TO INSTALLING. E) ALL UNDERGROUND CONDUITS SHALL BE PVC SCHEDULE 40 (UNLEES NOTED OTHERWISE) AT A MINIMUM DEPTH OF 24" BELOW GRADE F) ALL CONDUIT ONLY (C.O.) SHALL HAVE PULL ROPE. G) CONDUITS RUN ON ROOFS SHALL BE INSTALLED ON 4x4 REDWOOD SLEEPERS, 6'-0" ON CENTER, SET IN NON-HARDENING MASTIC. 3. ALL WIRE AND CABLE SHALL BE COPPER, 600 VOLT, #12 AWG MINIMUM UNLESS SPECIFICALLY NOTED OTHERWISE ON THE DRAWINGS. CONDUCTORS #10 AWG AND SMALLER SHALL BE SOLID. CONDUCTORS #8 AWG AND LARGER SHALL BE STRANDED. TYPE THHN INSULATION USED UNLESS CONDUCTORS INSTALLED IN CONDUIT EXPOSED TO WEATHER, IN WHICH CASE TYPE THWN INSULATION SHALL BE USED. 4. PROVIDE GALVANIZED COATED STEEL BOXES AND ACCESSORIES SIZED PER CODE TO ACCOMMODATE ALL DEVICES AND WIRING. 5. DUPLEX RECEPTACLES SHALL BE SPECIFICATION GRADE WITH WHITE FINISH (UNLESS NOTED BY ENGINEER), 20 AMP, 125 VOLT, THREE WIRE GROUNDING TYPE, NEMA 5-20R. MOUNT RECEPTACLE AT +12" ABOVE FINISHED FLOOR UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED ON DRAWINGS OR IN DETAILS. WEATHERPROOF RECEPTACLES SHALL BE GROUND FAULT INTERRUPTER TYPE WITH SIERRA #WPD-8 LIFT COVERPLATES. 6. TOGGLE SWITCHES SHALL BE 20 AMP, 120 VOLT AC, SPECIFICATION GRADE WHITE (UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE) FINISH. MOUNT SWITCHES AT +48" ABOVE FINISHED FLOOR. 7. PANELBOARDS SHALL BE DEAD FRONT SAFETY TYPE WITH ANTI-BURN SOLDERLESS COMPRESSION APPROVED FOR COPPER CONDUCTORS, COPPER BUS BARS, FULL SIZED NEUTRAL BUS, GROUND BUS AND EQUIPPED WITH QUICK-MAKE QUICK-BREAK BOLT-IN TYPE THERMAL MAGNETIC CIRCUIT BREAKERS. MOUNT TOP OF THE PANELBOARDS AT 6'-3" ABOVE FINISHED FLOOR. PROVIDE TYPE WRITTEN CIRCUIT DIRECTORY. 8. ALL CIRCUIT BREAKERS, MAGNETIC STARTERS AND OTHER ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT SHALL HAVE AN INTERRUPTING RATING NOT LESS THAN MAXIMUM SHORT CIRCUIT CURRENT TO WHICH THEY MAY BE SUBJECTED. 9. GROUND RODS SHALL BE COPPER CLAD STEEL, 5/8" ROUND AND 10' LONG. COPPERWELD OR APPROVED EQUAL. INSTALLATION: 1. PROVIDE SUPPORTING DEVICES FOR ALL ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT, FIXTURES, BOXES, PANEL, ETC., SUPPORT LUMINARIES FROM UNDERSIDE OF STRUCTURAL CEILING, EQUIPMENT SHALL BE BRACED TO WITHSTAND HORIZONTAL FORCES IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATE AND LOCAL CODE REQUIREMENTS. PROVIDE PRIOR ALIGNMENT AND LEVELING OF ALL DEVICES AND FIXTURES. 2. CUTTING, PATCHING, CHASES, OPENINGS: PROVIDE LAYOUT IN ADVANCE TO ELIMINATE UNNECESSARY CUTTING OR DRILLING OF WALLS, FLOORS CEILINGS, AND ROOFS. ANY DAMAGE TO BUILDING STRUCTURE OR EQUIPMENT SHALL BE REPAIRED BY THE CONTRACTOR. OBTAIN PERMISSION FROM THE ENGINEER BEFORE CORING. 3. IN DRILLING HOLES INTO CONCRETE WHETHER FOR FASTENING OR ANCHORING PURPOSES, OR PENETRATIONS THROUGH THE FLOOR FOR CONDUIT RUNS, PIPE RUNS, ETC., IT MUST BE CLEARLY UNDERSTOOD THAT TENDONS AND/OR REINFORCING STEEL WILL NOT BE DRILLED INTO, CUT OR DAMAED UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES. 4. LOCATION OF TENDONS AND/OR REINFORCING STEEL ARE NOT DEFINITELY KNOWN AND THEREFORE, MUST BE SEARCHED FOR BY APPROPRIATE METHODS AND EQUIPMENT VIA X-RAY OR OTHER DEVICES THAT CAN ACCURATELY LOCATE THE REINFORCING AND/OR STEEL TENDONS. 5. PENETRATIONS IN FIRE RATED WALLS SHALL BE FIRE STOPPED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE C.B.C. PROJECT CLOSEOUT: 1. UPON COMPLETION OF WORK, CONDUCT CONTINUITY, SHORT CIRCUIT, AND FALL POTENTIAL GROUNDING TESTS FOR APPROVAL. SUBMIT TEST REPORTS TO PROJECT MANAGER. CLEAN PREMISES OF ALLS DEBRIS RESULTING FROM WORK AND LEAVE WORK IN A COMPLETE AND UNDAMAGED CONDITION. 2. PROVIDE PROJECT MANAGER WITH ONE SET OF COMPLETE ELECTRICAL "AS INSTALLED" DRAWINGS AT THE COMPLETION OF THE JOB, SHOWING ACTUAL DIMENSIONS, ROUTINGS AND CIRCUITS. 3. ALL BROCHURES, OPERATING MANUALS, CATALOG, SHOP DRAWINGS, ETC., SHALL BE TURNED OVER TO OWNER AT JOB COMPLETION. GROUNDING NOTES: 1. ALL DETAILS ARE SHOWN IN GENERAL TERMS. ACTUAL GROUNDING INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS AND CONSTRUCTION ACCORDING TO SITE CONDITIONS. 2. ALL GROUNDING CONDUCTORS: #2 AWG SOLID BARE TINNED COPPER WIRE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 3. GROUND BAR LOCATED IN BASE OF EQUIPMENT WILL BE PROVIDED, FURNISHED AND INSTALLED BY THE VENDOR. 4. ALL BELOW GRADE CONNECTIONS: EXOTHERMIC WELD TYPE, ABOVE GRADE CONNECTIONS: EXOTHERMIC WELD TYPE. 5. GROUND RING SHALL BE LOCATED A MINIMUM OF 24" BELOW GRADE OR 6" MINIMUM BELOW THE FROST LINE. 6. INSTALL GROUND CONDUCTORS AND GROUND ROD MINIMUM OF 1'-0" FROM EQUIPMENT CONCRETE SLAB, SPREAD FOOTING, OR FENCE. 7. EXOTHERMIC WELD GROUND CONNECTION TO FENCE POST: TREAT WITH A COLD GALVANIZED SPRAY. 8. GROUND BARS: A) EQUIPMENT GROUND BUS BAR (EGB) LOCATED AT THE BOTTOM OF ANTENNA POLE/MAST FOR MAKING GROUNDING JUMPER CONNECTIONS TO COAX FEEDER CABLES SHALL BE FURNISHED AND INSTALLED BY ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR. JUMPERS (FURNISHED BY OWNERS) SHALL BE INSTALLED AND CONNECTED BY ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR. 9. ALL GROUNDING INSTALLATIONS AND CONNECTIONS SHALL BE MADE BY ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR. 10. OBSERVE N.E.C. AND LOCAL UTILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR ELECTRICAL SERVICE GROUNDING. 11. GROUNDING ATTACHMENT TO TOWER SHALL BE AS PER MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS OR AT GROUNDING POINTS PROVIDED (2 MINIMUM). 12. IF EQUIPMENT IS IN A C.L. FENCE ENCLOSURE, GROUND ONLY CORNER POSTS AND SUPPORT POSTS OF GATE. IF CHAIN LINK LID IS USED, THEN GROUND LID ALSO. 13. GROUNDING AT PPC CABINET SHALL BE VERTICALLY INSTALLED. 14. ALL GROUNDING FOR ANTENNAS SHALL BE CONNECTED SO THAT IT WILL BY-PASS MAIN BUSS BAR. 15. ALL EMT RUNS SHALL BE GROUNDED AND HAVE A BUSHING, NO PVC ABOVE GROUND. 16. USE SEPARATE HOLES FOR GROUNDING AT BUSS BAR. NO "DOUBLE-UP" OF LUGS. 17. POWER AND TELCO CABINETS SHALL BE GROUNDED (BONDED) TOGETHER. 18. NO LB'S ALLOWED ON GROUNDING. 19. PROVIDE STAINLESS STEEL CLAMP AND BRASS TAGS ON COAX AT ANTENNAS AND DOGHOUSE. M (1) 3" C (2) 4/0 THWN AL (1) 1/0 AL NEUTRAL METER N G #2 GROUNDING ELECTRODE, #2 BOND TO GROUNDING ROD UTILITY DISTRIBUTION PANEL 100 AMP, 1 PHASE, 120/240V AC 6 POSITION LOAD CENTER N G 30/2 #2 GROUNDING ELECTRODE CONDUCTOR TO GROUND RING 100/2 - MAIN BREAKER RG 30/2 RRH RRH (2) RRH (1) 4" C (4) 1/2" COAX 1 1/2" C (3) #3/0, (1) #2 GROUND 1 1/2" C (3) #10, (1) #10 GROUND 1 1/2" C (3) #10, (1) #10 GROUND ANTENNA NEW 3/8" DIA. HARDWOOD MOLDING NEW GALV IRON MOLDING STAPLE TYP NEW 1/2" PVC CONDUIT FOR METER GROUND 6" MIN TYP MECHANICAL CONNECTION 5/8" DIA. X 10' GROUND ROD NEW GROUND CONDUCTOR #2 GREEN COATED SOLID COPPER WIRE18"GROUND LEGEND MECHANICAL CONNECTION EXOTHERMIC CADWELD TYP 5/8" DIA. X 10' LONG COPPER CLAD GROUND ROD AT 10' O.C. MAX AND 18" MIN BELOW FINISH GRADE 15 1" = 1'-0" GROUND DETAIL EXISTING GRADE 5 1/2" = 1'-0" GROUNDING PLAN (P) 5/8" X 10" GROUNDING ROD (P) CADWELD CONNECTION TYPE "GRI" MOLD (P) MECHANICAL CONNECTION (P) #2 GREEN COATED SOLID COPPER WIRE ENCASED WITHIN WOODEN MOLDING CONNECTED WITH GALVANIZED STEEL STRAPS AT 3'-0" O.C. PER PG& E REQUIREMENTS (P) ANTENNA GROUND (P) ANTENNA MAST GROUND Plot Date:2/23/2018 4:04:54 PM File NameT:\2016\T-16509_Modus_SF_CRAN_AT&T\SFOK2_019-88\SFOK2_019\Sheets\Building A\E-2 POLE GROUND AND DETAILS.dwg Plotted By:Brian Winslow1478 STONE POINT DRIVE, SUITE 350 ROSEVILLE CA 95661 TEL FAX borgesarch.com 916 782 7200 916 773 3037 SHEET NO. SHEET TITLE DRAWN BY: B.P.M. CHECK BY: B.K.W. PROJECT NO.: T-16509-88 STAMP REV DESCRIPTIONDATE 240 STOCKTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108 modus-corp.com 5001 EXECUTIVE PARKWAY SAN RAMON, CA 94583 No. C11535 0 10/02/17 90% CD Submittal SITE NUMBER: SFOK02_019 SITE ADDRESS: ADJ. TO 701 WINCHESTER DRIVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 1 12/04/17 100% CD Submittal 2 02/22/18 100% CD Rev 1 E-2 POLE GROUND AND DETAILS 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: MEETING DATE: September 4, 2018 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: September 4, 2018 From: Kevin Gardiner, Community Development Director – (650) 558-7253 Subject: Request for a Finding of Public Convenience and Necessity (PCN) Pursuant to Section 23958.4 of the California Business and Professions Code, Related to a Request for a Type 42 (On-Sale Beer and Wine – Public Premises) Alcoholic Beverage Sales Permit Issued through the California Alcoholic Beverage Control Board (ABC), as Requested by Wine Revelry, LLC to Permit the Sale of Alcoholic Beverages in a Neighborhood Wine Bar at 310 Lorton Avenue RECOMMENDATION The City Council should: Conduct a public hearing and consider all information within the staff report, as well as any written and oral testimony, and following closure of the public hearing; Consider adoption of the attached resolution, entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Burlingame Determining that the Public Convenience and Necessity would be Served by the California Alcoholic Beverage Control Board’s Issuance of a Type 42 Alcoholic Beverage Sales License for Wine Revelry, LLC, Located at 310 Lorton Avenue” BACKGROUND A request has been submitted to the City for a finding of Public Convenience and Necessity related to Wine Revelry, LLC’s request for a Type 42 (On-Sale Beer and Wine – Public Premises) alcoholic beverage license for a wine bar to be located at 310 Lorton Avenue. The zoning of the business location is Burlingame Avenue Commercial (BAC). Within the BAC zone, food establishments and bars are allowed as a Conditional Use. The Burlingame Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit for the wine bar operation on July 9, 2018 (meeting minutes attached). DISCUSSION Finding of Public Convenience and Necessity: Pursuant to Section 23958.4 of the California Business and Professions Code, in instances where the number of licenses for alcohol sales PCN for Wine Revelry, LLC – 310 Lorton Avenue September 4, 2018 2 within a census tract exceeds the maximum number allowed within that tract as set by the ABC (constituting an “overconcentration”); a “finding of public convenience and necessity” is required of the local jurisdiction before the ABC will consider the license request. Wine Revelry, LLC’s business at 310 Lorton Avenue is situated within Census Tract 6055; within this census tract the maximum number of licenses allowed by ABC is eight. Currently, 48 on-sale licenses exist within the census tract. Because the number of licenses within the census tract exceeds the maximum permitted by ABC, the agency’s rules require the applicant to seek a “finding of public convenience and necessity” from the City before the agency will complete processing of the license transfer. Adoption of a finding of public convenience and necessity by the City is, in essence, a determination that based upon analysis by the City, transfer of the license is necessary to ensure that adequate opportunities exist for the public to purchase alcohol products, and to weigh-in on whether or not the public health, safety, and welfare are potentially affected by the issuance of additional licenses beyond the ABC’s threshold. Police Department Review: The Burlingame Police Department has reviewed Wine Revelry, LLC’s request for approval of the ABC license. The findings of this review are attached to this report (see memorandum from Police Chief Eric Wollman, dated August 20, 2018). To summarize, the Department supports a finding of “public convenience and necessity” based, in part, upon the following findings: • 310 Lorton Avenue is located in a commercial business district with no parks, schools, or residential housing in the area; • Wine bars, such as the type described in Wine Revelry, LLC's request letter, are characteristically low crime establishments and require minimal police service. Police service statistics at comparison establishments currently operating in Burlingame support this assertion; • Although construction has not begun on the establishment, a visit to the location did not reveal any concerns regarding the general area or building itself. Though the Police Department supports a finding of public convenience and necessity; Chief Wollman recommends that the following conditions be forwarded to the ABC for its consideration prior to issuance of the license: 1. No noise shall be audible beyond the area under the control of the licensee(s). 2. The licensee(s) shall be responsible for maintaining, free of litter, the area in front of and adjacent to the premises over which they have control. 3. Graffiti shall be removed from the premises and all parking lots under the control of the licensee(s) within seventy-two (72) hours of application. If the graffiti occurs on a Friday or weekend day, or on a holiday, the licensee(s) shall remove the graffiti within seventy-two (72) hours following the beginning of the next weekday. PCN for Wine Revelry, LLC – 310 Lorton Avenue September 4, 2018 3 4. The exterior of the premises shall be equipped with lighting of sufficient power to illuminate and make easily discernible the appearance and conduct of all persons on or about the premises. Additionally, the position of such lighting shall not disturb the normal privacy and use of any neighboring residences. 5. Loitering (loitering is defined as "to stand idly about; linger aimlessly without lawful business") is prohibited on any sidewalks or property adjacent to the licensed premises under the control of the licensee(s). FISCAL IMPACT None. Exhibits: • Resolution • Request for PCN • Police Department Review of PCN Request • Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – July 9, 2018 1 RESOLUTION NO. ________ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME DETERMINING THAT THE PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY WOULD BE SERVED BY THE CALIFORNIA ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL BOARD’S ISSUANCE OF A TYPE 42 ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE SALES LICENSE FOR WINE REVELRY, LLC, LOCATED AT 310 LORTON AVENUE WHEREAS, Wine Revelry, LLC has applied to the California Alcoholic Beverage Control Board (ABC) for issuance of a Type 42 (On-Sale Beer and Wine – Public Premises) alcoholic beverage license for its business located at 310 Lorton Avenue; and WHEREAS, the number of businesses with alcoholic beverage sales licenses in the area where the business is located exceeds the number of such licensed businesses permitted by the ABC for that census tract area (Census Tract 6051) and represents an “overconcentration”, pursuant to ABC policy; and WHEREAS, pursuant to California Business and Professions Code section 23958.4, an applicant for a beverage sales license in an area of “overconcentration” of alcoholic beverage sales licenses can request the local governmental agency to determine that the public convenience and necessity would be served by the issuance of the alcohol beverage sales license and, if the local agency so finds, the ABC will issue the license; and WHEREAS, Wine Revelry, LLC has applied to the City for a finding of public convenience and necessity to obtain ABC approval of the license; and WHEREAS, the Police Department has reviewed this application, investigated the number of alcohol-related incidents in this census tract, and reviewed the names and locations of businesses with alcoholic beverage sales licenses in Downtown Burlingame and the surrounding area; and WHEREAS, the Police Department, after determining that no facts or circumstances exist that would prevent the City’s determination of public convenience and necessity, recommends that the City Council adopt a finding of public convenience and necessity, based upon the analysis contained within its August 20, 2018 memorandum attached to the City Council staff report, dated September 4, 2018. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Burlingame as follows: a. All of the facts recited above and in the staff report and in all of the attachments thereto, are true and correct. Resolution No. ______ 2 b. The City Council determines that the public convenience and necessity would be served by issuance of a Type 42 (On-Sale Beer and Wine – Public Premises) alcoholic beverage license for Wine Revelry, LLC, located at 310 Lorton Avenue. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT, based upon the Burlingame Police Department’s review of the matter, the City Council suggests that the ABC consider the following conditions as part of the ABCs issuance of the licenses: 1. No noise shall be audible beyond the area under the control of the licensee(s). 2. The licensee(s) shall be responsible for maintaining, free of litter, the area in front of and adjacent to the premises over which they have control. 3. Graffiti shall be removed from the premises and all parking lots under the control of the licensee(s) within seventy-two (72) hours of application. If the graffiti occurs on a Friday or weekend day, or on a holiday, the licensee(s) shall remove the graffiti within seventy-two (72) hours following the beginning of the next weekday. 4. The exterior of the premises shall be equipped with lighting of sufficient power to illuminate and make easily discernible the appearance and conduct of all persons on or about the premises. Additionally, the position of such lighting shall not disturb the normal privacy and use of any neighboring residences. 5. Loitering (loitering is defined as "to stand idly about; linger aimlessly without lawful business") is prohibited on any sidewalks ____________________________________ Michael Brownrigg, Mayor I, Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, Clerk of the City of Burlingame, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Burlingame City Council held on the 4th day of September, 2018, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers: NOES: Councilmembers: ABSENT: Councilmembers: ___________________________________ Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk VE LVEr46 July 30, 2018 City Council City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Re: Liquor License PCN Request:Wine Revelrv. LLC dba Velvet 48 Dear City Council: Wine Revelry, LLC (the "Company"), has applied for a Type 42 alcoholic beverage license (On- Sale Beer and Wine) at 310 Lorton Ave., Burlingame 94010. The Company intends to open a neighborhood wine bar featuring an extensive selection of wines from California, as well as top regions around the world including France, ltaly, Spain, Australia, New Zealand, Chilie and Argentina. The wine bar is titled "Velvet 48." Most wines will be priced between $25 and $100 and will include selections for drinking now, as well as difficult-tojind wines for cellaring. Hours of operation are 3:00 p.m. to 1 1:00 p.m. Monday through Thursday, 3 p.m. to 12 a.m. on Friday, Saturday 12:00 p.m. to 12:00 a.m. and Sunday 12 p.m. to 11 p.m. Small plates, such as cheese and charcuterie, will be available to patrons. Please note that on July gth, 2018, the Planning Commission unanimously approved the Conditional Use permit that is required, and upon my explanation, embraced the mncept and noted the lack of such a business in Burlingame. Once licensed, Velvet 48 intends to be a neighborhood-serving business which offers wines from small producers that represent an excellent value and are not widely available in the area. Drawing on the owners' many years of experience in the wine business, Velvet 48 will offer a wide variety of wines and it will provide the neighborhood with a range of highly curated, carefully selected wines at price points above what is generally available in the surrounding stores- Velvet 48 is conveniently located in downtown Burlingame and will provide a welcoming and relaxed atmosphere for meeting friends for a glass of wine and a small plate of cheese. Patrons can stop in while shopping during the day or after a long day at work. The purpose of this letter is to request that City Council issue a letter stating that the public convenience or necessity will be served by the issuance of the applied-for license. We anticipate no adverse impact on the general public by the issuance of this license. Rather, Velvet 48 will enhance the mmmunity by creating a gathering place for local residents and providing jobs for local residents. Please contact me at your earliest convenience to let me know when we can be heard in front of the City Council. Thank you for your attention to this matter and please call me if you have any questions or comments, or if I can be of further assistance. Jason Cooper Owner, Velvet 48 415-297-2578 jason@velvet48.com Sincerely, BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, July 9, 2018 g.310 Lorton Avenue, zoned BAC - Application for Conditional Use Permit for a full service food establishment in an existing commercial building. This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (a). (Jason Cooper, Wine Revelry, LLC, applicant; Nilmeyer/Nilmeyer Associates, architect; Green Banker LLC, property owner) (34 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin 310 Lorton Ave - Staff Report 310 Lorton Ave - Attachments 310 Lorton Ave - Plans - 07.09.18 Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner Comaroto had communications with one of the owner's friends. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: >Are the hours of operation similar to other restaurants in the area? (Hurin: The closing times are probably similar to other restaurants. 10 pm or 11 pm is typical, but some may be open later.) Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Michael Nilmeyer, Nilmeyer/Nilmeyer Associates, represented the applicant, with applicant Jason Cooper. Commission Questions/Comments: >What is the story behind the name? (Cooper: "Velvet" is a texture often used to describe wines. Easy to drink, and does not need hearty food to enjoy the wine. "48" is the year his mother was born; she passed away and left money that will be used to start the venture.) >Will it be available for private events? (Cooper: Yes. Would still need to limit capacity to 49 people.) >Has the garbage circulation been worked out? (Nilmeyer: It is an odd site. The property is comprised of four separate buildings. Echo keeps their trash bins in the hallway.) >Does the trash setup in the corridor currently seem manageable to the tenants? (Nilmeyer: Seems to be.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 8/24/2018 July 9, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Good application. Not changing the building, not asking for a lot. >Unique use. >Sees the logic in the limitation to 49 people. Would be hard to accommodate more than 49 given the furniture and display cases. >Can support the application. >Can see a desire for this in Downtown Burlingame. Commissioner Kelly made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse7 - Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 8/24/2018 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 9c MEETING DATE: September 4, 2018 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: September 4, 2018 From: Sheryl Schaffner, Acting City Attorney – (650) 558-7204 Subject: Introduction of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 25.58 of the Burlingame Municipal Code to Add Regulations Regarding Marijuana RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council are prohibited. To do so, the Council should: • Receive the staff report and ask any clarifying questions. • Ask the Clerk to read the title of the proposed ordinance. • By motion, waive further reading and introduce the ordinance. • Hold a public hearing. • Discuss the proposed ordinance and direct staff to make any desired changes and return to Council for adoption at the next regularly scheduled meeting. BACKGROUND During the past few years, the regulatory landscape for marijuana uses has changed significantly. In particular, the State enacted laws regarding cities’ ability to regulate medical marijuana. In November 2016, California voters approved the Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act (“AUMA”) with the passage of Proposition 64. The AUMA established a comprehensive system to legalize, control, and regulate the cultivation, processing, manufacture, distribution, testing, and sale of nonmedical marijuana, including marijuana products, for use by adults 21 years and older, and to tax the commercial growth and retail sale of marijuana. Proposition 64 also established a state agency that would control and license marijuana activities. State licenses will only be issued to operations that are consistent with local ordinances at the time of licensing. However, licenses issued by the state take precedence over subsequently enacted local ordinances. The City has previously adopted interim ordinances regarding marijuana regulation but has not enacted a permanent ordinance. On November 7, 2016, the City first adopted an interim urgency ordinance regulating cultivation and prohibiting the manufacture, processing, laboratory testing, labeling, storing, wholesale, and retail distribution of marijuana. Council extended the interim ordinance twice, at meetings on December 19, 2016, and September 18, 2017. During these meetings, Council provided staff with guidance about policy considerations for a permanent Marijuana Ordinance September 4, 2018 2 ordinance regulating marijuana. The proposed ordinance would amend the General Use chapter of the Zoning Code by adding a dedicated article covering marijuana regulation. Marijuana Ordinance September 4, 2018 3 DISCUSSION Currently, the City’s Zoning Code does not explicitly address cannabis-related establishments. Under Section 25.04.070 of the Code, uses that are not listed as permitted or conditional are prohibited. While this catch-all provision serves to prohibit cannabis-related land uses in the City, Proposition 64 created the potential for state-issued licenses to be issued in conflict with this default. Clarifying the status of such uses is therefore prudent and facilitates transparency with potential applicants and the public. Express Zoning Code regulations regarding cannabis cultivation and commercial cannabis activities will benefit the public by providing clear guidelines regarding the scope of prohibited conduct and will minimize the potential for confusion regarding the City’s policies. The proposed ordinance bans commercial cannabis activity. Cannabis-related establishments present potential dangers to the public health, safety, and welfare. Dispensaries, collectives, and commercial-size growing operations have been associated with increased risks of robberies, identity falsification, fraudulent resale of marijuana, and loitering. The proposed ordinance would protect the public from such effects. The proposed ordinance allows for the indoor cultivation of up to six cannabis plants and bans outdoor cultivation altogether. The AUMA permits local jurisdictions to regulate, but not to ban, indoor cultivation of up to six living marijuana plants within a private residence for personal use. Burlingame does not have any agricultural-zoned areas, so commercial scale outdoor growing operations are inconsistent with the City’s zoning. Due to likely changes in the regulatory landscape at the state level, the proposed ordinance does not address two key issues: (1) cannabis delivery and (2) research and development of cannabis, such as laboratory testing. The State has released draft regulations that address these issues, and the State’s rulemaking process is ongoing. Thus, staff advises that the City not pass regulations on these two issues at this time, so as to prevent City-specific definitions or regulations that could conflict with the State’s final adopted regulations. Staff recommends that the City re-evaluate its ordinance once the State’s final regulations are enacted. The adoption of the proposed ordinance is not a project per the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378 because it has no potential for resulting in physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly. FISCAL IMPACT None. Exhibit: Proposed Ordinance Page 1 of 6 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AMENDING CHAPTER 25.58 OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADD REGULATIONS REGARDING MARIJUANA WHEREAS, in 1970, Congress enacted the federal Controlled Substances Act which, among other things, makes it illegal to import, manufacture, distribute, possess or use cannabis in the United States; and WHEREAS, in 1972, California added Chapter 6 to the state Uniform Controlled Substances Act, commencing at Health and Safety Code section 11350, which established the state’s prohibition, penalties, and punishments for the possession, cultivation, transportation, and distribution of cannabis; and WHEREAS, in 1996, the voters of the State of California approved Proposition 215, codified as Health and Safety Code Section 11362.5 et seq., “The Compassionate Use Act of 1996" (CUA); and WHEREAS, the CUA created a limited exception from criminal liability for seriously ill persons who are in need of medical cannabis for specified medical purposes and who obtain and use medical cannabis under limited, specified circumstances; and WHEREAS, in 2004, the California enacted the "Medical Marijuana Program" (MMP), codified as Health and Safety Code sections 11362.7 to 11362.83, to clarify the scope of the CUA, establish a voluntary program for identification cards issued by counties for qualified patients and primary caregivers, and provide criminal immunity to qualified patients and primary caregivers for certain activities involving medical cannabis, including the collective or cooperative cultivation of medical cannabis; and WHEREAS, the California Supreme Court ruled unanimously in City of Riverside v. Inland Empire Patients Health and Wellness Center, Inc. (2013) 56 Cal.4th 729, that the CUA and the MMP do not preempt local ordinances that completely and permanently ban medical marijuana dispensaries, collectives, and cooperatives; and WHEREAS, in 2015, California enacted three bills, Assembly Bills 243 and 266 and Senate Bill 643, commonly referred to as the Medical Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (MCRSA), which established a comprehensive state regulatory and licensing framework for cultivation, manufacturing, sale, transportation, storage, delivery, and testing of medical cannabis in California; and WHEREAS, in 2016, the voters of the State of California approved Proposition 64, known as the “Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act” (AUMA), which legalized recreational cannabis use by persons age twenty-one and over, authorized cultivation of up to six cannabis plants for personal consumption, and established a new state regulatory and licensing framework for cultivation, manufacturing, sale, transportation, storage, delivery, and testing of recreational cannabis in California; and Page 2 of 6 WHEREAS, in 2017, California enacted Senate Bill 94, which repealed MCRSA, incorporated certain provisions of the MCRSA into the licensing provisions of the AUMA, and consolidated the state regulatory and licensing framework for medical and recreational cannabis, with the consolidated provisions to be known as “Medicinal and Adult-Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act” (MAUCRSA); and WHEREAS, under Senate Bill 94, a local jurisdiction may reasonably regulate, but cannot ban, personal indoor cultivation of up to six cannabis plants per single private residence, and can ban or regulate personal outdoor cultivation; and WHEREAS, Senate Bill 94 preserves the right of property owners, including landlords, to prohibit cannabis cultivation on their property; and WHEREAS, Senate Bill 94 preserves the authority of local jurisdictions to prohibit or impose additional restrictions on the cultivation, manufacture, transportation, storage, distribution, delivery, and sale of commercial medical or recreational cannabis; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that express Zoning Code regulations regarding cannabis cultivation and commercial cannabis activities will benefit the public by providing clear guidelines regarding the scope of prohibited conduct and minimize the potential for confusion regarding the City’s policies; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that impacts of medical and recreational cannabis are the same and therefore no separate use classifications or regulations are necessary; and WHEREAS, in order to protect the public health, safety, and welfare, the City Council desires to allow personal indoor cultivation of up to six cannabis plants, to prohibit all other cultivation, and to prohibit all commercial cannabis activity except for deliveries and laboratory testing; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the exemption determination under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) prior to taking any approval actions on this Ordinance and approves such exemption. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The recitals set forth above are true and correct, and are hereby incorporated herein by this reference as if fully set forth in their entirety. Section 2. The City Council hereby finds that the proposed Ordinance is in the public interest. Section 3. The proposed Ordinance is not a project within the meaning of section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines because it has no potential for resulting in physical change in the environment, either directly or ultimately. In the event that this Ordinance is found to be a project under CEQA, it is subject to the CEQA exemption contained in Page 3 of 6 CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty to have no possibility of a significant effect on the environment. Section 4. If any section, subsection, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion or sections of the Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Burlingame hereby declares that it would have adopted the Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared unconstitutional. Section 5. This Ordinance shall go into effect 30 days following its adoption. Page 4 of 6 EXHIBIT A AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AMENDING CHAPTER 25.58 OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADD REGULATIONS REGARDING MARIJUANA Sections 25.58.060 Purpose – Regulations of Cannabis (Marijuana). 25.58.060(A) Applicability. 25.58.060(B) Definitions. 25.58.060(C) Commercial Cannabis Activity Prohibited. 25.58.060(D) Cultivation of Cannabis Prohibited. 25.58.060(E) Violations – Penalty. 25.58.060(F) Public Nuisance. 25.58.060 Purpose – Regulations of Cannabis (Marijuana). This Article (Sections 25.58.060 - 25.58.120(F)) establishes regulations governing cultivation, possession, manufacture, distribution, processing, storing, labeling, or sale of cannabis (commonly known as “marijuana”) and cannabis products, whether for medicinal or adult use. The City finds it necessary to establish such regulations in the interest of the public health, safety, and welfare to regulate all cannabis-related activities. 25.58.060(A) Applicability. This Article shall apply to the establishment of all land uses related to cannabis and cannabis products, whether for medicinal or adult use. 25.58.060(B) Definitions. For the purposes of this Article, the following words and phrases shall have the following meanings: a. “Cannabis” (also known as “marijuana”) means any or all parts of the plant Cannabis sativa Linnaeus, Cannabis indica, or Cannabis ruderalis, whether growing or not, the seeds thereof, the resin or separated resin, whether crude or purified, extracted from any part of the plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the plant, its seeds or resin. “Cannabis” shall not include industrial hemp, as defined in Health and Safety Code section 11018.5. b. “Cannabis Product” means cannabis that has undergone a process whereby the plant material has been transformed into a concentrate, including, but not limited to, concentrated cannabis, or an edible or topical product containing cannabis or Page 5 of 6 concentrated cannabis and other ingredients. “Commercial cannabis activity” means the cultivation, possession, manufacture, distribution, processing, storing, labeling, transportation, or sale of cannabis and cannabis products for commercial purposes, whether for profit or nonprofit, and for which a state license is required under Business and Professions Code sections 26000 et seq. Commercial cannabis activity shall not include delivery of cannabis and cannabis products. c. “Commercial cannabis activity” means the cultivation, possession, manufacture, distribution, processing, storing, labeling, or sale of cannabis and cannabis products for commercial purposes, whether for profit or nonprofit, and for which a state license is required under Business and Professions Code sections 26000 et seq. Commercial cannabis activity shall not include delivery of cannabis and cannabis products as “delivery” is defined in state law. d. “Cultivation” means any activity involving the planting, growing, harvesting, drying, curing, grading, or trimming of cannabis. e. “Fully enclosed and secure structure” means a code-compliant space within a building, greenhouse or other structure which has a complete roof enclosure supported by connecting walls extending from the ground to the roof, which is secure against unauthorized entry, and which is accessible only through one or more locking doors. f. “Indoor” means within a fully enclosed and secure structure as defined herein. g. “Private residence” means a house, an apartment unit, a mobile home, or other similar dwelling. 25.58.060(C) Commercial Cannabis Activity Prohibited. Commercial cannabis activity is a prohibited use in all zoning districts. 25.58.060(D) Cultivation of Cannabis Prohibited. a. Cannabis cultivation is a prohibited use in all zoning districts except as provided in 25.58.060(D) (b). b. Notwithstanding the general prohibition in 25.58.060(D) (a), indoor cultivation of no more than six living cannabis plants for personal use is permitted in all zoning districts. No more than six living cannabis plants may be possessed, planted, cultivated, harvested, dried, or processed within a private residence at any one time, including within an accessory structure to a private residence that is fully enclosed and secure. The plants shall not be visible from a public place. Persons engaging in indoor cultivation must comply with state and local laws, including all applicable building, electrical fire, and water codes and regulations. 25.58.060(E) Violation—Penalty. a. Any person found to be in violation of any provision of this Article shall be subject Page 6 of 6 to the enforcement remedies set forth in the Burlingame Municipal Code. b. Each violation of this Article and each day of violation of this Article shall be considered as separate and distinct violations thereof and the imposition of a penalty shall be as set forth in 25.58.060(E)(a) for each and every separate violation and each and every day of violation. 25.58.060(F) Public Nuisance. Any use or condition caused or permitted to exist in violation of any of the provisions of this Article shall be and is hereby declared a public nuisance and may be abated by the City pursuant to the procedures set forth in the Burlingame Municipal Code. 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: MEETING DATE: September 4, 2018 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: September 4, 2018 From: Kevin Gardiner, Community Development Director – (650) 558-7255 Kathleen Kane, City Attorney – (650) 558-7263 Subject: Public Hearing to Consider Proposed Amendments to Chapter 25.59 (Accessory Dwelling Units), Chapter 25.08 (Definitions), Chapter 25.26 (R-1 district regulations), Chapter 25.60 (Accessory Structures in R-1 and R-2 districts) and Chapter 25.70 (Off-street Parking) of the Burlingame Municipal Code Related to Accessory Dwelling Units to be Consistent with Recently Adopted Amendments to California Government Code Section 65852.2 and Additional Changes to Remove Constraints to Creating Accessory Dwelling Units RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Council consider proposed amendments to the Burlingame Municipal Code regarding accessory dwelling units. In order to do so, the City Council should: 1. Request the City Clerk to read the title of the proposed ordinance: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME, AMENDING TITLE 25 – CHAPTERS 25.08, 25.26, 25.59, 25.60, AND 25.70 TO UPDATE EXISTING ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT REGULATIONS TO BE CONSISTENT WITH RECENTLY ADOPTED AMENDMENTS TO CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65852.2 AND ADDITIONAL CHANGES TO REMOVE CONSTRAINTS TO CREATING ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS. 2. By motion, waive further reading and introduce the proposed ordinance. 3. Conduct a public hearing on the proposed ordinance. 4. Following closure of the public hearing, discuss the proposed ordinance and provide any direction to staff; if no changes are requested, then direct that the ordinance be placed on the September 4, 2018 City Council Agenda for adoption. 5. Direct the City Clerk to publish a summary of the ordinance at least five days before proposed adoption. If introduced, the ordinance along with a resolution verifying that the actions of the City Council are in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) will be presented for adoption at the September 4, 2018 regular meeting of the City Council. Title 25 - Zoning Amendments for Accessory Dwelling Units September 4, 2018 2 BACKGROUND On September 27, 2016 Governor Jerry Brown signed AB 2299 and SB 1069 into law. The legislation amended Government Code Section 65852.2, regulations for accessory dwelling units (previously referred to as “Secondary Dwelling Units” in the Burlingame Municipal Code). The amendments were intended to streamline housing production in the face of the state’s ongoing housing crisis by making it easier for property owners to create a second unit associated with a single family dwelling. Under the legislation, such units are now referred to as “Accessory Dwelling Units” or “ADUs”. The revisions to state law became effective January 1, 2017. The City of Burlingame adopted revisions to its Zoning Code regulations creating consistency with State law on February 6, 2017. On September 29, 2017, Governor Brown signed additional legislation (SB 229 and AB 494) that provides clarification on the creation of ADUs. The bills became effective January 1, 2018, and are intended to help clarify and improve various provisions of the ADU law to promote the development of ADUs. Not all of the changes included in this new legislation require City action as the City’s current regulations are largely compliant. At its meeting of June 25, 2018, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed amendments to the Burlingame Zoning Regulations and recommended that the City Council adopt the changes as proposed below. Staff notes that in addition to the changes that are required in order to be compliant with the most recent changes to state legislation, staff recommended additional ordinance changes for the Planning Commission’s consideration in order to reduce obstacles to the creation of ADUs. These changes are discussed below and are included in the attached ordinance for Council consideration. DISCUSSION Staff is bringing forward these changes to the City Council for adoption of text amendments to the City’s existing ADU regulations to ensure that the Burlingame Municipal Code is consistent with the new State regulations (SB 229 and AB 494). Jurisdictions are required to provide a copy of the changes to the Accessory Dwelling Unit regulations to the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) within 60 days of their adoption. Changes mandated by State Law Staff has provided a summary below of the most significant changes required by the State: • No restriction on location of ADU parking spaces, including allowing parking in setbacks; • Elimination of the parking requirement for ADUs created out of existing space in a single family dwelling or accessory structure; • No lot size limitation for ADUs created within existing structures; and • Change to the current definition of tandem parking. No restriction on location of ADU parking spaces: Under our current regulations, ADUs have to provide one uncovered parking space, 9-feet wide by 20-feet deep. The parking space is required to be provided in addition to the required parking for the single family dwelling per C.S. 25.70. All ADU spaces are required to be provided in accordance with C.S. 25.70, meaning they cannot be located in a setback and were required to be independently accessible of the single family parking space (ingress and egress to the parking space without conflict with the parking required for the single family dwelling). Title 25 - Zoning Amendments for Accessory Dwelling Units September 4, 2018 3 State law now requires no prohibition on parking locations for ADUs, and the ADU regulations would be amended to allow ADU parking spaces to be provided in a required setback. Currently the zoning code prohibits parking within the front and side setback. The zoning code requirements prohibiting parking in front and side setbacks would remain in place for required parking for all other uses, except for ADUs. Elimination of the parking requirement for ADUs created out of existing space in a single family dwelling or accessory structure: The most recent change to State law now prohibits requiring a parking space for an ADU that is created from within the envelope of an existing residence or existing accessory structure. The parking waiver includes accessory dwelling units that are part of the living space of the existing main residence or are in an existing detached accessory structure. This means that accessory dwelling units that are created by converting part of an existing single family dwelling (vs. adding new square footage) would be exempt from providing a parking space. This waiver also applies to detached accessory structures that have been previously approved for accessory living space, such as offices or recreation rooms constructed as part of a detached garage. In principle, this square footage has already been counted as living space (in terms of parking), and the conversion of this space to an accessory dwelling unit is not significantly increasing (or increasing at all) the parking requirement for the use of the property as a whole. This change would allow conversion of existing living spaces to ADUs for areas within a primary home or within an attached or detached accessory structure; however, the required parking for the primary residence must still be met on-site, in compliance with the zoning code regulations. For reference, single family dwellings with up to four bedrooms, or potential bedrooms, require one covered (10’ x 20’) parking space and one uncovered (9’ x 20’) space, and a single family dwelling with five or more bedrooms, or potential bedrooms, requires two covered spaces (20’ x 20’) and one uncovered space (9’ x 20’). No lot size limit for ADUs created within existing structures: Currently, the ADU regulations require a minimum lot size of 6,000 SF to accommodate an ADU, except for ADUs constructed prior to January 1, 1954. The new legislation prohibits limits on lot size for ADUs that are created within an existing structure; either in the primary residence or in an accessory structure. New ADUs creating new square footage on a parcel would still have to be on a lot with a minimum size of 6,000 SF with the exception for those ADUs where a majority (>50% of the square footage) of the ADU is existing square footage in a legal structure on the property and the remaining construction complies with all other zoning district standards. Change to the definition of tandem parking: Currently the zoning code defines tandem parking as parking “one vehicle behind another.” This has been interpreted to limit only two cars, one behind the other, for tandem parking configurations. However, under the new changes to the ADU law, tandem parking is defined as two or more vehicles that are parked on a driveway or in any other location on a lot, lined up behind one another. The existing definition of tandem parking will be retained and applied to all other parking configurations except for those that involve parking for ADUs. The intent of this change is to provide more flexibility in allowing ADUs if the required parking can only be provided in a driveway behind the required parking for the primary residence. In many cases, single family homes have detached garages located at the rear of the property with a long driveway that runs next to the house that provides two or more parking spaces in tandem. Additional suggested changes – not mandated by State Law In the interest of removing constraints to the creation of ADUs, staff brought forward to the Planning Commission additional suggested changes to the zoning regulations (beyond those Title 25 - Zoning Amendments for Accessory Dwelling Units September 4, 2018 4 required for state law compliance). Staff suggests the additional recommended changes, recognizing that ADUs are a way for the City of Burlingame to increase housing stock to help address the regional housing shortage. The Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) acknowledges ADUs as “housing units” that count toward the City’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) numbers. Additionally, given the high cost of living in the Bay Area, there are people who may be able to afford to stay in the area if they have the added income from an ADU. The changes noted below were brought before the Planning Commission for consideration. The suggestions were referred to the Planning Commission’s Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee for study and then returned to the Planning Commission, where Commissioners voted to recommend these additional changes to the City Council. Conditional Use Permit and Special Permit provisions: Sections 25.60.010 (Conditional use permit requirements) and 25.26.035 (Uses allowed with a special permit) currently include a number of provisions that may serve to discourage ADUs. In particular: 1) 25.26.035 (f) requires a special permit for a basement with any interior ceiling height of 6’- 6” or greater; 2) 25.26.035 (h) requires a special permit for a bathroom (toilet and sink) exceeding 25 square feet located in a basement; 3) 25.26.037(a) prohibits bathtubs and shower stalls in basements; 4) 25.26.037(b) prohibits bedrooms in basements: Discussion: The removal of #1 through #4 above is proposed for cases where ADUs are proposed AND for all single family dwellings. These changes would eliminate barriers in the zoning code that currently prohibit ADUs from being developed in basements; for example, full bathrooms are currently not allowed in basements and also have a size constraint of 25 SF, and a separate unit cannot be created without a full bathroom. This change would encourage ADUs in basements and would also apply to all single family dwellings in the R-1 zoning district, regardless if an ADU was being created. However, the zoning code definition of a basement would not change; a “Basement” means the portion of a building between the floor and ceiling that is wholly or partially underground and where more than two (2) feet of any portion of the basement’s height is above the existing grade next to the basement, a basement shall be counted as a story (and is not considered a basement). While removing the prohibition of full bathrooms and bedrooms in basements and allowing a ceiling height greater than 6’-6”, the definition of a basement would not change, and the floor area regulations that apply to basements would remain in place as well with all basements with a ceiling height of six (6) feet or greater included in FAR calculations. The code would still allow up to six hundred (600) square feet of a basement with a ceiling height of six (6) feet or greater to be deducted from FAR if it meets BOTH the following criteria: • The top of the finished floor above the basement is less than two (2) feet above existing grade; and • No part of the basement is intended or used for parking. All ADUs in basements would be required to comply with Building Code requirements for egress, light and ventilation. 5) 25.26.;035 (b) requires a special permit to reduce the number of parking spaces existing onsite Title 25 - Zoning Amendments for Accessory Dwelling Units September 4, 2018 5 Discussion: Currently, a special permit is required to remove any parking on-site (a parking variance is required for removal of required parking), even if the code required parking is met. For example a special permit is required if there is a three-bedroom single family home with a two-car garage (20’ x 20’) where one covered and one uncovered space is required by code, and the proposal is to expand the kitchen into the garage area, resulting in the loss of one of the covered parking spaces. The code changes propose removing this requirement when the reduction in the number of parking spaces is solely for the purpose of creating an ADU, so long as the code required parking for the main dwelling is still met on-site. This change is proposed to apply only when the removal of the parking (additional parking beyond code requirements) is proposed for an ADU. However, this requirement will remain in place for all single family dwellings in the R-1 zoning district. Performance Standards to ADUs: Section 25.59.060 (ADU requirements) currently includes a requirement for a deed restriction that may serve to discourage ADUs and is difficult to enforce. 6) 25.59.060(k) requires a restrictive covenant on properties with ADUs that mandates owner occupancy of at least one of the units and requires that the covenant be recorded on the deed for the property to establish the existing accessory dwelling unit. The restrictive covenant is binding upon any successor in ownership of the property. Discussion: At the Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee meeting, the Planning Commissioners discussed that the intent of the deed restriction requirement is that if an owner occupies one of the two units on a property, there would be “pride of ownership” resulting in a more well maintained property. Staff notes that the deed restriction exists in some ADU ordinances in other jurisdictions. It was acknowledged that the intent of this section is for the consideration of the neighbors and the goal of preserving single family neighborhood character. However, the Subcommittee discussed the fact that there are no such regulations for renting a single family dwelling, and that the enforcement of such a requirement is very difficult. It should be noted that zoning does not typically regulate tenancy. As a practical matter, regulating tenancy can present enforcement issues: for example, if the owner of a property is deployed on a long-term assignment for work or has to be in a longer-term nursing facility, the tenant in the ADU would have to be evicted in order to comply with the ordinance. The provision of a restrictive covenant might inhibit some property owners from pursuing the construction of an ADU because of the restrictions that would be placed on the property and its future use. The proposed ordinance is provided as an attachment to this report. FISCAL IMPACT None. Exhibits: • Proposed Ordinance • Code Language Showing Tracked Changes • May 14, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes • June 25, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes • Government Code Section 65852.2 1 ORDINANCE NO. ____________ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME, AMENDING TITLE 25 – CHAPTERS 25.08, 25.26, 25.59, 25.60, AND 25.70 TO UPDATE EXISTING ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT REGULATIONS TO BE CONSISTENT WITH RECENTLY ADOPTED AMENDMENTS TO CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65852.2 AND ADDITIONAL CHANGES TO REMOVE CONSTRAINTS TO CREATING ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS WHEREAS the City of Burlingame enacted an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) ordinance in February 2017 in order to comply with State mandates regarding local regulation of ADUs; and WHEREAS the State legislature has since taken additional steps to facilitate the development of ADUs; and WHEREAS additional ordinance changes are required by the City in order to comply with these state mandates; and WHEREAS the Council recognizes the need to support the availability of a number of different housing types in the City; and WHEREAS this Ordinance takes measures to remove potential barriers to the development of ADUs, in addition to those mandated by the State legislature; NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council hereby ordains as follows: Division 1: Section 1: Burlingame Municipal Code Chapter 25.59 Secondary Dwelling Units is repealed and replaced in total with the following text: Chapter 25.59 ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS 25.59.010 Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to regulate both existing and new accessory dwelling units in residential zoning districts and on residential property consistent with state law (California Government Code Sections 65852.1 through 65852.2). This chapter is intended to implement the Housing Element of the Burlingame General Plan by providing for additional housing opportunities. This will be accomplished by increasing the number of units available within existing neighborhoods while maintaining the primarily single-family residential character of the area, and establishing standards for the development and occupancy of accessory units 2 to ensure that they are compatible with neighboring uses and structures, adequately equipped with public utility services, safe for human occupancy, and do not create unreasonable traffic and safety impacts. An accessory residential dwelling unit which conforms to the requirements of this chapter shall not be considered to exceed the allowable density for the lot upon which it is located and shall be deemed to be a residential use which is consistent with the existing General Plan and zoning designations for the lot. 25.59.020 Accessory dwelling unit permit procedure. (a) Applications for such an accessory dwelling unit permit shall be in writing and filed with the Community Development Director on a form approved by the Community Development Director. (b) As established by council resolution, a fee will be charged for an application for an accessory dwelling unit permit under this chapter. (c) Within 120 days of receipt of a complete application, the Community Development Director shall ministerially process for approval any application for an accessory dwelling unit permit pursuant to this chapter. Upon finding that the performance standards set forth in Section 25.59.060 are met the proposal shall be approved ministerially without discretionary review or public hearing and the applicant may proceed to acquire a building permit. All accessory units are categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to Sections15301 and 15303 of the CEQA guidelines. If the application does not meet all of the requirements of this chapter, the Community Development Director shall deny the application. 25.59.030 Appeal. The applicant that requested the accessory dwelling unit permit may appeal the community development director’s denial of the request. The appeal shall be submitted to the community development director in writing within ten (10) days after the date of the community development director’s decision. The appeal shall be heard by the planning commission in a public hearing pursuant to the procedures established for discretionary actions in Chapter 25.16. 25.59.040 Revocation of accessory dwelling unit permit. (a) Grounds. An accessory dwelling unit permit granted pursuant to this chapter may be revoked on any one or more of the following grounds: (1) The performance standards outlined in Sections 25.59 are not being met; or 3 (2) The accessory dwelling unit is no longer used for residential purposes; or (3) The parking required by Section 25.59 is no longer provided; or (4) The primary single-family dwelling on the site is purposely demolished; or (b) Notice. Written notice to revoke an accessory dwelling unit permit shall be served on the property owner, as shown on the last equalized assessment roll, either personally or by certified mail, and shall state: (1) The reasons for the proposed revocation; (2) That the proposed action will be taken by the director of community development unless a hearing before the planning commission is requested within fifteen (15) days after the date of said notice. If no response is received, the director of community development shall forthwith revoke the accessory dwelling unit permit as set forth in said notice. (c) Hearing. If a hearing is requested, at least ten (10) days’ notice thereof shall be given to the requested party. At any such hearing the property owner shall call witnesses and present evidence in his or her behalf. Upon conclusion of such hearing, the planning commission shall determine whether or not the permit shall be revoked. Such determination may be appealed to the city council in the same manner as for appeals taken on applications for the granting of conditional use permits or variances. 25.59.050 Variances prohibited. No variance under Chapter 25.54 shall be granted from any requirement of this chapter. 25.59.060 Performance standards for accessory dwelling units. General Provisions. This section allows an accessory dwelling unit, either attached to the main dwelling or detached in a separate structure to be created on lots which now contain one single-family dwelling and meet the following criteria, upon approval of an administrative accessory dwelling unit permit. (a) Minimum Lot Size. The minimum lot size to accommodate an accessory dwelling unit shall be no less than six thousand (6,000) square feet except for an accessory dwelling unit created entirely within an existing (legal) structure there shall be no minimum lot size limit; (b) There shall be no more than one accessory dwelling unit permitted on a lot which contains no more than one primary single-family dwelling. 4 (c) The accessory dwelling unit shall not be sold separately from any part of the property on which it is located; (d) Unit Size. The floor area of the accessory dwelling unit shall not exceed six hundred forty (640) square feet. (e) Floor Area Ratio. The accessory dwelling unit shall fall within the total floor area ratio and lot coverage allowed by the underlying zoning district. (f) Other Measurable Standards. (1) For attached units, the accessory dwelling unit shall comply with the setback, height and declining height envelope regulations which apply to the underlying zoning district. (2) For detached units, on single family zoned lots, the accessory dwelling unit shall comply with the setback, height and window placement criteria for accessory structures contained in Chapter 25.60, and shall meet the setback requirements, including exceptions for accessory structures, contained in Sections 25.26.072 and 25.26.073. (3) All detached units shall be limited to one story in height and shall not be constructed above detached garages or detached accessory structures except for accessory dwelling units create entirely within an existing legal two-story detached accessory structure;* (g) Parking. On-site parking spaces based on the number of bedrooms in the primary dwelling as required by Chapter 25.70 and parking requirements for an accessory dwelling unit shall be as follows: (1) Unless otherwise provided in this section, a minimum of one off-street uncovered parking space shall be provided for the accessory dwelling unit in addition to the off-street covered and uncovered parking spaces required for the main dwelling. (i) Parking for the accessory dwelling unit may be in tandem with a required parking space for the primary dwelling , meaning two or more cars located directly behind each other; and (ii) Parking for accessory dwelling units may be provided in the front setback or yard; and (iii) All parking shall be provided on a hard, all-weather surface and properly drained to the public street. (2) No parking space shall be required for an accessory dwelling unit in any of the following instances: 5 (i) No on-site parking for the accessory dwelling unit shall be required if the accessory dwelling unit is only used for “affordable housing” as defined in Chapter 25.63. As a condition of approval under this subsection, the owner of the property will be required to enter into and record an agreement generally in conformance with Section 25.63.040 to ensure continued affordability of the accessory dwelling unit. A draft agreement shall be required at the time of application submittal. (ii) The accessory dwelling unit is located within one-half mile of a major transit stop, as defined in California Public Resources Code § 21064.3 or included in the regional transportation plan; (iii) The accessory dwelling unit is located within a designated historic district; (iv) The accessory dwelling unit is constructed within an existing structure and is part of an existing single family dwelling or an existing, authorized, permitted and finalized accessory structure intended for human habitation (v) When on-street parking permits are required but not offered to the occupant of the accessory dwelling unit; (vi) When there is a car share vehicle, in a location determined by the Community Development Director to have at least three dedicated parking spaces, located within one block of the accessory dwelling unit; (h) Construction of the accessory dwelling unit shall comply with the all applicable provisions of this title and all applicable building, health and fire codes; except for accessory dwelling units constructed prior to January 1, 1954; (i) The new accessory dwelling unit shall incorporate the same or similar architectural features, building materials as the primary single family dwelling located on the property. Compatibility with the primary structure includes coordination of materials, roofing and other architectural features, and landscaping designed so that the appearance of the site remains that of a single-family residence. (j) If the accessory dwelling unit is demolished, the accessory dwelling unit permit shall lapse and be of no further force and effect, and all on-site parking requirements of Chapter 25.70 shall be met for the single family dwelling on the site. 6 (k) For existing accessory dwelling units constructed prior to January 1, 1954 the following additional criteria shall be met, in addition to subsections a-j above: (1) The accessory dwelling unit shall conform to the requirements of the California Health and Safety Code Section 17920.3, and the Uniform Housing Code as adopted by Section 17922. (2) An applicant for an accessory dwelling unit permit pursuant to this section that has been granted on conditions that it conform to the requirements of this chapter may perform work to bring the accessory dwelling unit into conformance, such as reducing the size of the living unit, improving or constructing parking, and correcting violation of Health and Safety Code Section 17920.3 and the Uniform Housing Code. (3) Any remodeling affecting the exterior of the accessory dwelling unit shall be matched to generally conform to the exterior treatment of the primary dwelling unit on the parcel. (4) If the accessory dwelling unit is destroyed or damaged by a natural catastrophe, the accessory dwelling unit may be reconstructed in exactly the same envelope and floor area as it existed immediately before the catastrophe or in conformance with the standards for new accessory dwelling units contained in Section 25.59. Section 2: Chapter 25.08 Definitions, Section 25.08.573 is repealed and replaced in total with the following text: 25.08.573 Accessory dwelling unit. “Accessory dwelling unit” means an additional residential dwelling unit on a parcel occupied solely by a single-family residence that provides complete independent living facilities for one or more persons. It shall include permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation purposes on the same parcel as the primary single-family dwelling is situated in one of the following forms: (a) Detached: The unit is separated from the primary structure (b) Attached: The unit is attached to the primary structure (c) Repurposed Existing Space: Space (e.g. master bedroom) within the primary residence is converted into an independent living unit. 7 Section 3: Section 25.08.647 is repealed and replaced in total with the following text: 25.08.647 Tandem parking. “Tandem parking” is the parking of one vehicle behind another; except for parking for an accessory dwelling unit where tandem parking is defined as two or more vehicles that are parked on a driveway or in any other location on a lot, lined up behind one another. Section 4: Chapter 25.50 Nonconforming Uses and Structures, Section 15.50.025 Expansion of nonconforming uses – R-1 zone is repealed and replaced in total with the following text: 25.50.025 Expansion of nonconforming uses - R-1 zone. (a) This section shall only be applicable to R-1 zoned parcels which contain two (2) detached nonconforming residential units. Only the primary residence, as determined by the director of community development, may be increased in footprint or in any exterior dimension if the accessory detached unit is to be retained as a residential unit. A conditional use permit pursuant to Chapter 25.16 shall be required for any such increase to a primary unit. Only maintenance and repairs as defined by the Uniform Building Code may be made to any accessory dwelling unit. The floor area or footprint of such an accessory unit shall not be expanded. (b) Factors for determining the primary residence shall include, but not be limited to, relative age, size and conformity with zoning requirements of the two (2) residences. The property owner may request that the planning commission review any such determination by the director of community development. Section 5: Chapter 25.60 Accessory Structures in R-1 and R-2 Districts is repealed and replaced in total with the following text: CHAPTER 25.60 ACCESSORY STRUCTURES IN R-1 AND R-2 DISTRICTS 25.60.010 Conditional use permit requirements. Accessory structures in the R-1 or R-2 Districts shall be a conditional use requiring a conditional use permit if any of the following will exist: (a) Two (2) or more accessory structures, each having over one hundred (120) square feet gross floor area, will exist on a single lot, except that there may be two (2) accessory structures if one is an accessory dwelling unit which complies with the provisions of Chapter 25.59 and obtains an accessory dwelling unit permit; 8 (b) Any single accessory structure will exceed six hundred (600) square feet of gross floor area; except that an accessory structure containing an accessory dwelling unit which complies with the provisions of Chapter 25.59 and obtains an accessory dwelling unit permit may be up to six hundred forty (640) square feet; (c) All accessory structures on a single lot will exceed a total of eight hundred (800) square feet gross floor area; except that an accessory structure containing an accessory dwelling unit which complies with the provisions of Chapter 25.59 and obtains an accessory dwelling unit permit may be up to six hundred forty (640) square feet; (d) An accessory structure will occupy any portion of the lot in front of the main building; provided, where a dwelling has been erected on the rear sixty (60) percent of the lot prior to January 15, 1954, a garage may be erected in front of the main building, but not in any portion of the front setback; (e) An accessory structure will be erected closer than four (4) feet to any other structure on the same lot; (f) Accessory structures will cover more than fifty (50) percent of the rear thirty (30) percent of a lot; (g) The plate line of the accessory structure will be more than nine (9) feet above grade at the closest point between the plate line and adjacent grade; (h) The roof height of the accessory structure will exceed ten (10) feet above grade, except the height may be increased one foot for each foot of separation from an adjacent property line, up to a maximum height of fourteen (14) feet, provided: (1) Where the lot slopes more than ten (10) percent at the location of the accessory structure, the maximum height shall be four (4) feet above the plate line; (2) The portion of the structure at the rear property line may have a maximum height of fourteen (14) feet if the structure has a pitched roof on both sides and the rear plate line does not exceed nine (9) feet above the natural grade; (3) The roof height of an accessory structure may have a maximum height of fifteen (15) feet above grade when the roof is pitched from ridge to plate on at least two (2) sides, and the ridge is no closer than five (5) feet to a side property line, and the rear plate line does not exceed nine (9) feet above the natural grade; and (4) No portion of the space within any accessory structure between the top of plate and the lowest portion of the roof structure including any dormer shall exceed seven (7) feet in height. 9 (i) Glazed openings of the accessory structure will be within ten (10) feet of the property line or any portion of a glazed opening will be higher than ten (10) feet above grade; (j) Water or sewer connections to the accessory structure will exceed building code minimums or the accessory structure will contain any shower, bath or toilet, except that an accessory structure containing an accessory dwelling unit which complies with the provisions of Chapter 25.59 and obtains an accessory dwelling unit permit; (k) The accessory structure will enclose mechanical equipment, excluding air conditioning equipment, which is designed to operate on a regular or continuous basis, which may be objectionable because of loudness, hours of operation, odor or other reason, and which is to be located less than twenty (20) feet from any structure for habitation, or less than ten (10) feet from any property line; provided such shall be allowed without a special permit if the building official approves the structure as adequately sound insulated; (l) Storage of household goods, tools or equipment in the accessory structure will exceed ten (10) percent of the gross floor area of the main dwelling structure; (m) Any portion of the accessory structure will be used for accessory living quarters, recreation purposes or for use in a home occupation; except for an accessory structure containing an accessory dwelling unit which complies with the provisions of Chapter 25.59 and obtains an accessory dwelling unit permit does not require a conditional use permit; (m) The accessory structure will be a greenhouse, trellis, lanai, patio shelter or similar structure exceeding one hundred twenty (120) square feet of gross floor area. Section 6: Chapter 25.26 R-1 District Regulations, Section 25.26.035 is repealed and replaced in total with the following text: 25.26.035 Uses allowed with a special permit. The following are uses allowed in the district with a special permit: (a) Attached garages for single-family dwelling units; (b) Reduction in the number of parking spaces existing on site; except where the on- site parking requirement is met per Chapter 25.70 for the existing units on-site and the reduction in the number of parking spaces is for the purpose of creating an accessory dwelling unit which complies with the provisions of Chapter 25.59; (c) Construction exceeding the limits of the declining height envelope; 10 (d) A detached garage exempt from setback restrictions located within the rear forty (40) percent of the lot; (e) An accessory structure that is in the rear of the lot and that is more than twenty- eight (28) feet in width or depth, except that an accessory structure containing an accessory dwelling unit which complies with the provisions of Chapter 25.59 and obtains an accessory dwelling unit permit (f) A direct exit from a basement to the exterior of the structure that is anything other than a light or window well Section 7: Chapter 25.70 Off-Street Parking, Section 25.70.010 is repealed and replaced in total with the following text: 25.70.010 Vehicle parking spaces to be provided. (a) Parking Required. At the time of erection of any building or structure, or at the time any building or structure is enlarged or increased in capacity, there shall be provided off- street parking spaces with adequate and proper provision for ingress and egress by standard size automobiles. (b) Parking with Remodel or Reconstruction. When any building is remodeled, reconstructed or changed in use by the addition of dwelling units, gross floor area, seating capacity, change in type of use or intensified use, such additional garage or parking facilities as may be required must be provided, except for accessory dwelling units approved per Chapter 25.59. (c) Minimum Requirements. The regulations which follow are the minimum requirements unless specific requirements are made for a particular use in a district. Additional spaces may be provided. Unless otherwise expressly permitted by a section of this chapter, parking required by this chapter is to be provided on the same lot as the use for which the parking is required. Section 8: Chapter 25.70 Off-Street Parking, Section 25.70.030 is repealed and replaced in total with the following text: 25.70.030 Requirements for single-family dwellings. The following are parking requirements for single-family dwellings. (a) Parking Space Requirements. Each single-family dwelling shall provide off-street parking spaces for at least two (2) vehicles, one of which must be covered by a garage or 11 carport. The following further requirements apply to certain additions and to new single-family dwellings: (1) An existing single-family dwelling increased in size to three (3) or four (4) bedrooms and a new single-family dwelling with up to four (4) bedrooms shall provide off-street parking spaces to current code dimensions for at least two (2) vehicles, one of which must be covered by a garage or carport; (2) A single-family dwelling hereafter increased in size to five (5) or more bedrooms and a new single-family dwelling with five (5) or more bedrooms shall provide off-street parking to current code dimensions for at least three (3) vehicles, two (2) of which must be covered by a garage or carport; (3) For the purposes of subsections (a)(1) and (2) of this section, an existing garage not less than eighteen (18) feet wide and twenty (20) feet deep interior dimension shall be considered to provide two (2) covered off-street parking places; (4) For additions to existing single-family dwellings, an existing garage with an eighteen (18) foot depth interior dimension shall be considered to meet the dimensional requirements for a parking space. (5) Bedrooms that are within accessory dwelling units shall not be counted toward the overall number of bedrooms for the primary single family dwelling on the lot on which it is located; parking for accessory dwelling units shall comply with Section 25.59.060(g). (b) Parking Aisles and Driveways. Covered parking spaces shall have a twenty-four (24) foot back-up area or be designed to be entered or exited in no more than three (3) maneuvers. All spaces must allow entry in three (3) maneuvers in the forward direction. (c) Parking Limitations. (1) A vehicle shall not be parked between a structure and the front or side property line except in a garage, driveway or other approved parking; except for parking for an accessory dwelling unit which complies with the provisions of Chapter 25.59; (2) Inoperative vehicles, vehicle parts, boats and campers (as defined by Section 243 of the Vehicle Code) shall not be stored or parked in driveways or between a structure and front or side property line; (3) Required covered parking shall not be provided in tandem configuration; except for an accessory dwelling unit which complies with the provisions of Chapter 25.59; 12 (4) For an addition to an existing single-family dwelling and for accessory dwelling units, required uncovered spaces may be provided in tandem configuration and may extend: (A) In areas with sidewalks, to the inner edge of the sidewalk, (B) In areas without sidewalks to five (5) feet from the inner edge of the curb, (C) In areas without either sidewalks or curbs, to five (5) feet from the edge of pavement. Division 2: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The Council declares that it would have adopted the Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. Division 3: This Ordinance shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in accordance with California Government Code Section 36933, published, and circulated in the City of Burlingame, and shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. _________________________________ Michael Brownrigg, Mayor I, Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, certify that the foregoing ordinance was introduced at a public hearing at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 4th day of September, 2018, and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the ______ day of ___________ 2018, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers: NOES: Councilmembers: ABSENT: Councilmembers: __________________________________ Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk 1 REDLINED PROPOSED CODE CHANGES FOR ADU REGULATIONS TO BE CONSISTENT WITH CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65852.2 Chapter 25.59 Secondary Dwelling Units is replaced in total with the following text: Chapter 25.59 ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS 25.59.010 Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to regulate both existing and new accessory dwelling units in residential zoning districts and on residential property consistent with state law (California Government Code Sections 65852.1 through 65852.2). This chapter is intended to implement the Housing Element of the Burlingame General Plan by providing for additional housing opportunities. This will be accomplished by increasing the number of units available within existing neighborhoods while maintaining the primarily single-family residential character of the area, and establishing standards for the development and occupancy of accessory units to ensure that they are compatible with neighboring uses and structures, adequately equipped with public utility services, safe for human occupancy, and do not create unreasonable traffic and safety impacts. An accessory residential dwelling unit which conforms to the requirements of this chapter shall not be considered to exceed the allowable density for the lot upon which it is located and shall be deemed to be a residential use which is consistent with the existing General Plan and zoning designations for the lot. 25.59.020 Accessory dwelling unit permit procedure. (a) Applications for such an accessory dwelling unit permit shall be in writing and filed with the Community Development Director on a form approved by the Community Development Director. (b) As established by council resolution, a fee will be charged for an application for an accessory dwelling unit permit under this chapter. (c) Within 120 days of receipt of a complete application, the Community Development Director shall ministerially process for approval any application for an accessory dwelling unit permit pursuant to this chapter. Upon finding that the performance standards set forth in Section 25.59.060 are met the proposal shall be approved ministerially without discretionary review or public hearing and the applicant may proceed to acquire a building permit. All accessory units are categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to Sections15301 and 15303 of the CEQA guidelines. If the application does not meet all of the requirements of this chapter, the Community Development Director shall deny the application. (d) Deed Restrictions. Prior to issuance of a building permit for an accessory dwelling unit, or for improvements to bring an existing accessory dwelling unit into compliance with the accessory dwelling unit permit requirements, an agreement of restriction shall be filed with the county recorder. The agreement of restriction shall state the following: 2 (1) The accessory dwelling unit shall not be sold separately from any part of the property on which it is located; (2) The accessory dwelling unit is restricted to the standards specified in Burlingame Municipal Code Chapter 25.59; (3) Either the primary single-family dwelling or the accessory dwelling unit shall be occupied as the principal place of residence of the record owner of the lot. In the case of ownership by a corporation, partnership, trust or association, either the primary single-family dwelling or the accessory dwelling unit shall be the place of residence of an officer, director or shareholder of the corporation, a partner in the partnership, a trustor, trustee or beneficiary of the trust, a member of the association, or an employee of any such organization; and (4) The restrictions shall be binding upon any successor in ownership of the property and lack of compliance shall result in legal action against the property owner. 25.59.030 Appeal. The applicant that requested the accessory dwelling unit permit may appeal the community development director’s denial of the request. The appeal shall be submitted to the community development director in writing within ten (10) days after the date of the community development director’s decision. The appeal shall be heard by the planning commission in a public hearing pursuant to the procedures established for discretionary actions in Chapter 25.16. 25.59.040 Revocation of accessory dwelling unit permit. (a) Grounds. An accessory dwelling unit permit granted pursuant to this chapter may be revoked on any one or more of the following grounds: (1) The performance standards outlined in Sections 25.59.060 and 25.59.070 are not being met; or (2) No owner of the subject property resides on the property; or (23) The accessory dwelling unit is no longer used for residential purposes; or (34) The parking required by Section 25.59.060 is no longer provided; or (45) The primary single-family dwelling on the site is purposely demolished; or (b) Notice. Written notice to revoke an accessory dwelling unit permit shall be served on the property owner, as shown on the last equalized assessment roll, either personally or by certified mail, and shall state: (1) The reasons for the proposed revocation; 3 (2) That the proposed action will be taken by the director of community development unless a hearing before the planning commission is requested within fifteen (15) days after the date of said notice. If no response is received, the director of community development shall forthwith revoke the accessory dwelling unit permit as set forth in said notice. (c) Hearing. If a hearing is requested, at least ten (10) days’ notice thereof shall be given to the requested party. At any such hearing the property owner shall call witnesses and present evidence in his or her behalf. Upon conclusion of such hearing, the planning commission shall determine whether or not the permit shall be revoked. Such determination may be appealed to the city council in the same manner as for appeals taken on applications for the granting of conditional use permits or variances. 25.59.050 Variances prohibited. No variance under Chapter 25.54 shall be granted from any requirement of this chapter. 25.59.060 Performance standards for accessory dwelling units. General Provisions. This section allows an accessory dwelling unit, either attached to the main dwelling or detached in a separate structure to be created on lots which now contain one single-family dwelling and meet the following criteria, upon approval of an administrative accessory dwelling unit permit. (a) Minimum Lot Size. The minimum lot size to accommodate an accessory dwelling unit shall be no less than six thousand (6,000) square feet except for an accessory dwelling unit created entirely within an existing (legal) structure there shall be no minimum lot size limit; (b) There shall be no more than one accessory dwelling unit permitted on a lot which contains no more than one primary single-family dwelling. (c) The accessory dwelling unit shall not be sold separately from any part of the property on which it is located; Occupancy Restrictions. Either the primary single-family dwelling or the accessory dwelling unit shall be occupied as the principal place of residence of the record owner of the lot. In the case of ownership by a corporation, partnership, trust or association, either the primary single-family dwelling or the accessory dwelling unit shall be the place of residence of an officer, director or shareholder of the corporation, a partner in the partnership, a trustor, trustee or beneficiary of the trust, a member of the association, or an employee of any such organization. (d) Unit Size. The floor area of the accessory dwelling unit shall not exceed six hundred forty (640) square feet. (e) Floor Area Ratio. The accessory dwelling unit shall fall within the total floor area ratio and lot coverage allowed by the underlying zoning district. (f) Other Measurable Standards. (1) For attached units, the accessory dwelling unit shall comply with the setback, height and declining height envelope regulations which apply to the underlying zoning districtmain dwelling unit. 4 (2) For detached units, on single family zoned lots, the accessory dwelling unit shall comply with the setback, height and window placement criteria for accessory structures contained in Chapter 25.60, and shall meet the setback requirements, including exceptions for accessory structures, contained in Sections 25.286.072 and 25.286.073. (3) All dDetached units shall be limited to one story in height and shall not be constructed above detached garages or detached accessory structures except for accessory dwelling units create entirely within an existing legal two-story detached accessessory structure;.* (g) Parking. On-site parking spaces based on the number of bedrooms in the primary dwelling as required by Chapter 25.70 and parking requirements for an accessory dwelling unit shall be as follows: (1) Unless otherwise provided in this section, a minimum of one off-street uncovered parking space shall be provided for the accessory dwelling unit in addition to the off-street covered and uncovered parking spaces required for the main dwelling. (i) Parking for the accessory dwelling unit may be in tandem with a required parking space for the primary dwelling , meaning two or more one cars located directly behind each another car; and (ii) No required pParking for accessory dwelling units may be provided in the front setback or yard, except in the driveway; and (iii) All parking shall be provided on a hard, all-weather surface and properly drained to the public street. (2) No parking space shall be required for an accessory dwelling unit in any of the following instances: (i) No on-site parking for the accessory dwelling second unit shall be required if the accessory dwelling unit is only used for “affordable housing” as defined in Chapter 25.63. As a condition of approval under this subsection, the owner of the property will be required to enter into and record an agreement generally in conformance with Section 25.63.040 to ensure continued affordability of the accessory dwelling unit. A draft agreement shall be required at the time of application submittal. (ii) The accessory dwelling unit is located within one-half mile of a major transit stop, as defined in California Public Resources Code § 21064.3 or included in the regional transportation plan; (iii) The accessory dwelling unit is located within a designated historic district; (iv) The accessory dwelling unit is constructed within an existing structure and is part of anthe existing single family main residence dwelling or an existing, authorized, permitted and finalized residential accessory structure intended for human habitation as having existed three years prior to application; 5 (v) When on-street parking permits are required but not offered to the occupant of the accessory dwelling unit; (vi) When there is a car share vehicle, in a location determined by the Community Development Director to have at least three dedicated parking spaces, located within one block of the accessory dwelling unit; (h) Construction of the accessory dwelling unit shall comply with the all applicable provisions of this title and all applicable building, health and fire codes; except for accessory dwelling units constructed prior to January 1, 1954; (i) The new accessory dwelling unit shall incorporate the same or similar architectural features, building materials and colors as the primary single family dwelling located on the property. Compatibility with the primary structure includes coordination of colors, materials, roofing and other architectural features, and landscaping designed so that the appearance of the site remains that of a single-family residence. (j) Upon approval of an accessory dwelling unit there shall be an application submitted for a new, separate address from the Public Works, Engineering Division. Address numbers shall be placed on all new and existing buildings with accessory dwelling units, in accordance with the street identification standards provided in Title 17, Chapter 17.04, and shall be placed in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street to provide clear identification of the unit for emergency responders. (k) A restrictive covenant which mandates owner occupancy of at least one of the units shall be recorded to establish the existing accessory dwelling unit. The restrictive covenant shall be binding upon any successor in ownership of the property and lack of compliance shall void the approval of the unit and may result in legal action against the property owner. The restrictive covenant shall be subject to approval by the city attorney as to its form and content. (lj) If the accessory dwelling unit is demolished, the accessory dwelling unit permit shall lapse and be of no further force and effect, and all on-site parking requirements of Chapter 25.70 shall be met for the single family primary dwelling on the site. (mk) For existing accessory dwelling units constructed prior to January 1, 1954 the following additional criteria shall be met, in addition to subsections a-j above: (1) The accessory dwelling unit shall conform to the requirements of the California Health and Safety Code Section 17920.3, and the Uniform Housing Code as adopted by Section 17922. (2) An applicant for an accessory dwelling unit permit pursuant to this section that has been granted on conditions that it conform to the requirements of this chapter may perform work to bring the accessory dwelling unit into conformance, such as reducing the size of the living unit, improving or constructing parking, and correcting violation of Health and Safety Code Section 17920.3 and the Uniform Housing Code. 6 (3) Any remodeling affecting the exterior of the accessory dwelling unit shall be matched to generally conform to the exterior treatment of the primary dwelling unit on the parcel. (4) If the accessory dwelling unit is destroyed or damaged by a natural catastrophe, the accessory dwelling unit may be reconstructed in exactly the same envelope and floor area as it existed immediately before the catastrophe or in conformance with the standards for new accessory dwelling units contained in Section 25.59.060. Chapter 25.08 Definitions, Section 25.08.573 is replaced in total with the following text: 25.08.573 Accessory dwelling unit. “Accessory dwelling unit” means either a detached or an attached an additional residential dwelling unit on a parcel occupied soleysolely by a single-family residencetial lot or parcel that provides complete independent living facilities for one or more persons. It shall include permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation purposes on the same parcel as the primary single- family dwelling is situated in one of the following forms: (a) Detached: The unit is separated from the primary structure (b) Attached: The unit is attached to the primary structure (c) Repurposed Existing Space: Space (e.g. master bedroom) within the primary residence is converted into an independent living unit.. 25.08.647 Tandem parking. “Tandem parking” is the parking of one vehicle behind another; except for parking for an accessory dwelling unit where tandem parking is defined as two or more vehicles that are parked on a driveway or in any other location on a lot, lined up behind one another. Chapter 25.50 Nonconforming Uses and Structures, Section 15.50.025 Expansion of nonconforming uses – R-1 zone is replaced in total with the following text: 25.50.025 Expansion of nonconforming uses - R-1 zone. (a) This section shall only be applicable to R-1 zoned parcels which contain two (2) detached nonconforming residential units. Only the primary residence, as determined by the director of community development, may be increased in footprint or in any exterior dimension if the accessory detached unit is to be retained as a residential unit. A conditional use permit pursuant to Chapter 25.16 shall be required for any such increase to a primary unit. Only maintenance and repairs as defined by the Uniform Building Code may be made to any accessory dwelling unit. The floor area or footprint of such an accessory unit shall not be expanded. 7 (b) Factors for determining the primary residence shall include, but not be limited to, relative age, size and conformity with zoning requirements of the two (2) residences. The property owner may request that the planning commission review any such determination by the director of community development. Chapter 25.60 Accessory Structures in R-1 and R-2 Districts is replaced in total with the following text: CHAPTER 25.60 ACCESSORY STRUCTURES IN R-1 AND R-2 DISTRICTS 25.60.010 Conditional use permit requirements. Accessory structures in the R-1 or R-2 Districts shall be a conditional use requiring a conditional use permit if any of the following will exist: (a) Two (2) or more accessory structures, each having over one hundred (1200) square feet gross floor area, will exist on a single lot, except that there may be two (2) accessory structures if one is an accessory dwelling unit which complies with the provisions of Chapter 25.59 and obtains an accessory dwelling unit permit; (b) Any single accessory structure will exceed six hundred (600) square feet of gross floor area; except that an accessory structure containing an accessory dwelling unit which complies with the provisions of Chapter 25.59 and obtains an accessory dwelling unit permit may be up to six hundred forty (640) square feet; (c) All accessory structures on a single lot will exceed a total of eight hundred (800) square feet gross floor area; except that an accessory structure containing an accessory dwelling unit which complies with the provisions of Chapter 25.59 and obtains an accessory dwelling unit permit may be up to six hundred forty (640) square feet; (d) An accessory structure will occupy any portion of the lot in front of the main building; provided, where a dwelling has been erected on the rear sixty (60) percent of the lot prior to January 15, 1954, a garage may be erected in front of the main building, but not in any portion of the front setback; (e) An accessory structure will be erected closer than four (4) feet to any other structure on the same lot; (f) Accessory structures will cover more than fifty (50) percent of the rear thirty (30) percent of a lot; (g) The plate line of the accessory structure will be more than nine (9) feet above grade at the closest point between the plate line and adjacent grade; (h) The roof height of the accessory structure will exceed ten (10) feet above grade, except the height may be increased one foot for each foot of separation from an adjacent property line, up to a maximum height of fourteen (14) feet, provided: 8 (1) Where the lot slopes more than ten (10) percent at the location of the accessory structure, the maximum height shall be four (4) feet above the plate line; (2) The portion of the structure at the rear property line may have a maximum height of fourteen (14) feet if the structure has a pitched roof on both sides and the rear plate line does not exceed nine (9) feet above the natural grade; (3) The roof height of an accessory structure may have a maximum height of fifteen (15) feet above grade when the roof is pitched from ridge to plate on at least two (2) sides, and the ridge is no closer than five (5) feet to a side property line, and the rear plate line does not exceed nine (9) feet above the natural grade; and (4) No portion of the space within any accessory structure between the top of plate and the lowest portion of the roof structure including any dormer shall exceed seven (7) feet in height. (i) Glazed openings of the accessory structure will be within ten (10) feet of the property line or any portion of a glazed opening will be higher than ten (10) feet above grade; (j) Water or sewer connections to the accessory structure will exceed building code minimums or the accessory structure will contain any shower, bath or toilet, except that an accessory structure containing an accessory dwelling unit which complies with the provisions of Chapter 25.59 and obtains an accessory dwelling unit permit; (k) The accessory structure will enclose mechanical equipment, excluding air conditioning equipment, which is designed to operate on a regular or continuous basis, which may be objectionable because of loudness, hours of operation, odor or other reason, and which is to be located less than twenty (20) feet from any structure for habitation, or less than ten (10) feet from any property line; provided such shall be allowed without a special permit if the building official approves the structure as adequately sound insulated; (l) Storage of household goods, tools or equipment in the accessory structure will exceed ten (10) percent of the gross floor area of the main dwelling structure; (m) Any portion of the accessory structure will be used for accessory living quarters, recreation purposes or for use in a home occupation; except for an accessory structure containing an accessory dwelling unit which complies with the provisions of Chapter 25.59 and obtains an accessory dwelling unit permit does not require a conditional use permit; (mn) The accessory structure will be a greenhouse, lathhousetrellis, lanai, patio shelter or similar structure exceeding one hundred twenty (120) square feet of gross floor area. 9 Chapter 25.26 R-1 District Regulations is replaced in total with the following text: 25.26.035 Uses allowed with a special permit. The following are uses allowed in the district with a special permit: (a) Attached garages for single-family dwelling units; (b) Reduction in the number of parking spaces existing on site; except where the on-site parking requirement is met per Chapter 25.70 for the existing units on-site and the reduction in the number of parking spaces is for the purpose of creating an accessory dwelling unit which complies with the provisions of Chapter 25.59; (c) Construction exceeding the limits of the declining height envelope; (d) A detached garage exempt from setback restrictions located within the rear forty (40) percent of the lot; (e) An accessory structure that is in the rear of the lot and that is more than twenty-eight (28) feet in width or depth, except that an accessory structure containing an accessory dwelling unit which complies with the provisions of Chapter 25.59 and obtains an accessory dwelling unit permit; (f) A basement with any interior ceiling height of six and one-half (6 1/2) feet or greater; (gf) A direct exit from a basement to the exterior of the structure that is anything other than a light or window well; (h) A bathroom (toilet and sink) exceeding twenty-five (25) square feet located in a basement. 25.26.037 Prohibited uses. The following uses are specifically prohibited in the R-1 Districts: (a) Bathtubs and shower stalls in basements; and (b) Bedrooms in basements. 10 Chapter 25.70 Off-Street Parking, Section 25.70.010 is replaced in total with the following text: 25.70.010 Vehicle parking spaces to be provided. (a) Parking Required. At the time of erection of any building or structure, or at the time any building or structure is enlarged or increased in capacity, there shall be provided off-street parking spaces with adequate and proper provision for ingress and egress by standard size automobiles. (b) Parking with Remodel or Reconstruction. When any building is remodeled, reconstructed or changed in use by the addition of dwelling units, gross floor area, seating capacity, change in type of use or intensified use, such additional garage or parking facilities as may be required must be provided, except for accessory dwelling units approved per Chapter 25.59. (c) Minimum Requirements. The regulations which follow are the minimum requirements unless specific requirements are made for a particular use in a district. Additional spaces may be provided. Unless otherwise expressly permitted by a section of this chapter, parking required by this chapter is to be provided on the same lot as the use for which the parking is required. 25.70.030 Requirements for single-family dwellings. The following are parking requirements for single-family dwellings. (a) Parking Space Requirements. Each single-family dwelling shall provide off-street parking spaces for at least two (2) vehicles, one of which must be covered by a garage or carport. The following further requirements apply to certain additions and to new single-family dwellings: (1) An existing single-family dwelling increased in size to three (3) or four (4) bedrooms and a new single-family dwelling with up to four (4) bedrooms shall provide off-street parking spaces to current code dimensions for at least two (2) vehicles, one of which must be covered by a garage or carport; (2) A single-family dwelling hereafter increased in size to five (5) or more bedrooms and a new single-family dwelling with five (5) or more bedrooms shall provide off-street parking to current code dimensions for at least three (3) vehicles, two (2) of which must be covered by a garage or carport; (3) For the purposes of subsections (a)(1) and (2) of this section, an existing garage not less than eighteen (18) feet wide and twenty (20) feet deep interior dimension shall be considered to provide two (2) covered off-street parking places; (4) For additions to existing single-family dwellings, an existing garage with an eighteen (18) foot depth interior dimension shall be considered to meet the dimensional requirements for a parking space. 11 (5) Bedrooms that are within accessory dwelling units shall not be counted toward the overall number of bedrooms for the primary single family dwelling on the lot on which it is located; parking for accessory dwelling units shall comply with Section 25.59.060(g). (b) Parking Aisles and Driveways. Covered parking spaces shall have a twenty-four (24) foot back-up area or be designed to be entered or exited in no more than three (3) maneuvers. All spaces must allow entry in three (3) maneuvers in the forward direction. (c) Parking Limitations. (1) A vehicle shall not be parked between a structure and the front or side property line except in a garage, driveway or other approved parking; except for parking for an accessory dwelling unit which complies with the provisions of Chapter 25.59; (2) Inoperative vehicles, vehicle parts, boats and campers (as defined by Section 243 of the Vehicle Code) shall not be stored or parked in driveways or between a structure and front or side property line; (3) Required covered parking shall not be provided in tandem configuration; except for an accessory dwelling unit which complies with the provisions of Chapter 25.59; (4) For an addition to an existing single-family dwelling and for accessory dwelling units, required uncovered spaces may be provided in tandem configuration and may extend: (A) In areas with sidewalks, to the inner edge of the sidewalk, (B) In areas without sidewalks to five (5) feet from the inner edge of the curb, (C) In areas without either sidewalks or curbs, to five (5) feet from the edge of pavement. BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, May 14, 2018 f.Proposed Amendments to Title 25, Chapters 25.08, 25.26, 25.59, 25.60, and 25.70 to update existing Accessory Dwelling Unit regulations to be consistent with recently adopted amendments to California Government Code Section 65852.2. >Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Thought the purpose of the regulations was to permit family to have older parents live on the same property as their children. (Meeker: can't restrict occupancy of the secondary unit to family members.) >What limitations will remain regarding parking in the front setback? (Keylon: currently can't park in the front setback unless it is done in a driveway leading to a garage. However, State law prohibits restrictions on the location of parking for ADUs, therefore one could park in the front setback if the parking is for an ADU. For units within one-half mile of transit, or conversion of existing structures on a property, parking is not required.) >How is parking for an ADU counted? (Keylon: parking for the ADU, when required, is counted separately from the parking for the residence.) >Understands that the City must come into compliance with State law. There are steps that the community can take to promote the development of additional housing stock. The City is restricted from requiring affordable housing in any new development due to Measure T. Permitting ADUs within R -1 districts is a relatively low -impact means of providing additional housing as long as they are provided consistent with local and State regulations. >Feels that the special permit for ceiling height should be eliminated. >Somewhat uncomfortable with eliminating the special permit for a direct ingress /egress from a basement. Should be reviewed to ensure that they are not an impact upon the neighbors. >In favor of removing the restriction on the size of bathrooms in basements. >Supports the restriction that would permit the removal of a parking space to accommodate construction of an ADU. >Torn regarding the restriction for owner occupancy of one unit. The issue should be vetted through the Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee. >Supports removing the requirement for approval of a conditional use permit for windows within ten feet of a property line in an accessory structure. >Is the floor area of an ADU taken off of the total allowed for the primary residence? (Keylon: counts toward FAR and lot coverage.) >Suggested looking at other cities' approaches to FAR and lot coverage for ADUs. >May ADUs be located greater than one -half mile from transit? (Keylon: yes, but must provide parking for the unit.) >Has construction of ADUs above a garage ever been considered? (Meeker: second-story occupiable space is not permitted above a garage as it may adversely impact the neighboring property.) >Has no issue with removing the owner -occupancy restriction; the City doesn't require the property owner to reside in a single-family residence without an ADU. >Would like to retain the ability to review having windows within ten feet of a property line in accessory structures. Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 8/1/2018 May 14, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Is there some way to encourage parking for ADUs not to be within the front setback. (Keylon: can't require, but may make suggestions to applicants when meeting with them. Meeker: but cannot require it . The issue may come to a head as it relates to stormwater requirements.) >Concerned that it would be very possible to convert a single -family dwelling into a duplex if an exterior basement ingress/egress is allowed without Commission review. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Community Development Director Meeker noted that the Commission is being asked to make recommendations regarding those items (State mandates) that it supports without change. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to recommend approval of all State-mandated changes to the ADU regulations; recommend that the restrictions regarding openings within ten-feet of a property line and owner occupancy of one of the units on a property be referred to the Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee for further review; remove the restriction on basement ceiling heights; retain the requirement for Commission consideration of external ingress/egress from a basement; remove the restriction on the size of a basement bathroom; and remove the requirement for a special permit for removal of a parking space on-site when associated with construction of an ADU. Chair Gaul asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, and Terrones6 - Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 8/1/2018 BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, June 25, 2018 g.Proposed amendments to Chapter 25.59 (Accessory Dwelling Units ), Chapter 25.08 (Definitions), Chapter 25.26 (R-1 district regulations), Chapter 25.60 (Accessory Structures in R-1 and R-2 districts) and Chapter 25.70 (Off-street parking) of the Burlingame Municipal Code related to Accessory Dwelling Units to be consistent with recently adopted amendments to California Government Code Section 65852.2. ADU Staff Report - 6.25.18 ADU ord change 6.25.18- PC minutes 5.14 and Resolution ADU ord change REDLINES 6.25.18 ADU ord change CLEAN 6.25.18 ADU ord change Attachments 6.25.18 Attachments: Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. >What are the fire sprinkler requirements for ADUs? (Keylon: The ADU is not required to be sprinklered if the house is not required to be sprinklered.) >Would fire-rated windows be required if there is proximity to the property line? (Keylon: In non-sprinklered structures the Building Code does not allow openings within 5 feet of the property line, and one-hour construction is required. If the structure is sprinklered the distance is 3 feet.) >If there is not a kitchen, would it be considered an ADU? (Keylon: There would need to be a kitchen to be considered an ADU. Otherwise it would be considered an accessory living space.) >A fire-rated window that is one-hour rated could be allowed on the property line. (Keylon: Correct. Building Code provisions are attached to the staff report for reference .)(Kane: Intent is to minimize inconsistencies between Conditional Use Permit provisions that consider issues differently than fire and building codes.) >The complexity of issue is why some commissioners supported eliminating the requirement for a CUP for windows within 10 feet of the property line, because of the various different issues related to the the fire and building codes that govern and dictate openings within proximity to a property line. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Public Comments: Jerry Deal: Having an additional unit can help people afford to stay in town. Conditional Use Permit is required for staircase from a basement to outside; this is a perfect example of a second unit that would not be on property line, which would be preferable. Otherwise a structure in the backyard could be disruptive to neighbors if the windows are open. Does not mind having an accessory unit in the back, but having a window close to the property line is an issue since sound carries. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 8/16/2018 June 25, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Concern with window openings being close to property line. The Planning Commission needs to consider privacy. ADUs can be on the property line, so seems like it is worthwhile retaining. There will be instances where it doesn't matter at all, but it needs to be evaluated. >ADUs are otherwise approved ministerially, but one would come before the Planning Commission if it proposed a window within 10 feet of the property line. However in that instance it would not be before the commission for anything other than the CUP. >Would expect the commission will be reviewing a lot of CUPs for windows within 10 feet of the property line given the constraints in accommodating ADUs on small lots. >Needs to determine whether the CUP requirement restricts ADUs from happening. A project could be designed with no windows within 10 feet of the property line, so would not need the CUP. Doesn't mean the project itself cannot be within 10 feet of the property line. >The CUP window requirement will not necessarily limit the number of ADU applications, it will just change the nature of the ADU designs, while possibly preserving quality of life for neighbors. >The issue is not just noise, it can be light shining into an adjacent yard too. Commissioner Kelly made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to recommend the amendments to the City Council with the requirement for a Conditional Use Permit for a window within 10 feet of a property line retained. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse7 - Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 8/16/2018 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: MEETING DATE: September 4, 2018 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: September 4, 2018 From: Kevin Gardiner, Community Development Director – (650) 558-7255 Lisa K. Goldman, City Manager – (650) 558-7204 Subject: The Village at Burlingame Affordable Housing Development (Parking Lot F – 150 Park Road) and Public Parking Structure (Parking Lot N – 160 Lorton Avenue) – Proposed Development Program Modifications RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council receive an update on the Village at Burlingame project and comment on proposed development program modifications. BACKGROUND The "Village at Burlingame" has been proposed for City of Burlingame Parking Lots F and N, in downtown, just south of Howard Avenue. The project proposes constructing a new, 5-story 132- unit affordable workforce and senior apartment development on the site of Parking Lot F, and relocating the existing parking stalls to a proposed parking garage on Parking Lot N. The broad intent is for the units to be rented by people working in Burlingame as well as Burlingame seniors. The Pacific Companies (also known as Pacific West Communities) has submitted applications to the Community Development Department – Planning Division for entitlements related to the development of the affordable housing units and parking structure. The Planning Commission reviewed the applications as Design Review Study items on February 26, 2018 (Planning Commission Meeting Minutes attached). The Pacific Companies has continued to refine the project since February and has made various modifications to the housing portion of the project. While the proposed changes would continue to provide 132 affordable housing units, the mix of units (in particular, the numbers of bedrooms) would be changed as a result of the various design modifications. DISCUSSION Since the Planning Commission review of the project, changes to the housing portion of the project have been considered to respond to: Planning Commission feedback, design issues that have arisen during refinement of the plans, and comments from neighbors. The proposed changes are summarized below: Village at Burlingame – Development Program September 4, 2018 2 Architectural changes consistent with Planning Commission feedback • Reduce the size of the parking access opening • Make the ground floor architecture more pedestrian friendly • Highlight the entrance to the building with signage and architecture • Community space located to overlook city park to the rear • Landscape was either added or enhanced around the perimeter of the building at the ground floor and on the podium Design features refined during changes to drawings due to opportunity to improve design • Changes to the unit layout and stair locations to maintain 132 units (refer Table 1 below) • Further refinement of the layout and use of the trash/refuse function. • Bike parking moved from down in the parking garage to ground level • Plans for the city park were removed from the drawings • Some interior storage space now included for residents Design changes to respond to neighbors’ comments • Redesign of unit layout to bring the stairs interior to the building and align the building with future park • Increase of setbacks on rear property line (refer to Table 2 below) The following three tables summarize proposed modifications to the mix of units. Table 1 summarizes the proposed modification to the mix of unit sizes. The first row is the unit mix as found in the design iteration reviewed by the City Council on February 5, 2018, and by the Planning Commission on February 26, 2018. The second row represents a unit mix resulting from a proposed “Reduced Setback Design” that would include more significant design changes that would be focused on keeping the back of the building further from the property line. This design has not been formally submitted to the City for consideration as it is still under development. TABLE 1 – HOUSING UNIT DISTRIBUTION Workforce Senior Total Studio 1 BR 2 BR Studio 1 BR 2 BR Studio 1 BR 2 BR Total Unit count at Planning Commission Meeting February 26, 2018 0 61 17 0 40 14 0 101 31 132 Reduced Setback Design 3 53 22 0 49 5 3 102 27 132 The total number of units (132 total) and number of workforce units (78) and senior units (54) would remain the same. Village at Burlingame – Development Program September 4, 2018 3 In order to accommodate the proposed “Reduced Setback Design”, the square footages of the units would be modified. One-bedroom workforce units would be reduced from 650 SF to 583 SF, while one-bedroom senior units would increase slightly from 573 SF to 589 SF. Two- bedroom workforce and senior units would be reduced from 850 SF (same for both unit types) to 772 SF and 760 SF, respectively. Three, 3-bedroom workforce units previously proposed (1,150 SF) would be replaced with three studio units (470 SF). Table 2 summarizes the proposed modification to the square footage of each unit type. TABLE 2 – UNIT SQUARE FOOTAGES Workforce Count Type Average Sq. Ft. 1 Studio 470 1 Studio 470 1 Studio 470 4 1BR 583 41 1BR 583 8 1BR 583 1 2BR 772 18 2BR 772 2 2BR 772 1 2BR 772 Senior Count Type Average Sq. Ft. 5 1BR 589 44 1BR 589 0 1BR 589 1 2BR 760 4 2BR 760 0 2BR 760 0 2BR 760 This space intentionally left blank. Village at Burlingame – Development Program September 4, 2018 4 Table 3 summarizes the Area Median Income (AMI) for the workforce and senior units. TABLE 3 – AMI DISTRIBUTION Workforce Senior Total Studio 1Br 2Br Studio 1Br 2Br 50% AMI 1 4 1 0 5 1 12 60% AMI 1 41 18 0 44 4 108 110% AMI 1 8 2 0 0 0 11 Manager 1 1 3 53 22 0 49 5 132 Table 4 summarizes the proposed modification to the setbacks of the housing portion of the project. TABLE 4 – BUILDING SETBACKS Front Setback Side Setbacks Rear Setback Unit count at Planning Commission Meeting February 26, 2018 At property line on ground floor with minor stepping back at upper floors. Ranges between 3'-4" to 10" Ranges between 3'-4" at 1st floor to 5' at upper floors for portions closest to the property line. Reduced Setback Design No material change from June 2018 design. Varies between 3'-4" and 5’ to exterior façade for portions closest to the property line. Setbacks to façade have significant changes and now range from 8'-6" to 11'. As the project team has been considering the “Reduced Setback Design Alternative,” the City Council is being asked to review the proposed modification to the mix of unit sizes and distribution between workforce and senior units that would result from the changes. Parking Structure Design: At its February 26, 2018 meeting, the Planning Commission also reviewed the design of the proposed parking structure (Planning Commission Meeting Minutes attached). The design of the structure has since been modified to reflect Planning Commission input, but the design changes would not result in any changes in the total number of parking spaces. The revised design will be presented to the Planning Commission at a subsequent meeting. FISCAL IMPACT None. Exhibit: • February 26, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes (excerpt) BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, February 26, 2018 a.150 Park Road (Parking Lot F), zoned HMU & R-4: Application for Design Review and Density Bonus Incentives for construction of a new 132-unit affordable workforce and senior apartment development (Chris Grant, The Pacific Companies, applicant; City of Burlingame, property owner; Pacific West Architecture, architect) (246 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin 150 Park Rd (Parking Lot F) - Staff Report 150 Park Rd (Parking Lot F) - Attachments 150 Park Rd (Parking Lot F) - Plans - 02.26.18 Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner Terrones had met with the applicant to get a preview of the project. Commissioner Comaroto also met with the applicant. Planning Manager Gardiner and Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: >Land close to the train is precious, wants to encourage growth around transit hubs. Could car ownership be a consideration in residency? Perhaps preference to someone who does not have a car. Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Douglas Gibson, project architect, represented the applicant, with Caleb Roope of Pacific Companies. Commission Questions/Comments: >What is driving the ground floor community room height? That's not atypical if that was retail space . Or is the floor height of level 2 derived from contaminated soil, that it is not possible to go any further down? (Gibson: Yes, the floor height is derived from the height needed for the parking lifts. For seismic there will be steel in the structure, which will allow the community space to be opened up.) >Is the 15 feet driven also by a requirement in the Specific Plan for retail space, but even if the 15 feet weren't required since there would not be retail space, can't push the garage further down without going deeper underground. (Gibson: Needs an extra 2 feet for SUVs. Should be closer to 17 feet to accommodate SUVs.) >Request that resubmittal shows what size cars can be accommodated with the lifts. >Is there a possibility to revisit the colors? The gray on the ground floor looks drab. The rendering does not look vibrant. >Why does garage entry need to be so high in height? It looks like a loading dock. (Gibson: Could bring it down 3 feet.) >Could the entry to the apartments be further highlighted? (Gibson: Yes.) >There are blank spots on the facade, but some have wire mesh with planting. Could that be added to other portions where there are blank areas? (Gibson: Yes, it can be done. The project in Richmond has examples of this.) >Is there a particular manufacturer of the vinyl windows being considered? (Gibson: Typically uses Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 8/26/2018 February 26, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Alside. They can do different profiles. Richmond project has a higher grade and more articulation on the extrusion. From 20 feet away it looks like an aluminum window.) Would like to see a sample or reference. >Paloma Park is an example of a vibrant pocket park, heavily used. Is there a reason why the entrance couldn't be marked as a park? Maybe bollards with lanterns, so it feels more than just coming off the sidewalk. Will also provide a sense of security and enclosure. >Could the play structure have a small enclosure? Just a low fence, or something to give a sense of security. (Gibson: Yes, can program this.) >What is the "viewing area" in the park? (Gibson: A place for parents to hang out and watch their kids ). Would encourage benches around the edge of that. >Rear corner has close proximity to the adjacent multifamily property. Could that be followed up? It is the one area where the proximity to the adjacent buildings needs to be revisited and carefully considered . As shown there will be windows against balconies. Would like some relief, further study of that facade. >Podium level just has three trees in planter boxes. Could there be consideration to other things happening on the podium? Perhaps the units could have access to that outdoor area? (Gibson: There is not a code reason that would prevent it.) >Computer room is in the corner, but instead maybe have it viewable to the courtyard. (Gibson: For the State of California there will be a computer workspace, will probably have five or six workstations and printers. If seniors do not have computers in their apartments they can use them here. Also available for tutoring. It is programmed, lockable, and has controlled access times.) Could that work off of the outdoor area? It would make the room more than a windowless space, would be a better amenity. (Gibson: Can look at it.) >Any program for the community room? Could it also operate as an exercise room? (Gibson: Yes, can consider exercise equipment in the room. Has not yet determined what the program will be.) Should be programmed. >Is the proposed material real stucco, not EIFS? (Gibson: Yes, 2-coat based on the energy requirements.) Will want to see color samples. (Gibson: Will have a color board with multiple samples, including the glazing and windows.) >Regarding pedestrian vibrancy on Park Road, would be nice if it looked more open to the public. >Small park on Primrose between Burlingame Avenue and Howard is well used. Has a fence and a gate, and is great for the kinds. Would like some more trees and maybe some grass if possible. A place for pets if they are allowed. >Would like to see more trees on Park Road, and in the park area. Perhaps a water feature or water fountain for the kids and pets - kids up top and pets below. >Concern with the patio area on top, seeing bikes and laundry. Will there be codes and regulations for the apartments? (Gibson: All residents will be required to go through background check and sign lease agreements. Each facility has its various requirements. Can make specific requirements within the limits and statutes of the law.) >Has there been a shadow study? (Gibson: Can provide a shadow study showing the dates and times requested.)(Gardiner: The Downtown Specific Plan provides guidance on the dates and times to be evaluated for a shadow study. Should model both existing conditions as well as with the proposed project so they can be compared.) >Likes the East side with the Park. Would like improvement on the West side. Although tall, the building to the south has less impact with the curved and angular side and the landscaping. Perhaps borrow some ideas from the adjacent building such as cutting the sides to add more open space and landscaping. >Concern with the park not having enough sunlight, will be in shadow most of the time. Perhaps step the building down to allow some light into the park during the bulk of the day. >Architecture in the neighborhood is characterized by the Masonic Temple, and romanesque and mediterranean styles to the south. Consider keeping with the essence of Burlingame traditional styles . (Gibson: Did look at a "Narragansett" shingled style with gray shingles and white trim. It looked really big and didn't look like it would fit in, seemed like an aberration. Can look at the massing and the skin of the structure.) >Eaves on the corners but no eaves in between. (Gibson: Tried to work on a tripartite elevation with a strong base and mid plane. As the structure steps back, loses some of the tripartite feeling at the top of Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 8/26/2018 February 26, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes the structure.) >Why is the commercial aspect on the ground floor not being taken advantage of? (Gibson: Lacks synergy of retail uses, nothing to the north or south. Needs spontaneity of people walking by to be viable . Would not want to have a commercial space that would always be for lease if it can't be operated. Would prefer that it be a space the community could use.) How about commercial uses the residents would take advantage of? Lacks pedestrian experience on the Park Road side. >There are back of house elements located at front of house, such as electrical and mechanical rooms. If they were moved to the back would that allow enhancement of the pedestrian experience on the front? (Gibson: Yes in theory, but there are considerations with PG&E and Fire such as the length and size of service, electrical transformer feed, PG&E access. Has tried to minimize the exposure in the front and split it.) Creates a blank spot before reaching the entrance coming down Howard. >Back corner is close to the the adjacent residential, would like to see if it could be stepped back. >Neighbor has expressed concern with the shared tree at the edge of the park; perhaps step the building back at that spot or the entire back. Would also lessen shadows on the park. >Not convinced by the architecture. Seems bulky, appears massive. Building next door might not be the right one for comparison. Height and mass may not be consistent with the design guidelines of the Specific Plan. Public Comments: Dennis Gale, 110 Park Road: 110 Park Road has been in place for 44 years. Has concern with the use of the public parking lot. Enthused about the City stepping forward to take a proactive role bringing affordable housing. Was initially concerned with garage access, thought it would be at the southwest corner but it will be at the northwest corner, which will be good. Lot F is not a scenic treasure, hopes this will provide something more scenic. Subsurface conditions with environmental remediation, concern with toxic or hazardous waste being exposed to the air during construction, wants a better understanding of what will be done to protect those living close by. Question about raising the floor plates higher, which will raise the height of the building, and further cut off sunlight since the sun sets to the west. Anna Franco: Shadow design impact has been mentioned. These are two massive projects on a narrow street, the 100 block of Lorton Avenue. Asks to consider impacts of the structures in their current size and design. More front, side and rear setbacks on both projects will alleviate the bulkiness, keep the area pedestrian friendly, and continue to allow light and space for the existing residents. Light studies and shadow impact testing should be required to determine potential impacts. Concern with losing the Monterey cypress tree at 137 Lorton Avenue - will not agree to its removal, encourage the developer to work around the tree and incorporate it into the park as a way to transition the old and the new. David Mendell, 214-216 Lorton Avenue. Lots of construction going on, parking is imperative. Important that the parking structure should be a priority to finish first so there is adequate parking for the construction people, as well as for the clients and workers of the businesses. Marina Franco: Submitted an e -mail previously, has since reviewed the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan and sees the codification of concerns. Disingenuous to compare to 110 Park Road as complementary because it is the tallest building. There are at least two apartment buildings on Park Road that will face this project which are significantly smaller. There are three apartments on Lorton Avenue that are two or three stories. The Park Road tower has significant setbacks and is on a corner. Downtown Specific Plan mentions land use transitions with care to respect scale and privacy of adjacent properties, stepping back upper stories, reducing mass by compositions of solids and voids, maintain privacy of neighboring structures - all concerns to the three residential buildings along Lorton, forming the back side of the housing portion. The parklet is fantastic, but it is right up against the properties. Lights, shadows, privacy are concerns. Happy to hear there is concern with the tree. Project should not be at the expense of existing residents and neighbors. Heather Sirk: Agent for the owners of the buildings at 125 and 129 Lorton Avenue. Concerns are the same Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 8/26/2018 February 26, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes as others. Concern for the the households in the existing apartments. 20 households in the two buildings, 6 will be close enough to borrow a cup of sugar from the neighbor across the way if the building gets built as is. Likes that the city is proactive with the affordable housing, but doesn't want the 20 households in the existing building to lose their light and air. It is disingenuous to show the proposed building next to 110 Park Road; if there was a cross -section showing the side of the proposed building and the buildings back up against it, it would be dwarfed with loss of light and space for those buildings. There are a lot of things to like about the proposal, but people have been feeling invisible. Tom Hatfield, 110 Park Road: Views on the screen don't make clear how the new building will sit next to theirs. Worried about the excavation for the underground garage construction affecting the structural integrity of the wall on the boundary and the drainage. The side of the lot along the project has a swimming pool and jacuzzi and recreation area with shuffleboard and gazebo, had initially asked that the side of the building not be a looming wall of apartments overlooking the swimming pool and community area. Will block light, air, and privacy. Would prefer the building step back wedding cake-fashion on that side. Drew Dara-Abrams, 128 Lorton: Supports affordable housing, understands in the financing how the nip and tucks can make the project fall apart. Understands the physical concerns on the street, and that there will need to be compromises to make this kind of affordable housing work. Questions whether the size of the parking garage has been evaluated for use and cost benefit analysis, or if it's just seeking to replace spots. Curious how the spots will be used, given expense of constructing them at $30-40,000 each. Requests the projects included improvements to the sidewalks and crosswalks, also improve the Bayswater/Lorton intersection to make it easier to cross. Requests during construction the contractors realize the site abuts a residential zone, take that into account when setting construction hours. Hopes the project will be seen to completion and trusts it will be done well. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Unique project to have the City offer the property to get something built. >Enthused to be getting more housing into the downtown area - goal of the Downtown Specific Plan. >Make the project as good as can be. Color and detail, and aspects of charm and delight so it is not just typical, but delightful and loved in the neighborhood because it is a good project. >Cedar tree in the back would provide some great advantage to the park. Will need to do something at the back corner so it survives. >Surface lots in downtown reek of underutilization. >Although it's not strictly a residential neighborhood, there are edges the project backs up to that are residential. Commercial buildings along Howard are likely to evolve over time, and there are other surface parking lots. Needs more attention to the rear of the project, reworking of the facade and massing on that side, needs some relief with the adjacent residential buildings. >Would like to see a bike area in the complex, by the front door, with room for Lime bikes. >Consideration for parking for delivery drop offs. >Excited by the project. In general the project is extremely well articulated - a sophisticated modern building. Does a good job of breaking down the larger mass into an articulated, well -scaled building for a building of this size. It is a transitional site between some smaller buildings moving towards a changing downtown. >Looks forward to seeing sample boards and more information. >Tripartite suggests a strong base, but here it is a base created by a negative as opposed to having a strong base. The apparent base is from the horizontal line at the bottom of the white boxes above; could use some more work. Maybe the trellis treatment from the back of the building should also be on the front, or a material change. >Garage opening undemines the apparent base of the building by lifting up higher than the adjacent floating boxes. >Fitting in has to do with the articulation of the massing, not the style. This architecture does a good Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 8/26/2018 February 26, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes job of finding its place in the surrounding area. >There are issues with privacy, challenges with tight boundaries. Relief around the edges will be necessary, maybe some screening. >Ground floor needs the most work. If it fit in well with the pedestrian scale, the upper floors could mesh together better. Needs human scale at the ground level. >Likes that the exterior elements have depth, will add to the feel of the street. Landscaping is inadequate, no buffering elements to make it inviting for people walking by. Normally would ask for decreasing units or reworking the building, but would be at odds with the program of more units at an affordable rate. Needs to come up with some ideas to approach in a non -traditional way. Park Road elevation is too bland, no buffering elements to make people want to walk through the area. >Building will be prominent because of its mass and size. Most photographed building in the City is the train station, would like this building to be just as photographed as a representation of Burlingame. Needs to step down the corners or massing to accommodate neighborhood fit. >Likes the style and look of the building. Has a nice rhythym and vocabulary, but details need to work . Other traditional styles would look heavy, and would need to go the distance with detail and refinement to be successful. >Can't see why the block of back of house functions at front can't be pushed back to the parking garage demising wall, then continue the glazing along the front, with a mural or something along the back wall behind the glazing. The item will return as an action item upon completion of the environmental review. b.160 Lorton Avenue (Parking Lot N), zoned R-4: Application for Design Review and Lot Merger for construction of a new five level parking garage (Chris Grant, The Pacific Companies, applicant; City of Burlingame, property owner; Watry Design, Inc ., designer) (246 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin 160 Lorton Ave (Parking Lot N) - Staff Report 160 Lorton Ave (Parking Lot N) - Attachments 160 Lorton Ave (Parking Lot N) - Plans - 02.26.18 Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioners Terrones and Camoroto had met with the applicant. Planning Manager Gardiner and Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: There were no questions of staff. Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Caleb Roope represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >How will it work with the back of the garage built up against the adjacent buildings on Howard Street? Will they have access to the backs of their buildings? (Roope: Many of the buildings are already built to the lot lines, and do not have windows or penetrations on those sides. The intention is that there will not be access between or from those properties to the garage. Otherwise there would be issues with penetrations with the Fire Code. The structure will be built from the inside out to the edge.) >Should overlay the adjacent buildings onto the elevations. >Would like to see a shadow study. (Roope: Yes, it can be done. It's already been done for the Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 8/26/2018 February 26, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes residential structure.) Public Comments: Thomas Katy, 128 Lorton, directly adjacent to the structure: Three rentals in the front, cottage in the back. Speaking as a property owner, is also a civil engineer and general contractor. Length of time for construction, noise, shadowing, being engulfed and closed off, mass and density directly adjacent. Was not sure whether the property would be sold or leased to Pacific. Wants to know how long the construction will last, and how much noise. With 388 spaces, wants to see how traffic flow will be going in and out. Will lose view and sunlight. Wants to know what the building will look like, will it be an institutional design? Marina Franco: Has property across from Lot N. Concern with enormous structures on small narrow block of Lorton Avenue. Highland is abutted by industrial car shops, would expect that side to remain commercial and not have housing on that side. Suggests putting more mass on the Highland side since commercial will be less impacted than the residential on Lorton. Nick Delis: Resident and landlord. Was involved in Burlingame Avenue streetscape project; same concerns at that time with what was going to happen. Streetscape was the foundation for expanding onto Howard and the whole downtown area. Both of these projects need to go through - through compromise, the community will win. Already beautiful with the streetscape, and now bring in the parking lot, housing . It's a win-win, but all have to compromise. Tenants are in support, parking is needed. Tom Hatfield, 110 Park Road: Concern with the traffic flow with the narrow width of streets, and short blocks. There is not a lot of room for cars to stack up on the streets. There will be a lot more cars. 110 Park is already the largest multifamily building in the neighborhood, but the new building will have three times as many units. Adding the parking garage with 388 spaces will add traffic. Not comparable to anything in Burlingame except the apartments on Carolan Avenue, and California Drive. Commission question to applicant: Can the parking structure be built first? (Roope: It's a challenge . Desire is to build them at the same time. When the financing for the apartments is closed, it provides financing for the parking garage. Although the City is providing land, Pacific is providing resources to the City so the parking garage can be built. Could do the residential first, but not in reverse order. Garage will be built faster since it is less a complex structure. There will be short -term pain from a parking perspective, but at the end there will be 178 new parking spaces. Has concern with the residential building next door to the parking garage, pulled the building back on those sides and pushed it up against the north property line, but knows they are impacted. Trying to reduce the impacts from the construction and from the long-term. David Mendell, 214-16 Lorton: Wants to find some creative ways to have the parking happen first. Perhaps the City can provide a loan from its reserve. Imperative that the parking is done first - hard to retain business when parking is difficult. Needs space for the trucks, find creative ways to make it work to reduce the hardship on businesses. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Will the land be sold or leased? (Kane: Garage will remain City land and will be an asset owned and controlled by the City. Terms for the housing on Lot F are still being worked out.) >Should look at how it abuts the properties on Howard Avenue. >Parking structure in downtown San Mateo has brought a lot of life to B Street. >Traffic and parking with affordable and senior housing will not be the same as other developments. >Does not think the parking structure facade is right yet. Comment letter mentioned metal fins, concern they need to be maintained. They're just applied things. Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 8/26/2018 February 26, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Suggests something lighter and simpler and airy, that doesn't try to be something more than it is . Doesn't add a lot of bulk and mass. Landcaping relief to the building walls, and trees along the one side, could be a nice paseo from Lorton to Highland. >Downtown San Mateo garage has some retail space, creates some pedestrian liveliness. Maybe more on the Lorton side, something for pedestrians. >Should be a fusion of utilitarian and environmental themes. Maybe appropriately -sized trees on the upper level visible from the street and surrounding buildings. >Looks plain, utilitarian. >Would modifying the aisle widths allow it to be stepped back more, to provide plantings? >Simplify, make it clean and airy. >Would hope there will not need to have as many parking structures in the future. >Soften the sides a bit. >Perspective drawings showing the neighboring buildings, to show the scale. >Wants relief on the sides facing the residences. >Bar has been set too low. Doesn't hang together; building does not have a clear thought on how it should address the street. There are good examples of new parking garages in Mission Bay, Palo Alto. A new one being built in West Sacramento right now. Should provide samples of good-looking garages. >Designed a garage at St. Lukes in San Francisco with a glass box with bike storage on the ground floor. Bikes were on the ground level hanging in the glass box. >Designer needs to take a stand on how the building fits urbanistically into the city. The item will return as an action item upon completion of the environmental review. Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 8/26/2018 1 Memorandum To: City Council Date: September 4, 2018 From: Mayor Michael Brownrigg Subject: Committee Report I wanted to alert colleagues to two things. First, the memorial for Anson Burlingame at which we will be unveiling a new Bust in the Library and remembering the 150th anniversary of the Burlingame Treaty will now occur NOVEMBER 16 rather than October 12. This shift was made for several practical reasons. I hope the new date works for colleagues and please hold it in your calendars. More information will be prepared for the September 17 meeting to provide the draft agenda and event planning FYI. It is scheduled for 6 - 730 pm. Second, I wanted to attach a letter signed by mayors from around the state to CARB in support of rapid adoption of electric buses. As you know, Burlingame happens to host Proterra’s HQ, and Proterra is one of the global leaders in this space. The letter makes a number of compelling points, but this sort of sums it up: According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, battery powered electric buses on today’s grid in California have 70 percent lower global warming emissions than diesel and natural gas buses. Electric buses are also much cheaper to maintain than traditional diesel buses and create lots of good jobs here. In the months ahead, we will consider other initiatives such as “diesel free by 33” and other GHG pledges I am sure, but this is a practical move we can advocate for today and I wanted to be sure you had a copy. August 23, 2018 Chair Nichols California Air Resources Board 1001 I Street Sacramento, CA 95814 To: California Air Resources Board We, the undersigned mayors from across California, are writing to demonstrate our support for zero-emission buses and encourage strong action by the Air Resources Board (ARB) to accelerate their deployment in California. Pollution from heavy-duty vehicles, such as transit buses, is one of the largest sources of toxic air pollution in California. Studies from ARB and public health experts have linked this pollution, which includes nitrogen oxides and particulate matter, to adverse effects on almost every organ system in the body. We have the technology to address the significant health impacts related to heavy-duty vehicle pollution. With ranges over 200 miles, zero-emission buses are well suited to meet the needs of our cities’ bus routes. And thanks to savings on fuel and maintenance expenses, the total cost of owning and operating these buses are increasingly competitive with conventional-fueled buses. In California, there are already more than a dozen manufacturing companies making batteries and bodies for battery and fuel cell electric buses and trucks. A strong regulatory signal from ARB would spur increased production and competition, and continue to lower the purchase price of zero-emission buses. Additionally, electrification helps generate high-quality jobs, skilled training opportunities, and new investments in California’s economy. Statewide training initiatives like the Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Training Program are already preparing California electricians for the shift to clean transportation technologies. Zero-emission buses will significantly improve the air quality in cities across California. The life cycle emissions of electric transit buses are the lowest of all types of buses. Electric vehicles do not have any tailpipe emissions, which provides significant relief to the local air quality in the communities in which they are driven. Not only can electric buses help California rise to meet our state’s public health challenges, but a swift transition to zero-emission buses will also help meet California’s goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, battery powered electric buses on today’s grid in California have 70 percent lower global warming emissions than diesel and natural gas buses, and hydrogen fuel cell electric buses have 50 percent lower emissions than diesel and natural gas buses. The market and demand for electric buses is rapidly growing. There are 39 transit agencies with over 130 buses in California, and more than half of them are either operating zero-emission buses or have them on order . A 1 growing list of agencies are planning to go 100% zero-emission, including Los Angeles, the largest fleet on the west coast. In addition to the public health and global warming benefits, zero-emission buses can also help boost transit ridership, as they provide a better experience by operating more quietly, smoothly, and cleanly than conventional-fueled buses. Increasing transit ridership is critical to cities and counties implementing sustainable community development strategies. We commit to advocating for zero-emission electric buses in our respective cities, and support transitioning bus fleets in our cities to zero-emission as soon as possible. Similar to the way the state’s renewable energy policies 1 In January 2018, there were 39 transit agencies with over 50 buses in California. have driven clean energy demand, a strong signal from ARB that the state is prioritizing the transition to zero-emission transit will accelerate the availability of these clean vehicles and related infrastructure. California’s leadership on zero-emission transit buses would not be where it is today without your actions. We encourage you to continue providing vital incentives, but also to enact regulatory measures – incentives alone will not spur a shift away from fossil fuel-powered buses. Thank you, and we look forward to working with you to ensure California remains a leader in clean technology and healthy communities. Signed, Mayor Sho Tay City of Arcadia Mayor Douglas Kim City of Belmont Mayor Jesse Arreguin City of Berkeley Mayor Michael Brownrigg City of Burlingame Mayor Mary Salas City of Chula Vista Mayor Andre Quintero City of El Monte Mayor Catherine Blakespear City of Encinitas Mayor Sam Hindi City of Foster City Mayor Deborah Penrose City of Half Moon Bay Mayor Rey León City of Huron Mayor Serge Dedina City of Imperial Beach Mayor Steve Croft City of Lakewood Mayor R. Rex Parris City of Lancaster Mayor Racquel Vasquez City of Lemon Grove Mayor Robert Garcia City of Long Beach Mayor Eric Garcetti City of Los Angeles Mayor Rob Rennie City of Los Gatos Mayor Gina Papan City of Millbrae Mayor Libby Schaaf City of Oakland Mayor Milt Stowe City of Porterville Mayor Tom Butt City of Richmond Mayor Darrell Steinberg City of Sacramento Mayor London Breed City and County of San Francisco Mayor Sam Liccardo City of San Jose Mayor Heidi Harmon City of San Luis Obispo Mayor Lisa Gillmor City of Santa Clara Mayor Helene Schneider City of Santa Barbara Mayor David J. Terrazas City of Santa Cruz Mayor Ted Winterer City of Santa Monica Mayor Michael Tubbs City of Stockton Mayor Glenn Hendricks City of Sunnyvale Mayor Patrick Furey City of Torrance Mayor Erik Nasarenko City of Ventura Mayor John Duran City of West Hollywood 1 Memorandum To: City Council Date: September 4, 2018 From: Vice Mayor Donna Colson Subject: Committee Report August 21, 2018 PCE - Meeting with Moody’s rating agency to explore private rating for PCE to help with contract negotiations and get better pricing with credit rating. August 22, 2018 Meeting with Nadine Levin Home For All to assist in video production for the promotional piece to get the word out about HFA work. Meeting on Community Center to review external materials selections. Commissioner Terrones and Loftis were incredibly helpful form both an aesthetic and technical perspective. August 23, 2018 PCE Board Meeting Launching Mustang 2 with Grand Opening Oct 11 in Central Valley Update on current legislation that impacts PCE Update on financials August 27, 2018 Meeting with SMUHSD Trustee Marc Friedman to get updates on Rotary, and schools. August 28, 2018 SPIN - Roy McDonald and Peter Cattaneo and John Garber 1423 Rollins Road Meeting with local Burlingame team that has invented a number of important technologies used currently in our everyday life. Working on battery storage research for solar. Discussed firm history and prototypes. 1 Memorandum To: City Council Date: September 4, 2018 From: Councilmember Emily Beach Subject: Committee Report Wednesday, 8/22/18 Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Annual Summit, San Jose • Opening session panel discussed the “transportation revolution” underway – cities experience bike infrastructure used for other new mobility modes (not just bicycles) which reduce carbon emissions and auto traffic. Panel suggested community infrastructure needs to evolve and share public space in new ways than ever before. Change is hard. • Bikeshare is exploding in Bay Area – from 5 cities in 2017 to 28 cities in 2018 • Dockless bike share programs tend to work better in suburban communities. Successful strategies to mitigate impacts: cities designate dedicated parking/curb space, paint boxes for bikeshare parking on sidewalks or public spaces, implement permit programs, Bikeshare company in Santa Monica pays $1 per bike/scooter rental per day to City for investment in safe infrastructure improvements and education about bike safety, incentivize proper bike share parking with rebates. • Safety education is critically important during this transitional time for both users and drivers • MTC’s (Metropolitan Transportation Commission for 9 Bay Area Counties) formal bike share survey: data showed communities with bikeshare programs help residents solve last- mile commute challenges. Key results: over 50% of bikeshare users paired their ride with public transit. Average ride between 1.5-2 miles. Between 25-50% of different population groups responded they are driving less due to bikeshare. Bikeshare becoming an MTC priority. • Panel suggested cities should design streets to reflect how we want people to move around; create infrastructure for preferred behavior like slower speeds and alternative carbon-free transportation • SB1 provides over $100 million for active transportation; devastating if repealed by voters in November 2018 • Attended a panel on equity issues and ways to provide access to bikeshare and safe alternative transportation modes for all community members. Obstacles include access to credit cards and internet service. Many have devices, so text-based bikeshare programs help. Assistance with enrollment at libraries. Need-based subsidies. Education and promotion. Multicultural and multilingual outreach. Investment in safe infrastructure in communities of concern. Beach Committee Report September 4, 2018 2 • New NACTO/AASHTO industry bike/ped standards are changing in exciting ways -- will be finalized in the next few months. New focus on creating safe infrastructure for 51% of the population who are “interested (in active transportation like cycling) but concerned” about safety (vs. 6% of confident, fearless cyclists who will bike anywhere.) Current infrastructure standards focus on improving conditions for most confident cyclists. New standards focused on creating inexpensive and quickly constructed PROTECTED infrastructure. E.g. using paint and plastic to pilot roadway experiments that reduce auto speeds and protect and physically separate alternative transportation users from automobiles. Thursday, 8/23/18 Grand Boulevard Task Force Subcommittee & Caltrain Local Policy Makers Group • I’m serving on an ad hoc subcommittee to discuss the future of the Grand Boulevard Initiative. • The Grand Boulevard is a collaboration of 19 cities, counties, local and regional agencies dedicated to improve the performance, safety and aesthetics of El Camino Real. • Next steps -- committee will review nine original guiding principles for relevancy; brainstorming new ways future task force could provide value-add to all three counties. Calmod LPMG: • Travelled to San Carlos for our monthly meeting; unfortunately, we were just one member short of quorum – meeting never called to order. • I provided feedback on presentation slides regarding Caltrain Business Plan to staff independent of meeting, including consideration of: 1) corridor-wide grade separation funding strategy; 2) inclusionary fares/equity – Caltrain in inaccessible to many members of our community due to pricing 3) critical last-mile strategies surrounding stations which involve land-use decisions on JPB property 4) seamless ticket integration with other public transit agencies 5) concern about Caltrain’s method of framing future peak service volumes in presentation which minimize impacts to local communities. Sunday-Wednesday 8/26-8/29 Constituent Meetings (7 different meetings, 20 constituents) • Topics discussed included development, housing, Grade Separation, global warming, crime, bike safety, transportation, General Plan update, California Drive bike striping. Various follow-up items from these meetings. • Also attended the Leadership Program mixer 8/29 in San Mateo