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 - 2019.01.22
City Council City of Burlingame Meeting Agenda - Final BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Council Chambers6:00 PMTuesday, January 22, 2019 STUDY SESSION - 6:00 p.m. - Council Chambers Review of Pension Liabilities by Doug Pryor, Vice President of Bartel Associates, LLCa. 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. 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. Page 1 City of Burlingame Printed on 1/17/2019 January 22, 2019City Council Meeting Agenda - Final Adoption of City Council Meeting Minutes for January 7, 2019a. Meeting MinutesAttachments: Adoption of a Resolution Approving a Revocable License Agreement with Weiman Syndicate for Provisions Related to Pedestrian Access between 1490 Burlingame Avenue and 1477 Chapin Avenue and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute the Agreement b. Staff Report Resolution Revocable License Agreememt Resolution 64-97 w/ Agreement Attachments: Adoption of a Resolution Approving a Memorandum of Understanding with the Teamsters Local 856, Authorizing the City Manager to Execute the Memorandum of Understanding on Behalf of the City, and Approving the City of Burlingame Pay Rates and Ranges c. Staff Report Resolution Tentative Agreements Salary Schedules Attachments: Adoption of an Ordinance Deleting Section 9.08.040 of the Burlingame Municipal Code Regarding Bees d. Staff Report Proposed Ordinance Attachments: 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Public Comment) Page 2 City of Burlingame Printed on 1/17/2019 January 22, 2019City Council Meeting Agenda - Final 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 (continued from September 4, 2018 City Council Meeting) 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) and Consideration of an Alternative Site Located Within the Right-of-Way Across the Street from 704 Winchester Drive (Existing Utility Pole is Located Along Oak Grove Avenue) (continued from September 4, 2018 City Council Meeting) a. Staff Report - 1800 Hillside Dr Staff Report - 701 Winchester Dr September 4, 2018 City Council Minutes CTC Report January 2019 Response Letter from AT&T Alternative Sites Analysis - 1800 Hillside Dr Alternative Sites Analysis - 701 Winchester Dr City Council Staff Report - 1800 Hillside Dr - September 4, 2018 Meeting City Council Staff Report - 701 Winchester Dr - September 4, 2018 Meeting 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 Dr Appeal Letter - 701 Winchester Dr June 11, 2018 PC Meeting Minutes, Both Sites June 11, 2018 PC Staff Report 1800 Hillside Dr June 11, 2018 PC Staff Report 701 Winchester Dr Letters Rec'd After Preparation of PC Staff Reports, Both Sites Revised Visual Simulations - 1800 Hillside Dr Revised Plans - 1800 Hillside Dr Previously Proposed Plans - 1800 Hillside Dr Revised Visual Simulations - 701 Winchester Dr Revised Plans - 701 Winchester Dr Previously Proposed Plans - 701 Winchester Dr Visual Simulations - Alternative Site - Across from 704 Winchester Dr Proposed Plans - Alternative Site - Across from 704 Winchester Dr Attachments: Page 3 City of Burlingame Printed on 1/17/2019 January 22, 2019City Council Meeting Agenda - Final Proposition 218 Public Hearing and Adoption of a Resolution Increasing Solid Waste Rates by 6% for all Accounts for Each of Calendar Years 2019, 2020, and 2021 b. Staff Report Resolution Notice Staff Report - 9-17-18 Staff Report - 11-19-18 Attachments: 10. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS (Public Comment) 11. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS Council Members report on committees and activities and make announcements. Mayor Colson's Committee Reporta. Committee ReportAttachments: Vice Mayor Beach's Committee Reportb. 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, February 4, 2019 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 4 City of Burlingame Printed on 1/17/2019 Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 01/22/19 Burlingame City Council January 7, 2019 Unapproved Minutes 1 BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL Unapproved Minutes Regular Meeting on January 7, 2019 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 the AYSO U10 Boys team. 3. ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Beach, Brownrigg, Colson, Keighran, Ortiz MEMBERS ABSENT: None 4. CLOSED AND STUDY SESSION a. CLOSED SESSION: CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS (GOV. CODE SECTION 54957.6) CITY DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE: TIMOTHY L. DAVIS, SONYA M. MORRISON, KATHLEEN KANE, LISA K. GOLDMAN, AND CAROL AUGUSTINE EMPLOYEE ORGANIZATIONS: TEAMSTERS LOCAL 856 City Attorney Kane reported that direction was given but no reportable action was taken. b. STUDY SESSION: UPDATE ON NEGOTIATIONS REGARDING BURLINGAME AQUATIC CENTER CONSTRUCTION PROJECT 5. UPCOMING EVENTS Mayor Colson reviewed the upcoming events taking place in the city. 6. PRESENTATIONS a. PRESENTATION TO THE BURLINGAME AYSO U10 BOYS CHAMPIONS Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 01/22/19 Burlingame City Council January 7, 2019 Unapproved Minutes 2 Mayor Colson congratulated the AYSO U10 Boys for winning the championship. She noted that their record is currently 21-0 and that they will be competing in the Western States Tournament in Southern California in March. Good luck! Congratulations to Will Mullen-Weaver, Landon Smith, Arjun Sharma, Brandon Loh, Sam Mullen-Weaver, Carlie Topoian, Kingston Armstrong, Ethan Philip, Peter Friedman, Conall Dowdall, and Coaches Ross Armstrong and Geoff Smith. b. SWEARING IN OF NEW POLICE CHIEF MICHAEL MATTEUCCI New Burlingame Police Chief Michael Matteucci was sworn in by retired Police Chief Eric Wollman. Congratulations to the new Police Chief! c. PENINSULA CLEAN ENERGY PRESENTATION Peninsula Clean Energy (“PCE”) CEO Jan Pepper began by explaining that PCE is the official electricity provider for San Mateo County, with cleaner and greener power at lower rates. Ms. Pepper stated that PCE has 15,377 accounts in Burlingame, with only 318 accounts opting out. The City’s participation rate is 97.9% compared to 97.5% across San Mateo County. Additionally, she stated 321 accounts have opted up to ECO100 in the city. Ms. Pepper explained that as of 2019, PCE is delivering 90% greenhouse-gas free energy in comparison to PG&E’s 79%. She stated that the average monthly bill for a resident using 423 kwh is $93.92 versus $96.20 from PG&E. Ms. Pepper explained that ECOplus has saved Burlingame residents and businesses an estimated $847,000 in 2017. She recognized the City for enrolling in ECO100 for its municipal accounts. By doing this, the City has avoided emitting 467 metric tons of GHGs, which is the equivalent of 52,549 gallons of gasoline per year. Ms. Pepper reviewed the work that PCE conducted last year including promoting the use of electric vehicles (“EV”) through test drives at community events and a dealer incentive program. She stated that in 2019, PCE will focus on EV and Building Electrification Reach Codes and EV infrastructure incentives (charging stations). Ms. Pepper discussed PCE’s Community Pilot Program. She explained that PCE has awarded $450,000 to six local pilot projects to spur local innovation, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, support low-income customers, and advance electric transportation. The Community Pilot Program funded programs within the County to: • repair homes for low-income residents, • promote access to electric vehicles, Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 01/22/19 Burlingame City Council January 7, 2019 Unapproved Minutes 3 • switch appliances from gas to electric, • provide backup power for emergency shelters, and • ensure safe appliance recycling Ms. Pepper reviewed PCE’s EV programs including: • Easy Charge Apartments – providing technical assistance to apartment owners for installation of charging stations • Dealer Promotions/Incentive Program – providing guaranteed discounts on EVs at participating dealerships from October – December 2018 • EV Test Drive Events – conducting test drives of EVs at different events Ms. Pepper stated that they are working with San Mateo County school districts to get charging stations at every school in the county. Next, Ms. Pepper discussed PCE’s “Reach” Code Program. She stated that the purpose of the program is to implement electric vehicle charging infrastructure and building electrification “reach” codes for new building construction in all San Mateo County cities, towns, and the county. She explained that PCE is looking to have cities adopt “Reach” codes by January 2020 to align with CA Building Code updates. Councilmember Brownrigg asked about the PCIA charge increasing appreciably for PCE members. Ms. Pepper replied that PCIA (power charge indifference adjustment) is PG&E’s exit fee that covers the cost of the resources that were acquired on behalf of PCE customers that are no longer needed. She explained that previously, PG&E signed a number of contracts for renewable projects at high prices, but now the price of solar has dramatically decreased. Accordingly, PG&E uses the PCIA charge to help cover the loss. Councilmember Brownrigg noted that SBWMA has some clean energy projects in the works. He stated that PCE and SBWMA should meet to discuss the projects. Ms. Pepper replied in the affirmative. Vice Mayor Beach stated that it was great to see PCE’s commitment to helping low income families. Mayor Colson opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke. Mayor Colson thanked Ms. Pepper for her presentation. 7. PUBLIC COMMENT There were no public comments. 8. CONSENT CALENDAR Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 01/22/19 Burlingame City Council January 7, 2019 Unapproved Minutes 4 Mayor Colson asked the Councilmembers and the public if they wished to remove any item from the Consent Calendar. Councilmember Brownrigg pulled items 8b and 8e. Councilmember Keighran made a motion to approve 8a, 8c, 8d, and 8f; seconded by Councilmember Ortiz. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. a. ADOPTION OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES DECEMBER 17, 2018 City Clerk Hassel-Shearer requested Council adopt the City Council Meeting Minutes of December 17, 2018. b. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT WITH UNIVERSAL BUILDING SERVICES AND SUPPLY COMPANY FOR JANITORIAL SERVICES DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 001-2019. Councilmember Brownrigg discussed the janitorial industry’s history of sexual harassment and lower wages for women. He stated that he appreciates that the City requires that the company pay prevailing wage and sign off on an anti-sexual harassment policy. He noted that in the appendixes, the company is required to submit audited payrolls to the State. He asked if the City has the ability to audit the company to ensure that they are acting in an ethical fashion. DPW Murtuza stated that his understanding is that during the City’s annual audit, staff does a general contracting audit. However, in terms of a company’s financial audit, the City relies on the State Department of Labor. City Attorney Kane stated that when it comes time to issue a new RFP, the City can include a mechanism in order to ensure compliance. Mayor Colson opened the item for public comment. No one spoke. Councilmember Brownrigg made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 001-2019; seconded by Vice Mayor Beach. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. c. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH WILSEY HAM FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD STORM DRAIN PROJECT NO. 11, CITY PROJECT NO. 85130, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 002-2019. d. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE CITY PARKING LOTS RESURFACING PROJECT BY PMK CONTRACTORS, INC. DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 003-2019. Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 01/22/19 Burlingame City Council January 7, 2019 Unapproved Minutes 5 e. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF A MOBILE/SMARTPHONE PAYMENT APPLICATION FOR SMART PARKING METERS WITH IPS GROUP, INC. DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 004-2019. Councilmember Brownrigg asked about signage for the smart parking meters and whether each meter would have instructions. DPW Murtuza replied that staff was working with the Downtown merchants on public outreach and that there would be signage. Mayor Colson opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke. Councilmember Brownrigg made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 004-2019; seconded by Councilmember Ortiz. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. f. CONFIRMATION OF THE MAYOR’S COUNCIL ASSIGNMENTS FOR 2019 City Clerk Hassel-Shearer requested Council approve the Mayor’s Council Assignments for 2019. 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) CDD Gardiner began by thanking the community for their work and input on updating the General Plan. CDD Gardiner discussed the EIR that was undertaken for the updated General Plan. He explained that general plans are subject to program-level analysis under the California Environmental Quality Act. He stated that the EIR looks at the policy implications of the update and includes proposed mitigation measures. He explained that the EIR found three significant and unavoidable impacts. The first was greenhouse gas emissions. He stated that there will be increases in greenhouse gas emissions until the City’s updated Climate Action Plan is adopted. The second is consistency with Plan Bay Area. He explained that the last version of Plan Bay Area included more housing and employment growth along transit corridors. He noted that while the updated General Plan is technically inconsistent with Plan Bay Area, the next time that ABAG’s consistency plan is updated, ABAG will include the updated General Plan. The third is traffic noise levels that are greater than 3dBA. He noted that the Statement of Overriding Considerations describes both the impacts and the rationale for how the General Plan is environmentally acceptable. CDD Gardiner reviewed the next steps after the updated General Plan is adopted. • Interim Zoning – Urgency Ordinance for most significant “change areas” • Climate Action Plan – review and adopt Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 01/22/19 Burlingame City Council January 7, 2019 Unapproved Minutes 6 • Zoning Ordinance Update • Specific Plans • Sea Level Rise Study • Implementation Programs as outlined in Chapter XI Mayor Colson stated that the City and community have been working on this update since 2015. She thanked the citizens on the Community Advisory Committee that helped with the update. Mayor Colson opened the public hearing. Burlingame resident Jennifer Pfaff thanked CDD Gardiner and staff for their work on the update. She asked about the maximum height for Broadway. CDD Gardiner explained that the maximum height is 45 feet with density at 50 units per acre. Mayor Colson closed the public hearing. Vice Mayor Beach thanked staff and CDD Gardiner for their hard work and wordsmithing that was done in the final months. Councilmember Keighran congratulated staff and the community for their work on the General Plan. She added that she believed the document did a great job at planning for the future. Councilmember Ortiz stated that the General Plan was a document that all could be proud of and thanked everyone for their hard work. Councilmember Brownrigg stated that the update to the General Plan will not only allow Burlingame to grow with the creation of new neighborhoods, but it will also protect existing neighborhoods. Mayor Colson stated that the updated General Plan is one of the most important pieces of legislation that the City has produced in the past five years. She explained that it is the roadmap for how the City will address concerns in the future. Councilmember Keighran made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 005-2019 (certification of the final EIR); seconded by Councilmember Brownrigg. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Councilmember Brownrigg made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 006-2019 (adoption of the updated General Plan); seconded by Councilmember Keighran. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. b. ADOPTION OF AN URGENCY ORDINANCE PROVIDING INTERIM ZONING STANDARDS FOR THE NORTH ROLLINS ROAD MIXED USE DISTRICT AND NORTH BURLINGAME MIXED USE DISTRICT Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 01/22/19 Burlingame City Council January 7, 2019 Unapproved Minutes 7 City Attorney Kane stated that staff was proposing an interim zoning ordinance for the North Rollins Road Mixed Used District and North Burlingame Mixed Use District because both areas had significant land use changes in the updated General Plan. Therefore, staff wanted to ensure that zoning ordinances were in place for these two areas. She added that by having interim zoning in place with the adoption of the updated General Plan, the City would be able to approve projects in those areas. City Attorney Kane discussed the recent California Supreme Court case, City of Morgan Hill v. Bushey. She explained that Morgan Hill adopted a general plan amendment that was not challenged. Then, the City adopted new zoning ordinances to match the general plan, and the zoning ordinances were referended. She stated that the California Supreme Court ruled that an individual could referend a zoning ordinance without ever challenging the general plan. As a result, Morgan Hill has been unable to approve any project because their zoning is inconsistent with their general plan. Therefore, she explained staff is recommending adopting the interim zoning ordinance concurrent with the updated General Plan. She noted that the interim zoning ordinance would not be the final version. CDD Gardiner stated that State law requires zoning ordinances to be consistent with the respective general plan. He acknowledged that staff will need to review and rework the City’s current zoning ordinance to make it consistent with the updated General Plan. However, in order to accommodate the most significant change areas, North Rollins Road Mixed Use District and North Burlingame Mixed Use District, staff has proposed interim zoning. CDD Gardiner explained that a subcommittee of the Planning Commission has been formed to evaluate the interim chapters, as well as the full zoning code as it is developed. After the subcommittee approved the interim zoning, the full Planning Commission reviewed the chapters and recommended that the Council adopt the chapters as proposed. He noted that the interim zoning ordinance includes parking standards, which are not usually included in zoning codes. However, because the two change areas are transit-oriented, staff felt it was important to include. Councilmember Brownrigg stated in reference to Rollins Road, the requirement for 1500 square feet of public open space for a project on a 50,000 square foot lot is not a lot of open space. He stated that often the public space requirement on a multi-family unit project is the dark, unusable area of the lot. He noted that the City needed to be mindful of creating good open space. Councilmember Brownrigg stated that he thought the City should be more ambitious with the North Burlingame community benefit option that sets the rate at 5% for low income or 10% for moderate income. CDD Gardiner stated that the 10% is meant to align with the Council’s recommendations for residential impact fees and the 5% is the standard found in the State Density Bonus Law. Councilmember Brownrigg asked if the interim zoning defined moderate income. CDD Gardiner stated that moderate income is defined by HUD and the County. Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 01/22/19 Burlingame City Council January 7, 2019 Unapproved Minutes 8 Councilmember Keighran stated that she thought the inclusionary discussions had depended on the number of units that were to be built. CDD Gardiner stated that the numbers in the interim zoning ordinance are a place holder until the residential impact fees are adopted by the Council. Mayor Colson asked the City Clerk to read the title of the ordinance. City Clerk Hassel-Shearer read the title. Councilmember Keighran made a motion to waive further reading and introduce the ordinance; seconded by Vice Mayor Beach. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Mayor Colson opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Councilmember Brownrigg stated that he would like to make sure that nothing in the zoning code discourages rooftop gardens. Councilmember Keighran made a motion to adopt Ordinance 1957 and Resolution Number 007-2019; seconded by Councilmember Ortiz. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. 10. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a. UPDATE ON THE PARKS MASTER PLAN PROCESS Parks and Recreation Director (“PR Director”) Glomstad explained that the Parks Master Plan is a document to help guide the future planning and development of City parks. She added that it would help prioritize maintenance and planning of parks. She noted that the document will assist the City in obtaining grants. MIG consultant Ellie Fiore began by explaining that the Parks Master Plan reflects community trends; guides future planning and policy; prioritizes investments; and develops sustainable strategies. She stated that the document would be an important tool as the City’s population continues to grow. Ms. Fiore reviewed the community outreach that was undertaken. She stated that MIG conducted stakeholder interviews with City staff, Commissioners, business owners, field user groups, and others. Next, MIG conducted an online survey from May through July 2018 that had over 500 participants. Additionally, they held pop-up events and conducted a phone survey after Thanksgiving with 300 respondents. Ms. Fiore reviewed the results of the public outreach campaign including what the community voiced as important: • spaces for all – children, teens, various groups, adults, and seniors • safety – lighting, fencing, pedestrians • aesthetics – elevated park design • sustainability – climate appropriate, protection from elements Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 01/22/19 Burlingame City Council January 7, 2019 Unapproved Minutes 9 • access to nature, wildlife, scenery – natural features in parks • trails – walking, biking • amenities – restrooms, fenced-in dog parks • water recreation, play, adventure activities – expand programing options • community events – large scale, festivals • Bayfront priorities – additional amenities and improved Bay access Ms. Fiore discussed MIG’s technical analysis of the Parks. The technical analysis included reviewing where parks are located and what amenities the City offers. She explained that MIG also analyzed the service area of each park, meaning how many people live within walking distance of a park. This analysis showed which areas of the City are underserved, such as the new change area in North Burlingame. Ms. Fiore reviewed how to address the key needs that arose from the study: • Get more out of existing parks – expand amenities, integrate arts and culture, and address demand for sports fields and courts • Serve growth areas and expand public space options • Support walking and biking for fitness, recreation, and transportation • Enhance connections to creeks and nature • Leverage the Bayfront • Leverage the Community Center Ms. Fiore discussed how the updated General Plan looks to include public spaces in the new growth areas and takes into consideration the increased density of the city. Additionally, she identified public space opportunity areas including non-traditional park space such as: Benito Triangle, Civic Center Circle/City Hall, Lot F, Southern Pacific Circle, and Airport Boulevard/Murray Field. Ms. Fiore discussed strategies to support walking and biking for fitness, recreation, and transportation. She noted that they would be coordinating with BPAC and the Bicycle Pedestrian Master Plan on this aspect. She added that the goals for walking and biking in the city would be to establish a city-wide trail network with walking and biking routes; add loops to existing parks; and expand programming. Ms. Fiore discussed strategies to address the demand for sports fields and courts such as partnering with other cities and schools. Ms. Fiore stated that the community outreach showed that the residents believe that the Parks and Recreation Department is doing a good job and that they are satisfied with the amenities and programs. She noted that the community is in support of creating a fenced in, off-leash dog park. Ms. Fiore reviewed the next steps including drafting an action plan; conducting a nexus study for park fees; and coordinating with the Bicycle Pedestrian Master Plan. MIG also will hold community workshops to Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 01/22/19 Burlingame City Council January 7, 2019 Unapproved Minutes 10 gather further input and then present the results to the Parks and Recreation Commission and the City Council. Vice Mayor Beach stated that the report was very thorough. She discussed the importance of parks in neighborhoods and asked how the City ensures that open space is created in the new neighborhoods in North Burlingame and North Rollins Road. Ms. Fiore stated that they are creating guidelines and standards for when development occurs to ensure that space is created. Vice Mayor Beach stated that as a region, there is a shortage of preschool opportunities. She asked if this is something that the City should explore in the Parks Master Plan. Ms. Fiore stated that it wasn’t something that came up during the community outreach but is something that the City could look into when the new Community Center comes online. Vice Mayor Beach asked if staff was surprised by anything during the community outreach. PR Director Glomstad stated that the only thing that surprised her is that people wanted fenced-in space for dogs. Councilmember Keighran stated that she was also surprised by the fenced-in space for dogs. She noted that it was great to see that 91% of respondents were happy with the Parks and Recreation. Councilmember Keighran discussed proposed State bills: AB 123, 124, and 125 that address State funding upgrading and building out existing pre-schools to address the issue. She asked that staff track these bills in case the City decides to change zoning to create new areas for preschools. Councilmember Ortiz discussed the need to provide bicycle access to the Bay trail from the west side of 101. Councilmember Brownrigg discussed the need to create green open space on Rollins Road. He explained that he didn’t think it was enough to rely on developers to create open space and that the City would need to ensure it is created. He stated that there are other open spaces that the City should be looking at for residents including the flat space on top of Skyline, and the City’s lagoon. He added that the City should work to get the community access to the Crystal Springs Watershed as it is a great place to hike. Mayor Colson opened the item up for public comment. Burlingame resident Jennifer Pfaff discussed the installation of gym equipment near Coyote Point. She stated that she thought it was great. Mayor Colson closed public comment. Mayor Colson stated that the community outreach didn’t reflect the diversity of the community as fewer than 50 people of Asian heritage and fewer than 20 people of Latin heritage participated. She stressed the importance of hearing from a cross-section of the community. Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 01/22/19 Burlingame City Council January 7, 2019 Unapproved Minutes 11 Mayor Colson noted that the report doesn’t include private facilities. She explained that these are important assets to the community and that they should be included. Mayor Colson discussed the importance of having a financial component in the Parks Master Plan in order to prioritize projects. She stated that the financial component would assist the public in understanding why all the projects are not undertaken. She noted that the Parks and Recreation Foundation does a lot of great work in the city and that their work should be acknowledged in the plan. b. UPDATE REGARDING SMALL CELL WIRELESS REGULATIONS AND ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION ADDRESSING FEDERAL PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS City Attorney Kane gave an update regarding small cell wireless regulation. She explained that when it comes to the deployment of wireless facilities, the FCC has continually been developing refinements and advances to their regulations that preempt local action. She stated that the FCC is attempting to streamline and nationalize the way local governments evaluate applications for small cell buildouts. City Attorney Kane stated that the FCC published a new order this past fall that goes into effect on January 14. The order further impinges local independence in how small cell build outs are handled. She noted that the City is part of a coalition that is trying to challenge aspects of that order in federal court. However, the coalition’s efforts in seeking a stay of the order have not been successful. Therefore, the City has to comply with the FCC order as it currently stands. City Attorney Kane explained that the FCC order clarifies what aesthetic standards the City is allowed to apply to wireless infrastructure buildout. She noted that this is an area that has been the subject of considerable litigation, including by the City. In that case, the City won the principle that they can regulate aesthetics but the question becomes how cities are allowed to regulate. The FCC has specified that in order for a city to apply aesthetic standards to a small cell infrastructure application, the standards have to be reasonable, objective, and published in advance. Therefore, if a city is applying any standards that are arguably subjective or too contextualized, they are subject to challenge. She explained that in other jurisdictions, the industry has taken the position that merely having a public hearing is itself introducing too much discretion and uncertainty. City Attorney Kane stated that in the City’s wireless ordinance, there are a number of values in terms of the location and aesthetics of wireless buildout. She explained that these mostly concern macro sites versus the small cell micro sites. However, under the new FCC standards, the City’s ordinance is not resistant to challenge. She stated that the City has met with interested community members to talk about and examine what other cities are doing by way of the reasonable objective and published aesthetic standards. She added that she will be bringing a set of interim standards for consideration to the Planning Commission. She noted that because this is an important issue to the City, staff is suggesting a robust public dialogue before adoption of final standards. Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 01/22/19 Burlingame City Council January 7, 2019 Unapproved Minutes 12 City Attorney Kane stated that the City’s wireless ordinance needs to be updated to reflect the current state of Federal and State law. She noted that a lot has changed in the six years since the ordinance was adopted in terms of what the City is allowed to do. City Attorney Kane stated that before the Council is a resolution that addresses the short term situation. She explained that as a result of the FCC order, there are a few things that the City needs to do. The first is that the order establishes even shorter shot-clocks. She explained that under this order, the City will only have 60 days to act on applications for small cell installations in the public right-of-way. If the City fails to act within 60 days, it is deemed unreasonable, and the City will face penalties under Federal law. She noted that the City will not be able to comply with its public noticing and hearing procedures in this short span of time. However, she explained that staff isn’t considering a blanket suspension of the City’s noticing and public hearing procedures because in particular cases, the City may be able to get short-term tolling agreements with the applicants. The second matter is that, under the FCC order, the fees that the City collects to review the application, notice the hearing, and conduct the hearing are capped. She stated that the suggestion in the resolution is for the Council to temporarily adopt the safe harbor level fees that the FCC provides in their order. She noted that the fees will not cover the costs of reviewing the application. Additionally, the FCC order states that jurisdictions can’t treat wireless differently than other utilities. Therefore, if PG&E is allowed to do something, than the City must allow cell. Councilmember Keighran stated that her understanding with the fees is that it is not an annual fee but a one- time fee. City Attorney Kane replied in the affirmative and added that if the cell is on City property, there is a small capped rental fee. Councilmember Keighran asked if these companies pay a business license fee. City Attorney Kane replied that she didn’t believe that they do but she would check. Councilmember Keighran asked if the City could require business licenses. City Attorney Kane stated that the City probably can’t if it has the effect of inhibiting the buildout of small cell infrastructure. Councilmember Keighran asked if the City can establish a maximum amount of cell infrastructure on a pole. City Attorney Kane replied that the City’s regulatory strength is greater when it comes to life safety issues than when it comes to aesthetics. She added that PG&E poles have a maximum carrying capacity. Vice Mayor Beach asked what happens if the FCC litigation is stayed at the Tenth Circuit. City Attorney Kane replied that staff would bring back a resolution that reflects the terms of the stay. Mayor Colson discussed the importance of the City providing community education on the changes in the law and what the Council can and can’t do. City Attorney Kane replied in the affirmative. Mayor Colson asked how the FCC order and resolution impacts the two current pending applications. City Attorney Kane replied that it doesn’t impact the applications because AT&T agreed to continue the process under the rules in effect at the time of their appeal. Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 01/22/19 Burlingame City Council January 7, 2019 Unapproved Minutes 13 Mayor Colson opened the item up for public comment. Burlingame resident Jennifer Pfaff stated that the old equipment needs to come off of poles when it is defunct. Mayor Colson closed public comment. Vice Mayor Beach made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 008-2019; seconded by Councilmember Ortiz. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. c. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AMENDMENT OF THE CITY MANAGER’S EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE A SALARY INCREASE AND APPROVING THE CITY OF BURLINGAME PAY RATES AND RANGES (SALARY SCHEDULE) HR Director Morrison stated that before the Council is a resolution to amend the City Manager’s contract by providing a salary increase of 4%. Additionally, the resolution updates the City’s salary schedule to reflect minimum wage changes. HR Director Morrison explained that in December 2018, the City Manager had her annual performance evaluation in closed session with the Council. Based on the City Manager’s performance evaluation, the Council recommended a 4% salary increase. HR Director Morrison explained that additionally on January 1, 2019, the State minimum wage increased. This required adjustments to some casual classifications to comply with the new minimum wage and to maintain equity. Mayor Colson opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke. Councilmember Keighran made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 009-2019; seconded by Councilmember Ortiz. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Councilmember Ortiz thanked the City Manager for an outstanding job. 11. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS a. MAYOR COLSON’S COMMITTEE REPORT 12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS There were no future agenda items. Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 01/22/19 Burlingame City Council January 7, 2019 Unapproved Minutes 14 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 Colson adjourned meeting at 9:27 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Meaghan Hassel-Shearer City Clerk 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 8b MEETING DATE: January 22, 2019 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: January 22, 2019 From: Syed Murtuza, Director of Public Works – (650) 558-7230 Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Approving a Revocable License Agreement with Weiman Syndicate for Provisions Related to Pedestrian Access between 1490 Burlingame Avenue and 1477 Chapin Avenue and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute the Agreement RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution approving a revocable license agreement with Weiman Syndicate for provisions related to pedestrian access between 1490 Burlingame Avenue and 1477 Chapin Avenue and authorizing the City Manager to execute the agreement. BACKGROUND The City of Burlingame is the owner of the property at 1490 Burlingame Avenue, which is identified as Parking Lot K-1. Weiman Syndicate is the owner of the adjacent property at 1477 Chapin Avenue, occupied by Mollie Stone’s Markets. On August 4, 1997, the City Council approved Resolution No. 64-97 which authorized the City Manager to enter into a revocable license agreement with Weiman Syndicate to create convenient public pedestrian access between Parking Lot K-1 and Mollie Stone’s. The agreement executed in 1997 was for a term of 20 years, which has passed. DISCUSSION Weiman Syndicate elects to enter into a new revocable license agreement and is willing to maintain the pedestrian access pursuant to the terms and conditions of the new agreement. Those terms include, but are not limited to, maintenance of the pedestrian path, landscaping, lighting and drainage for another 20-year term. Please see the attached Revocable License Agreement for additional details. In order to maintain the convenient public pedestrian access between Parking Lot K -1 and Mollie Stone’s, staff recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager to execute a new revocable license agreement with Weiman Syndicate for provisions related to pedestrian access. Resolution Approving a Revocable License Agreement with January 22, 2019 Weiman Syndicate for Provisions Related to Pedestrian Access 2 FISCAL IMPACT There is no financial impact to the City. Exhibits: • Resolution • Revocable License Agreement • Resolution 64-97 w/ Agreement RESOLUTION NO. _______ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME APPROVING A REVOCABLE LICENSE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AND WEIMAN SYNDICATE REGARDING PROVISIONS OF PEDESTRIAN ACCESS BETWEEN 1490 BURLINGAME AND 1477 CHAPIN AVENUE RESOLVED, by the CITY COUNCIL of the City of Burlingame, California: WHEREAS, the City of Burlingame is the owner of the real property located at 1490 Burlingame Avenue, Burlingame, California, commonly known as Parking Lot K-1 ("Lot K-1"); and WHEREAS, Weiman Syndicate is the owner of the real property located at 1477 Chapin Avenue, Burlingame, California [APN's 029-122-010 and 029-122-020] ("Store Property"); and WHEREAS, Weiman Syndicate would like to have convenient public pedestrian access between Lot K-1 and the Store Property (“Pedestrian Access”), which City staff also believes is in the public’s interest; and WHEREAS, on August 4, 1997, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 64-97 approving a revocable license agreement between the City and Weiman Syndicate regarding provisions for Pedestrian Access for a term of twenty (20) years, which has passed; and WHEREAS, the City and Weiman elect to enter into a new revocable license agreement regarding provisions for the Pedestrian Access; and WHEREAS, Weiman Syndicate is willing to continuously maintain the pedestrian access pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Agreement; and WHEREAS, Weiman Syndicate represents and warrants that it is authorized to enter into the Agreement and has the consent and authority of the holders of interests in the Store Property to enter into the Agreement. NOW THEREFORE the City Manager is authorized to execute a revocable license agreement in the form attached to this Resolution. _____________________________ 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 22nd day of January, 2019 and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: _____________________________ City Clerk REVOCABLE LICENSE AGREEMENT BETWEEN WEIMAN SYNDICATE AND THE CITY OF BURLINGAME REGARDING PROVISION OF PEDESTRIAN ACCESS BETWEEN THE PROPERTY AT 1490 BURLINGAME AVENUE AND THE PROPERTY AT 1477 CHAPIN AVENUE, BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA This Revocable License Agreement (“Agreement”) is entered into as of the ___________________, 2019, by and between the CITY OF BURLINGAME, a California municipal corporation ("City") and WEIMAN SYNDICATE, a California general partnership ("Weiman"), mutually promise and agree as follows: RECITALS WHEREAS, the City as owner of the real property located at 1490 Burlingame Avenue, Burlingame, California, commonly known as Parking Lot K-1 ("Lot K-1"); and WHEREAS, Weiman is the owner of the real property located at 1477 Chapin Avenue, Burlingame, California [APN's 029-122-010 and 029-122-020] ("Store Property"); and WHEREAS, Weiman would like to have a convenient public, pedestrian access between Lot K-1 and the Store Property (“Pedestrian Access”), and this appears to be in the public interest; and WHEREAS, on August 4th, 1997, City Council adopted Resolution No. 64-97 approving a revocable license agreement between the City and Weiman regarding provisions for the Pedestrian Access with an effective date of twenty (20) years; and WHEREAS, the City and Weiman elect to enter into a new revocable license agreement regarding provisions for the Pedestrian Access; and WHEREAS, Weiman is willing to maintain the pedestrian access pursuant to the terms and conditions of this Agreement; and WHEREAS, Weiman represents and warrants that it is authorized to enter into this Agreement and has the consent and authority of the holders of interests in the Store Property to enter into this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED by the Parties hereto as follow: 1. Maintenance of Pedestrian Access and Removal of Shopping Carts. Weiman shall maintain the Pedestrian Access, which i ncludes, but not limited to, the access ramp, the stairs, and handrails in a safe and usable condition. Weiman shall also remove any graffiti that may be placed on the Pedestrian Access. On a regular basis, Weiman shall cause the removal from Lot K-1 and Pedestrian Access of any shopping carts, debris, and garbage that appear to come from use of the Store Property. City may give notice to Weiman of any shopping carts or maintenance difficulties, and Weiman shall promptly take steps to correct such difficulties. 2. Maintenance of Landscaping and Light. City shall maintain the landscaping in Lot K- 1 and provide one parking lot light adjacent to the southern end of the Pedestrian Access. 3. Drainage. Weiman understands and agrees that the drainage of storm and irrigation water from the Pedestrian Access and associated landscaping is designed to flow onto the Store Property, and that the Store Property is solely responsible for accepting and directing this drainage. 4. Termination without Cause by the City. The City reserves the right to terminate this Agreement without cause on thirty (30) days’ notice. If City terminates this Agreement under this paragraph 4, City shall pay for the cost in removing the Pedestrian Access, which shall include the costs of the design and work for the restoration of the retaining wall, backfill, landscaping, and parking lot surfacing for Lot K-1. 5. Termination by Weiman or by City in Event of Weiman Default. If Weiman terminates this Agreement for any reason, or if the City elects to terminate this Agreement because of an event of default by Weiman as specified in Paragraph 5 below, and the City elects to remove the Pedestrian Access and restore the area for use as a parking space or any other use, Weiman shall pay the City for the costs actually incurred by the City in removing the Pedestrian Access, which shall include the costs of the design and work for the restoration of the retaining wall, backfill, landscaping, and parking lot surfacing, but not the construction of any additional structures or improvement beyond a parking space. 6. Events of Default. The following shall constitute events of default under this Agreement: a) A material default by Weiman in the performance of any of the terms, covenants, agreements, or conditions in this Agreement and the continuation of the default beyond thirty (30) days after notice by the City, or if the default is curable and would require more than thirty (30) days to remedy, beyond the time reasonably necessary for cure. b) The bankruptcy or insolvency of Weiman, a transfer by Weiman in fraud of creditors, an assignment by Weiman for the benefit of the creditors, or the commencement of proceedings of any kind against Weiman under the Federal Bankruptcy Act or under any other insolvency, bankruptcy, or reorganization act, unless Weiman is discharged from voluntary proceedings within ninety (90) days. c) The appointment of a receiver for a substantial part of Weiman's assets. d) The abandonment of the Store Property. e) The levy upon this Agreement or any estate of Weiman under this Agreement by attachment or execution and the failure to have the attachment or execution vacated within thirty (30) days. 7. Use by City Following Termination. Upon termination of this Agreement, the City may put the portion of the Pedestrian Access in Lot K-1 to any use that the City wishes and may remove any or all of the improvements in Lot K-1 in its sole discretion. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall require the City to remove or replace any particular improvements upon termination of this Agreement. 8. Binding on and Benefit to Successors and Assigns. This Agreement is intended to and does bind and inure to the benefit of the parties' heirs, successors, and assigns pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. 9. Assignment. Weiman may assign its duties under this Agreement to another person upon written notice to the City, but except with the written approval of the City, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld, Weiman shall remain liable to the City for performance under this Agreement. Weiman shall furnish any tenant, successor, assign, or purchaser of any interest in any part or all of the Store Property with a copy of this Agreement; provided, however, that Weiman's failure, or that of any other person, to so furnish such a copy shall in no way prejudice the rights of the City to require performance under this Agreement. 10. Notice. Weiman shall notify the Director of Public Works of any sale, transfer, or other act which results in a change of ownership of the property to which this Agreement relates. This notice shall be provided to the City within thirty (30) working days of any change of ownership. Notices required to be given under this Agreement shall be addressed as follows: To City: City Engineer To Weiman: NAI Benchmark City of Burlingame c/o Weiman Syndicate 501 Primrose Road 1012 11th Street Burlingame, CA 94010 4th Floor Modesto, CA 95354 The addresses to which the notice shall be or may be mailed as aforesaid to either party shall or may be changed by written notice given by such party to the other as hereinbefore provided, but nothing herein contained shall preclude the giving of any such notice by personal service. 11. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties. 12. Runs with the land. This Agreement shall run with the land. The City shall cause this Agreement to be recorded with the County Recorder, and a copy will be provided to Weiman. 13. Hold Harmless. Weiman shall defend, hold harmless, and indemnify City, its officers and employees, from any and all claims for injuries, damage, costs or expenses, in law or in equity, to persons and/or property, including attorney’s fees, which may arise out of the use of the Pedestrian Access or the presence of any shopping carts in Lot K-1 that are related to use of the Store Property, unless the sole cause of the injury or damage is the active negligence or willful misconduct of the City, its officers, employees, volunteers, or agents, and shall further defend, hold harmless, and indemnify the City, its officers and employees, from any and all claims from any person allegedly holding an interest in the Store Property that alleges that this License Agreement or its performance interferes with any right or title that the claimant may hold in the Store Property. 14. Waiver. Waiver of a breach or default under this Agreement shall not constitute a continuing waiver or a waiver of a subsequent breach of the same or any other provision of the Agreement. 15. Modifications. No modification, waiver, termination, or amendment to this Agreement is effective unless made in writing signed by the City and Weiman. 16. Severability. If any term of this Agreement is held invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of this Agreement shall remain in effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and Consultant have executed this Agreement as of the date indicated on page one (1). City of Burlingame, WEIMAN SYNDICATE, a a Municipal Corporation California General Partnership By By Lisa K. Goldman Print Name: City Manager Title: Approved as to form: City Attorney – Kathleen Kane ATTEST: City Clerk – Meaghan Hassel-Shearer 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 8c MEETING DATE: January 22, 2019 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: January 22, 2019 From: Sonya M. Morrison, Human Resources Director – (650) 558-7209 Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Approving a Memorandum of Understanding between Teamsters Local 856 and the City of Burlingame, Authorizing the City Manager to Execute the Memorandum on Behalf of the City, and Approving the City of Burlingame Pay Rates and Ranges (Salary Schedule) RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution authorizing the City Manager to amend the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between Teamsters Local 856 and the City of Burlingame, authorizing the City Manager to execute the MOU on behalf of the City effective January 1, 2019, through December 31, 2021, and approving the City of Burlingame pay rates and ranges for employees (salary schedules). BACKGROUND Teamsters Local 856 represents the Police Department Communications Dispatchers (seven employees). The Teamsters labor agreement expired on December 31, 2018. The City and the Teamsters have met and conferred in good faith on the terms and conditions of employment as provided by State law. The City and the Teamsters have been meeting over the past several months to negotiate the terms of a new agreement. On January 15, 2019, the Teamsters ratified a tentative agreement that is within the authority provided by the City Council. DISCUSSION The major terms of the new agreement are similar to those included in the recent agreements with the Police Officers Association, the Police Sergeants Association, the Association of Police Administrators, and the Department Head and Unrepresented Employees unit and are as follows: Term: • Three years, January 1, 2019 through December 31, 2021 Salary: • 4.5 % increase effective the first pay period of January 2019 (which started December 24, 2018) • 2.5% increase effective the first pay period of January 2020 • 2.0% increase effective the first pay period of January 2021 Teamsters MOU and Salary Schedule Update January 22, 2019 2 Health Reimbursement Arrangement: • The City shall contribute 1.0% of base pay to a Retiree Health Reimbursement Arrangement (HRA) account for employees. Retiree Medical: • For employees hired on or after August 15, 2011, the City shall make contributions, based on base pay, to a retiree HRA account based on years of service. From date of hire to the 5th anniversary, the contribution will be 2.0%; starting the 5th anniversary through the 19th year of service, the contribution will be 3.0%; for 20 or more years of service, the contribution is 5.5%. • The City shall make one-time retroactive payments to retiree HRA accounts for Communications Dispatchers hired between August 15, 2011 and December 31, 2018, based on the formula above. Medical: • The City will contribute up to the third highest cost Bay Area premium rate for employee only, up to the third highest cost Bay Area premium rate for employee plus one, and up to the Bay Area premium Kaiser Family rate for employee plus two or more. • Cash in lieu of medical insurance ($350) shall be taken as taxable income. Premium Pays: • The City shall pay a 5.0% differential to one employee assigned Lead Dispatcher duties. Language Changes: • Language updates to MOUs based on the attached tentative agreements. The proposed increases for the Teamsters Local 856 unit require the City Council to authorize a new salary schedule that, once approved, will be made available to the public via the City of Burlingame website. FISCAL IMPACT The fiscal impact for the remainder of Fiscal Year 2018-19 is $41,072. Exhibits: • Resolution • Tentative Agreements • Salary Schedules RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLING AME APPROVING A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN TE AMSTERS LOC AL 856 AND THE CITY OF BURLINGAME, AUTHORIZING THE CITY M AN AGER TO EXECUTE THE MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE CITY, AND APPROVING A REVISION TO THE CITY OF BURLINGAME SALARY SCHEDULES WHEREAS, Teamsters Local 856 represents the Police Department Communication Dispatchers, a unit that includes seven employees; and WHEREAS, the Teamsters Memorandum of Understanding expired on December 31, 2018; and WHEREAS, the City and the Teamsters have met and conferred in good faith on the terms and conditions of employment as provided by State law; and WHEREAS, the City and the Teamsters have reached agreement on changes to be made to the existing terms and conditions of employment and Memorandum of Understanding between the City and the Teamsters; and WHEREAS, the proposed changes are fair and are in the best interests of the public and the employees represented by the Teamsters, and WHEREAS, the City of Burlingame Salary Schedule and City of Burlingame Salary Schedule – Casual Positions have been revised in accordance with these actions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. The changes in existing salary and benefits of the employees represented by the Teamsters as contained in the Memorandum of Understanding between Teamsters Local 856 and the City of Burlingame hereto are approved. 2. The City Manager is authorized and directed to execute the Memorandum of Un derstanding between the Teamsters Local 856 and the City of Burlingame. 3. The City Council authorizes and adopts the City of Burlingame Salary Schedules. Donna Colson, 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 22nd day of January 2019, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk Class Title Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E Step F A109 ACCOUNTANT I MONTHLY $6,447.29 $6,769.53 $7,098.74 $7,458.08 $7,831.33 BIWEEKLY $2,975.67 $3,124.40 $3,276.34 $3,442.19 $3,614.46 HRLY.RATE $37.20 $39.06 $40.95 $43.03 $45.18 A104 ACCOUNTING ASSISTANT I MONTHLY $4,404.83 $4,629.71 $4,861.55 $5,093.38 $5,336.80 BIWEEKLY $2,033.00 $2,136.79 $2,243.79 $2,350.79 $2,463.14 HRLY.RATE $25.41 $26.71 $28.05 $29.38 $30.79 A160 ACCOUNTING ASSISTANT II MONTHLY $4,861.55 $5,093.38 $5,336.80 $5,584.87 $5,858.43 BIWEEKLY $2,243.79 $2,350.79 $2,463.14 $2,577.63 $2,703.89 HRLY.RATE $28.05 $29.38 $30.79 $32.22 $33.80 A102 ACCOUNTING ASSISTANT III MONTHLY $5,584.87 $5,858.43 $6,148.22 $6,456.56 $6,778.81 BIWEEKLY $2,577.63 $2,703.89 $2,837.64 $2,979.95 $3,128.68 HRLY.RATE $32.22 $33.80 $35.47 $37.25 $39.11 A103 ACCOUNTING TECHNICIAN MONTHLY $6,159.81 $6,468.15 $6,790.40 $7,128.88 $7,485.90 BIWEEKLY $2,842.99 $2,985.30 $3,134.03 $3,290.25 $3,455.03 HRLY.RATE $35.54 $37.32 $39.18 $41.13 $43.19 D202 ACTING POLICE CHIEF MONTHLY $16,097.56 $16,899.35 BIWEEKLY $7,429.64 $7,799.70 HRLY.RATE $92.87 $97.50 A105 ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT I MONTHLY $5,325.21 $5,601.09 $5,883.93 $6,171.40 $6,468.15 BIWEEKLY $2,457.79 $2,585.12 $2,715.66 $2,848.34 $2,985.30 HRLY.RATE $30.72 $32.31 $33.95 $35.60 $37.32 A100 ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT II MONTHLY $5,858.43 $6,148.22 $6,451.92 $6,755.62 $7,080.19 BIWEEKLY $2,703.89 $2,837.64 $2,977.81 $3,117.98 $3,267.78 HRLY.RATE $33.80 $35.47 $37.22 $38.97 $40.85 D106 ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER/ ADMIN. SVCS. DIRECTOR MONTHLY $12,946.92 $13,579.01 $14,260.30 $14,966.19 $15,723.70 BIWEEKLY $5,975.50 $6,267.24 $6,581.68 $6,907.47 $7,257.09 HRLY.RATE $74.69 $78.34 $82.27 $86.34 $90.71 A605 ASSISTANT ENGINEER MONTHLY $7,555.45 $7,924.06 $8,299.63 $8,735.48 $9,178.28 City of Burlingame Salary Schedule Amended 1/21/19 BIWEEKLY $3,487.13 $3,657.26 $3,830.60 $4,031.76 $4,236.13 HRLY.RATE $43.59 $45.72 $47.88 $50.40 $52.95 B421 ASSISTANT PARKS SUPERVISOR MONTHLY $7,350.95 $7,718.52 $8,104.43 $8,509.65 $8,935.16 BIWEEKLY $3,392.75 $3,562.39 $3,740.51 $3,927.53 $4,123.92 HRLY.RATE $42.41 $44.53 $46.76 $49.09 $51.55 A111 ASSISTANT PLANNER MONTHLY $6,444.97 $6,769.53 $7,101.06 $7,455.76 $7,831.33 BIWEEKLY $2,974.60 $3,124.40 $3,277.41 $3,441.12 $3,614.46 HRLY.RATE $37.18 $39.06 $40.97 $43.01 $45.18 A608 ASSOCIATE ENGINEER MONTHLY $8,308.91 $8,716.93 $9,131.92 $9,614.13 $10,098.66 BIWEEKLY $3,834.88 $4,023.20 $4,214.73 $4,437.29 $4,660.92 HRLY.RATE $47.94 $50.29 $52.68 $55.47 $58.26 A112 ASSOCIATE PLANNER MONTHLY $7,196.11 $7,555.45 $7,935.66 $8,336.73 $8,754.03 BIWEEKLY $3,321.28 $3,487.13 $3,662.61 $3,847.72 $4,040.32 HRLY.RATE $41.52 $43.59 $45.78 $48.10 $50.50 B600 ASST. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS MONTHLY $12,671.59 $13,309.99 $13,950.92 $14,665.31 $15,399.97 BIWEEKLY $5,848.43 $6,143.07 $6,438.89 $6,768.61 $7,107.68 HRLY.RATE $73.11 $76.79 $80.49 $84.61 $88.85 S607 AUTOMOTIVE MECHANIC MONTHLY $5,933.66 $6,222.94 $6,534.65 $6,862.05 $7,214.12 BIWEEKLY $2,738.61 $2,872.13 $3,015.99 $3,167.10 $3,329.60 HRLY.RATE $34.23 $35.90 $37.70 $39.59 $41.62 A705 BUILDING ATTENDANT MONTHLY $3,551.69 $3,725.56 $3,917.98 $4,115.04 $4,312.10 BIWEEKLY $1,639.24 $1,719.49 $1,808.30 $1,899.25 $1,990.20 HRLY.RATE $20.49 $21.49 $22.60 $23.74 $24.88 A706 BUILDING ATTENDANT - CS MONTHLY $4,673.76 BIWEEKLY $2,157.12 HRLY.RATE $26.96 A603 BUILDING INSPECTOR MONTHLY $7,145.10 $7,485.90 $7,875.38 $8,248.63 $8,645.07 BIWEEKLY $3,297.74 $3,455.03 $3,634.79 $3,807.06 $3,990.03 HRLY.RATE $41.22 $43.19 $45.43 $47.59 $49.88 A101 BUILDING MAINTENANCE WORKER MONTHLY $5,422.58 $5,710.06 $5,941.89 $6,254.86 $6,560.88 BIWEEKLY $2,502.73 $2,635.41 $2,742.41 $2,886.86 $3,028.10 HRLY.RATE $31.28 $32.94 $34.28 $36.09 $37.85 S603 CCTV LEADWORKER MONTHLY $5,956.08 $6,256.58 $6,568.28 $6,906.90 $7,252.25 BIWEEKLY $2,748.96 $2,887.65 $3,031.52 $3,187.80 $3,347.19 HRLY.RATE $34.36 $36.10 $37.89 $39.85 $41.84 B604 CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL MONTHLY $10,860.28 $11,399.87 $11,962.28 $12,550.00 $13,173.19 BIWEEKLY $5,012.44 $5,261.48 $5,521.05 $5,792.31 $6,079.93 HRLY.RATE $62.66 $65.77 $69.01 $72.40 $76.00 D102 CITY ATTORNEY MONTHLY $18,812.49 BIWEEKLY $8,682.69 HRLY.RATE $108.53 D109 CITY CLERK MONTHLY $8,886.84 $9,274.42 $9,730.44 $10,199.09 $10,700.68 BIWEEKLY $4,101.62 $4,280.50 $4,490.97 $4,707.27 $4,938.78 HRLY.RATE $51.27 $53.51 $56.14 $58.84 $61.73 B602 CITY ENGINEER MONTHLY $11,522.67 $12,107.19 $12,691.67 $13,343.98 $14,009.36 BIWEEKLY $5,318.16 $5,587.94 $5,857.69 $6,158.76 $6,465.86 HRLY.RATE $66.48 $69.85 $73.22 $76.98 $80.82 D801 CITY LIBRARIAN MONTHLY $13,388.54 $14,097.85 $14,809.70 $15,551.98 $16,309.41 BIWEEKLY $6,179.32 $6,506.70 $6,835.25 $7,177.84 $7,527.42 HRLY.RATE $77.24 $81.33 $85.44 $89.72 $94.09 D200 CITY MANAGER MONTHLY $20,721.55 BIWEEKLY $9,563.79 HRLY.RATE $119.55 B103 CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER MONTHLY $7,232.97 $7,593.10 $7,974.02 $8,370.64 $8,790.75 BIWEEKLY $3,338.29 $3,504.51 $3,680.32 $3,863.37 $4,057.27 HRLY.RATE $41.73 $43.81 $46.00 $48.29 $50.72 D110 CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER AND SENIOR RISK ANALYST MONTHLY $7,770.17 $8,125.97 $8,534.30 $8,956.95 $9,405.87 0.9 FTE (36 hours/week )BIWEEKLY $3,586.23 $3,750.45 $3,938.91 $4,133.98 $4,341.17 HRLY.RATE $44.83 $46.88 $49.24 $51.67 $54.26 T900 COMMUNICATION DISPATCHER I MONTHLY $6,054.40 $6,327.07 $6,628.83 $6,938.59 $7,280.09 BIWEEKLY $2,794.33 $2,920.18 $3,059.46 $3,202.42 $3,360.04 HRLY.RATE $34.93 $36.50 $38.25 $40.03 $42.00 T901 COMMUNICATION DISPATCHER II MONTHLY $6,353.52 $6,631.50 $6,959.76 $7,280.09 $7,653.35 BIWEEKLY $2,932.40 $3,060.69 $3,212.19 $3,360.04 $3,532.31 HRLY.RATE $36.66 $38.26 $40.15 $42.00 $44.15 D108 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR MONTHLY $13,500.00 $14,171.30 $14,883.17 $15,627.95 $16,405.69 BIWEEKLY $6,230.77 $6,540.60 $6,869.15 $7,212.90 $7,571.86 HRLY.RATE $77.88 $81.76 $85.86 $90.16 $94.65 D100 COUNCIL MEMBER MONTHLY $590.04 BIWEEKLY $272.33 HRLY.RATE $3.40 A106 CUSTODIAN MONTHLY $4,446.56 $4,650.58 $4,880.09 $5,137.43 $5,401.72 BIWEEKLY $2,052.26 $2,146.42 $2,252.35 $2,371.12 $2,493.10 HRLY.RATE $25.65 $26.83 $28.15 $29.64 $31.16 B603 DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS OPERATIONS MONTHLY $11,600.13 $12,182.68 $12,789.18 $13,432.86 $14,097.85 BIWEEKLY $5,353.91 $5,622.78 $5,902.70 $6,199.78 $6,506.70 HRLY.RATE $66.92 $70.28 $73.78 $77.50 $81.33 B107 DEPUTY FINANCE DIRECTOR MONTHLY $10,320.69 $10,837.49 $11,379.61 $11,944.52 $12,544.94 BIWEEKLY $4,763.39 $5,001.92 $5,252.13 $5,512.85 $5,789.97 HRLY.RATE $59.54 $62.52 $65.65 $68.91 $72.37 D600 DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS MONTHLY $14,275.18 $14,987.03 $15,739.42 $16,524.76 $17,353.17 BIWEEKLY $6,588.55 $6,917.09 $7,264.35 $7,626.81 $8,009.15 HRLY.RATE $82.36 $86.46 $90.80 $95.34 $100.11 A451 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST MONTHLY $7,856.83 $8,253.27 $8,665.93 $9,097.14 $9,553.85 BIWEEKLY $3,626.23 $3,809.20 $3,999.66 $4,198.68 $4,409.47 HRLY.RATE $45.33 $47.62 $50.00 $52.48 $55.12 B605 ELECTRICAL SUPERVISOR MONTHLY $8,161.92 $8,532.42 $8,965.57 $9,406.54 $9,878.84 BIWEEKLY $3,767.04 $3,938.04 $4,137.96 $4,341.48 $4,559.46 HRLY.RATE $47.09 $49.23 $51.72 $54.27 $56.99 A301 EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS/FIRE EDUCATION SPECIALIST MONTHLY $6,083.31 $6,373.10 $6,693.03 $7,036.14 $7,374.62 BIWEEKLY $2,807.68 $2,941.43 $3,089.09 $3,247.45 $3,403.67 HRLY.RATE $35.10 $36.77 $38.61 $40.59 $42.55 A604 ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN II MONTHLY $6,060.12 $6,366.14 $6,693.03 $7,022.23 $7,367.66 BIWEEKLY $2,796.98 $2,938.22 $3,089.09 $3,241.03 $3,400.46 HRLY.RATE $34.96 $36.73 $38.61 $40.51 $42.51 A615 ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATORY COMPLIANCE COORDINATOR MONTHLY $6,829.81 $7,168.29 $7,532.27 $7,905.52 $8,299.63 BIWEEKLY $3,152.22 $3,308.44 $3,476.43 $3,648.70 $3,830.60 HRLY.RATE $39.40 $41.36 $43.46 $45.61 $47.88 D105 EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT MONTHLY $6,500.47 $6,796.84 $7,146.45 $7,503.66 $7,881.10 BIWEEKLY $3,000.22 $3,137.00 $3,298.36 $3,463.23 $3,637.43 HRLY.RATE $37.50 $39.21 $41.23 $43.29 $45.47 B900 FACILITIES DIVISION MANAGER MONTHLY $8,694.21 $9,129.94 $9,586.59 $10,066.69 $10,567.71 BIWEEKLY $4,012.71 $4,213.82 $4,424.58 $4,646.16 $4,877.40 HRLY.RATE $50.16 $52.67 $55.31 $58.08 $60.97 S704 FACILITIES LEADWORKER MONTHLY $5,956.08 $6,256.58 $6,568.28 $6,906.90 $7,252.25 BIWEEKLY $2,748.96 $2,887.65 $3,031.52 $3,187.80 $3,347.19 HRLY.RATE $34.36 $36.10 $37.89 $39.85 $41.84 S703 FACILITIES MAINTENANCE WORKER MONTHLY $5,420.12 $5,704.92 $5,949.35 $6,256.58 $6,559.31 BIWEEKLY $2,501.60 $2,633.04 $2,745.86 $2,887.65 $3,027.38 HRLY.RATE $31.27 $32.91 $34.32 $36.10 $37.84 D103 FINANCE DIRECTOR MONTHLY $14,145.98 $14,852.77 $15,589.96 $16,375.29 $17,191.02 BIWEEKLY $6,528.92 $6,855.13 $7,195.36 $7,557.83 $7,934.32 HRLY.RATE $81.61 $85.69 $89.94 $94.47 $99.18 B606 FLEET MANAGER MONTHLY $8,498.50 $8,929.04 $9,372.60 $9,839.68 $10,330.22 BIWEEKLY $3,922.38 $4,121.09 $4,325.82 $4,541.39 $4,767.79 HRLY.RATE $49.03 $51.51 $54.07 $56.77 $59.60 A805 GRAPHIC ARTIST MONTHLY $5,378.53 $5,645.14 $5,927.98 $6,224.73 $6,535.38 BIWEEKLY $2,482.40 $2,605.45 $2,735.99 $2,872.95 $3,016.33 HRLY.RATE $31.03 $32.57 $34.20 $35.91 $37.70 S403 GROUNDS EQUIPMENT REPAIR WORKER MONTHLY $5,397.70 $5,651.10 $5,933.66 $6,222.94 $6,534.65 BIWEEKLY $2,491.25 $2,608.20 $2,738.61 $2,872.13 $3,015.99 HRLY.RATE $31.14 $32.60 $34.23 $35.90 $37.70 D107 HUMAN RESOURCES ANALYST II MONTHLY $7,612.57 $7,995.12 $8,377.65 $8,805.77 $9,249.11 BIWEEKLY $3,513.49 $3,690.06 $3,866.61 $4,064.20 $4,268.82 HRLY.RATE $43.92 $46.13 $48.33 $50.80 $53.36 D805 HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR MONTHLY $13,317.57 $14,024.36 $14,728.63 $15,465.81 $16,225.81 BIWEEKLY $6,146.57 $6,472.78 $6,797.83 $7,138.07 $7,488.83 HRLY.RATE $76.83 $80.91 $84.97 $89.23 $93.61 D400 HUMAN RESOURCES TECHNICIAN MONTHLY $5,792.17 $6,065.18 $6,362.78 $6,680.05 $7,029.30 BIWEEKLY $2,673.31 $2,799.31 $2,936.67 $3,083.10 $3,244.29 HRLY.RATE $33.42 $34.99 $36.71 $38.54 $40.55 S610 INSTRUMENTATION MAINTENANCE TECHNICIAN MONTHLY $5,956.08 $6,256.58 $6,568.28 $6,906.90 $7,252.25 BIWEEKLY $2,748.96 $2,887.65 $3,031.52 $3,187.80 $3,347.19 HRLY.RATE $34.36 $36.10 $37.89 $39.85 $41.84 S404 IRRIGATION REPAIR SPECIALIST MONTHLY $5,397.70 $5,651.10 $5,933.66 $6,222.94 $6,534.65 BIWEEKLY $2,491.25 $2,608.20 $2,738.61 $2,872.13 $3,015.99 HRLY.RATE $31.14 $32.60 $34.23 $35.90 $37.70 A606 JUNIOR ENGINEER MONTHLY $6,862.27 $7,186.83 $7,555.45 $7,924.06 $8,299.63 BIWEEKLY $3,167.20 $3,317.00 $3,487.13 $3,657.26 $3,830.60 HRLY.RATE $39.59 $41.46 $43.59 $45.72 $47.88 S605 LABORER MONTHLY $4,848.29 $5,092.72 $5,375.27 $5,626.43 $5,897.78 BIWEEKLY $2,237.67 $2,350.49 $2,480.90 $2,596.82 $2,722.05 HRLY.RATE $27.97 $29.38 $31.01 $32.46 $34.03 A801 LIBRARIAN I MONTHLY $5,640.51 $5,911.75 $6,185.31 $6,502.93 $6,811.26 BIWEEKLY $2,603.31 $2,728.50 $2,854.76 $3,001.35 $3,143.66 HRLY.RATE $32.54 $34.11 $35.68 $37.52 $39.30 A800 LIBRARIAN II MONTHLY $6,208.50 $6,519.15 $6,832.13 $7,165.97 $7,541.54 BIWEEKLY $2,865.46 $3,008.84 $3,153.29 $3,307.37 $3,480.71 HRLY.RATE $35.82 $37.61 $39.42 $41.34 $43.51 B801 LIBRARIAN III MONTHLY $7,833.12 $8,224.54 $8,621.14 $9,067.35 $9,510.92 BIWEEKLY $3,615.28 $3,795.94 $3,978.99 $4,184.93 $4,389.65 HRLY.RATE $45.19 $47.45 $49.74 $52.31 $54.87 A804 LIBRARY ASSISTANT I MONTHLY $4,319.06 $4,543.93 $4,766.49 $4,986.74 $5,248.71 BIWEEKLY $1,993.41 $2,097.20 $2,199.92 $2,301.57 $2,422.48 HRLY.RATE $24.92 $26.22 $27.50 $28.77 $30.28 A803 LIBRARY ASSISTANT II MONTHLY $4,819.82 $5,033.10 $5,304.35 $5,543.14 $5,814.38 BIWEEKLY $2,224.53 $2,322.97 $2,448.16 $2,558.37 $2,683.56 HRLY.RATE $27.81 $29.04 $30.60 $31.98 $33.54 A802 LIBRARY ASSISTANT III MONTHLY $5,380.85 $5,626.60 $5,918.71 $6,213.13 $6,507.56 BIWEEKLY $2,483.47 $2,596.89 $2,731.71 $2,867.60 $3,003.49 HRLY.RATE $31.04 $32.46 $34.15 $35.85 $37.54 B803 LIBRARY CIRCULATION SUPERVISOR MONTHLY $6,178.85 $6,471.07 $6,776.35 $7,131.22 $7,459.98 BIWEEKLY $2,851.77 $2,986.65 $3,127.55 $3,291.33 $3,443.07 HRLY.RATE $35.65 $37.33 $39.10 $41.14 $43.04 B805 LIBRARY SERVICES MANAGER MONTHLY $9,132.56 $9,599.62 $10,074.50 $10,580.73 $11,128.67 BIWEEKLY $4,215.03 $4,430.59 $4,649.77 $4,883.42 $5,136.31 HRLY.RATE $52.69 $55.38 $58.12 $61.04 $64.20 S606 MAINTENANCE ELECTRICIAN MONTHLY $6,649.01 $6,980.90 $7,337.46 $7,700.75 $8,093.18 BIWEEKLY $3,068.78 $3,221.96 $3,386.52 $3,554.19 $3,735.32 HRLY.RATE $38.36 $40.27 $42.33 $44.43 $46.69 B610 MANAGEMENT ANALYST MONTHLY $7,770.50 $8,125.36 $8,535.04 $8,957.74 $9,406.54 BIWEEKLY $3,586.38 $3,750.17 $3,939.25 $4,134.34 $4,341.48 HRLY.RATE $44.83 $46.88 $49.24 $51.68 $54.27 A120 MANAGEMENT ASSISTANT MONTHLY $6,424.10 $6,746.35 $7,080.19 $7,437.21 $7,805.83 BIWEEKLY $2,964.97 $3,113.70 $3,267.78 $3,432.56 $3,602.69 HRLY.RATE $37.06 $38.92 $40.85 $42.91 $45.03 A107 OFFICE ASSISTANT I MONTHLY $4,230.96 $4,446.56 $4,666.81 $4,889.37 $5,155.97 $5,274.21 BIWEEKLY $1,952.75 $2,052.26 $2,153.91 $2,256.63 $2,379.68 $2,434.25 HRLY.RATE $24.41 $25.65 $26.92 $28.21 $29.75 $30.43 A670 OFFICE ASSISTANT II MONTHLY $4,634.35 $4,845.32 $5,088.74 $5,341.44 $5,587.18 BIWEEKLY $2,138.93 $2,236.30 $2,348.65 $2,465.28 $2,578.70 HRLY.RATE $26.74 $27.95 $29.36 $30.82 $32.23 S401 PARK MAINTENANCE LEADWORKER MONTHLY $5,956.08 $6,256.58 $6,568.28 $6,906.90 $7,252.25 BIWEEKLY $2,748.96 $2,887.65 $3,031.52 $3,187.80 $3,347.19 HRLY.RATE $34.36 $36.10 $37.89 $39.85 $41.84 S407 PARK MAINTENANCE WORKER I MONTHLY $4,866.23 $5,092.72 $5,375.27 $5,626.43 $5,897.78 BIWEEKLY $2,245.95 $2,350.49 $2,480.90 $2,596.82 $2,722.05 HRLY.RATE $28.07 $29.38 $31.01 $32.46 $34.03 S406 PARK MAINTENANCE WORKER II MONTHLY $5,092.72 $5,375.27 $5,626.43 $5,897.78 $6,189.30 BIWEEKLY $2,350.49 $2,480.90 $2,596.82 $2,722.05 $2,856.60 HRLY.RATE $29.38 $31.01 $32.46 $34.03 $35.71 A201 PARKING ENFORCEMENT OFFICER MONTHLY $4,729.40 $4,954.28 $5,197.70 $5,461.99 $5,735.56 BIWEEKLY $2,182.80 $2,286.59 $2,398.94 $2,520.92 $2,647.18 HRLY.RATE $27.29 $28.58 $29.99 $31.51 $33.09 A200 PARKING SYSTEM TECHNICIAN MONTHLY $5,137.43 $5,401.72 $5,649.78 $5,925.66 $6,222.41 BIWEEKLY $2,371.12 $2,493.10 $2,607.59 $2,734.92 $2,871.88 HRLY.RATE $29.64 $31.16 $32.59 $34.19 $35.90 D705 PARKS & RECREATION DIRECTOR MONTHLY $13,388.54 $14,097.85 $14,809.70 $15,551.98 $16,309.41 BIWEEKLY $6,179.32 $6,506.70 $6,835.25 $7,177.84 $7,527.42 HRLY.RATE $77.24 $81.33 $85.44 $89.72 $94.09 B410 PARKS SUPERINTENDENT/CITY ARBORIST MONTHLY $9,586.03 $10,082.55 $10,574.03 $11,108.55 $11,683.61 BIWEEKLY $4,424.32 $4,653.48 $4,880.32 $5,127.02 $5,392.44 HRLY.RATE $55.30 $58.17 $61.00 $64.09 $67.41 B420 PARKS SUPERVISOR MONTHLY $7,846.17 $8,245.38 $8,660.27 $9,096.05 $9,657.04 BIWEEKLY $3,621.31 $3,805.56 $3,997.05 $4,198.18 $4,457.10 HRLY.RATE $45.27 $47.57 $49.96 $52.48 $55.71 B430 PARKS SUPERVISOR/CITY ARBORIST MONTHLY $8,036.66 $8,451.55 $8,869.04 $9,310.01 $9,884.05 BIWEEKLY $3,709.23 $3,900.72 $4,093.40 $4,296.93 $4,561.87 HRLY.RATE $46.37 $48.76 $51.17 $53.71 $57.02 A114 PAYROLL ADMINISTRATOR MONTHLY $6,447.29 $6,769.53 $7,098.74 $7,458.08 $7,831.33 BIWEEKLY $2,975.67 $3,124.40 $3,276.34 $3,442.19 $3,614.46 HRLY.RATE $37.20 $39.06 $40.95 $43.03 $45.18 A614 PERMIT TECH/GREEN BUILDING SPECIALIST MONTHLY $6,224.73 $6,535.38 $6,869.22 $7,205.38 $7,567.04 BIWEEKLY $2,872.95 $3,016.33 $3,170.41 $3,325.56 $3,492.48 HRLY.RATE $35.91 $37.70 $39.63 $41.57 $43.66 A609 PERMIT TECHNICIAN MONTHLY $5,659.05 $5,939.57 $6,245.59 $6,549.29 $6,876.18 BIWEEKLY $2,611.87 $2,741.34 $2,882.58 $3,022.75 $3,173.62 HRLY.RATE $32.65 $34.27 $36.03 $37.78 $39.67 A108 PLANNER MONTHLY $7,196.11 $7,553.13 $7,940.29 $8,308.91 $8,735.48 BIWEEKLY $3,321.28 $3,486.06 $3,664.75 $3,834.88 $4,031.76 HRLY.RATE $41.52 $43.58 $45.81 $47.94 $50.40 D104 PLANNING DIRECTOR MONTHLY $13,249.21 $13,902.79 $14,607.03 $15,139.04 $16,091.57 BIWEEKLY $6,115.02 $6,416.67 $6,741.71 $6,987.25 $7,426.88 HRLY.RATE $76.44 $80.21 $84.27 $87.34 $92.84 B111 PLANNING MANAGER MONTHLY $10,498.02 $11,022.42 $11,569.60 $12,149.74 $12,760.25 BIWEEKLY $4,845.24 $5,087.27 $5,339.81 $5,607.57 $5,889.34 HRLY.RATE $60.57 $63.59 $66.75 $70.09 $73.62 A205 POLICE ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES COORDINATOR MONTHLY $5,522.27 $5,795.83 $6,080.99 $6,368.46 $6,674.48 BIWEEKLY $2,548.74 $2,675.00 $2,806.61 $2,939.29 $3,080.53 HRLY.RATE $31.86 $33.44 $35.08 $36.74 $38.51 M200 POLICE CAPTAIN MONTHLY $12,640.84 $13,254.43 $13,834.06 $14,515.57 $15,219.73 BIWEEKLY $5,834.24 $6,117.43 $6,384.95 $6,699.50 $7,024.49 HRLY.RATE $72.93 $76.47 $79.81 $83.74 $87.81 D201 POLICE CHIEF MONTHLY $15,424.59 $16,193.62 $17,001.38 $17,842.65 $18,740.75 BIWEEKLY $7,119.04 $7,473.98 $7,846.79 $8,235.07 $8,649.58 HRLY.RATE $88.99 $93.42 $98.08 $102.94 $108.12 A202 POLICE CLERK I MONTHLY $4,404.83 $4,629.71 $4,861.55 $5,093.38 $5,336.80 BIWEEKLY $2,033.00 $2,136.79 $2,243.79 $2,350.79 $2,463.14 HRLY.RATE $25.41 $26.71 $28.05 $29.38 $30.79 A203 POLICE CLERK II MONTHLY $4,861.55 $5,093.38 $5,336.80 $5,584.87 $5,858.43 BIWEEKLY $2,243.79 $2,350.79 $2,463.14 $2,577.63 $2,703.89 HRLY.RATE $28.05 $29.38 $30.79 $32.22 $33.80 A204 POLICE CLERK III MONTHLY $6,746.35 BIWEEKLY $3,113.70 HRLY.RATE $38.92 M202 POLICE LIEUTENANT MONTHLY $10,816.43 $11,354.89 $11,924.06 $12,519.20 $13,145.04 BIWEEKLY $4,992.20 $5,240.72 $5,503.41 $5,778.09 $6,066.94 HRLY.RATE $62.40 $65.51 $68.79 $72.23 $75.84 P200 POLICE OFFICER MONTHLY $7,474.68 $7,885.61 $8,242.22 $8,676.76 $9,090.06 BIWEEKLY $3,449.85 $3,639.51 $3,804.10 $4,004.66 $4,195.41 HRLY.RATE $43.12 $45.49 $47.55 $50.06 $52.44 P201 POLICE OFFICER TRAINEE MONTHLY $7,193.79 BIWEEKLY $3,320.21 HRLY.RATE $41.50 M201 POLICE SERGEANT MONTHLY $9,080.61 $9,510.43 $9,982.77 $10,490.52 $11,024.26 BIWEEKLY $4,191.05 $4,389.43 $4,607.43 $4,841.78 $5,088.12 HRLY.RATE $52.39 $54.87 $57.59 $60.52 $63.60 B201 POLICE SERVICES MANAGER MONTHLY $8,986.56 $9,435.89 $9,907.70 $10,403.08 $10,923.24 BIWEEKLY $4,147.64 $4,355.03 $4,572.78 $4,801.42 $5,041.50 HRLY.RATE $51.85 $54.44 $57.16 $60.02 $63.02 A711 PROGRAM COORDINATOR MONTHLY $3,850.75 $4,040.86 $4,240.23 $4,451.20 $4,673.76 BIWEEKLY $1,777.27 $1,865.01 $1,957.03 $2,054.40 $2,157.12 HRLY.RATE $22.22 $23.31 $24.46 $25.68 $26.96 A612 PROGRAM MANAGER MONTHLY $9,257.11 $9,723.09 $10,202.99 $10,717.66 $11,253.19 BIWEEKLY $4,272.51 $4,487.58 $4,709.07 $4,946.61 $5,193.78 HRLY.RATE $53.41 $56.09 $58.86 $61.83 $64.92 A130 PROGRAM OUTREACH SPECIALIST MONTHLY $4,597.26 $4,826.77 $5,067.88 $5,322.89 $5,587.18 0.8 FTE (32 hours/week )BIWEEKLY $2,121.81 $2,227.74 $2,339.02 $2,456.72 $2,578.70 HRLY.RATE $26.52 $27.85 $29.24 $30.71 $32.23 A610 PROJECT MANAGER/GIS COORDINATOR MONTHLY $10,604.06 BIWEEKLY $4,894.18 HRLY.RATE $61.18 A611 PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTOR MONTHLY $7,126.56 $7,476.63 $7,854.51 $8,246.31 $8,663.61 BIWEEKLY $3,289.18 $3,450.75 $3,625.16 $3,805.99 $3,998.59 HRLY.RATE $41.11 $43.13 $45.31 $47.57 $49.98 A701 RECREATION COORDINATOR MONTHLY $5,554.73 $5,821.34 $6,097.22 $6,400.92 $6,718.53 BIWEEKLY $2,563.72 $2,686.77 $2,814.10 $2,954.27 $3,100.86 HRLY.RATE $32.05 $33.58 $35.18 $36.93 $38.76 B710 RECREATION SUPERINTENDENT MONTHLY $9,132.56 $9,602.24 $10,074.50 $10,585.95 $11,131.29 BIWEEKLY $4,215.03 $4,431.80 $4,649.77 $4,885.82 $5,137.52 HRLY.RATE $52.69 $55.40 $58.12 $61.07 $64.22 B700 RECREATION SUPERVISOR MONTHLY $7,689.61 $8,088.83 $8,461.99 $8,905.55 $9,349.14 BIWEEKLY $3,549.05 $3,733.30 $3,905.53 $4,110.26 $4,314.99 HRLY.RATE $44.36 $46.67 $48.82 $51.38 $53.94 B106 SENIOR ACCOUNTANT MONTHLY $7,079.05 $7,449.57 $7,846.17 $8,255.84 $8,691.62 BIWEEKLY $3,267.26 $3,438.26 $3,621.31 $3,810.39 $4,011.52 HRLY.RATE $40.84 $42.98 $45.27 $47.63 $50.14 A602 SENIOR BUILDING INSPECTOR MONTHLY $8,016.80 $8,413.23 $8,811.99 $9,277.97 $9,746.27 BIWEEKLY $3,700.06 $3,883.03 $4,067.07 $4,282.14 $4,498.28 HRLY.RATE $46.25 $48.54 $50.84 $53.53 $56.23 B601 SENIOR CIVIL ENGINEER MONTHLY $10,972.12 $11,520.08 $12,099.34 $12,702.08 $13,341.36 BIWEEKLY $5,064.05 $5,316.96 $5,584.31 $5,862.50 $6,157.55 HRLY.RATE $63.30 $66.46 $69.80 $73.28 $76.97 A113 SENIOR PLANNER MONTHLY $8,735.48 $9,169.01 $9,625.72 $10,107.93 $10,617.97 BIWEEKLY $4,031.76 $4,231.85 $4,442.64 $4,665.20 $4,900.60 HRLY.RATE $50.40 $52.90 $55.53 $58.32 $61.26 A607 SENIOR PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTOR MONTHLY $7,912.47 $8,308.91 $8,716.93 $9,131.92 $9,614.13 BIWEEKLY $3,651.91 $3,834.88 $4,023.20 $4,214.73 $4,437.29 HRLY.RATE $45.65 $47.94 $50.29 $52.68 $55.47 B608 STREET & SEWER SUPERVISOR MONTHLY $7,467.53 $7,842.02 $8,236.70 $8,647.08 $9,077.64 BIWEEKLY $3,446.55 $3,619.40 $3,801.56 $3,990.96 $4,189.68 HRLY.RATE $43.08 $45.24 $47.52 $49.89 $52.37 S604 STREET, SEWER & DOWNTOWN MAINTENANCE WORKER MONTHLY $5,092.72 $5,375.27 $5,626.43 $5,897.78 $6,189.30 BIWEEKLY $2,350.49 $2,480.90 $2,596.82 $2,722.05 $2,856.60 HRLY.RATE $29.38 $31.01 $32.46 $34.03 $35.71 S601 STREET, SEWER AND DOWNTOWN LEADWORKER MONTHLY $5,956.08 $6,256.58 $6,568.28 $6,906.90 $7,252.25 BIWEEKLY $2,748.96 $2,887.65 $3,031.52 $3,187.80 $3,347.19 HRLY.RATE $34.36 $36.10 $37.89 $39.85 $41.84 B607 STREETS, STORM DRAINS, AND SEWER DIVISIONS MANAGER MONTHLY $8,694.21 $9,129.94 $9,586.59 $10,066.69 $10,567.71 BIWEEKLY $4,012.71 $4,213.82 $4,424.58 $4,646.16 $4,877.40 HRLY.RATE $50.16 $52.67 $55.31 $58.08 $60.97 S602 TRAFFIC SIGN & PAINT LEADWORKER MONTHLY $5,956.08 $6,256.58 $6,568.28 $6,906.90 $7,252.25 BIWEEKLY $2,748.96 $2,887.65 $3,031.52 $3,187.80 $3,347.19 HRLY.RATE $34.36 $36.10 $37.89 $39.85 $41.84 A601 TRAFFIC-CIVIL ENGINEER MONTHLY $7,924.06 $8,299.63 $8,735.48 $9,178.28 $9,639.63 BIWEEKLY $3,657.26 $3,830.60 $4,031.76 $4,236.13 $4,449.06 HRLY.RATE $45.72 $47.88 $50.40 $52.95 $55.61 A600 TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER MONTHLY $9,136.55 $9,597.90 $10,075.48 $10,578.56 $11,114.09 BIWEEKLY $4,216.87 $4,429.80 $4,650.22 $4,882.41 $5,129.58 HRLY.RATE $52.71 $55.37 $58.13 $61.03 $64.12 S405 TREE LEADWORKER MONTHLY $5,956.08 $6,256.58 $6,568.28 $6,906.90 $7,252.25 BIWEEKLY $2,748.96 $2,887.65 $3,031.52 $3,187.80 $3,347.19 HRLY.RATE $34.36 $36.10 $37.89 $39.85 $41.84 S409 TREE MAINTENANCE WORKER MONTHLY $5,218.30 $5,516.55 $5,767.71 $6,048.02 $6,344.03 BIWEEKLY $2,408.45 $2,546.10 $2,662.02 $2,791.40 $2,928.02 HRLY.RATE $30.11 $31.83 $33.28 $34.89 $36.60 S411 TREE WORKER MONTHLY $5,386.49 $5,639.89 $5,924.69 $6,216.21 $6,530.16 BIWEEKLY $2,486.07 $2,603.03 $2,734.47 $2,869.02 $3,013.92 HRLY.RATE $31.08 $32.54 $34.18 $35.86 $37.67 S400 UTILITIES INSPECTOR/LOCATOR MONTHLY $5,956.08 $6,256.58 $6,568.28 $6,906.90 $7,252.25 BIWEEKLY $2,748.96 $2,887.65 $3,031.52 $3,187.80 $3,347.19 HRLY.RATE $34.36 $36.10 $37.89 $39.85 $41.84 B500 WATER DIVISION MANAGER MONTHLY $8,694.21 $9,129.94 $9,586.59 $10,066.69 $10,567.71 BIWEEKLY $4,012.71 $4,213.82 $4,424.58 $4,646.16 $4,877.40 HRLY.RATE $50.16 $52.67 $55.31 $58.08 $60.97 S501 WATER MAINTENANCE LEADWORKER MONTHLY $5,956.08 $6,256.58 $6,568.28 $6,906.90 $7,252.25 BIWEEKLY $2,748.96 $2,887.65 $3,031.52 $3,187.80 $3,347.19 HRLY.RATE $34.36 $36.10 $37.89 $39.85 $41.84 S503 WATER MAINTENANCE WORKER MONTHLY $5,092.72 $5,375.27 $5,626.43 $5,897.78 $6,189.30 BIWEEKLY $2,350.49 $2,480.90 $2,596.82 $2,722.05 $2,856.60 HRLY.RATE $29.38 $31.01 $32.46 $34.03 $35.71 S502 WATER METER REPAIRER MONTHLY $5,142.05 $5,388.73 $5,646.62 $5,929.17 $6,222.94 BIWEEKLY $2,373.26 $2,487.11 $2,606.13 $2,736.54 $2,872.13 HRLY.RATE $29.67 $31.09 $32.58 $34.21 $35.90 B501 WATER OPERATIONS SUPERVISMONTHLY $7,467.53 $7,842.02 $8,236.70 $8,647.08 $9,077.64 BIWEEKLY $3,446.55 $3,619.40 $3,801.56 $3,990.96 $4,189.68 HRLY.RATE $43.08 $45.24 $47.52 $49.89 $52.37 S508 WATER QUALITY AND METER LEAD WORKER MONTHLY $5,956.08 $6,256.58 $6,568.28 $6,906.90 $7,252.25 BIWEEKLY $2,748.96 $2,887.65 $3,031.52 $3,187.80 $3,347.19 HRLY.RATE $34.36 $36.10 $37.89 $39.85 $41.84 S507 WATER QUALITY AND METER TECHNICIAN MONTHLY $5,375.27 $5,644.37 $5,926.93 $6,222.94 $6,534.65 BIWEEKLY $2,480.90 $2,605.10 $2,735.51 $2,872.13 $3,015.99 HRLY.RATE $31.01 $32.56 $34.19 $35.90 $37.70 B503 WATER QUALITY SUPERVISOR MONTHLY $7,467.53 $7,842.02 $8,236.70 $8,647.08 $9,077.64 BIWEEKLY $3,446.55 $3,619.40 $3,801.56 $3,990.96 $4,189.68 HRLY.RATE $43.08 $45.24 $47.52 $49.89 $52.37 S505 WATER SERVICE & OPERATIONS TECHNICIAN MONTHLY $5,956.08 $6,256.58 $6,568.28 $6,906.90 $7,252.25 BIWEEKLY $2,748.96 $2,887.65 $3,031.52 $3,187.80 $3,347.19 HRLY.RATE $34.36 $36.10 $37.89 $39.85 $41.84 A110 ZONING TECHNICIAN MONTHLY $6,143.58 $6,438.01 $6,757.94 $7,101.06 $7,446.49 BIWEEKLY $2,835.50 $2,971.39 $3,119.05 $3,277.41 $3,436.84 HRLY.RATE $35.44 $37.14 $38.99 $40.97 $42.96 NOTES All positions are 40-hour week, unless otherwise noted Effective 6/26/2017 6/26/2017 3% salary increase for all AFSCME bargaining unit positions, per applicable MOUs Amended 7/10/17 FY2017-18 budget classification and compensation revisions Amended 8/21/17 classification and compensation revisions Amended 9/18/17 classification and compensation revisions Amended 12/25/17 3% salary increase Department Head and Unrepresented Unit, Teamsters, AFSCME BAMM, 2% salary increase POA, Police Sergeants, Police Sergaeants, Police Administrators Units, per applicable MOUs 3% salary increase City Manager, per employment agreement Amended 6/25/2018 3% salary increase for AFSCME Admin and Maint bargaining unit, per applicable MOUs 3% salary increase City Attorney, per employment agreement Amended 9/17/18 classification and compensation revisions Amended 12/24/187 3% salary increase Department Head and Unrepresented Unit, AFSCME BAMM, 5% salary increase POA, Police Sergeants, Police Sergeants, Police Administrators Units, per applicable MOUs 4% salary increase City Manager, per employment agreement Amended 1/21/19 4.5% salary increase Teamsters Unit, effective 12/24/2018 Class Title Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E C100 ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT $32.50 $34.08 $35.76 $37.45 $39.26 C500 ASSISTANT TO CITY MANAGER $51.85 $54.43 $57.16 $60.02 $63.02 C112 ASST. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS $73.11 $76.79 $80.49 $84.61 $88.85 C601 AUTOMOTIVE TECHNICIAN $25.17 $26.42 $27.74 $19.13 $30.58 C705 BUILDING ATTENDANT $18.21 $19.10 $20.12 $21.10 $22.11 C102 BUILDING MAINTENANCE WORKER $27.81 $29.26 $30.50 $32.09 $33.67 C106 CUSTODIAN $22.37 $23.41 $24.55 $25.83 $27.18 C613 ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN II $32.02 $33.66 $35.36 $37.11 $38.93 C602 FACILITIES PROJECT MANAGER $48.32 C805 HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR $76.83 $80.91 $84.97 $89.23 $93.61 C600 INTERN I $15.34 $16.10 $16.91 $17.76 $18.66 C608 INTERN II $26.52 $31.83 $37.13 $42.44 $47.74 C606 LABORER $25.83 $27.02 $28.51 $29.85 $31.29 C807 LIBRARIAN I $28.92 $30.32 $31.73 $33.36 $34.94 C806 LIBRARIAN II $31.85 $33.44 $35.05 $36.80 $38.68 C801 LIBRARY AIDE I $14.57 $15.17 $15.83 $16.55 $17.25 C808 LIBRARY AIDE II $16.03 $16.73 $17.46 $18.23 $19.04 C804 LIBRARY ASSISTANT I $22.16 $23.32 $24.46 $25.58 $26.94 C803 LIBRARY ASSISTANT II $24.72 $25.84 $27.22 $28.42 $29.83 C611 MANAGEMENT ANALYST $43.50 $45.50 $47.81 $50.16 $52.67 C107 OFFICE ASSISTANT I $21.70 $22.82 $23.93 $25.09 $26.44 C702 PARK AND RECREATION FIELD MONITOR $22.73 $23.86 $25.06 $26.31 $27.63 C211 PARKING ENFORCEMENT OFFICER $27.29 $28.59 $30.00 $31.50 $33.09 C201 PARKING ENFORCEMENT TECHNICIAN $24.29 $25.43 $26.68 $28.01 $29.44 C409 PARKS AND TREE WORKER $27.67 $29.22 $30.57 $32.07 $33.66 C809 PASSPORT APPLICATION ACCEPTANCE AGENT $22.16 $23.32 $24.46 $25.58 $26.94 C900 PER DIEM COMM DISPATCHER $18.17 $22.04 $36.33 $42.41 C199 POLICE SERVICE AIDE $13.73 $14.37 $15.07 $15.78 $16.43 C712 PRESCHOOL MUSIC SPECIALIST $63.65 C711 PRE-SCHOOL SITE COORDINATOR $21.10 $22.16 $23.27 $24.43 $25.65 C714 PRE-SCHOOL TEACHER $19.73 $20.72 $21.76 $22.85 $23.99 C612 PROGRAM MANAGER $48.87 $51.31 $53.86 $56.56 $59.42 C713 PROGRAM OUTREACH SPECIALIST $27.32 $28.68 $30.12 $31.62 $33.21 C700 RECREATION LEADER I $12.00 $12.60 $13.23 C701 RECREATION LEADER II $13.89 $14.58 $15.31 C710 RECREATION SPECIALIST $17.47 $18.34 $19.26 $20.22 $21.23 City of Burlingame Salary Schedule - Casual Positions (Non-PERS) Amended 1/21/19 C703 SENIOR RECREATION LEADER $16.08 $16.88 $17.73 C614 SIDEWALK PROGRAM COORDINATOR $33.36 $35.03 $36.78 $38.62 $40.55 C641 SUMMER CREW $12.00 $12.60 $13.23 $13.89 $14.58 C642 SUMMER CREW LEADER $15.30 $16.06 $16.86 $17.70 $18.58 NOTES All positions are hourly Effective 1/1/16 Amended 8/21/17 Amended 12/25/17 3% salary increase per approved salary and benefit memo for casual employees Amended 12/10/18 adding Library Aide II (Flexibly staffed with Library Aide I) Amended 12/24/18 min wage impacts, 3% COLA incr per approved salary and benefit memo for casual ees (except Comm Dispatchers) Amended 1/21/19 4.5% salary increase for Per Diem Communications Dispatcher Class Title Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E CP50 ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY $38.24 $81.95 CP25 ASSISTANT TO CITY MANAGER $51.85 $54.44 $57.16 $60.02 $63.04 CP61 AUTOMOTIVE TECHNICIAN $25.17 $26.42 $27.74 $29.13 $30.58 CP30 INTERN II $26.52 $31.83 $37.13 $42.44 $47.74 CP60 LABORER $25.83 $27.02 $28.51 $29.84 $31.29 CP86 LIBRARIAN II $31.85 $33.44 $35.05 $36.80 $38.68 CP80 LIBRARY AIDE I $14.57 $15.17 $15.83 $16.55 $17.25 CP81 LIBRARY AIDE II $16.03 $16.73 $17.46 $18.23 $19.04 CP10 LIBRARY ASSISTANT I $22.16 $23.31 $24.47 $25.58 $26.94 CP11 LIBRARY ASSISTANT II $24.72 $25.84 $27.22 $28.43 $29.83 CP21 PARKING ENFORCEMENT OFFICER $27.29 $28.59 $30.00 $31.50 $33.09 CP40 PARKS AND TREE WORKER $27.52 $28.89 $30.34 $31.85 $33.45 CP15 PER DIEM COMM DISPATCHER $19.44 $23.58 $38.88 $45.37 CP71 RECREATION SPECIALIST $17.47 $18.34 $19.26 $20.22 $21.23 CP05 SENIOR PLANNER $48.42 $50.85 $53.37 $56.03 $58.86 CP20 SUSTAINABILITY COORDINATOR $45.77 $48.07 $50.47 $52.99 $55.64 NOTES All positions are hourly Effective 7/10/2017 Amended 9/18/17 Amended 12/25/17 3% salary incr per approved salary and benefit memo for part-time casual ees Amended 6/18/18 adding Intern II, and Library Assistant II Amended 9/17/18 adding Librarian II Amended 9/17/18 adding Parking Enforcement Officer Amended 12/10/2018 adding Automotive Technician and Library Aide II (Flexibly staffed with Library Aide I) Amended 12/24/18 min wage impacts, 3% COLA incr per approved salary and benefit memo for casual ees (except Comm Dispatchers) Amended 1/21/19 4.5% salary increase for Per Diem Communications Dispatcher City of Burlingame Salary Schedule - Casual Positions Amended 1/21/19 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 8d MEETING DATE: January 22, 2019 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: January 22, 2019 From: Kathleen Kane – (650) 558-7204 Subject: Adoption of an Ordinance Deleting Section 9.08.040 of the Burlingame Municipal Code Regarding Bees RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council consider adoption of an ordinance deleting Section 9.08.040 of the Burlingame Municipal Code to eliminate restrictions on beekeeping in the city. In order to do so, the Council should: A. By motion, adopt the proposed ordinance. B. Direct the City Clerk to publish a summary of the ordinance within 15 days of adoption. BACKGROUND Burlingame’s current restriction on back yard beekeeping dates from 1941. Under the existing ordinance, it is unlawful to keep more than one hive of bees upon any single lot, within 200 feet of a dwelling house. This provision was passed with a suite of other ordinances designed to regulate animals and to make sure that Burlingame did not acquire an agricultural character in its development. At the time of its passage, there was no known threat to pollinators. In the decades since, it has become clear that Burlingame has not developed in an agricultural pattern. Additionally, there is a newly recognized threat to pollinator populations in North America.1 Moreover, information on backyard beekeeping has become much more widely available, including the promulgation of best practices instruction for amateurs through such groups as the Beekeepers’ Guild of San Mateo County.2 In light of these changed circumstances, a citizens’ group approached Council with a request to remove the one-hive limitation in the existing ordinance and to offer support to local backyard beekeepers in maintaining best practices. Council agreed and directed staff to return with appropriate revisions. Council introduced the ordinance and held a public hearing at its December 17, 2018 meeting, and thereafter directed staff to bring it back for adoption. 1 See, e.g., Goulson, Dave, Nicholls, Elizabeth, et al., “Bee declines driven by combined stress from parasites, pesticides, and lack of flowers,” Science 27 March 2015: Vol 347, Issue 6229. 2 Best practices information includes guidance on hive placement. Honey bees ascend quickly to their flight height which is higher than any human is tall within a few feet of their hive entrance, making the 200 foot setback in the prior ordinance unsupported if the objective is to prevent bees interacting with people nearby. Ordinance Deleting Beekeeping Restrictions January 22, 2019 2 DISCUSSION In reviewing possible revisions to the Code, it became clear that the most supportable option was to remove the existing one-hive limitation. That limitation is not supported by modern science regarding bee behavior. Substituting subjective standards whereby a violation of the ordinance hinges on the personal feelings of annoyance by another is neither enforceable – given the lack of a clear rule – nor constitutionally sound. The Beekeepers’ Guild of San Mateo County has offered its assistance in providing education, consultation, and informal dispute resolution assistance for backyard beekeepers in Burlingame. Beekeeping-related complaints are rare. Staff anticipates continuing with a robust advice and consultation program with the Guild in support of the new ordinance, if it passes. Where necessary, referrals to the Peninsula Conflict Resolution Center for mediation services can also be used. Aggrieved neighbors can still make use of either private nuisance causes of action, if applicable, or violations of any other portion of the Code (such as noise, attraction of vermin, etc.) that may apply to egregious behavior. The proposed ordinance would align the Code with existing understanding of bee behavior and remove barriers to addressing on a micro level the wider crisis in pollinator populations. The proposed ordinance does not require review under the California Environmental Quality Act because the actual number of additional hives in Burlingame is not anticipated to be significant as a result of this proposed change. FISCAL IMPACT There is no impact on the City’s General Fund. Exhibit: • Ordinance ORDINANCE NO. ____ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME DELETING SECTION 9.08.040 OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE WHEREAS, Section 9.08.040 of the Burlingame Municipal Code was originally enacted in 1941 as part of a suite of ordinances designed to regulate animals in the City and intended to prevent Burlingame from developing and agricultural character; and WHEREAS, at the time of the adoption of this original regulation, there was no recognized threat to pollinators in the region; and WHEREAS, in the subsequent decades since 1941, Burlingame has not developed an agricultural character; and WHEREAS, a recognized crisis exists regarding the rapidly declining numbers of pollinators for wild and cultivated plants alike; and WHEREAS, the keeping of backyard honey bees can help protect the availability of pollinators; and WHEREAS, honey bees are non-aggressive, disperse and travel widely from their home hives, and do not threaten the health or well-being of people other than those with identified bee allergies, who must take appropriate precautions when outside regardless of the location of naturally occurring or tended hives; and WHEREAS, the City has coordinated with a beekeeper mentorship and education program in order to provide support and technical assistance in cases where neighbors express concerns relating to nearby hives. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: DIVISION 1: Section 1: Burlingame Municipal Code Section 9.08.040 Bees is hereby deleted. 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. _________________________________ Donna Colson, 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 17th day of December, 2018, and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the ______ day of ___________ 2019, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers: NOES: Councilmembers: ABSENT: Councilmembers: __________________________________ Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 9a MEETING DATE: January 22, 2019 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: January 22, 2019 From: Kevin Gardiner, Community Development Director – (650) 558-7253 Ruben Hurin, Planning Manager – (650) 558-7256 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 (Continued from September 4, 2018 City Council Meeting) 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. 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 Appeal – 1800 Hillside Drive January 22, 2019 2 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. 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 (Burlingame Municipal Code Section 25.77.050 (c)). Background: For a full description and analysis of the project and background information regarding the wireless communications ordinance, please refer to the attached September 4, 2018 City Council staff report and June 11, 2018 Planning Commission staff report and attachments, as well as the supplemental letter and exhibits submitted by the applicant. September 4, 2018 City Council Meeting: At its regular meeting of September 4, 2018, the City Council voted to continue the public hearing for three months to allow AT&T to work with staff prior to bringing the application back to the Council for a decision (see attached September 4, 2018 City Council Minutes). This application was originally scheduled to be reviewed by the City Council at a public hearing on December 3, 2018, but it was continued to January 22, 2019 at the request of the applicant. In its motion, the Council requested that the City assemble a subcommittee including community members to discuss the application and that the City hire a third party expert to provide an opinion on the information included in the application. The City retained Columbia Telecommunications Corporation (CTC), an independent telecommunications consulting firm, to review the technical aspects and information associated with this application. CTC is represented by Mr. Lee Afflerbach, Principal Engineer/Project Manager. CTC performed a technical review and analysis of the application with respect to AT&T’s communications engineering materials, its justification for the site, and the overall functionality of this site in relation to other existing and proposed AT&T transmission facilities. The attached report, Review of 2 AT&T Small Cell Wireless Applications, date stamped January 15, 2019, describes the information received and documents its analysis and conclusions related to the application. From a technical standpoint, CTC recommends this location based on findings listed on page 2 of the report. City staff, Mr. Afflerbach, and several community members met to discuss AT&T’s application on November 28, 2018. Mr. Afflerbach discussed and answered questions regarding the field surveys he conducted. Changes to Proposed Project Since September 4, 2018 City Council Meeting: Since the City Council meeting on September 4, 2018, several changes were made to the design of the proposed wireless facility. Please refer to the revised plans and visual simulations, dated November 27, 2018, for additional information. The following changes were made to the project: Appeal – 1800 Hillside Drive January 22, 2019 3 • Size of each radio remote unit (there are two radio remote units) was reduced from 2.2 square feet (12.1 inches wide x 26.7 inches tall) to 1.4 square feet (13.19 inches wide x 14.96 inches tall). There were no changes to the size of all other equipment, including the smart pole meter, electric load center, and twin duplexer. • Shields have been added to conceal the equipment. • Spacing between equipment on the pole has been reduced; the overall length of the combined equipment on the utility pole has been reduced from 11’-0” to 9’-4”. AT&T investigated potential alternative sites for the proposed wireless facility, including Our Lady of Angels Parish and School located approximately 200 feet northeast of the proposed subject site. The attached Alternative Sites Analysis, date stamped January 15, 2019, notes the following: “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 showed 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 and metal gratings for ventilation. For the WCF to function effectively, a portion of the steeple would have to be replaced with fiberglass reinforced plastic (FRP) to allow the signal to penetrate the walls. AT&T led a site walk at Our Lady of Angels on 11/19 to determine the steeple viability for the macro site. AT&T Radio Frequency engineer, Phil Dale, determined that the church steeple could fit two small cells but not a macro antenna site. AT&T proposed a lease package to Our Lady of Angels on 12/13 consistent with small cell antenna pricing. Our Lady of Angels subsequently denied the lease offer on 12/14. Therefore, this alternative is not viable.” Please refer to the Alternative Sites Analysis for other locations considered in the area and an explanation of why co-location opportunities were not feasible. 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. Appeal – 1800 Hillside Drive January 22, 2019 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 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 explain its 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 the September 4, 2018 staff report for the City Council’s review and consideration. Factors to Consider on the Appeal: As noted above, federal law prohibits municipalities 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 – 1800 Hillside Drive January 22, 2019 5 Exhibits: • September 4, 2018 City Council Minutes • Review of AT&T Small Cell Wireless Applications, Prepared by CTC Technology & Energy, dated January 2019 • Response Letter Submitted by the Applicant, date stamped January 15, 2019 • Alternative Sites Analysis, dated stamped January 15, 2019 • September 4, 2018 City Council Staff Report • 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 • June 11, 2018 PC Staff Report (including all attachments) • Correspondence Received After Preparation of the June 11, 2018 Planning Commission Staff Report • Revised Visual Simulations • Previously Proposed and Revised Plans 1 ` STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 9a MEETING DATE: January 22, 2019 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: January 22, 2019 From: Kevin Gardiner, Community Development Director – (650) 558-7253 Ruben Hurin, Planning Manager – (650) 558-7256 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) and Consideration of an Alternative Site Located Within the Right-of-Way Across the Street from 704 Winchester Drive (Existing Utility Pole is Located Along Oak Grove Avenue) (Continued from September 4, 2018 City Council Meeting) 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. Project Description: The applicant is proposing 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 project consists of 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. The proposed antenna, equipment, and cabling are proposed to be painted to match the utility pole. Appeal – 701 Winchester Drive January 22, 2019 2 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. 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 (Burlingame Municipal Code Section 25.77.050 (c)). Background: For a full description and analysis of the project and background information regarding the wireless communications ordinance, please refer to the attached September 4, 2018 City Council staff report and June 11, 2018 Planning Commission staff report and attachments, as well as the supplemental letter, and exhibits submitted by the applicant. September 4, 2018 City Council Meeting: At its regular meeting of September 4, 2018, the City Council voted to continue the public hearing for three months to allow AT&T to work with staff prior to bringing the application back to the Council for a decision (see attached September 4, 2018 City Council Minutes). This application was originally scheduled to be reviewed by the City Council at a public hearing on December 3, 2018, but it was continued to January 22, 2019 at the request of the applicant. In its motion, the Council requested that the City assemble a subcommittee including community members to discuss the application and that the City hire a third party expert to provide an opinion on the information included in the application. The City retained Columbia Telecommunications Corporation (CTC), an independent telecommunications consulting firm, to review the technical aspects and information associated with this application. CTC is represented by Mr. Lee Afflerbach, Principal Engineer/Project Manager. CTC performed a technical review and analysis of the application with respect to AT&T’s communications engineering materials, its justification for the site, and the overall functionality of this site in relation to other existing and proposed AT&T transmission facilities. The attached report, Review of 2 AT&T Small Cell Wireless Applications, date stamped January 15, 2019, describes the information received and documents its analysis and conclusions related to the application. From a technical standpoint, CTC recommends this location based on findings listed on page 2 of the report. City staff, Mr. Afflerbach, and several community members met to discuss AT&T’s application on November 28, 2018. Mr. Afflerbach discussed and answered questions regarding the field surveys he conducted. Changes to Proposed Project Since September 4, 2018 City Council Meeting: Since the City Council meeting on September 4, 2018, several changes were made to the design of the proposed Appeal – 701 Winchester Drive January 22, 2019 3 wireless facility. Please refer to the revised plans and visual simulations, dated November 27, 2018, for additional information. The following changes were made to the project: • Size of each radio remote unit (there are two radio remote units) was reduced from 2.2 square feet (12.1 inches wide x 26.7 inches tall) to 1.4 square feet (13.19 inches wide x 14.96 inches tall). There were no changes to the size of all other equipment, including the smart pole meter, electric load center, and twin duplexer. • Shields have been added to conceal the equipment. • Spacing between equipment on the pole has been reduced; the overall length of the combined equipment on the utility pole has been reduced from 11’-0” to 9’-4”. Alternative Location Proposed by AT&T: AT&T investigated potential alternative sites for the proposed wireless facility (see Alternative Sites Analysis, date stamped January 15, 2019 attached). AT&T was able to identify an alternative feasible location that is not located immediately adjacent to a residential dwelling. AT&T is requesting that in its review the City Council consider a proposed alternative location for the proposed wireless facility. The alternative site is located within the right-of-way across the street from 704 Winchester Drive (AT&T pole nearest to Francisco Drive and adjacent to the Burlingame High School tennis courts). The proposed location is surrounded by single family and duplex residential uses to the north and east, and Burlingame High School athletic facilities to the south. The proposal for the alternative location would include replacing an existing utility pole owned by AT&T with a new utility pole in its place, and installing a cylindrical antenna and extension on top of the pole and associated equipment and cabling mounted on the side of the utility pole (see attached plans and visual simulations date stamped January 15, 2019). The proposed antenna, equipment, and cabling are proposed to be painted to match the utility pole. Because PG&E will not allow its meter to be installed on a pole owned by AT&T, a new above ground meter would be installed in the right-of-way adjacent to 704 Winchester Drive (within the right-of-way at the corner of Winchester Drive and Francisco Drive). The above ground meter would be housed in a cabinet measuring 4’-2” in height. Please refer to the proposed plans and visual simulations for more information. 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. Appeal – 701 Winchester Drive January 22, 2019 4 (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. (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 its 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 the September 4, 2018 staff report for the City Council’s review and consideration. Factors to Consider on the Appeal: As noted above, federal law prohibits municipalities 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)). Appeal – 701 Winchester Drive January 22, 2019 5 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: • September 4, 2018 City Council Minutes • Review of AT&T Small Cell Wireless Applications, Prepared by CTC Technology & Energy, dated January 2019 • Response Letter Submitted by the Applicant, date stamped January 15, 2019 • Alternative Sites Analysis, date stamped January 15, 2019 • September 4, 2018 City Council Staff Report • 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 • June 11, 2018 PC Staff Report (including all attachments) • Correspondence Received After Preparation of the June 11, 2018 Planning Commission Staff Report • Revised Visual Simulations • Previously Proposed and Revised Plans Burlingame City Council September 4, 2018 Approved Minutes 5 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. 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) Mayor Brownrigg asked his colleagues to begin by disclosing any ex-parte communications they had on the topic. Councilmember Ortiz and Councilmember Keighran stated that they visited both sites. Vice Mayor Colson stated that she visited both sites and talked with several residents and interested parties. Councilmember Beach stated that she visited both sites and spoke with Kerbey Altmann. Mayor Brownrigg stated that he visited both sites and spoke with a few citizens. Planning Manager Ruben Hurin stated that the City’s Wireless Communications Ordinance was adopted in February 2012. He stated that the purpose of the 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. Planning Manager Hurin noted that federal law prohibits cities from considering radio frequency emissions as a basis for denying or regulating wireless facilities, if as in the case here, the applicant has demonstrated that the proposed facility complies with the SEC’s RF emissions regulations. Planning Manager Hurin explained that AT&T is proposing to install new wireless facilities on existing wood utility poles. He stated that the utility poles are located adjacent to 1800 Hillside Drive and 701 Winchester Drive. He noted that there are existing street trees on either side of the utility poles at both locations that would not need to be removed. Planning Manager Hurin stated that the project consists of installing a cylindrical antenna on top of the utility pole and associated equipment on the side of the utility pole. The equipment will be painted to match the utility pole. Planning Manager Hurin stated that at the Planning Commission’s June 11, 2018 meeting, the Commission denied without prejudice AT&T’s request for a conditional use permit to install the wireless facilities at both locations. He noted that the Commission expressed concern with the aesthetics of the facilities. He stated that since the Planning Commission meeting, AT&T has made a few changes in response to the feedback they received. He explained that AT&T worked with PG&E to install Smart Pole Meters. Additionally, Burlingame City Council September 4, 2018 Approved Minutes 6 while AT&T’s original proposal consisted of the electric load center box and fiber distribution panel being attached side-by-side on the pole, the revised proposal has the equipment streamlined on the pole. Vice Mayor Colson stated that a preponderance of the correspondence that the Council received from the citizens concerned the RF emissions. She asked if she was correct that the devices that AT&T was proposing to install complied with both State and Federal RF emissions regulations. Planning Manager Hurin replied in the affirmative. Vice Mayor Colson asked that since the proposed equipment complies with RF emission regulations, the City couldn’t deny AT&T’s application on that basis. Planning Manager Hurin replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Beach stated that she received feedback from the community that the public wanted to see the City create a master plan that would outline the procedures, design, and location for the installation of these wireless facilities. She asked how long this would take to develop and if the City could pause future applications until the master plan is completed. CDD Gardiner stated that staff could look at developing a master plan and that staff is considering revising the ordinance. Councilmember Keighran agreed with Councilmember Beach that the City should create a master plan concerning wireless facilities. She asked if the City could handle these applications in the same fashion that they do Environmental Impact Reports, where a neutral third party with expertise is asked to look at the impacts. Councilmember Ortiz asked how much leeway the City has to determine where the proper sites are for these wireless facilities or do the carriers have 100% control over choosing the location for their wireless facilities. Special Counsel Gail Karish stated that as a general matter, cities have police power to regulate zoning. However, in telecommunications there has been an extraordinary amount of preemption of that authority both at the Federal and State level. She added that at the State level, telephone companies have a statutory right to use public rights of way to place their facilities, and through case law this has been extended to include wireless facilities and wireless providers. Councilmember Ortiz asked if staff reviewed AT&T’s alternative locations and agreed with their assertion that these locations were not feasible. Planning Manager Hurin replied in the negative. AT&T’s Regional Vice President of External Affairs Tedi Vrheas stated that in March 2018, AT&T participated in a small cell study session with the City Council. She explained that the purpose of the study session was to introduce small cell technology and explain what it is, how it works, what it looks like, and why the technology is being deployed across the United States. Ms. Vrheas explained that small cells are flexible network solutions that can be readily deployed to specific locations where customers are prone to experience connectivity problems, need more network capacity, and areas that cannot effectively be served by a traditional macro cell. She stated that AT&T’s small cell design is intended to maximize facility concealment. She explained that a small cell consists of a set of small boxes that are no wider than the pole’s diameter and a pole top antenna that are all painted to match the pole. Additionally, she stated that there can only be one small cell per pole. Burlingame City Council September 4, 2018 Approved Minutes 7 Ms. Vrheas stated that AT&T’s existing macro cells that serve Burlingame around the two locations are under duress due to increased traffic on the network. The resulting capacity restraints reduce mobile data speeds to the point that AT&T cannot meet its service objective. The small cells will help to offload the network traffic from those macro cells, which will improve signal quality and data speeds. Ms. Vrheas discussed the community’s concern about having the small cells by their homes. She explained that AT&T evaluated many locations in order to ensure that they were proposing the best available and least intrusive means to address the coverage gap. She stated that the proposed locations are chosen based on: AT&T’s ability to gain attachment rights; feasibility in terms of constructability; and viability from a radio frequency perspective. She noted that AT&T also considered the location preferences and design standards articulated in the City’s Wireless Communication Ordinance. She explained that the proposed facilities are located within the residential zoning districts, which are a third level preference. The primary preference in the code is for sites farther away from residential districts, which is not feasible because AT&T needs to place small cell facilities near the macro that is under duress. She noted that they investigated other sites but didn’t find any viable options. Ms. Vrheas stated that at the June 11, 2018 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission asked AT&T to go back and consider other sites. She noted that AT&T reviewed alternative sites and reached out to Our Lady of Angels as an alternative site for1800 Hillside Drive. She explained that OLA would only allow AT&T to attach the small cell on their property if it wouldn’t affect the architectural character of its structure. Therefore this wouldn’t work. Ms. Vrheas stated that the Planning Commission also asked if they could place the small cells on street signs. She explained that due to the weight of the boxes and the height of the street signs, this wouldn’t work. Ms. Vrheas stated that after AT&T completed its review of potential sites, it was determined that 1800 Hillside Drive and 701 Winchester Drive were the least intrusive sites. Councilmember Keighran asked that in the future, applicants bring in samples of the small cell for the Council and public to see. Councilmember Keighran asked if AT&T’s definition of coverage gap relates to both capacity and speed. Ms. Vrheas stated that it is mostly capacity. Councilmember Keighran asked if AT&T has set criteria that they look at when they pick locations. Ms. Vrheas replied in the affirmative and stated that it is defined in the radio frequency statement in the staff report. Councilmember Keighran asked if she was correct that the small cell only has a radius of five hundred feet. Ms. Vrheas replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Keighran asked why AT&T didn’t set up more macro cells, which have a great capacity. She stated that she would rather see macro cells placed on the Bayfront, outside the residential district, instead of numerous small cell sites in residential neighborhoods. Ms. Vrheas stated that macro cells cover between 4 to 8 blocks. Therefore, if the residential area is in need of capacity, AT&T has to put something Burlingame City Council September 4, 2018 Approved Minutes 8 in that area to address capacity. She explained that previously, AT&T had focused their efforts on business districts, but with changing technology, individuals are currently using more wireless data at home to play video games, watch movies, and communicate. Accordingly, AT&T needs to place small cell sites in neighborhoods. Councilmember Keighran asked about boosters that people put in their homes and if this would solve the problem. Ms. Vrheas stated that AT&T’s capacity needs are far greater than what a booster could provide. Councilmember Beach stated that at the study session in March 2018, the antennas looked smaller. Ms. Vrheas stated that she believed it was the photo angle. She added that AT&T also places small cells on street lights where they run the conduit thru the inside of the poles and it looks a little sleeker. However, AT&T currently does not have a contract with the City to use the City’s street lights. Councilmember Beach stated that in some pictures from other communities, the small cells seem to be two small boxes as opposed to AT&T’s current proposal. Ms. Vrheas explained that the more streamlined approach of two boxes is on a street light. Mayor Brownrigg asked if the City had been asked about using its light poles or if there was a reason this wasn’t an option. DPW Murtuza stated that the City has 1900 street lights of which half are located on PG&E poles. He noted that there are City owned street lights, but they aren’t in residential neighborhoods. Councilmember Beach asked if what AT&T was proposing is the smallest possible technology as far as the boxes on the utility pole go. Ms. Vrheas replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Beach asked if there is any way to streamline these boxes. Ms. Vrheas stated that if they put a cover over all the boxes it would add to the bulk of the pole, which people seem to notice more. Councilmember Beach asked if there is any way to underground the boxes. Ms. Vrheas replied in the negative. Vice Mayor Colson asked how many more applications AT&T would be submitting to the City in the next two years. Ms. Vrheas replied that AT&T has seven applications for wood poles. She noted that if they come to agreement with the City to use the steel poles, they would have seven applications for that. Mayor Brownrigg discussed the fact that AT&T is not the only wireless provider and that the City would be receiving more and more applications from the different providers to install small cells. He stated that this should drive both AT&T and the City to have more of a reliance on macro cells. Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up for public comment. Burlingame resident Nene Argeris spoke against installing these small cell sites because of health concerns. Burlingame resident Brian Chen stated that he believed AT&T should reapply to the Planning Commission because of the Commissioners’ expertise. Burlingame City Council September 4, 2018 Approved Minutes 9 Burlingame resident Patricia Fraiser talked about how the small cells could diminish surrounding homes’ property value and create an eye sore in the community. Burlingame resident Clydie Rizzo asked that the Council deny the application as the small cells would be viewed from all windows in her home. Burlingame residents David and Raven Sarnoff stated that one of the future sites will be located near their home. They voiced their concern about the number of small cell sites that could pop up in Burlingame and asked that the Council deny the applications. Burlingame residents Doug Luftman and Steve Lamont worked on the City’s Wireless Communication Ordinance. They voiced concern that AT&T wasn’t following the preference order in the ordinance and asked the Council to deny AT&T’s application on this basis. Burlingame resident Mark Haberecht stated that he believed AT&T’s application wasn’t in compliance with the ordinance and asked that the Council reject the application. Burlingame resident Chris Kelly stated that he supported hiring a third party to review applications and asked that Council deny this application. Burlingame resident Tatyana Shmygol asked about the safety of the poles and if the boxes would fall off during an earthquake. Burlingame resident Leslie McQuaid stated that she knew there were better looking small cells in other towns and wanted to see AT&T put in a more aesthetically appealing cell. Burlingame residents Tia Razon and Tom Payne asked the Council to deny AT&T’s application. Burlingame resident Horacio Pleno voiced concern about the number of small cells that could be coming into the City. He asked that the City do a better job of informing the public about these small cell applications. Burlingame resident Jennifer Pfaff asked that the old boxes, vaults, and wires be removed when no longer needed. Burlingame resident Kerbey Altmann asked AT&T to utilize other technology to increase the capacity and voiced concern about AT&T making updates to the small cells if the application was approved. Mayor Brownrigg closed public comment Councilmember Ortiz asked Ms. Vrheas to comment on the coverage of the macro cells. Ms. Vrheas stated that it varies depending on how many people are on the network and the geography. However, she explained that on average it covers four to six blocks. Ms. Vrheas stated that what she has heard from the community tonight is that AT&T didn’t apply the ordinance in the way AT&T should have. She explained that AT&T believes with the assistance of outside Burlingame City Council September 4, 2018 Approved Minutes 10 counsel that they have. However, she stated that if the Council feels that AT&T hasn’t followed the ordinance correctly, they are happy to take three months and work with the City Attorney to make sure they have done it to the satisfaction of the City. She stated that AT&T is also willing to work with the City to review alternate sites. Mayor Brownrigg thanked AT&T for the offer. He asked that during the next three months AT&T also explore whether they can put another macro cell on the perimeter of the neighborhood. Councilmember Keighran stated that she appreciated AT&T’s offer to extend the decision for three months while they work with staff. She asked if it was possible to bring in a third party during this period to look at the options. Ms. Vrheas replied in the affirmative. Vice Mayor Colson thanked the community for coming out and sharing their opinions on the topic. She explained that this conversation wasn’t going away and she didn’t want to kick the can down the road. She stated that she wanted to see the City work for the next three months with AT&T and the community to come up with a solution. Councilmember Beach thanked AT&T for their offer to extend. She asked if the small cell sites emit any flashing light or noise. Ms. Vrheas replied in the negative. Councilmember Beach asked Ms. Vrheas if she had any comments on co-location. Ms. Vrheas stated that co-location isn’t an option. Councilmember Beach stated that the poles aren’t owned by the City. Acting City Attorney Sheryl Schaffner replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Beach asked if the City could mandate that they only want smart poles and ask AT&T to create something different. DPW Murtuza stated that it isn’t within the City’s rights. Councilmember Beach stated that some residents are concerned that future locations aren’t around trees and that maybe this is a way to mitigate the view of the poles. She noted that the ordinance contains language that the small cells must be camouflaged and hidden from view in the residential districts. Councilmember Keighran and Mayor Brownrigg talked about the creation of an ad hoc group to assist staff with reviewing locations over the next three months. Vice Mayor Colson stated that in the future the City should work with developers who are building multifamily dwellings on incorporating spaces for the macro cells that will be more aesthetically pleasing to the community. Councilmember Ortiz asked AT&T to provide the Council with addresses for existing small cell sites. Councilmember Ortiz made a motion to: 1) continue the hearing for three months to allow for AT&T to work with staff prior to bringing this matter back to the Council for a decision, 2) the City can assemble a Burlingame City Council September 4, 2018 Approved Minutes 11 subcommittee including community members, and 3) the City can hire a third party expert to opine on the work; seconded by Vice Mayor Colson. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. b. 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 VERAGE 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 CDD Gardiner stated that the City received a request from Wine Revelry, LLC for a finding of Public Convenience and Necessity (“PCN”) for a wine bar at 310 Lorton Avenue. He explained that the Planning Commission approved a conditional use permit for the wine bar on July 10, 2018. He noted that the request for a PCN has been reviewed by the Police Department and attached to the staff report is a memorandum from the Police Department with suggested conditions. Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke. Vice Mayor Colson made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 116-2018; seconded by Councilmember Ortiz. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. c. INTRODUCTION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 25.58 OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADD REGULATIONS REGARDING MARIJUANA Mayor Brownrigg opened this item up by stating that there are time limits that require the City to act expeditiously to have a marijuana ordinance in place. He added that if colleagues have questions and concerns about the ordinance as written, it can be brought back for review. Assistant City Attorney Mazarin Vakharia stated that currently the City’s zoning code doesn’t explicitly address marijuana-related establishments. She explained that previously the City adopted interim ordinances, and there is currently an imminent deadline to adopt regulations. Assistant City Attorney Vakharia stated that the proposed ordinance doesn’t allow any commercial activity related to marijuana. She explained that the proposed ordinance allows up to six plants in an enclosed residence. Councilmember Keighran asked if there is a timeframe after the State adopts regulations for cities to adopt their own regulations. Assistant City Attorney Vakharia stated that whatever the City puts on the books now, stays in place after the State’s regulations are adopted. City Manager Goldman stated that if the City doesn’t have regulations in place at the time that the State’s regulations are adopted, then the State’s regulations would cover the City. She added that the League of California Cities released a statement that they are unhappy with what the Bureau of Cannabis Regulations is coming up with related to delivery of marijuana. She stated that it is important to get something in place now prior to the State’s regulations being adopted. Review of AT&T Small Cell Wireless Applications Prepared for the City of Burlingame January 2019 Review of Small Cell Wireless Application – AT&T Burlingame, CA | January 2019 Contents 1 Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Overview of Analysis........................................................................................................................................ 1 1.2 Findings ........................................................................................................................................................... 2 2 Brief Background on Cellular Antenna Issues ................................................................................................ 3 2.1 Wireless Coverage and Target Signal Levels ................................................................................................... 3 2.2 FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Fields ...................................................................... 3 3 Overview of Current and Planned AT&T Service in the City .......................................................................... 6 3.1 AT&T’s Stated Intent for New Sites ................................................................................................................. 6 3.2 On-Site Field Tests ........................................................................................................................................... 6 4 Summary of the Small Cell Applications........................................................................................................ 8 4.1 Summary of Small Cell Application for Site 1800 Hillside Drive ....................................................................... 8 4.2 Summary of Small Cell Application for Site 701 Winchester Drive ................................................................ 12 4.3 Summary of Small Cell Application for Site 704 Winchester Drive ................................................................ 15 Review of Small Cell Wireless Application – AT&T Burlingame, CA | January 2019 Tables Table 1: AT&T Capacity by Wireless Band ..................................................................................................................... 6 Table 2: Data Transmission Test Measurements at 1800 Hillside Drive ........................................................................ 7 Table 3: Data Transmission Test Measurements at 701 Winchester Drive ................................................................... 7 Table 4: Communications Equipment Specifications - Site 1800 Hillside .................................................................... 10 Table 5: Communications Equipment Specifications - Site 701 Winchester ............................................................... 13 Table 6: Communications Equipment Specifications - Site 704 Winchester ............................................................... 17 Figures Figure 1: FCC Limits for Maximum Permissible Exposure .............................................................................................. 4 Figure 2: Most Critical Areas for Consideration of RF Exposure .................................................................................... 5 Figure 3: Drive Test Results for Burlingame .................................................................................................................. 7 Figure 4: Site 1800 Hillside Drive Existing Photo ........................................................................................................... 8 Figure 5: Site 1800 Hillside Drive Photo Simulation ...................................................................................................... 9 Figure 6: Site 1800 Hillside Drive Antenna Radiation Pattern ..................................................................................... 11 Figure 7: Site 701 Winchester Drive Existing Photo..................................................................................................... 12 Figure 8: Site 701 Winchester Drive Photo Simulation ................................................................................................ 13 Figure 9: Site 701 Winchester Drive Antenna Radiation Pattern ................................................................................ 14 Figure 10: Site 704 Winchester Drive Existing Photo................................................................................................... 15 Figure 11: Site 704 Winchester Drive Photo Simulation (Source: AT&T) .................................................................... 16 Review of Small Cell Wireless Application – City of Burlingame, CA | January 2019 1 1 Executive Summary The City received two applications (including one alternative site location) from AT&T to mount wireless access facilities on existing utility poles. The small cell wireless facility siting applications are designed to serve targeted coverage gaps where there is currently either low RF signal level or inadequate network throughput capacity. A small cell typically provides network coverage within 1,000 to 1,500 feet from the site. Columbia Telecommunications Corporation (CTC) is an independent telecommunications consulting firm that has been retained by the City to perform a technical review of the applications. CTC has performed a technical review and analysis of the applications with respect to AT&T’s communications engineering materials, its justification for the sites, and the overall functionality of this site in relation to other existing and proposed AT&T transmission facilities. This report describes the information that we received and documents our analysis and conclusions related to the applications. Our analysis does not include a review or evaluation of the appropriateness of the proposed facilities or sites. Rather, our analysis is confined to the technical aspects of the applications and includes: 1. A review of the technical equipment that is being proposed by the applications and the suitability of such equipment to meet the purposes set forth by the applications 2. A review of the RF emissions studies submitted by the applicant to confirm that the proposal would not exceed the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) RF emissions guidelines 3. An evaluation of the coverage and network maps submitted by the applicant to determine whether such existing and potential coverage can be confirmed 4. An evaluation of technically feasible alternative locations and equipment design configurations that would meet the purposes set forth by the applications Accordingly, our recommendation is based on an evaluation of the technical characteristics of the proposal being made and does not intend to address the traffic, public safety, or various other potential impacts of the proposal upon the surrounding area, the public, or the City as a whole. 1.1 Overview of Analysis This report documents CTC’s findings relative to AT&T’s proposed sites. In November 2018, CTC’s engineers performed the following tasks: Review of Small Cell Wireless Application – City of Burlingame, CA | January 2019 2 • Reviewed all application materials submitted by AT&T, including: o Coverage maps (showing the target area and vicinity) o Equipment specifications o RF level analysis o Photo simulations • Conducted a site visit to inspect the proposed locations and vicinity, and to verify the documentation provided in the applications • Conducted on-site coverage and capacity tests at and near the proposed locations • Conducted an independent review of the applications for compliance with FCC guidelines on Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields • Examined the area around the proposed sites to seek to identify suitable alternative locations • Identified potential site design changes that may enhance the aesthetics of the infrastructure in the City’s judgment 1.2 Findings We recommend these applications from a technical standpoint. In summary: • Our review of the proposed technical equipment finds that the equipment is suitable to meet the purposes set forth by the applications. • Our review of the RF emissions studies submitted by the applicant (prepared by the engineering consulting firm of Hammett & Edison) and the independent analysis of our team (under the supervision of Lee Afflerbach, P.E.) confirm that at each site, the total calculated RF emissions would not exceed the FCC’s guidelines at ground level or at the antenna’s horizontal planes. • Our on-site testing of AT&T’s current network performance at the two sites found that most of AT&T’s network delivers wireless throughout area examined, but data transfer rates vary greatly. In most cases, our measurements recorded wireless signal levels of sufficient amplitude to support the high-speed transfer of data—but user demand had a clear effect on network throughput. Review of Small Cell Wireless Application – City of Burlingame, CA | January 2019 3 2 Brief Background on Cellular Antenna Issues The following brief discussion presents a framework for understanding our analysis of AT&T’s application and our findings. 2.1 Wireless Coverage and Target Signal Levels Wireless coverage for modern 4G technology broadband services is determined by a carrier’s radio frequency (RF) signal amplitude and signal quality within a desired service area. Signals need to be at a minimum amplitude to override noise and, in many cases, interference from other wireless facilities. Signal levels also need to be maintained at a power level such that user devices are not constantly connecting and reconnecting (either because of a loss of signal or because an existing connection is overpowered by another wireless access point). Handing off a user from one access site to another is part of the mechanics of dealing with users who are in motion—particularly in an urbanized area with multiple signal paths and tower sites. Further, modern 4G technologies as employed by AT&T and other carriers operate with sophisticated encoding technology that permits higher transmission speeds in areas where signal levels are higher than those required for minimum data rate transfers. While the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has no technical standards for the services provided by commercial wireless carriers, the industry and equipment manufacturers have generally established target signal levels for various service environments. Typically referenced service environments include outdoor coverage, in-vehicle coverage, and in-building coverage. For 4G technology, target levels are specified in terms of the ratio of decibels (dB) to milliwatts (mW) of signal power, with a reference level of 0 dBm being equal to 1 milliwatt of signal power. Modern cellular equipment is extremely sensitive and can operate at signal levels as low as -120 dBm RSRP.1 2.2 FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Fields The FCC’s guidelines for evaluating human exposure to RF signals were first established in 1985. The current guidelines were adopted in August 1997 in FCC OET Bulletin 65.2 The guidelines are expressed in terms of Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) to electric and magnetic field strength and power density. The guidelines cover the frequency range of 300 kHz to 100 GHz. The guidelines cover two separate tiers of exposure: 1. Occupational/controlled exposure limits apply to situations in which persons are exposed as a consequence of their employment and in which those persons who are exposed have 1 Reference Signals Received Power, measured in dBm, indicates the power of an LTE cellular signal. 2 “Evaluating Compliance with FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields,” OET Bulletin 65, edition 97-01. https://www.fcc.gov/general/oet-bulletins-line#65 Review of Small Cell Wireless Application – City of Burlingame, CA | January 2019 4 been made fully aware of the potential for exposure and can exercise control over their exposure. 2. General population/uncontrolled exposure limits apply to situations in which the general public may be exposed or in which persons who are exposed as a consequence of their employment may not be made fully aware of the potential for exposure or cannot exercise control over their exposure. Figure 1 is a plot of MPE as a function of RF. Figure 1: FCC Limits for Maximum Permissible Exposure (mW/cm2) Figure 2 illustrates the areas where the greatest RF exposure is present—specifically, at or near the base of the antenna mounting structure and horizontally at an elevated location near the antenna. Review of Small Cell Wireless Application – City of Burlingame, CA | January 2019 5 Figure 2: Most Critical Areas for Consideration of RF Exposure Area where an occupied structure might be adjacent to the antenna Area where a pedestrian might be near the pole’s base Review of Small Cell Wireless Application – City of Burlingame, CA | January 2019 6 3 Overview of Current and Planned AT&T Service in the City AT&T currently provides commercial wireless service throughout the City with antennas mounted on buildings and towers. These traditional wireless facilities, which are designed to serve users in a 1- to 2-mile radius, are often referred to as “macro” sites. AT&T delivers service in three wireless bands (Table 1). Historically, wireless service providers used different bands for different services (voice/data/text), now all wireless services are transmitted without regard to the kind of end-user activity across all wireless bands. However, while AT&T’s existing sites cover the City, most areas of the City receive only 700 MHz service. Coverage in the higher-frequency PCS and AWS bands—which account for 75 percent or more of AT&T’s total bandwidth—are limited to areas within one-half mile or less from the macro sites. Table 1: AT&T Capacity by Wireless Band Band Licensed FCC Spectrum Service Frequency 700 MHz UHF low band 700 MHz PCS Personal Communications Service 1,900 MHz AWS Advanced Wireless Service 2,100 MHz 3.1 AT&T’s Stated Intent for New Sites AT&T’s proposed “small cell” antenna node sites are intended to enhance the performance of AT&T’s Long-Term Evolution (LTE) service. LTE is the standard behind today’s top-of-the-line 4G (fourth-generation wireless) smartphones and tablets. (We note, too, that future 5G deployment is expected to build upon ongoing upgrades of existing 4G infrastructure.) The proposed small cells, placed at targeted locations, would provide additional capacity and increased signal strength to serve users in areas that do not currently have access to AT&T PCS and AWS signal coverage. The small cells would also reduce the net load on the macro sites. 3.2 On-Site Field Tests Our signal intensity measurements confirm that AT&T’s existing network delivers a signal level that is mostly adequate to support a high level of connectivity and service (i.e., the network provides adequate coverage). This finding matches our experience in other communities in California where AT&T LTE sites that are not subjected to the demands of a large concurrent user base (i.e., user demand does not overwhelm the network’s capacity) consistently deliver reliable download speeds in the range of 30 Mbps to 40 Mbps and upload speeds ranging from 10 Mbps to 25 Mbps (i.e., performance typically achievable with the current generation of 4G LTE transmission equipment). That said, the data transmission rates we measured performed far below those at the two sites at the time of our sampling. For example (in Table 2), our measurements at 1800 Hillside Drive Review of Small Cell Wireless Application – City of Burlingame, CA | January 2019 7 were extremely poor with 1990’s-era dial-up upload speeds and very high latency times (the time it takes to connect to the server which is conducting the speed tests). At 701 Winchester Drive (Table 3), both download and upload speeds are more acceptable, along with good latency times show, although the lower download speeds still indicate a heavily loaded network with many concurrent users. Table 2: Data Transmission Test Measurements at 1800 Hillside Drive Table 3: Data Transmission Test Measurements at 701 Winchester Drive In addition to the on-site speed tests, we conducted drive test measurements of signal levels on primary roads in and near the proposed small cell deployment areas. Figure 3 is a map illustrating the signal levels recorded. During the day in which testing was conducted, we experienced no disconnects and no interruption in the connection to the 4G LTE network service. Figure 3: Drive Test Results for Burlingame Review of Small Cell Wireless Application – City of Burlingame, CA | January 2019 8 4 Summary of the Small Cell Applications Burlingame applications comprise 3 individual sites. • Site SFOK02_014 across from 1800 Hillside Drive • Site SFOK02_019 adjacent to 701 Winchester Drive • Site CRAN_RSFR_SFOK2_019 across from 704 Winchester Drive We describe each site below. 4.1 Summary of Small Cell Application for Site 1800 Hillside Drive The applicant proposes to install a wireless access facility on an existing 38′ 7″ utility pole across from 1800 Hillside Drive that will be extended 7’0” in order to comply with the safety code for clearance from power lines. The overall height of the extended pole will be 47′ 10″. Figure 4 is a photograph of the existing pole. Figure 4: Site 1800 Hillside Drive Existing Photo (Source: AT&T) Review of Small Cell Wireless Application – City of Burlingame, CA | January 2019 9 The site will be connected to the client network through a dedicated fiber optic communications link. The link will monitor and control the site and will transport the communications traffic (i.e., voice and data) to and from the network users. All equipment will be pole-mounted and fully visible. Figure 5 (below) is a photo simulation of the site as it will look with the wireless equipment installed. The canister antenna will be mounted on the top of the pole. The associated equipment to be mounted wholly on the pole includes two LTE remote radios, coaxial cabling, antenna coupling devices, fiber network interface housing, and a power disconnect switch. Figure 5: Site 1800 Hillside Drive Photo Simulation (Source: AT&T) AT&T’s application included specifications for the equipment that will be installed at the proposed site (Table 4). This equipment is consistent with small cell hardware used throughout the wireless industry. Review of Small Cell Wireless Application – City of Burlingame, CA | January 2019 10 Table 4: Communications Equipment Specifications - Site 1800 Hillside (Source: AT&T) Item PCS (1900 MHz) AWS (2100 MHz) KMW Shared Antenna Shared Antenna Horizontal Beamwidth (°) 360 360 Bearing Azimuth (°) Omni Omni Gain (dBd) 8.3 8.3 Vertical Beamwidth (°) 10.7 10.7 RAD Above Ground (feet) 46’-10” Shared Antenna Dimensions (inches) 9.45” D x 23.63” H 9.45” D x 23.63” H Coordinates 37.585211 /-122.37405 Shared Antenna Ericson RRU-4415 RRU-4415 Power (Watts) 160 160 ERP (Watts) 683 683 Dimensions (inches) 14.96″ H x 13.19″ W x 7.39″ D 14.96″ H x 13.19″ W x 7.39″ D AT&T submitted an independent engineering study of the level of RF emission exposure (both at ground level and antenna height level) for the small cell equipment to be located at 1800 Hillside. The study was prepared by the engineering consulting firm of Hammett & Edison, Inc., a firm that specializes in RF emission analysis consistent with the guidelines established by the FCC. The consultant calculated that the maximum ground-level RF exposure level due to the proposed Verizon operation will be 0.0071 mW/cm², which is 0.7 percent of the applicable public exposure limit. The consultant calculated that at antenna height level, the nearest end floor building is 30 feet away and will have an exposure level less than 1.8 percent of the MPE. As part of our assignment we performed an independent analysis of the calculated RF exposure levels at Site SFOK02-14. Figure 6 provides graphs of the RF energy emitted by the proposed antenna in the horizontal and vertical planes. Note that in the horizontal plane, the radiation pattern is essentially omni-directional with minor nodes due to the various fabrication components. In the vertical plane, the maximum radiation is focused outward, perpendicular to the utility pole. In the downward direction (toward the ground at the pole) the radiation is at least 16 dB (1/40th) below the radiation in the horizontal plane. Review of Small Cell Wireless Application – City of Burlingame, CA | January 2019 11 Figure 6: Site 1800 Hillside Drive Antenna Radiation Pattern Horizontal Radiation Pattern Vertical Radiation Pattern Based on the specifications of the proposed antenna and transmission equipment, we concur with the applicant’s findings that the maximum general-population RF exposure calculated for the site at both the base and at the antenna’s horizontal plane is within the FCC’s MPE. Review of Small Cell Wireless Application – City of Burlingame, CA | January 2019 12 4.2 Summary of Small Cell Application for Site 701 Winchester Drive The applicant proposes to install a wireless access facility on an existing 29′ 1″ utility pole adjacent to 701 Winchester Drive that will be extended 7’0” in order to comply with the safety code for clearance from power lines. The overall height of the extended pole will be 38′ 1″. Figure 7 is a photograph of the existing pole. Figure 7: Site 701 Winchester Drive Existing Photo (Source: AT&T) The site will be connected to the client network through a dedicated fiber optic communications link. The link will monitor and control the site and will transport the communications traffic (i.e., voice and data) to and from the network users. All equipment will be pole-mounted and fully visible. Figure 8 (below) is a photo simulation of the site as it will look with the wireless equipment installed. The canister antenna will be mounted on the top of the pole. The associated equipment to be mounted wholly on the pole includes two LTE remote radios, coaxial cabling, antenna coupling devices, fiber network interface housing, and a power disconnect switch. Review of Small Cell Wireless Application – City of Burlingame, CA | January 2019 13 Figure 8: Site 701 Winchester Drive Photo Simulation (Source: AT&T) AT&T’s application included specifications for the equipment that will be installed at the proposed site (Table 5). This equipment is consistent with small cell hardware used throughout the wireless industry. Table 5: Communications Equipment Specifications - Site 701 Winchester (Source: AT&T) Item PCS (1900 MHz) AWS (2100 MHz) KMW Shared Antenna Shared Antenna Horizontal Beamwidth (°) 360 360 Bearing Azimuth (°) Omni Omni Gain (dBd) 8.3 8.3 Vertical Beamwidth (°) 10.7 10.7 RAD Above Ground (feet) 37’ Shared Antenna Dimensions (inches) 9.45” D x 23.63” H 9.45” D x 23.63” H Coordinates 37.58438056/-122.3482194 Shared Antenna Ericson RRU-4415 RRU-4415 Power (Watts) 160 160 ERP (Watts) 683 683 Dimensions (inches) 14.96″ H x 13.19″ W x 7.39″ D 14.96″ H x 13.19″ W x 7.39″ D Review of Small Cell Wireless Application – City of Burlingame, CA | January 2019 14 AT&T submitted an independent engineering study of the level of RF emission exposure (both at ground level and antenna height level) for the small cell equipment to be located at Site 701 Winchester Drive. The study was prepared by the engineering consulting firm of Hammett & Edison, Inc., a firm that specializes in RF emission analysis consistent with the guidelines established by the FCC. The consultant calculated that the maximum ground-level RF exposure level due to the proposed AT&T operation will be .011 mW/cm², which is 1.1 percent of the applicable public exposure limit. The consultant calculated that at antenna height level, the nearest end floor building is 30 feet away and will have an exposure level less than 2.2 percent of the MPE. As part of our assignment we performed an independent analysis of the calculated RF exposure levels at Site 701 Winchester Drive. Figure 9 provides graphs of the RF energy emitted by the proposed antenna in the horizontal and vertical planes. Note that in the horizontal plane, the radiation pattern is essentially omni-directional with minor nodes due to the various fabrication components. In the vertical plane, the maximum radiation is focused outward, perpendicular to the utility pole. In the downward direction (toward the ground at the pole) the radiation is at least 16 dB (1/40th) below the radiation in the horizontal plane. Figure 9: Site 701 Winchester Drive Antenna Radiation Pattern Horizontal Radiation Pattern Vertical Radiation Pattern Review of Small Cell Wireless Application – City of Burlingame, CA | January 2019 15 Based on the specifications of the proposed antenna and transmission equipment, we concur with the applicant’s findings that the maximum general-population RF exposure calculated for the site at both the base and at the antenna’s horizontal plane is within the FCC’s MPE. 4.3 Summary of Small Cell Application for Site 704 Winchester Drive The applicant proposes to install a wireless access facility on a replacement 24′ 11″ utility pole across from 704 Winchester Drive. This site would be considered as an alternate site location for the site near 701 Winchester Drive and only one of these sites would be required to be built to accommodate AT&T’s network design. The overall height of the extended pole will be 27′ 3″. Figure 10 is a photograph of the existing pole. Figure 10: Site 704 Winchester Drive Existing Photo (Source: AT&T) The site will be connected to the client network through a dedicated fiber optic communications link. The link will monitor and control the site and will transport the communications traffic (i.e., voice and data) to and from the network users. All equipment will be pole-mounted and fully visible. Figure 11 (below) is a photo simulation of the site as it will look with the wireless equipment installed. The canister antenna will be mounted on the top of the pole. The associated equipment to be mounted wholly on the pole includes two LTE remote radios, coaxial cabling, antenna coupling devices, fiber network interface housing, and a power disconnect switch. Since the original pole (and its proposed replacement) are owned Review of Small Cell Wireless Application – City of Burlingame, CA | January 2019 16 by AT&T, PG&E will not locate a power meter on the pole. Therefore, AT&T is proposing building a pedestal meter across the street in a separate cabinet (4’2” high) across the street. Figure 11: Site 704 Winchester Drive Photo Simulation (Source: AT&T) AT&T’s application included specifications for the equipment that will be installed at the proposed site (Table 6). This equipment is consistent with small cell hardware used throughout the wireless industry. Review of Small Cell Wireless Application – City of Burlingame, CA | January 2019 17 Table 6: Communications Equipment Specifications - Site 704 Winchester (Source: AT&T) Item PCS (1900 MHz) AWS (2100 MHz) Commscope VVSSP-360S-F Shared Antenna Horizontal Beamwidth (°) 360 360 Bearing Azimuth (°) Omni Omni Gain (dBd) 6.6 7.3 Vertical Beamwidth (°) 21.9 19.1 RAD Above Ground (feet) 26’3” Shared Antenna Dimensions (inches) 7.9” D x 23.6” H Shared Antenna Coordinates 37.584718/-122.347514 Shared Antenna Ericson RRU-4415 RRU-4426 Power (Watts) 160 160 ERP (Watts) 683 683 Dimensions (inches) 16.54″ H x 13.46″ W x 5.87″ D 14.96″ H x 13.19″ W x 7.39″ D AT&T did not submit an independent engineering study of the level of RF emission exposure for the small cell equipment to be located at Site 704 Winchester Drive. If a study is provided, we can further review that information for compliance with FCC RF emissions requirements. However, based on the specifications of the proposed antenna and transmission equipment and its proximity to the originally proposed site near 701 Winchester Drive and nearby buildings, we expect to find that the maximum general-population RF exposure calculated for the site at both the base and at the antenna’s horizontal plane is within the FCC’s MPE. 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. The node will enable very high data speeds, and ultimately 5G services, to these nearby users and improve service throughout the sector. 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 provide or improve wireless services 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 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. Location of Candidate Sites 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 a drop pole with a lower height than other area utility poles. AT&T prefers greater height at this site to meet its service objective with the proposed small cell. The pole is also located directly in front of a residence and therefore more intrusive than the proposed facility. 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. 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. Candidate #8 – Our Lady of Angels Parish and School, 1721 Hillside Drive Conclusion: Not feasible. 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 Commissions’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 showed 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 and metal gratings for ventilation. For the WCF to function effectively, a portion of the steeple would have to be replaced with fiberglass reinforced plastic (FRP) to allow the signal to penetrate the walls. AT&T led a site walk at Our Lady of Angels on 11/19 to determine the steeple viability for the macro site. AT&T Radio Frequency engineer, Phil Dale, determined that the church steeple could fit two small cells but not a macro antenna site. AT&T proposed a lease package to Our Lady of Angels on 12/13 consistent with small cell antenna pricing. Our Lady of Angels subsequently denied the lease offer on 12/14. Therefore, this alternative is not viable. 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 RF prefers a higher RAD center, the pole would not be able to support the equipment structurally, and there would not be adequate space on the poles to mount the equipment. Attaching to traffic signal poles could also overburden the poles. Therefore, the traffic signals are not feasible. 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. Denial of the proposed facility would materially inhibit AT&T's ability to provide and improve wireless services in Burlingame. 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. The node will enable very high data speeds, and ultimately 5G services, to these nearby users and improve service throughout the sector. 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 provide or improve wireless services 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 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. Location of Candidates Sites (Image 1 of 2) Location of Candidates Sites (Image 2 of 2) Candidate #1 – Public right-of-way across from 704 Winchester Drive Conclusion: Not feasible. This pole is located at lat/long (37.584545, -122.347785) at the intersection of Winchester Drive and Oak Grove Avenue. 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. Candidate #2 – Primary Candidate – Public right-of-way at 701 Winchester Drive Conclusion: Best available and least visually intrusive candidate. This street light utility pole is located in the public right-of-way neat 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. 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. Candidate #3 – Public right-of-way at 700 Laurel Avenue Conclusion: Not feasible. Pole #3 is located at lat/long (37.584014, -122.348569) at the intersection of Laurel Avenue and Oak Grove Avenue. 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. Candidate #4 – Public right-of-way at 707 Laurel Avenue Conclusion: More intrusive than Proposed Small Cell SFOK2_019. This pole is located at lat/long (37.584292, -122.349216) on Laurel Avenue. The pole would require major tree trimming and would be more intrusive than the proposed candidate as it is directly in front of a residence. Therefore, the candidate is more intrusive than the proposed small cell SFOK2_019. Candidate #5 – Public right-of-way at 908 Oak Grove Avenue Conclusion: More intrusive than Proposed Small Cell SFOK2_019. This pole is located at lat/long (37.583831, -122.349009) on Oak Grove Avenue. This pole is not feasible and is more intrusive than the Primary Candidate because it is directly in front of a residence. Candidate #6 – Public right-of-way across from 704 Winchester Drive Conclusion: Viable Alternative. This pole is located at lat/long (37.584719, -122.347522) on Oak Grove Avenue and is owned by AT&T. Contingent on replacement, this pole would be CPUC GO95 compliant, structurally sound, and is approved by the AT&T radio frequency engineer. AT&T has prepared construction drawings, photo simulations, a structural report, and an EME report for this alternative. The alternative would include a ground meter pedestal placed across the street, in a landscaped area adjacent to the sidewalk. Please see the deliverables for the alternative details. This site is a viable alternative. Candidate #7 – Public right-of-way across from 700 Laurel Avenue Conclusion: Not feasible. This pole is located at lat/long (37.584164, -122.348314) on Oak Grove Avenue. 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. Candidate #8 – Public right-of-way at 900 Oak Grove Avenue Conclusion: Not feasible. This pole is located at lat/long (37.584103, -122.348792) on Winchester Drive. 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. Candidate #9 – Public right-of-way at 705 Winchester Drive Conclusion: Not feasible. This pole is located at lat/long (37.584761, -122.348131) on Winchester Drive. This pole is located directly in front of a residence and the top of the pole is fully covered by tree canopy. Therefore, this pole is not viable. Candidate #10 – Public right-of-way at 719 Winchester Drive Conclusion: Not feasible. This pole is located at lat/long (37.585023, -122.348511) on Winchester Drive. This pole is located directly in front of a residence and is approximately 300 feet from the coverage objective. 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. Candidate #11 – Peninsula Tennis Club Conclusion: Not feasible. This Peninsula Tennis Club is located at 433 Chatham Road. Although not typical for a small cell facility, AT&T analyzed this site per the City Planning Commissions’s request. AT&T reached out to the Peninsula Tennis Club on three separate occasions via phone and email (10/15, 10/31 and 11/7) and the tennis club was unresponsive. Therefore, this site is not feasible as AT&T assumes that the Peninsula Tennis Club is not interested in leasing space to AT&T. Candidate #12 – Burlingame High School Conclusion: Not feasible. Burlingame High School is located at 851 Oak Grove Manor. Although not typical for a small cell facility, AT&T analyzed this site per the City Planning Commissions’s request. AT&T reached out to Burlingame on six separate occasions via phone and email. On 11/2, the director of maintenance, Linda Carlton, responded via email stating that Burlingame High School is not interested in pursuing a lease agreement with AT&T. Therefore, this site is not feasible. Candidate #13 – Washington Park Conclusion: To be determined.. AT&T Mobility is currently in discussion with Washington Park. AT&T is still evaluating the feasibility of placing a small cell site at Washington Park and entering a lease agreement with Burlingame Parks and Recreation. AT&T hopes to have a more conclusive analysis by the scheduled appeal hearing on 1/22. Conclusion: The proposed facility, Candidate #2, and the AT&T owned utility pole, Candidate #6, are the best available and least intrusive means by which AT&T can close its significant service coverage gap in this portion of the city. Denial of the proposed facility would materially inhibit AT&T's ability to provide and improve wireless services in Burlingame. 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 authority to regulate, Appeal – 1800 Hillside Drive September 4, 2018 2 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. 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: 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 3 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. (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. Appeal – 1800 Hillside Drive September 4, 2018 4 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 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 Appeal – 1800 Hillside Drive September 4, 2018 5 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 “incommode the Appeal – 701 Winchester Drive September 4, 2018 2 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 title d “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 wit h 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. Across from 1800 Hillside Dr, Burlingame, CA CRAN_RSFR_SFOK2_014 11.20.2018 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 Across from 1800 Hillside Dr, Burlingame, CA CRAN_RSFR_SFOK2_014 11.20.2018 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 Top of Antenna: 48’ 00” Top of Pole: 38’ 07” Bottom of Load Center: 07’ 00” Ground Level: 00’ 00” 09’ 05” Across from 1800 Hillside Dr, Burlingame, CA CRAN_RSFR_SFOK2_014 11.20.2018 Your Project. Visualized. www.photosims.com Photo simulation as seen looking east across Hillside Drive proposed AT&T antenna proposed AT&T RRUs Across from 1800 Hillside Dr, Burlingame, CA CRAN_RSFR_SFOK2_014 11.20.2018 Your Project. Visualized. www.photosims.com Photo simulation of the pole mounted equipment Across from 1800 Hillside Dr, Burlingame, CA CRAN_RSFR_SFOK2_014 11.20.2018 Your Project. Visualized. www.photosims.com Photo simulation as seen looking east from near 1804 Hillside Dr 701 Winchester Drive, Burlingame, CA 94010 CRAN_RSFR_SFOK2_019 11.20.2018 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 701 Winchester Drive, Burlingame, CA 94010 CRAN_RSFR_SFOK2_019 11.20.2018 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 Equipment: 08’ 06” Ground Level: 00’ 00” 09’ 00” 701 Winchester Drive, Burlingame, CA 94010 CRAN_RSFR_SFOK2_019 11.20.2018 Your Project. Visualized. www.photosims.com Photo simulation as seen looking northeast along Oak Grove Avenue 701 Winchester Drive, Burlingame, CA 94010 CRAN_RSFR_SFOK2_019 11.20.2018 Your Project. Visualized. www.photosims.com Photo simulation as seen looking north from Oak Grove Avenue 701 Winchester Drive, Burlingame, CA 94010 CRAN_RSFR_SFOK2_019 alternate 01.10.2019 Your Project. Visualized. www.photosims.com Photo simulation as seen looking southwest along Oak Grove Ave proposed AT&T antenna proposed AT&T pole mounted equipment proposed AT&T pedestal meter 701 Winchester Drive, Burlingame, CA 94010 CRAN_RSFR_SFOK2_019 alternate 01.10.2019 Your Project. Visualized. www.photosims.com Photo simulation as seen looking northeast along Oak Grove Ave proposed AT&T antenna proposed AT&T pole mounted equipment 701 Winchester Drive, Burlingame, CA 94010 CRAN_RSFR_SFOK2_019 alternate 01.10.2019 Your Project. Visualized. www.photosims.com Photo simulation as seen looking southwest from Oak Grove Ave proposed AT&T pole mounted equipment T-1TITLE SHEETDRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:JBCSSIT IS A VIOLATION OF THE LAW FOR ANY PERSON,UNLESS THEY ARE ACTING UNDER THE DIRECTION OFA LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER, TO ALTERTHIS DOCUMENT012/19/1890% CD2930 DOMINGO AVE, SUITE 150BERKELEY, CA 94705REVDATEDESCRIPTIONCRAN_RSFR_SFOK2_019(AF) 704 WINCHESTER DRBURLINGAME, CA 940105001 EXECUTIVE PARKWAYSAN RAMON, CA 94583240 STOCKTON ST., 3RD FLOORSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108101/15/19100% CDPROJECT DESCRIPTIONAPPROVALSTHE FOLLOWING PARTIES HEREBY APPROVE AND ACCEPT THESE DOCUMENTS AND AUTHORIZE THECONTRACTOR TO PROCEED WITH THE CONSTRUCTION DESCRIBED HEREIN. ALL DOCUMENTS ARE SUBJECT TOREVIEW BY THE LOCAL BUILDING DEPARTMENT AND ANY CHANGES & MODIFICATIONS THEY MAY IMPOSE.DRAWING INDEXT-1SHEET NO.TITLE SHEETT-2GENERAL NOTESC1SITE SURVEYA-1A-2ENLARGED SITE PLAN & PROPOSED EQUIPMENT LAYOUT PLANSA-3ELEVATIONSELEVATIONSD-1DETAILSSITE INFORMATIONCODE COMPLIANCEALL WORK AND MATERIALS SHALL BE PERFORMED AND INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CURRENT EDITIONS OF THEFOLLOWING CODES AS ADOPTED BY THE LOCAL GOVERNING AUTHORITIES. NOTHING IN THESE PLANS IS TO BE CONSTRUCTEDTO PERMIT WORK NOT CONFORMING TO THESE CODES.·2016 CALIFORNIA CODE·2016 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE (CBC), BASED ON THE 2015 IBC·2016 CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE (CRC), BASED ON THE 2015 IRC·2016 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE (CEC), BASED ON THE 2014 NEC·2016 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE (CMC), BASED ON THE 2015 UMC·2016 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE (CPC), BASED ON THE 2015 UPC·2016 CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDINGS STANDARDS CODE (CALGREEN)·2016 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODES WITH ALL LOCAL AMENDMENTS·ANY LOCAL BUILDING CODE AMENDMENTS TO THE ABOVE·CITY / COUNTY ORDINANCES·GO 95PROJECT TEAMHANDICAP REQUIREMENTS:FACILITY IS UNMANNED AND NOT FORHUMAN HABITATION. HANDICAPPEDACCESS NOT REQUIRED INACCORDANCE WITH CALIFORNIAADMINISTRATIVE STATE CODE PART 2,TITLE 24, CHAPTER 11B, SECTION 1103B.VICINITY MAPDRIVING DIRECTIONSDIRECTIONS FROM AT&T OFFICE AT5001 EXECUTIVE PARKWAY, SAN RAMON, CA :NAT&T CONSTRUCTIONDATE: ___________________AT&T - RF ENGINEERAT&T - EQUIPMENT ENGINEERAT&T REAL ESTATEMODUS - CONSTRUCTIONSIGNATURE: __________________________________________OTHER (IF APPLICABLE)DATE: ___________________SIGNATURE: __________________________________________DATE: ___________________SIGNATURE: __________________________________________DATE: ___________________SIGNATURE: __________________________________________DATE: ___________________SIGNATURE: __________________________________________DATE: ___________________SIGNATURE: __________________________________________MODUS - LEASINGDATE: ___________________SIGNATURE: __________________________________________SHEET TITLETHE UTILITIES SHOWN HEREIN ARE FOR THE CONTRACTORS CONVENIENCEONLY. THERE MAY BE OTHER UTILITIES NOT SHOWN ON THESE PLANS. THEENGINEER/SURVEYOR ASSUMES NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE LOCATIONSSHOWN AND IT SHALL BE THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO VERIFYALL THE UTILITIES WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE WORK. ALL DAMAGE MADE TOTHE (E) UTILITIES BY THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITYOF THE CONTRACTOR.CALL 811 BEFORE YOU DIGIT'S THE LAWD-2DETAILS(AF) 704 WINCHESTER DRBURLINGAME, CA 94010AT&TAT&T MOBILITY5001 EXECUTIVE PARKWAYSAN RAMON, CA 94583N 37° 35' 04.96"W 122° 20' 50.99"SAN MATEOCITY OF BURLINGAMEPUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY(AF) TO 029-141-010PUBLIC ROW±16.65' AMSLSITE ID:LOCATION CODE:PROJECT ID:SITE TYPE:COUNTY:CRAN_RSFR_SFOK2_019TBDTBDCOMMUNICATIONS POLESAN MATEO(AF) 704 WINCHESTER DRBURLINGAME, CA 94010CRAN_RSFR_SFOK2_019SITE ADDRESS:OWNER:APPLICANT:LATITUDE:LONGITUDE:COUNTY:JURISDICTION:ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBER:ZONING:ELEVATION:APPLICANT/SITE ACQUISITION:AT&T5001 EXECUTIVE PARKWAYSAN RAMON, CA 94583CONTACT: MARC GRABISCHPHONE: (925) 549.9671EMAIL: MG387K@ATT.COMAT&T CONSTRUCTION MANAGER:AT&T5001 EXECUTIVE PARKWAYSAN RAMON, CA 94583CONTACT: LEO RUZAOLPHONE: (650) 787.6814EMAIL: LR2164@ATT.COMPROJECT MANAGER:MODUS, INC.240 STOCKTON ST., 3RD FLOORSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108CONTACT: ABBY REEDPHONE: (650) 274.5042EMAIL: areed@modus-corp.comCONSTRUCTION MANAGER:MODUS, INC.240 STOCKTON ST., 3RD FLOORSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108CONTACT: CAL BORDONAROPHONE: (415) 261.0000EMAIL: cbordonaro@modus-corp.comRF MANAGERAT&T5001 EXECUTIVE PARKWAYSAN RAMON, CA 94583CONTACT: JERIC LIZARDOPHONE: (925) 365-0155EMAIL: lj8771@ATT.COMA-4SITE PLANA&E PROJECT MANAGER:COMM-SENSE CONSULTING2930 DOMINGO AVE, SUITE 150BERKELEY, CA 94705CONTACT: JIM BURROWS, P.E.PHONE: (916) 412.7896EMAIL: commsense.jim@gmail.comE-1ELECTRICAL GENERAL NOTESE-2ELECTRICAL DETAILSE-3ONE LINE DIAGRAM & GROUNDING SCHEMATICSITEAT&T PROPOSES TO INSTALL A NEW WIRELESS COMMUNICATION SITE ON A COMMUNICATIONSUTILITY POLE IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY.SCOPE:·INSTALL (1) NEW 2' CANISTER ANTENNA ON TOP OF POLE·INSTALL (1) NEW 100A METER PEDESTAL ON GROUND·INSTALL (1) NEW 4415 B25 ON POLE·INSTALL (1) NEW 4426 ON POLE·INSTALL (2) NEW PSU ON POLE·INSTALL (2) TWIN DIPLEXERS·INSTALL (2) CONCEALMENT SHROUDS·INSTALL (1) NEW COAX CONDUIT FROM EQUIPMENT TO NEW CANISTER ANTENNA·INSTALL (1) NEW POWER CONDUIT FROM P.O.C. TO EQUIPMENT·INSTALL (1) NEW EQUIPMENT BRACKET ON POLE·INSTALL (1) NEW AC PANEL ON POLE·CABLING TO BE INSTALLED IN A TIGHT NEAT MANNER WITHOUT EXCESS CABLE LOOPS·ALL AT&T ADDED APPURTENANCES SHALL BE PAINTED TO MATCH POLE COLOR (NON-GLOSSY"SABLE" BY SHERWIN WILLIAMS, OR EQUIVALENT)TRAFFIC CONTROL PLANTCP-11.GET ON I-680 S FROM BOLLINGER CANYON RD2.HEAD NORTH-EAST ON BISHOP DR TOWARDS SUNSET DR3.TURN RIGHT ONTO SUNSET DR4.USE THE RIGHT 2 LANES TO TURN RIGHT ONTO BOLLINGERCANYON RD5.USE THE RIGHT LANE TO MERGE ONTO I-680 S VIA THE SLIPROAD TO SAN JOSE6.CONTINUE ON I-680 S. TAKE I-580 W AND CA-92 W TOAIRPORT BLVD IN SAN MATEO. TAKE EXIT 417B FROM US-101N7.MERGE ONTO I-680 S8.TAKE EXIT 30B TO MERGE ONTO I-580 W TOWARDSDUBLIN/OAKLAND9.KEEP LEFT AT THE FORK TO CONTINUE ON I-238 N, FOLLOWSIGNS FOR I-88010.USE THE RIGHT 2 LANES TO TAKE EXIT 16A FOR INTERSTATE880 S TOWARDS SAN JOSE/SAN MATEO BRIDGE11.MERGE ONTO I-880 S12.USE THE RIGHT 2 LANES TO TAKE EXIT 27 TO MERGE ONTOCA-92 W TOWARDS SAN MATEO BRIDGE/JACKSON ST13. PARTIAL TOLL ROAD14.USE THE RIGHT 2 LANES TO TAKE EXIT 13B TO MERGE ONTOUS-101 N TOWARDS SAN FRANCISCO15.TAKE EXIT 417B FOR PENINSULA AVE16.TAKE PENINSULA AVE, N HUMBOLDT ST, ROLLINS RD ANDOAK GROVE AVE TO WINCHESTER DR IN BURLINGAME17.SHARP RIGHT ONTO AIRPORT BLVD (SIGNS FOR COYOTEPOINT DRIVE/AIRPORT BOULEVARD)18.TURN RIGHT ONTO PENINSULA AVE19.TURN RIGHT ONTO N HUMBOLDT ST20.TURN LEFT ONTO ROLLINS RD21.TURN LEFT ONTO BLOOMFIELD RD/OAK GROVE AVE22.TURN RIGHT ONTO OAK GROVE AVE23.TURN RIGHT ONTO WINCHESTER DR24. DESTINATION WILL BE ON THE RIGHTTOTAL ESTIMATED DISTANCE: 38.5 MILESTOTAL ESTIMATED TIME: 0 HR 39 MINS DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:JBCSSIT IS A VIOLATION OF THE LAW FOR ANY PERSON,UNLESS THEY ARE ACTING UNDER THE DIRECTION OFA LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER, TO ALTERTHIS DOCUMENT012/19/1890% CD2930 DOMINGO AVE, SUITE 150BERKELEY, CA 94705REVDATEDESCRIPTIONCRAN_RSFR_SFOK2_019(AF) 704 WINCHESTER DRBURLINGAME, CA 940105001 EXECUTIVE PARKWAYSAN RAMON, CA 94583240 STOCKTON ST., 3RD FLOORSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108101/15/19100% CDT-2GENERAL NOTEST-2GENERAL NOTESGENERAL NOTES FOR EXISTING CELL SITESGENERAL CONSTRUCTION NOTESAPPLICABLE CODES, REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS:GENERAL TRENCHING NOTES1.MAINTAIN 24" MINIMUM COVER FOR ALL ELECTRICAL CONDUITS, U.O.N.2.MAINTAIN 30" MINIMUM COVER FOR ALL TELECOMMUNICATIONS CONDUITS.3.MINIMUM 1" SAND SHADING BELOW CONDUITS, AND 6" COVERING ON TOP OFCONDUITS REQUIRED.4.REFER TO SHEET E-1 FOR ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTSGENERAL GROUNDING NOTES1.GROUNDING SHALL BE TESTED AT 5 OHMS OR LESS.2.WOOD MOLDING, STAPLED EVERY 3'-0" AND AT EACH END.GENERAL CONDUIT NOTES1.ALL CONDUITS WILL BE MANDRELED AND EQUIPPED WITH 3/8" PULL ROPE.2.SCHEDULE 40 CONDUIT FOR UNDERGROUND USE.3.SCHEDULE 80 CONDUIT FOR RISER USE AND ELSEWHERE AS NOTES. TRANSITIONFROM SCHEDULE 40 PVC OR RIGID STEEL CONDUIT TO SCHEDULE 80 USINGAPPROVED FITTINGS DESIGNED TO PROVIDE A SMOOTH INTERIOR WALLTRANSITION TO THE REDUCED INTERIOR DIAMETER OF SCHEDULE 80. ADJUSTCONDUIT SIZE IF NECESSARY TO MAINTAIN THE INTERIOR AREA REQUIRED FORTHE WIRING SPECIFIED.4.GALVANIZED STEEL CONDUIT FOR ANY CONDUIT UNDER 3", STUB UP 10" THENCONVERT TO SCHEDULE 80.5.CONTRACTOR TO STUB UP POLE 10" w/ 3" POWER CONDUIT. POWER COMPANYTO CONVERT FROM 3" STUB SCHEDULE 80 TO 2" SCHEDULE 80 FROM TOP OFSTUB UP.6.ZRC COLD GALVANIZING COMPOUND OR EQUIVALENT IS REQUIRED ONEXPOSED THREADS IN RIGID STEEL CONDUIT AND THE CUT ENDS OF SUPPORTSTRUTS, ETC. TO PREVENT RUSTING.TYPICAL R.O.W. POLE CONSTRUCTION NOTES1.CABLE NOT TO IMPEDE 15" CLEAR SPACE OFF POLE FACE.2.ALL CLIMB STEPS NEXT TO CONDUIT SHALL HAVE EXTENDED STEPS.3.NO BOLT THREADS TO PROTRUDE MORE THAN 1-1/2"4.ALL HOLES IN POLE LEFT FROM REARRANGEMENT OF CLIMB STEPS TO BE FILLED.5.90° SHORT SWEEPS UNDER ANTENNA ARM, ALL CABLES MUST TRANSITION ONTHE INSIDE OR BOTTOM OF THE ARM (NO CABLE ON TOP OF ARM).6.USE 90° CONNECTOR AT CABLE CONNECTION FOR OMNI DOWN ANTENNAS.7.USE CABLE CLAMPS TO SECURE CABLE TO ARMS, PLACE 2" AT&T WIRELESSCABLE I.D. TAGS ON BOTH SIDES OF ARMS.8.USE 1/2" DIA. CABLE ON ANTENNAS UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED.9.PLACE GPS ON ARM OF SOUTHERN SKY EXPOSURE AT MINIMUM 6" FROMTRANSMIT ANTENNA WHICH IS 24" AWAY FROM CENTER OF POLE.10.FILL VOID AROUND CABLES AT CONDUIT OPENING WITH FOAM SEALANT TOPREVENT WATER INTRUSION.W ALTERNATECOLUMNL X-XX-XXX-X1TEXXXO/HO/H A A E E T T X XE/TE/TEECONTRACTOR REQUIREMENTSDO NOT SCALE OFF DRAWINGSCONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL PLANS & EXISTING DIMENSIONS & CONDITIONS ONTHE JOB SITE & SHALL IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE ENGINEER IN WRITING OF ANYDISCREPANCIES BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH THE WORKGENERAL NOTESLEGEND1.PLANS ARE INTENDED TO BE DIAGRAMMATIC ONLY, UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE.THE WORK SHALL INCLUDE FURNISHING MATERIALS, EQUIPMENT,APPURTENANCES AND LABOR NECESSARY TO COMPLETE ALL INSTALLATIONS ASINDICATED ON THE DRAWINGS.2.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN, IN WRITING, AUTHORIZATION TO PROCEEDBEFORE STARTING WORK ON ANY ITEM NOT CLEARLY DEFINED OR IDENTIFIED BYTHE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS.3.CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT USA (UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT) AT (800)227-2600, FOR UTILITY LOCATIONS, 2 WORKING DAYS BEFORE PROCEEDINGWITH ANY EXCAVATION, SITE WORK OR CONSTRUCTION.4.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL ALL EQUIPMENT AND MATERIALS INACCORDANCE WITH MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS UNLESSSPECIFICALLY INDICATED OTHERWISE, OR WHERE LOCAL CODES ORREGULATIONS TAKE PRECEDENCE.5.ALL CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CBC'SREQUIREMENTS REGARDING EARTHQUAKE RESISTANCE, FOR, BUT NOT LIMITEDTO, PIPING, LIGHT FIXTURES, CEILING GRID, INTERIOR PARTITIONS, ANDMECHANICAL EQUIPMENT. ALL WORK MUST COMPLY WITH LOCAL EARTHQUAKECODES AND REGULATIONS.6.REPRESENTATIONS OF TRUE NORTH, OTHER THAN THOSE FOUND ON THE PLOT OFSURVEY DRAWINGS, SHALL NOT BE USED TO IDENTIFY OR ESTABLISH BEARING OFTRUE NORTH AT THE SITE. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL RELY SOLELY ON THE PLOT OFSURVEY DRAWING AND ANY SURVEYOR'S MARKINGS AT THE SITE FOR THEESTABLISHMENT OF TRUE NORTH, AND SHALL NOTIFY THE ARCHITECT / ENGINEERPRIOR TO PROCEEDING WITH THE WORK IF ANY DISCREPANCY IS FOUNDBETWEEN THE VARIOUS ELEMENTS OF THE WORKING DRAWINGS AND THE TRUENORTH ORIENTATION AS DEPICTED ON THE CIVIL SURVEY. THE CONTRACTORSHALL ASSUME SOLE LIABILITY FOR ANY FAILURE TO NOTIFY THE ARCHITECT /ENGINEER.7.THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT ISSUING THE PERMITS SHALL BE NOTIFIED AT LEASTTWO WORKING DAYS PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF WORK, OR ASOTHERWISE STIPULATED BY THE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL HAVINGJURISDICTION.8.DO NOT EXCAVATE OR DISTURB BEYOND THE PROPERTY LINES OR LEASE AREALINES, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.9.ALL EXISTING UTILITIES, FACILITIES, CONDITIONS, AND THEIR DIMENSIONS SHOWNON THE PLAN HAVE BEEN PLOTTED FROM AVAILABLE RECORDS. THE ARCHITECT/ ENGINEER AND THE OWNER ASSUME NO RESPONSIBILITY WHATSOEVER AS TOTHE SUFFICIENCY OR THE ACCURACY OF THE INFORMATION SHOWN ON THEPLANS, OR THE MANNER OF THEIR REMOVAL OR ADJUSTMENT. CONTRACTORSSHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR DETERMINING EXACT LOCATION OF ALL EXISTINGUTILITIES AND FACILITIES PRIOR TO START OF CONSTRUCTION. CONTRACTORSSHALL ALSO OBTAIN FROM EACH UTILITY COMPANY DETAILED INFORMATIONRELATIVE TO WORKING SCHEDULES AND METHODS OF REMOVING ORADJUSTING EXISTING UTILITIES.10.CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL EXISTING UTILITIES, BOTH HORIZONTAL ANDVERTICALLY, PRIOR TO THE START OF CONSTRUCTION. ANY DISCREPANCIES ORDOUBTS AS TO THE INTERPRETATION OF PLANS SHOULD BE IMMEDIATELYREPORTED TO THE ARCHITECT / ENGINEER FOR RESOLUTION AND INSTRUCTION,AND NO FURTHER WORK SHALL BE PERFORMED UNTIL THE DISCREPANCY ISCHECKED AND CORRECTED BY THE ARCHITECT / ENGINEER. FAILURE TO SECURESUCH INSTRUCTION MEANS CONTRACTOR WILL HAVE WORKED AT HIS/HEROWN RISK AND EXPENSE.11.ALL NEW AND EXISTING UTILITY STRUCTURES ON SITE AND IN AREAS TO BEDISTURBED BY CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE ADJUSTED TO FINISH ELEVATIONS PRIORTO FINAL INSPECTION OF WORK.12.ANY EXISTING COMPONENTS DISTURBED DURING CONSTRUCTION SHALL BERETURNED TO IT'S ORIGINAL CONDITION PRIOR TO COMPLETION OF WORK. SIZE,LOCATION AND TYPE OF ANY UNDERGROUND UTILITIES OR IMPROVEMENTSSHALL BE ACCURATELY NOTED AND PLACED ON "AS-BUILT" DRAWINGS BYGENERAL CONTRACTOR, AND ISSUED TO THE ARCHITECT / ENGINEER ATCOMPLETION OF PROJECT.13.ALL TEMPORARY EXCAVATIONS FOR THE INSTALLATION OF FOUNDATIONS,UTILITIES, ETC., SHALL BE PROPERLY LAID BACK OR BRACED IN ACCORDANCEWITH CORRECT OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION (OSHA)REQUIREMENTS.A.B.ABV.ADD'LACCAA.F.F.A.F.G.AGLALUMALT.AMSLANT.APPRX.ARCH.AWG.BLDG.BLK.BLKGBM.B.N.BNCAB.BTCW.B.O.B.O.F.CANT.C.I.P.CLG.CLR.COL.CONC.CONN.CONST.CONT.dDBL.DEPT.D.F.DIA.DIAG.DIM.DWG.DWL.EA.EL.ELEC.ELEV.EMT.E.N.ENG.EQ.EXP.EXST.(E)EXT.FAB.GPSGLB.(GLU-LAM)G.F.I.GI.GA.G.FTG.FT.(')F.S.F.O.W.F.O.S.F.O.M.F.O.C.FDN.FLR.FIN.F.G.F.F.ANCHOR BOLTABOVEANTENNA CABLE COVERASSEMBLYADDITIONALABOVE FINISHED FLOORABOVE FINISHED GRADEABOVE GROUND LEVELALUMINUMABOVE SEA LEVELANTENNAAPPROXIMATE(LY)ARCHITECT(URAL)AMERICAN WIRE GAUGEBUILDINGBLOCKBLOCKINGBEAMBOUNDARY NAILINGBACK-UP CABINETCABINETBARE TINNED COPPER WIREBOTTOMBOTTOM OF FOOTINGCANTILEVER(ED)CAST IN PLACECEILINGCLEARCONCRETECONNECTION(OR)CONSTRUCTIONCONTINUOUSPENNY (NAILS)DOUBLEDEPARTMENTDOUGLAS FIRDIAMETERDIAGONALDIMENSIONDRAWING(S)DOWEL(S)EACHELEVATIONELECTRICALELEVATORELECTRICAL METALLICTUBINGEDGE NAILENGINEEREQUALEXPANSIONEXISTINGEXTERIORFABRICATION(OR)FINISH FLOORFINISH GRADEFINISH(ED)FLOORFOUNDATIONFACE OF CONCRETEFACE OF MASONRYFACE OF STUDFACE OF WALLFINISH SURFACEFOOT(FEET)FOOTINGGROWTH(CABINET)GAUGEGALVANIZE(D)GROUND FAULT CIRCUITINTERRUPTERGLUE LAMINATEDBEAMGLOBAL POSITIONINGSYSTEMGRND.GROUNDHEADERHDR.HGR.HANGERHEIGHTHT.ICGB.ISOLATED COPPERGROUND BUSINCH(ES)IN.(")INT.INTERIORLB.(#)L.B.L.F.LAG BOLTSPOUND(s)LINEAR FEET(FOOT)L.MAS.MASONRYLONGITUDINALMAXIMUMMAX.M.B.MECH.MFR.MIN.MISC.MTL.METALMISCELLANEOUSMINIMUMMANUFACTURERMECHANICALMACHINE BOLTLPCWT.W.P.WD.W/V.I.F.U.L.U.N.O.U.G.TYP.T.O.W.T.O.S.T.O.P.T.O.F.T.O.C.T.O.A.T.N.THK.TEMP.STRUC.STL.STD.S.S.SQ.SPEC.SIM.SHT.SCH.RGS.REQ'D.REINF.REF.RAD.(R)QTY.PWR.P.T.P.S.I.P.S.F.PRC.PPC.PLY.PCSP/COPNG.O.C.N.T.S.NO.(#)(N)NEWNUMBERNOT TO SCALEOPENINGPRE CAST CONCRETEPERSONAL COMMUNICATIONSERVICESPLYWOODPOWER PROTECTION CABINETPRIMARY FLEXING CABINETPOUNDS PER SQUARE FOOTPOUNDS PER SQUARE INCHPRESSURE TREATEDPOWER (CABINET)QUANTITYRADIUSREFERENCEREINFORCINGREQUIREDRIGID GALVANIZED STEELSCHEDULESHEETSIMILARSPECIFICATION(S)SQUARESTAINLESS STEELSTANDARDSTEELSTRUCTURALTEMPORARYTHICKNESSTOE NAILTOP OF ANTENNATOP OF CURBTOP OF FOUNDATIONTOP OF STEELTOP OF WALLTYPICALUNDER GROUNDUNDERWRITES LABORATORYUNLESS NOTED OTHERWISEVERIFY IN FIELDWIDE(WIDTH) WITHWOODWEATHERPROOFWEIGHTCENTERLINEPLATEON CENTERTOP OF PLATE(PARAPET)1.PRIOR TO THE SUBMISSION OF BIDS, THE BIDDING CONTRACTOR SHALL VISIT THECELL SITE TO FAMILIARIZE WITH THE EXISTING CONDITIONS AND TO CONFIRMTHAT THE WORK CAN BE ACCOMPLISHED AS SHOWN ON THE CONSTRUCTIONDRAWINGS. ANY DISCREPANCY FOUND SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTIONOF CONTRACTOR.2.CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL EXISTING DIMENSIONS AND CONDITIONSPRIOR TO COMMENCING ANY WORK. ALL DIMENSIONS OF EXISTINGCONSTRUCTION SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS MUST BE VERIFIED. CONTRACTORSHALL NOTIFY THE CONSTRUCTION MANAGER OF ANY DISCREPANCIES PRIORTO ORDERING MATERIAL OR PROCEEDING WITH CONSTRUCTION.3.THE EXISTING CELL SITE IS IN FULL COMMERCIAL OPERATION. ANYCONSTRUCTION WORK BY CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT DISRUPT THE EXISTINGNORMAL OPERATION. ANY WORK ON EXISTING EQUIPMENT MUST BECOORDINATED WITH CONTRACTOR. ALSO, WORK SHOULD BE SCHEDULED FORAN APPROPRIATE MAINTENANCE WINDOW USUALLY IN LOW TRAFFIC PERIODSAFTER MIDNIGHT.4.SINCE THE CELL SITE IS ACTIVE, ALL SAFETY PRECAUTIONS MUST BE TAKEN WHENWORKING AROUND HIGH LEVELS OF ELECTROMAGNETIC RADIATION.EQUIPMENT SHOULD BE SHUTDOWN PRIOR TO PERFORMING ANY WORK THATCOULD EXPOSE THE WORKERS TO DANGER. PERSONAL RF EXPOSUREMONITORS ARE ADVISED TO BE WORN TO ALERT OF ANY DANGEROUSEXPOSURE LEVELS.5.CONTRACTOR SHALL DETERMINE ACTUAL ROUTING OF CONDUIT, POWER ANDT1 CABLES, GROUNDING CABLES AS SHOWN ON THE POWER, GROUNDINGAND TELCO PLAN DRAWING. CONTRACTOR SHALL UTILIZE EXISTING TRAYSAND/OR SHALL ADD (N) TRAYS AS NECESSARY. CONTRACTOR SHALL CONFIRMTHE ACTUAL ROUTING WITH THE CONTRACTOR.6.CONTRACTOR SHALL LEGALLY AND PROPERLY DISPOSE OF ALL SCRAPMATERIALS SUCH AS COAXIAL CABLES AND OTHER ITEMS REMOVED FROM THEEXISTING FACILITY. ANTENNAS REMOVED SHALL BE RETURNED TO THE OWNER'SDESIGNATED LOCATION.ABBREVIATIONS1.CONTRACTOR'S WORK SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL APPLICABLE NATIONAL, STATE,AND LOCAL CODES AS ADOPTED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY HAVINGJURISDICTION (AHJ) FOR THE LOCATION.2.THE EDITION OF THE AHJ ADOPTED CODES AND STANDARDS IN EFFECT ON THETIME OF PERMITTING AWARD SHALL GOVERN THE DESIGN.3.CONTRACTOR'S WORK SHALL COMPLY WITH THE LATEST EDITION OF THEFOLLOWING STANDARDS:3.1.- AMERICAN CONCRETE INSTITUTE (ACI) 318, BUILDING CODEREQUIREMENTS FOR STRUCTURAL CONCRETE3.2.- AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION (AISC), MANUAL OF STEELCONSTRUCTION, ASD, NINTH EDITION3.3.- TELECOMMUNICATIONS INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION (TIA) 222-F, STRUCTURALSTANDARD FOR STRUCTURAL ANTENNA TOWER AND ANTENNASUPPORTING STRUCTURES3.4.- INSTITUTE FOR ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS (IEEE) 81, GUIDEFOR MEASURING EARTH RESISTIVITY, GROUND IMPEDANCE, AND EARTHSURFACE POTENTIALS OF A GROUND SYSTEM IEEE 1100 (1999)RECOMMENDED PRACTICE FOR POWERING AND GROUNDING OFELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT.3.5.-IEEE C62.41, RECOMMENDED PRACTICES ON SURGE VOLTAGES IN LOWVOLTAGE AC POWER CIRCUITS (FOR LOCATION CATEGORY "C3" AND"HIGH SYSTEM EXPOSURE")4.TIA 607 COMMERCIAL BUILDING GROUNDING AND BONDING REQUIREMENTSFOR TELECOMMUNICATIONS4.1.TELCORDIA GR-63 NETWORK EQUIPMENT-BUILDING SYSTEM (NEBS):PHYSICAL PROTECTION4.2.TELCORDIA GR-347 CENTRAL OFFICE POWER WIRING4.3.TELCORDIA GR-1275 GENERAL INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS4.4.TELCORDIA GR-1503 COAXIAL CABLE CONNECTIONS5.ANY AND ALL OTHER LOCAL & STATE LAWS AND REGULATIONS6.FOR ANY CONFLICTS BETWEEN SECTIONS OF LISTED CODES AND STANDARDSREGARDING MATERIAL, METHODS OF CONSTRUCTION, OR OTHERREQUIREMENTS, THE MOST RESTRICTIVE SHALL GOVERN. WHERE THERE ISCONFLICT BETWEEN A GENERAL REQUIREMENT AND A SPECIFIC REQUIREMENT,THE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENT SHALL GOVERN.NEW ANTENNAEXISTING ANTENNAGROUND RODGROUND BUS BARMECHANICAL GRND.CONN.CADWELDGROUND ACCESSWELLELECTRIC BOXTELEPHONE BOXLIGHT POLEFND. MONUMENTSPOT ELEVATIONSET POINTREVISIONGRID REFERENCEDETAIL REFERENCEELEVATION REFERENCESECTION REFERENCE(E) BRICK(E) MASONRYCONCRETEEARTHGRAVELPLYWOODSANDWOOD CONTINUOUSWOOD BLOCKINGSTEELCENTERLINEPROPERTY/LEASELINEMATCH LINEWORK POINTGROUND CONDUCTORTELEPHONE CONDUITELECTRICAL CONDUITELECTRICAL &TELCO CONDUITSCOAXIAL CABLEOVERHEAD SERVICECONDUCTORSCHAIN LINK FENCINGWOOD FENCINGOVERHEAD TELEPHONE/OVERHEAD POWEROVERHEAD TELEPHONEOVERHEAD POWER LINEPOWER RUNGROUT OR PLASTERR.O.W.RIGHT OF WAY X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XO/HO/HO/HO/HO/HO/HO/HO/HO/HO/HO/HO/HO/HO/HO/HO/HO/HO/HO/HO/HO/HO/HO/HO/HO/HO/HO/HO/HO/HO/HO/HX X X O/HO/HO/HO/HO/HO/HO/HO/HO/HO/HO/HO/HO/HO/HO/H O/H O/H O/H O/H O/H O/H O/H O/H O/H O/H O/H O/H Pwr Pwr Pwr Pwr Pwr A-1DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:JBCSSIT IS A VIOLATION OF THE LAW FOR ANY PERSON,UNLESS THEY ARE ACTING UNDER THE DIRECTION OFA LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER, TO ALTERTHIS DOCUMENT012/19/1890% CD2930 DOMINGO AVE, SUITE 150BERKELEY, CA 94705REVDATEDESCRIPTIONCRAN_RSFR_SFOK2_019(AF) 704 WINCHESTER DRBURLINGAME, CA 940105001 EXECUTIVE PARKWAYSAN RAMON, CA 94583240 STOCKTON ST., 3RD FLOORSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108101/15/19100% CDSITE PLAN1SITE PLANNOAK GROVE AVE 3A-2ENLARGEDSITE PLAN(E) DOUBLE SWING GATEWINCHESTER DRPROPERTY LINEEXISTING OVERHEADUTILITY LINES, TYPICAL(E) UTILITY POLEA.P.N. 029-141-010(E) CHAIN LINK FENCE(E) OVERHEAD LINESPROPOSEDLOCATION OF AT&TEQUIPMENT &ANTENNAS MOUNTEDON NEW WOOD POLE(N) UTILITY TRENCH6E-3(N) AT&T MOBILITYELECTRICAL VAULT7D-24A-2ENLARGED SITEPLAN AT METER(P) AT&T METER LOCATION(E) AT&T MOBILITYWOOD POLEPROPERTY LIN E OA K GRO V E A V E (E) WATERVAULT(E) FIRE HYDRANT(E) CHAIN LINK FENCE(E) TREE(E) BURLINGAME HIGHSCHOOL TENNISCOURTS(E) SID EWA L K(E) BURLINGAME HIGHSCHOOL TENNISCOURTS(E) UTILITY POLE(E) GUY WIRE AND STANDOFF(E) TREE(E) OVERHEAD LINESP RO P E R T Y L IN E (E) SSMH(E) ELECTRIC VAULT( E ) LAND SCA P ING(E) SSMH X X X X X X X X X X X X XO/HO/HO/HO/HO/HO/HO/HO/HO/HO/HO/HO/H O/H O/H O/H O/H O/HPwrPwrPwrPwr PwrPwr WOOD POLEPROPOSED CONDUIT(1) 1-1/2" DIA. FOR POWER30"x30" CLIMBING SPACEA TOP OF LOAD CENTERB TOP OF RRUSPROPOSED MOUNTING BRACKETPROPOSED (1) AC LOAD CENTERPROPOSED STANDOFF SQUARETUBEWOOD POLE30"x30" CLIMBING SPACEPROPOSED CONDUITS(1) 3" DIA. FOR COAX(1) 2" DIA. FOR FIBERPROPOSED STANDOFF SQUARETUBEPROPOSED MOUNTING BRACKETC TOP OF RRUS61239612391'-0"± 1'-6"±2'-6"2' - 6 " 1'-0"± 1'-11 1/2"±2'-6"2' - 6 "PROPOSED (1) RRUS W/(1) PSU MOUNTED BEHIND4" MIN 4" MIN 4" 1'-0"±2'-6"2' - 6 " MIN.WOOD POLEPROPOSED CONDUITS(1) 3" DIA. FOR COAX (ABOVE)(1) 1-1/2" DIA. FOR POWER(1) 2" DIA. FOR FIBER30"x30" CLIMBING SPACE1'-9 3/4"±PROPOSED TWIN DIPLEXERSPROPOSED STANDOFF SQUARETUBEPROPOSED MOUNTINGBRACKET61239D TOP OF TWIN DIPLEXERSPROPOSED SHROUDWOOD POLE30"x30" CLIMBING SPACEPROPOSED CONDUITS(1) 3" DIA. FOR COAX(1) 2" DIA. FOR FIBERPROPOSED STANDOFF SQUARETUBEPROPOSED MOUNTING BRACKET612391'-0"± 1'-11 1/2"±2'-6"2' - 6 "PROPOSED (1) RRUS W/(1) PSU MOUNTED BEHIND4" MIN PROPOSED SHROUDSHUTDOWNERICSSONERICSSONPROPOSED CONDUITS, 2 TOTAL(1) 3" DIA. FOR COAX(1) 2" DIA. FOR FIBERPROPOSED (1) AC LOAD CENTER POLE1AA-21CA-25D-112D-1PROPOSED MOUNTING BRACKET7D-12E-31DA-23"± 7'-0"8'-0" CLEARANCE PROPOSED SHUTDOWN SIGNAGE1'-3"1'-2"PROPOSED (1) RRUS-4415B25 W/ (1) PSU AC 083D-13D-2PROPOSED CONDUITS, 1 TOTAL(1) 1-1/2" DIA. FOR POWERPROPOSED GROUND BARPROPOSED (1) RRUS-4426W/ (1) PSU AC 0823PROPOSED SHROUD4D-2PROPOSED TWIN DIPLEXERS6D-1D-1D-21BA-2O/HO/HO/HO/HO/HO/HO/HO/HO/HO/HO/HO/H O/H O/H O/H O/H O/H O/H O/H O/H O/H O/H O/H O/H O/HPwrPwrPwrPwrPwrPwrPwrPwrPwrPwr A-2ENLARGED SITE PLAN & PROPOSEDELEVATION / EQUIPMENT PLANSDRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:JBCSSIT IS A VIOLATION OF THE LAW FOR ANY PERSON,UNLESS THEY ARE ACTING UNDER THE DIRECTION OFA LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER, TO ALTERTHIS DOCUMENT012/19/1890% CD2930 DOMINGO AVE, SUITE 150BERKELEY, CA 94705REVDATEDESCRIPTIONCRAN_RSFR_SFOK2_019(AF) 704 WINCHESTER DRBURLINGAME, CA 940105001 EXECUTIVE PARKWAYSAN RAMON, CA 94583240 STOCKTON ST., 3RD FLOORSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108101/15/19100% CD1ENLARGED SITE PLANN3NOTES:1.ALL EQUIPMENT SHALL BE PLACED (VERTICALLY) AS CLOSEAS ALLOWED BY POLE OWNER, WHILE MAINTAININGMINIMUM CLEARANCE REQUIREMENTS.2.MAINTAIN 4" MIN. OFFSET BETWEEN THE MOUNTINGBRACKET FLANGE AND THE POLE3.ALL ANTENNAS, BRACKETS, CABLING, CONDUIT, ANDOTHER EQUIPMENT WILL BE PAINTED NON-GLOSSY SABLEBY SHERWIN WILLIAMS (OR EQUIVALENT)4.SWEEP CONDUIT RUNS AROUND (E) CROSS ARMS WHERETHEY OCCUR, SEE DETAIL 6/D-25.CABLING TO BE INSTALLED IN A TIGHT NEAT MANNERWITHOUT EXCESS CABLE LOOPS(P) EQUIPMENT PLANS(P) ELEVATION261239N ENLARGED EQUIPMENTLAYOUT PLANSPROPOSED LOCATION OF AT&TEQUIPMENT & ANTENNASMOUNTED ON (E) WOOD POLE(P) GROUND RODS PER DETAIL1/D-2 & 2/D-2, TYPICAL OF 2(P) PEDESTAL METERD-29D-28(N) AT&T MOBILITYELECTRICAL VAULT7D-2ENLARGED SITE PLAN AT METER4(E) OVERHEAD UTILITYLINES, TYPICAL(E) UTILITY POLE(P) POWER TRENCHE-36E-36(N) PG&E ELECTRICAL VAULT7D-2(N) GROUND ROD PER DETAIL1/D-2 & 2/D-2R.O.W.1A-41A-3A-21P RO P E R T Y L IN E OAK GROVE AVE ( E ) S ID EWA L K(E) OVERHEAD LINES(E) TREE(E) GUY WIRE ANDSTANDOFF(E) OVERHEAD LINES(P) GROUND RODS PER DETAIL1/D-2 & 2/D-2, TYPICAL OF 2(P) POWER TRENCH O/HO/HO/HO/HO/HO/HO/HO/HO/HO/HO/HO/HO/HO/HO/HO/HO/HO/HO/HO/HO/HO/HO/HO/HA-3ELEVATIONSDRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:JBCSSIT IS A VIOLATION OF THE LAW FOR ANY PERSON,UNLESS THEY ARE ACTING UNDER THE DIRECTION OFA LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER, TO ALTERTHIS DOCUMENT012/19/1890% CD2930 DOMINGO AVE, SUITE 150BERKELEY, CA 94705REVDATEDESCRIPTIONCRAN_RSFR_SFOK2_019(AF) 704 WINCHESTER DRBURLINGAME, CA 940105001 EXECUTIVE PARKWAYSAN RAMON, CA 94583240 STOCKTON ST., 3RD FLOORSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108101/15/19100% CD12PROPOSED FRONT ELEVATIONEXISTING FRONT ELEVATION(P) WOOD POLE(P) 1-1/2" DIA.POWER CONDUITTO POC(P) 3" COAX CONDUITEXISTING SURFACE±0'-0" AGLEXISTING SURFACE±0'-0" AGLNOTES:1.ALL EQUIPMENT SHALL BE PLACED (VERTICALLY)AS CLOSE AS ALLOWED BY POLE OWNER, WHILEMAINTAINING MINIMUM CLEARANCEREQUIREMENTS.2.MAINTAIN 12" MIN. CLEARANCE TO GUY WIREFROM PROPOSED EQUIPMENT.3.MAINTAIN 4" MIN. OFFSET BETWEEN THEMOUNTING BRACKET FLANGE AND THE POLE4.ALL ANTENNAS, BRACKETS, CABLING, CONDUIT,AND OTHER EQUIPMENT WILL BE PAINTEDNON-GLOSSY SABLE BY SHERWIN WILLIAMS (OREQUIVALENT)5.CABLING TO BE INSTALLED IN A TIGHT NEATMANNER WITHOUT EXCESS CABLE LOOPS(P) AT&T CANISTER ANTENNA(P) 2" FIBER CONDUIT(E) UTILITY / GUY WIRE21'-8" AGL(E) UTILITY / GUY WIRE21'-3" AGL(E) UTILITY / GUY WIRE23'-1" AGL(E) GUY WIRE22'-8" AGL(E) UTILITY / GUY WIRE23'-5" AGLT.O. (E) POLE24'-9" AGL(E) GUY STAND OFF ARM8'-8" AGLRAD CENTER OF (P) ANTENNA26'-3" AGLT.O. (P) ANTENNA CANISTER27'-3" AGLB.O.(P) ANTENNA CANISTER25'-3" AGL(E) UTILITY / GUY WIRE21'-8" AGL(E) UTILITY / GUY WIRE21'-3" AGLT.O. (P) POLE24'-11" AGLRELOCATED (E) GUY WIRE22'-6" AGLRELOCATED (E) UTILITY / GUY WIRE22'-2" AGLRELOCATED (E) UTILITY / GUY WIRE22'-10" AGL2'-0" MIN. COMM SAFETY ZONE AS PER G.O.95(P) (1) ACLOAD CENTERW/ SHUTDOWNSIGNAGE(P) MOUNTING BRACKET(P) (1) RRUS-4415 W/ (1) PSU(P) GROUND BAR(P) (1) RRUS-4426 W/ (1) PSU(P) (2) TWIN DIPLEXERS(E) WOOD POLE TO BEREMOVED AND REPLACED(E) GUY WIRE TO BEREMOVED ANDRE-INSTALLED(E) GUY WIRE RE-INSTALLEDD-112'-0" MIN. COMM SAFETY ZONE AS PER G.O.95(P) (1) SHROUD(E) GUY STAND OFF ARM TO BEREMOVED AND REPLACED(P) GUY STAND OFF ARMT.O. (P) RRUS 441514'-2" AGLB.O. (P) AC LOAD CENTER8'-0" AGLT.O. (P) AC LOAD CENTER9'-1" AGLB.O. (P) RRUS 441512'-10" AGLGROUND BAR10'-2" AGL(P) GUY STAND OFF ARM8'-8" AGLB.O. (P) RRUS 442610'-4 1/2" AGLT.O. (P) RRUS 442611'-10" AGLT.O. (P) TWIN DIPLEXERS14'-10" AGLT.O. (P) MOUNTING BRACKET15'-0" AGLT.O. (P) T.O. SHROUD14'-4" AGLT.O. (P) T.O. SHROUD11'-11" AGLT.O. (P) B.O. SHROUD9'-5" AGLT.O. (P) B.O. SHROUD12'-2" AGL(P) (1) SHROUD SECTOR / NODE: ________________________________STATE: ______ SWITCH : __________________________SITE ID : ________________________________________Transmi tting An tenna (s )Radio f requency f ields beyond this point MAY EXCEED the FCC Occupa tiona l exposu re l imi t.Obey all posted signs and si te gu ide lines .Call AT&T at 1 -800-638-2822 PR IOR toworking beyond this point .CAUTIONNo person is to come w ithin 6 feet o f th is an tenna node while ac tive.SHUTDOWNERICSSONERICSSONA-4ELEVATIONSDRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:JBCSSIT IS A VIOLATION OF THE LAW FOR ANY PERSON,UNLESS THEY ARE ACTING UNDER THE DIRECTION OFA LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER, TO ALTERTHIS DOCUMENT012/19/1890% CD2930 DOMINGO AVE, SUITE 150BERKELEY, CA 94705REVDATEDESCRIPTIONCRAN_RSFR_SFOK2_019(AF) 704 WINCHESTER DRBURLINGAME, CA 940105001 EXECUTIVE PARKWAYSAN RAMON, CA 94583240 STOCKTON ST., 3RD FLOORSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108101/15/19100% CD1PROPOSED SIDE ELEVATIONEXISTING SIDE ELEVATIONEXISTING SURFACE±0'-0" AGLEXISTING SURFACE±0'-0" AGL2(P) 3" COAX CONDUIT±8'-10" TO NEARESTPROPERTY LINE2A-2ENLARGEDDETAIL(P) RF WARNING SIGNAGE3'-0" BELOW CONDUCTORSSEE DETAIL 11/D-1(P) 1-1/2" DIA. POWER CONDUIT TO POC(E) WOOD POLE TO BEREMOVED AND REPLACEDNOTES:1.ALL EQUIPMENT SHALL BE PLACED (VERTICALLY)AS CLOSE AS ALLOWED BY POLE OWNER, WHILEMAINTAINING MINIMUM CLEARANCEREQUIREMENTS.2.MAINTAIN 6" MIN. CLEARANCE TO GUY WIREFROM PROPOSED EQUIPMENT.3.MAINTAIN 4" MIN. OFFSET BETWEEN THEMOUNTING BRACKET FLANGE AND THE POLE4.ALL ANTENNAS, BRACKETS, CABLING, CONDUIT,AND OTHER EQUIPMENT WILL BE PAINTEDNON-GLOSSY SABLE BY SHERWIN WILLIAMS (OREQUIVALENT)5.CABLING TO BE INSTALLED IN A TIGHT NEATMANNER WITHOUT EXCESS CABLE LOOPS(P) (1) AC LOAD CENTER W/SHUTDOWN SIGNAGE(P) MOUNTING BRACKET(P) (1) RRUS-4415 W/ (1) PSU(P) GROUND BAR(P) 2" FIBER CONDUIT(E) UTILITY / GUY WIRE21'-8" AGL(E) GUY WIRE21'-3" AGLRELOCATED (E) GUY WIRE22'-6" AGLRELOCATED (E) UTILITY WIRE22'-2" AGLRELOCATED (E) UTILITY / GUY WIRE22'-10" AGL(P) WOOD POLE(P) (1) RRUS-4426 W/ (1) PSU(P) (2) TWIN DIPLEXERS(P) AT&T CANISTER ANTENNARAD CENTER OF (P) ANTENNA26'-3" AGLT.O. (P) ANTENNA CANISTER27'-3" AGLB.O.(P) ANTENNA CANISTER25'-3" AGLT.O. (P) POLE24'-11" AGLT.O. (P) RRUS 441514'-2" AGLB.O. (P) AC LOAD CENTER8'-0" AGLT.O. (P) AC LOAD CENTER9'-1" AGLB.O. (P) RRUS 441512'-10" AGLGROUND BAR10'-2" AGL(P) GUY STAND OFF ARM8'-8" AGLB.O. (P) RRUS 442610'-4 1/2" AGLT.O. (P) RRUS 442611'-10" AGLT.O. (P) TWIN DIPLEXERS14'-10" AGLT.O. (P) MOUNTING BRACKET15'-0" AGL(E) GUY WIRE TO BEREMOVED ANDRE-INSTALLED(E) GUY WIRE RE-INSTALLED(E) UTILITY / GUY WIRE21'-8" AGL(E) UTILITY / GUY WIRE21'-3" AGL(E) UTILITY / GUY WIRE23'-1" AGL(E) GUY WIRE22'-8" AGL(E) UTILITY / GUY WIRE23'-5" AGLT.O. (E) POLE24'-9" AGL(E) GUY STAND OFFARM8'-8" AGLD-112'-0" MIN. COMM SAFETY ZONE AS PER G.O.95 2'-0" MIN. COMM SAFETY ZONE AS PER G.O.95(P) (1) SHROUD(E) GUY STAND OFF ARM TO BEREMOVED AND REPLACED(P) GUY STAND OFF ARMT.O. (P) T.O. SHROUD14'-4" AGL(P) (1) SHROUDT.O. (P) T.O. SHROUD11'-11" AGLT.O. (P) B.O. SHROUD9'-5" AGLT.O. (P) B.O. SHROUD12'-2" AGL 16.5"12" CLR 16" CLR 13.4"RRUS 4415WITHSUNSHIELDSIDE VIEWFRONT VIEWTOP VIEWERICSSONERICSSON RRUS 4415 B25(OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT)COLOR GRAYDIMENSIONS: 16.5" TALL x 13.4" WIDE x 5.9"DEEP(INCLUDING SUNSHIELD& HANDLE)WEIGHT, EXCLUDINGMOUNTING HARDWARE:46 lbsNOTE:REFER TO DETAIL 5/D-1 FORMOUNTING REQUIREMENT5.9"13.4"5.9"MOUNTINGBRACKETWOOD POLEPLAN VIEWPSU MOUNTEDBEHIND RRUS∠3x3x1/4"x0'-6" LONG W/ (2)1/2"Ø BOLTS TO CHANNEL3.54" BRACKET3"Normal Shut-Down Protocols:1.Call 800-638-2822 NOC 24HRS prior to schedule ashut-down day and time.2.Give NOC the Node number .3.On schedule day of shut-down, Put breaker switches in"OFF" position.4.Call NOC when work is completed.Emergency Shut-Down Protocols:1.Call 800-638-2822 NOC.2.Give NOC the Node number .3.Put breaker switches in "OFF" position.4.Call NOC when work is completed.4"NOTES:1.SIGN PROVIDED BY GC MOUNTED TOOUTSIDE OF LOAD CENTER COVER2.CONTRACTOR TO NOTE MARKET ID,SITE ID, SITE NAMESECTOR / NODE: ________________________________STATE: ______ SWITCH: __________________________SITE ID: ________________________________________Transmitting Antenna(s)Radio frequency fields beyond this point MAY EXCEED the FCC Occupational exposure limit.Obey all posted signs and site guidelines.Call AT&T at 1-800-638-2822 PRIOR toworking beyond this point.CAUTIONNo person is to come within 6 feet of this antenna node while active.ALUMINUM SUBSTRATE SIGNS PRINTED WITH UV RESISTANT ECO-SOLVENTINK, REINFORCED WITH UV, CHEMICAL, ABRASION, AND MOISTURE RESISTANTLAMINATE LAYER.SUBSTRATE: 0.040" ALUMINUM, WHITE ENAMEL COATED BOTH SIDESPRINTING LAYER: 4.0 MIL VINYL WITH PERMANENT ACRYLIC ADHESIVEUV STABLE ECO-SOLVENT INKLAMINATE:2.5 MIL, PVC FILM (OPTICALLY CLEAR)SCRATCH RESISTANTCHEMICAL RESISTANTUV RESISTANTMOUNTING:0.20" DIAMETER HOLES IN EACH OF 4 CORNER; OFFSET025" FROM ADJACENT EDGE.SIZE:12X8, 7X5, 6X3SEE SIZESEE SIZE NOTES:1. CONTRACTOR TONOTE MARKET ID, SITEID, SITE NAME2. SIGN SHALL MEETTHE REQUIREMENTSOF ANSI STANDARDSZ535-1, 2, 3, 4, 5CACRAN_SRFR_SFOK2_019PVC CONDUIT RISERSIZE AS PER DRAWINGS.12"14 GA. HOT DIP GALV.CONDUIT STRAP@ 3'-0" O.C.#8 x 2-1/2" GALV.WOOD SCREWS.75"1"PVC CONDUIT RISERSIZE AS PER DRAWINGS14 GA. HOT DIP GALV.CONDUIT STRAP(2) 9/16 DIA. HOLE12.75"9"SIDE VIEWFRONT VIEWREAR VIEWTOP VIEWAC LOAD CENTERQO612L100RBCOLOR: GRAYDIMENSIONS: 12.75" TALL x 9" WIDE x 4.25" DEEPTOTAL WEIGHT:3 LBS.PHASE.:3-WIREVOLTAGE:120/240AMPACITY:100 MAX4 1/4"9"12.75"4.5"SIGNAGEPER 12/D-123.6"7.9"-45-45-45+45+45SECTOR 1696-960 MHz1695-2700 MHz1695-270 0 M H z SECTOR 3SECTOR 2+45ANTENNAMANUFACTURE: COMMSCOPEMODEL: VVSSP-360S-F(OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT)ANTENNA COLOR:LIGHT GRAYDIMENSIONS: 23.6" TALL X Ø7.9"NET WEIGHT: 18 LBWIND LOADING MAX.: 13 LBF @ 150 KM/HRF CONNECTORS:(10) 4.3-10 FEMALE3/4" DIA. A307GALVANIZED THRUBOLT W/ 4" SQUAREWASHEREXISTING WOODUTILITY POLESTANDOFF SQUARE TUBE(4 LOCATIONS)C8x11.5 STEELCHANNEL8"6"MAX.TOP VIEWSTEEL CHANNEL3/4 "DIA. THRU BOLTNUT &WASHEREXISTING WOODUTILITY POLEHSS 4"x4"X1/4"X0'-6"STANDOFF SQUARETUBE(4 LOCATIONS)7'-0"ISO VIEW4"BELTGAPNOTE:ENGINEERING OF BRACKET TOBE PROVIDED BY OTHERSALTERNATE:PRE-MANUFACTURED BRACKETBY POLEWARE (OR EQUIVALENT)CANISTER ANTENNA4" MIN.LOCK WASHER 3/8" HDG(6 TOTAL)NUT HEX 3/8-16 HDG(6 TOTAL)GALVANIZED HEX LAG SCREW1/2"Ø X 2" (9 TOTAL)POLE MOUNTED BRACKET(3 TOTAL)AMPHENOL UTILITY MOUNTINGKIT WB3X-MKS-01UTILITY POLECOMMSCOPE TWIN DIPLEXER PCS/AWSCBC1923T-4310 / E11F13P06(OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT)COLOR: GRAYDIMENSIONS: 8.3" TALL x 4.6" WIDE x 1.8" DEEPTOTAL WEIGHT:4.4 LBS.FRONT VIEW(BACK TO BACK INSTALLATION)SIDE VIEWTOP VIEW8.3"8.34"2.5"8.3" 1.8"8.34"4.6"P4101 UNISTRUT2 LOCATIONSP4101 UNISTRUTTOP & BOTTOMP1068 ANGLE FITTINGTOP & BOTTOM W/(2) 1/2"Ø BOLTSUNISTRUTTYPUNISTRUTTYP16.5"13.5"RRU 4426WITHSUNSHIELDSIDE VIEWFRONT VIEWTOP VIEWERICSSONERICSSON RADIO 4426(OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT)COLOR GRAYDIMENSIONS: 16.5" TALL x 13.5" WIDE x 6.97"DEEP(INCLUDING SUNSHIELD& HANDLE)WEIGHT, EXCLUDINGMOUNTING HARDWARE:46 lbs (WITHOUT FAN)49.6 lbs (WITH FAN)6.97"13.5"6.97"D-1DETAILSDRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:JBCSSIT IS A VIOLATION OF THE LAW FOR ANY PERSON,UNLESS THEY ARE ACTING UNDER THE DIRECTION OFA LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER, TO ALTERTHIS DOCUMENT012/19/1890% CD2930 DOMINGO AVE, SUITE 150BERKELEY, CA 94705REVDATEDESCRIPTIONCRAN_RSFR_SFOK2_019(AF) 704 WINCHESTER DRBURLINGAME, CA 940105001 EXECUTIVE PARKWAYSAN RAMON, CA 94583240 STOCKTON ST., 3RD FLOORSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108101/15/19100% CD1NTSSCALENTSSCALEANTENNA 2NTSSCALENTSSCALE3NTSSCALENTSSCALEERICSSON RRUS-44157NTSSCALENTSSCALEMOUNTING BRACKET8NTSSCALENTSSCALECONDUIT BRACKET9NTSSCALENTSSCALERRUS MOUNTING10NTSSCALENTSSCALE11NTSSCALENTSSCALEG.O. 95 RF SIGNAGE1245NTSSCALENTSSCALE6NTSSCALENTSSCALETWIN DIPLEXERUTILITY POLE TOP MOUNTNOT USEDLOAD CENTER SHUTDOWN SIGNAGEAC LOAD CENTERERICSSON RRUS-4426 GROUNDINGINTERFACEDC POWER INTERFACEAC POWER INTERFACEERICSSION PSUDIMENSIONS: 2.72" TALL x 10.79" WIDE x 7.09" DEEPWEIGHT:11.46 lbsTHE PSU IS REQUIRED TO OPERATE THE RRUS ON AC. IF THE RRUS IS INSTALLED OUTDOORS, THEACCU IS ALSO REQUIRED, OTHERWISE THE ACCU IS OPTIONAL. THE EQUIPMENT FOR AC POWERSUPPLY IS SHOWN FIGURE 1FIGURE 1PROPOSED CONDUITSPER PLANWOOD POLECROSS ARMNOTE:CONDUITS SHALL IN NO CASE,CROSS OVER INTO THE CLIMBSPACE QUADRANT, OR OTHERQUADRANTSTYPICAL CROSS ARM OBSTRUCTIONDENOTES QUADRANTDESIGNATION PER PLANNOTE:MAINTAIN 18" MIN.CLEARANCE FROM POLEAND/OR CONCRETE EDGESNOTE:MAINTAIN 18" MIN.CLEARANCE FROM POLEMINIMUM SPACING BETWEEN(2) GROUND ROD IS 6'-0" PERG.O. 95 SECTION 59.4.A.2.f2'-0" MIN. 12" MIN.TOP OF GRADE ORFINISHED SURFACE#2 AWG IN 1-1/2" SCHED80 PVC CONDUITPRECAST CONCRETEGROUND BOX WITHENGRAVED LIP-CHRISTYOR EQUIVALENTTEST LOOP, 12" BELOWFINISHED GRADE MAX.MECHANICAL CONNECTIONSAND5/8" DIA. x 10 FT. GROUNDROD PER N.E.C. ARTICLE 250MANUFACTURER:TESCO MANUFACTURINGMODEL: 26-000HEIGHT: 50 INWIDTH: 12 INDEPTH: 7.25 INWEIGHT: TBAPLANSIDEELEVATION(N) CONCRETE SLABSEE DETAIL 8/D-2PROVIDE (4)-1/2" Ø x 7"LONG A307 GALV.ANCHOR BOLTSALT: (4)-1/2" Ø x 314"EMBED HILTI KWIKBOLT TZ (STAINLESSSTEEL) ANCHORS8"5"(N) 12" THICK CONCRETEPAD W/ #5 BARS @ 12"O.C. EA. WAY TOP &BOTTOM3'-0"AA3" CLR TYP 1'-0"#5 BAR @ 12" O.C. EA.WAY TOP & BOTTOMPLANSECTION A-A6"3'-0"NOTES1. MAINTAIN 5'-0" MIN. CLEARANCE FROM POLE2. PROVIDE (1) 2" SCHEDULE 80 CONDUIT FROM PULL BOX ROUTED TO POLE AND STUBBED UP 12".H1730-12 CONCRETE PULL BOXDIMENSIONS: 12"H.x 28-5/16"W.x 15-5/16"D.MATERIAL: POLYMER CONCRETEWEIGHT: 65 LBS.1'-8"FRONT VIEWSIDE VIEWTOP VIEW1'-2 1/2"SOLAR SHIELDMANUFACTURE: CONCEALFABCOLOR: ALL AT&T ADDED APPURTENANCES SHALL BEPAINTED TO MATCH POLE COLOR (NON-GLOSSY"SABLE" BY SHERWIN WILLIAMS, OR EQUIVALENT)DIMENSIONS: TOP 2'-2" TALL X 1'-2 1/2" WIDE X 11 1/2"BOTTOM 2'-6" TALL X 1'-2 1/2" WIDE X 11 1/2"NOTE: APPLY PAINT WITH UV INHIBITOR11 1/2"MOUNTING BRACKETSOLARSHIELDTYP1'-2 1/2"WOOD POLE11 1/2" 2'-0"6"5 3/4"2'-6"R6"R6"6" 2'-2"D-2DETAILSDRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:JBCSSIT IS A VIOLATION OF THE LAW FOR ANY PERSON,UNLESS THEY ARE ACTING UNDER THE DIRECTION OFA LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER, TO ALTERTHIS DOCUMENT012/19/1890% CD2930 DOMINGO AVE, SUITE 150BERKELEY, CA 94705REVDATEDESCRIPTIONCRAN_RSFR_SFOK2_019(AF) 704 WINCHESTER DRBURLINGAME, CA 940105001 EXECUTIVE PARKWAYSAN RAMON, CA 94583240 STOCKTON ST., 3RD FLOORSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108101/15/19100% CD1NTSSCALENTSSCALEGROUND ROD ENCLOSURE3NTSSCALENTSSCALEPSU AC08 79101112462NTSSCALENTSSCALEGROUND ROD NOT USEDPEDESTAL SLAB DETAILTYP CROSS ARM OBSTRUCTIONSHROUD BOXCONCRETE PULL BOXMETER PEDESTAL NOT USEDNOT USED85NOT USED DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:JBCSSIT IS A VIOLATION OF THE LAW FOR ANY PERSON,UNLESS THEY ARE ACTING UNDER THE DIRECTION OFA LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER, TO ALTERTHIS DOCUMENT012/19/1890% CD2930 DOMINGO AVE, SUITE 150BERKELEY, CA 94705REVDATEDESCRIPTIONCRAN_RSFR_SFOK2_019(AF) 704 WINCHESTER DRBURLINGAME, CA 940105001 EXECUTIVE PARKWAYSAN RAMON, CA 94583240 STOCKTON ST., 3RD FLOORSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108101/15/19100% CD2. EQUIPMENT LOCATIONE/TOVERHEAD TELEPHONE LINEOVERHEAD TELEPHONE/OVERHEAD POWEROVERHEAD POWER LINEWPSSSAFETYSECONDARYSURFACESWITCHSOFT DRAWN BARE COPPERSOLID NEUTRALTYPICALWITHVOLTVOLT ALTERNATING CURRENTWATT OR WIREUNDERWRITER'S LABORATORY INC.UNDERGROUNDTELEPHONETRANSFERWITHOUTCROSS-LINK POLYETHYLENETRANSFORMERMANUFACTURERMOUNTEDMOUNTINGNEUTRALMINIMUMMAIN LUGS ONLYWVOVERHEADPHASEPANELBOARDPOLEPERSONALCOMMUNICATION SYSTEMNATIONAL ELECTRICALMANUFACTURERS ASSOC.NEWMFRMLOMTGNMTDMINNEMAOHPCSPHP(N)PNLBDRECEPTACLEPOWERPRIMARYRIGID GALVANIZED STEELPOWER PROTECTION CABINETPRIMARY RADIO CABINETPPCPRCRCPTPWRPRIRGSW/OXFERXLPEXFMRTELVACW/TYPU.L.U/GSDBCSURFSECSWS.N.SAFELECENCLFACF/AEXISTEMTFTGGENFUGPSGRGNDGFCIFLUORAAICACCAATBDBRAWGCCABBTSBTCWBRKRAPPROXAMPEREBRANCHBARE TINNED COPPER WIREAPPROXIMATELYAMERICAN WIRE GAGEAMPERE TRIPAMPERE INTERRUPTINGCAPACITYBREAKERANTENNA CABLE COVER ASSEMBLYCONDUITCABINETBASE TRANSMISSION SYSTEMBOARDHDBCHPSLPSMAXLGMECHCBCKTDEM(E)CONTCIRCUITDEMANDEXISTINGCIRCUIT BREAKERCONTINUOUSHARD DRAWN COPPER WIRELOW PRESSURE SODIUMMECHANICALMAXIMUMHIGH PRESSURE SODIUMLENGTHFLUORESCENTFUSEGENERATORGROUND FAULT CIRCUITINTERRUPTERGROUNDFOOT/FEETGLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEMGROWTHGROUNDINGELECTRICAL METALLIC TUBINGELECTRICALENCLOSUREFIRE ALARMFACTOREXISTINGUNLESS NOTED OTHERWISEU.N.O.EGREMERGENCY GEN. RECEPTACLEMANUAL TRANSFER SWITCHMTSBATTBATTERYLIGHTING FIXTURE, 1/175W. METAL HALIDE, HUBBELL CAT#MIC-0175H-3365/8" X 10'-0" ,CU. GND ROD 24" MIN. BELOW GRADE.CADWELD CONNECTIONCIRCUIT BREAKERMECHANICAL CONNECTIONHALO GROUND CONNECTIONUTILITY METER BASERECEPTACLE, 2P-3W-125V-15A, DUPLEX, GROUND TYPE,HUBBEL CATALOG #5362TOGGLE SWITCH, 1P-120V-15A, "WP"TOGGLE SWITCH, 1P-125V-15A, HUBBELL CATALOG #HBL1201CNCHEMICAL GROUND ROD (XIT GROUND ROD)5/8" X 10'-0" ,CU. GND ROD IN TEST WELL 24" MIN. BELOWGRADE.POWER RUNTELCO RUNPOWER/TELCO RUNLIGHTING FIXTURE, INCANDESCENT, 1/100W, WALLMOUNTING TYPE, HUBBELL LIGHTING CATALOG#BRH-100-06-1MANUAL TRANSFER SWITCH, 2P-240V-200A, NO FUSE,NEMA 3R ENCLOSUREFUSE, SIZE AND TYPE AS INDICATED.SAFETY SWITCH, 2P-240V-60A W/60A FUSES, NEMA 3RENCLOSURE, SQ D CATALOG NO. H222NRBGROUNDING CONDUCTORGENERAL ABBREVIATIONSME-1ELECTRICALGENERAL NOTES3A.ALL WORK AND MATERIALS SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LATESTRULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE NATIONAL ELECTRIC CODE AND ALLSTATE AND LOCAL CODES. NOTHING IN THESE PLANS OR SPECIFICATIONSSHALL BE CONSTRUED AS TO PERMIT WORK NOT CONFORMING TO THEMOST STRINGENT OF THESE CODES. SHOULD CHANGES BE NECESSARY INTHE DRAWINGS OR SPECIFICATIONS TO MAKE THE WORK COMPLY WITHTHESE REQUIREMENTS, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THEENGINEER IN WRITING AND CEASE WORK ON PARTS OF THE CONTRACTB.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAKE A SITE VISIT PRIOR TO BIDDING ANDCONSTRUCTION TO VERIFY ALL EXISTING CONDITIONS AND SHALL NOTIFYTHE ENGINEER IMMEDIATELY UPON DISCOVERY OF ANY DISCREPANCIES.THE CONTRACTOR ASSUMES ALL LIABILITY FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITHTHIS PROVISION.C.THE EXTENT OF THE WORK IS INDICATED BY THE DRAWINGS, SCHEDULES,AND SPECIFICATIONS AND IS SUBJECT TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OFTHE CONTRACT. THE WORK SHALL CONSIST OF FURNISHING ALL LABOR,EQUIPMENT, MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES NECESSARY FOR A COMPLETE ANDOPERATIONAL ELECTRICAL SYSTEM. THE WORK SHALL ALSO INCLUDE THECOMPLETION OF ALL ELECTRICAL WORK NOT MENTIONED OR SHOWNWHICH ARE NECESSARY FOR SUCCESSFUL OPERATION OF ALL SYSTEMS.D.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PREPARE A BID FOR A COMPLETE ANDOPERATIONAL SYSTEM, WHICH INCLUDES THE COST FOR MATERIAL ANDLABOR.E.WORKMANSHIP AND NEAT APPEARANCE SHALL BE AS IMPORTANT AS THEOPERATION. DEFECTIVE OR DAMAGED MATERIALS SHALL BE REPLACED ORREPAIRED PRIOR TO FINAL ACCEPTANCE IN A MANNER ACCEPTABLE TOOWNER AND ENGINEER.F.COMPLETE THE ENTIRE INSTALLATION AS SOON AS THE PROGRESS OF THEWORK WILL PERMIT.G.ANY ERROR, OMISSION OR DESIGN DISCREPANCY ON THE DRAWINGSSHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE ENGINEER FORCLARIFICATION OR CORRECTION BEFORE CONSTRUCTION.H."PROVIDE" INDICATES THAT ALL ITEMS ARE TO BE FURNISHED, INSTALLEDAND CONNECTED IN PLACE.I.CONTRACTOR SHALL SECURE ALL NECESSARY BUILDING PERMITS AND PAYALL REQUIRED FEES.A.ALL DRAWINGS INDICATE DIAGRAMMATICALLY THE DESIRED LOCATIONSOR ARRANGEMENTS OF CONDUIT RUNS, OUTLETS, EQUIPMENT, ETC., ANDARE TO BE FOLLOWED AS CLOSELY AS POSSIBLE. PROPER JUDGEMENTMUST BE EXERCISED IN EXECUTING THE WORK SO AS TO SECURE THE BESTPOSSIBLE INSTALLATION IN THE AVAILABLE SPACE AND TO OVERCOMELOCAL DIFFICULTIES DUE TO SPACE LIMITATIONS OR INTERFERENCE OFSTRUCTURE CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED.B.IN THE EVENT CHANGES IN THE INDICATED LOCATIONS ORARRANGEMENTS ARE NECESSARY, DUE TO FIELD CONDITIONS IN THEBUILDING CONSTRUCTION OR REARRANGEMENT OF EQUIPMENT, SUCHCHANGES SHALL BE MADE WITHOUT COST, PROVIDING THE CHANGE ISORDERED BEFORE THE CONDUIT RUNS, ETC., AND WORK DIRECTLYCONNECTED TO THE SAME IS INSTALLED AND NO EXTRA MATERIALS AREREQUIRED.C.COORDINATE THE WORK OF THE SECTION WITH THAT OF ALL OTHERTRADES. WHERE CONFLICTS OCCUR, CONSULT WITH THE PERSPECTIVECONTRACTOR AND COME TO AGREEMENT AS TO CHANGES NECESSARY.OBTAIN WRITTEN ACCEPTANCE FROM ENGINEER FOR THE PROPOSEDCHANGES BEFORE PROCEEDING.1. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS3. TESTSA.BEFORE FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WORK, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSURETHAT ALL EQUIPMENT, SYSTEMS, FIXTURES, ETC., ARE WORKINGSATISFACTORILY AND TO THE INTENT OF THE DRAWINGS.4. PERMITSA.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR TAKING OUT AND PAYINGFOR ALL THE REQUIRED PERMITS, INSPECTION AND EXAMINATION WITHOUTADDITIONAL EXPENSE TO THE OWNER.6. UTILITY SERVICEA.TELEPHONE AND ELECTRICAL METERING FACILITIES SHALL CONFORM TOTHE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SERVING UTILITY COMPANIES. CONTRACTORSHALL VERIFY SERVICE LOCATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS. SERVICEINFORMATION WILL BE FURNISHED BY THE SERVING UTILITIES.B.CONFORM TO ALL REQUIREMENTS OF THE SERVING UTILITY COMPANIES.7. PRODUCTSA.ALL MATERIALS SHALL BE NEW, CONFORMING WITH THE NEC, ANSI, NEMA,AND THEY SHALL BE U.L. LISTED AND LABELED.B.CONDUIT:B.1.RIGID CONDUIT SHALL BE U.L. LABEL GALVANIZED ZINC COATED WITHZINC INTERIOR AND SHALL BE USED WHEN INSTALLED IN OR UNDERCONCRETE SLABS, IN CONTACT WITH THE EARTH, UNDER PUBLICROADWAYS, IN MASONRY WALLS OR EXPOSED ON BUILDINGEXTERIOR, RIGID CONDUIT IN CONTACT WITH EARTH SHALL BE 1/2LAPPED WRAPPED WITH HUNTS WRAP PROCESS NO. 3.B.2.ELECTRICAL METALLIC TUBING SHALL HAVE U.L. LABEL, FITTINGS SHALLBE COMPRESSION TYPE. EMT SHALL BE USED ONLY FOR INTERIOR RUNS.B.3.FLEXIBLE METALLIC CONDUIT SHALL HAVE U.L. LISTED LABEL AND MAYBE USED WHERE PERMITTED BY CODE. FITTINGS SHALL BE "JAKE" OR"SQUEEZE" TYPE. SEAL TIGHT FLEXIBLE CONDUIT. ALL CONDUIT INEXCESS OF SIX FEET IN LENGTH SHALL HAVE FULL SIZE GROUND WIRE.B.4.ALL UNDERGROUND CONDUITS SHALL BE PVC SCHEDULE 40 (UNLESSNOTED OTHERWISE) AT A MINIMUM DEPTH OF 24" BELOW GRADE.B.5.ALL CONDUIT ONLY (C.O.) SHALL HAVE PULL ROPE.C.ALL WIRE AND CABLE SHALL BE COPPER, 600 VOLT, #12 AWG MINIMUMUNLESS 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 USEDUNLESS CONDUCTORS INSTALLED IN CONDUIT EXPOSED TO WEATHER, INWHICH CASE TYPE THWN INSULATION SHALL BE USED.D. PROVIDE GALVANIZED COATED STEEL BOXES AND ACCESSORIES SIZEDPER CODE TO ACCOMMODATE ALL DEVICES AND WIRING.E.TOGGLE SWITCHES SHALL BE 20 AMP, 120 VOLT AC, SPECIFICATIONGRADE WHITE (UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE) FINISH. MOUNT SWITCHES AT+48" ABOVE FINISHED FLOOR.F.PANELBOARD SHALL BE DEAD FRONT SAFETY TYPE WITH ANTI-BURNSOLDERLESS COMPRESSION APPROVED FOR COPPER CONDUCTORS,COPPER BUS BARS, FULL SIZED NEUTRAL BUS, GROUND BUS AND EQUIPPEDWITH QUICK-MAKE QUICK-BREAK BOLT-IN TYPE THERMAL MAGNETICCIRCUIT BREAKERS. MOUNT TOP OF THE PANELBOARD AT 6'-3" ABOVEFINISHED FLOOR. PROVIDE TYPEWRITTEN CIRCUIT DIRECTORY.G.ALL CIRCUIT BREAKERS, MAGNETIC STARTERS AND OTHERELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT SHALL HAVE AN INTERRUPTING RATING NOT LESSTHAN MAXIMUM SHORT CIRCUIT CURRENT TO WHICH THEY MAY BESUBJECTED.H.GROUND RODS SHALL BE COPPER CLAD STEEL, 5/8" ROUND AND 10'LONG. COPPERWELD OR APPROVED EQUAL.I.SERVICE POWER SHALL BE 100A 1Ø, 3W, 120/208 OR 120/240V.J.ALL WIRING SHALL BE COPPER 75° C U.N.O.K.CONDUIT REQUIREMENTS (TYP., U.N.O.): UNDERGROUND: PVC (SCHED 40OR 80), INDOOR: EMT (RGS IN TRAFFIC AREAS, OUTDOOR (ABOVEGRADE): RGS.L.PLACE "TRUE TAPE" AND PULL ROPE IN THE CONDUITS AS REQUIRED.8. INSTALLATIONA.PROVIDE SUPPORTING DEVICES FOR ALL ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT,FIXTURES, BOXES, PANEL, ETC., EQUIPMENT SHALL BE BRACED TOWITHSTAND HORIZONTAL FORCES IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATE ANDLOCAL CODE REQUIREMENTS. PROVIDE PRIOR ALIGNMENT AND LEVELINGOF ALL DEVICES AND FIXTURES.9. PROJECT CLOSEOUTA.UPON COMPLETION OF WORK, CONDUCT CONTINUITY, SHORT CIRCUIT,AND FALL POTENTIAL GROUNDING TESTS FOR APPROVAL. SUBMIT TESTREPORTS TO PROJECT MANAGER. CLEAN PREMISES OF ALL DEBRISRESULTING FROM WORK AND LEAVE WORK IN A COMPLETE ANDUNDAMAGED CONDITION.B.PROVIDE PROJECT MANAGER WITH ONE SET OF COMPLETE "AS INSTALLED"DRAWINGS AT THE COMPLETION OF THE JOB, SHOWING ACTUALDIMENSIONS, ROUTINGS AND CIRCUITS.ELECTRICAL NOTES21ELECTRICAL LEGENDS E T5. GROUNDINGA.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE A COMPLETE, AND APPROVEDGROUNDING SYSTEM INCLUDING ELECTRODES. ELECTRODE CONDUCTOR,BONDING CONDUCTORS, AND EQUIPMENT CONDUCTORS AS REQUIREDBY ARTICLE 250 OF NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE.B.CONDUITS CONNECTED TO EQUIPMENT AND DEVICES SHALL BEMETALLICALLY JOINED TOGETHER TO PROVIDE EFFECTIVE ELECTRICALCONTINUITY.C.FEEDERS AND BRANCH CIRCUIT WIRING INSTALLED IN A NONMETALLICCONDUIT SHALL INCLUDE A CODE SIZED GROUNDING CONDUCTORHAVING GREEN INSULATION. THE GROUND CONDUCTOR SHALL BEPROPERLY CONNECTED AT BOTH ENDS TO MAINTAIN ELECTRICALCONTINUITY.D.REFER TO GROUND BUS DETAILS. PROVIDE NEW GROUND SYSTEMCOMPLETE WITH CONDUCTORS, GROUND ROD AND DESCRIBEDTERMINATIONS.E.ALL GROUNDING CONDUCTORS SHALL BE SOLID TINNED COPPER ANDANNEALED #2 UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE.F.ALL NON-DIRECT BURIED TELEPHONE EQUIPMENT GROUND CONDUCTORSSHALL BE #2 STRANDED, THHN (GREEN) INSULATION.G.ALL GROUND CONNECTIONS SHALL BE MADE WITH "HYGROUND"COMPRESSION SYSTEM BURNDY CONNECTORS EXCEPT WHERE NOTEDOTHERWISE.H.PAINT AT ALL GROUND CONNECTIONS SHALL BE REMOVED.I.GROUNDING SYSTEM RESISTANCE SHALL NOT EXCEED 5 OHMS. IF THERESISTANCE VALUE IS EXCEEDED, NOTIFY THE OWNER FOR FUTUREINSTRUCTION ON METHODS FOR REDUCING THE RESISTANCE VALUE.SUBMIT TEST REPORTS AND FURNISH TO AT&T ONE COMPLETE SET OF PRINTSSHOWING "INSTALLED WORK". DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:JBCSSIT IS A VIOLATION OF THE LAW FOR ANY PERSON,UNLESS THEY ARE ACTING UNDER THE DIRECTION OFA LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER, TO ALTERTHIS DOCUMENT012/19/1890% CD2930 DOMINGO AVE, SUITE 150BERKELEY, CA 94705REVDATEDESCRIPTIONCRAN_RSFR_SFOK2_019(AF) 704 WINCHESTER DRBURLINGAME, CA 940105001 EXECUTIVE PARKWAYSAN RAMON, CA 94583240 STOCKTON ST., 3RD FLOORSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108101/15/19100% CDSHUTDOWNERICSSONERICSSONLOAD CENTERMAIN100AMOUNTINGSURFACEVOLTS1201PHASE2WIRE10,000A.I.C. SYMBUS100AVOLT AMPSL1L2OTHERRECLTGOLEBKRCIRPCIRBKROLEPLTGREC13--5791124681012VOLT AMPSL1L2L1=696L2 =696CONTINUOUS LOADSUP TO 10KVA-x1.00 =-REMAINDER-x1.00 =-RECEPTACLESX1.25 =-OTHER =x1.00 =-TOTAL DESIGN KW = 1.74TOTAL DESIGN AMPS = 14.5NON-CONTINUOUS LOADS696139217406961696696--SPARESPARE11115151520NOTE: INSTALL JUMPER ACROSS PHASE BUS BARS FOR 120V 2-WIRE SERVICERRUS-4415RRUS-4426ONE-LINE DIAGRAM &GROUNDING SCHEMATIC1E-212ONE-LINE DIAGRAMGROUNDING SCHEMATICUNDER GROUND SERVICEFROM PG&ECOAX CABLES TO RUN WITHINNEW 3" DIA. CONDUIT TOANTENNASRRUS PER PLAN(2) 2#10 W/ #10 AWG GROUNDPOWER CABLES TO RUN WITHINNEW 1.5" DIA. CONDUIT(2)-#4 AWG(1)-#8 AWG GND. IN 1-1/2"DIA. CONDUIT100A, 120/240V, 1PH, 3W, 42KAIC METER WITH TESTBYPASS SWITCHMEXISTING POWER SOURCE120V 2W, 1PH PER PLANNOTE:REFER TO ERICSSON SPECS FORADDITIONAL INFORMATIONINCLUDING WIRING INSTRUCTIONS &GROUNDING REQUIREMENTSPROPOSED CANISTERANTENNARRUSw/ PSU AC& ACCURRUSw/ PSU AC& ACCUAC LOAD CENTER &DISCONNECT5/8" DIA. COPPER CLAD STEELGROUND ROD5/8" DIA. COPPER CLAD STEELGROUND RODGROUND TEST WELL PER 1/E-3(E) SURFACE6'-0" MIN.NEW RRUSW/ PSU'S & ACCU BEHIND(PROVIDE ADDITIONAL#10 GROUND WIRES ASREQUIRED FOR PSU &ACCU EQUIPMENT)COPPER GROUNDBAR PER DETAIL 2/E-3#2 AWG GROUND CONDUCTORWITHIN 1"DIA. GROUND MOLDING(N) #8 THWN RUN IN 1" DIA. MIN. SCHED.80 PVC MOLDING WITH POLE CONDUITSTRAPS AT 3'-0" MAX. O.C. PER PG&ESTANDARDS [LOCATE NEAR EXISTINGPOWER GROUND WIRE IF PRACTICAL]CONNECT TO BUS BARPROPOSED CANISTERANTENNA(2) #4 AWG & #8 AWG GROUND IN1-1/2" DIA. CONDUITNEW AC LOAD CENTERNEW RRUSW/ PSU'S & ACCU BEHIND(PROVIDE ADDITIONAL#10 GROUND WIRES ASREQUIRED FOR PSU &ACCU EQUIPMENT)#10 AWG GROUND CONDUCTOR#10 AWG GROUNDCONDUCTORS#2 AWG BARE GROUNDBONDING CONDUCTORNEW ELECTRICAL METER#8 AWG IN 3/4" DIA.SCHED 80 PVC CONDUITTO GROUND ROD PERN.E.C. ARTICLE 2505/8"DIA. COPPER CLADSTEEL GROUND RODSEE 2/D-2SEE GROUNDING SCHEMATICTO 5/8"DIA.x10' GROUND RODPER N.E.C. ARTICLE 250NOTES:1. GROUND ROD: UL LISTED COPPER CLAD STEEL. MINIMUM 5/8" DIAMETER x 10'-0" LONG. ALLGROUND RODS MAY BE INSTALLED WITH INSPECTION SLEEVES. GROUND RODS SHALL BE DRIVENTO THE DEPTH OF GROUND CONDUCTOR.2. CELL REFERENCE GROUND BAR: POINT OF GROUND REFERENCE FOR ALL COMMUNICATIONSEQUIPMENT FRAMES. ALL BONDS ARE MADE WITH GREEN INSULATED COPPER CONDUCTORS SIZEDAS SHOWN. BOND TO GROUND ROD AS SHOWN IN THE GROUNDING SCHEMATIC.3. EXTERIOR UNIT BONDS: METALLIC OBJECTS SHALL BE BONDED TO THE EXTERIOR GROUND ROD.4. PROVIDE ALL ELECTRICAL WORK & MATERIALS AS SHOWN ON THE DWGS, AS CALLED FOR HEREIN,& AS IS NECESSARY TO FURNISH A COMPLETE INSTALLATION.5. OUTDOOR EQUIPMENT SHALL BE RATED NEMA 3R AND/OR UL LISTED FOR WET ENVIRONMENT.6. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR TESTING THE GROUNDING SYSTEM ANDENSURING A 5 OHM OR LESS GROUNDING PATH. ADDITIONAL GROUND RODS AND/OR CHEMICALROD SYSTEM SHALL BE USED TO ACHIEVE THIS REQUIREMENT IF THE GIVEN DESIGN CANNOT BEMADE TO ACHIEVE THIS REQUIREMENT.#10 AWG GROUND CONDUCTORNEW TWIN DIPLEXERS DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:JBCSSIT IS A VIOLATION OF THE LAW FOR ANY PERSON,UNLESS THEY ARE ACTING UNDER THE DIRECTION OFA LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER, TO ALTERTHIS DOCUMENT012/19/1890% CD2930 DOMINGO AVE, SUITE 150BERKELEY, CA 94705REVDATEDESCRIPTIONCRAN_RSFR_SFOK2_019(AF) 704 WINCHESTER DRBURLINGAME, CA 940105001 EXECUTIVE PARKWAYSAN RAMON, CA 94583240 STOCKTON ST., 3RD FLOORSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108101/15/19100% CDE-3 ELECTRICAL DETAILS196385274TYPE VBTYPE VSTYPE GL LUGTYPE XATYPE GRTYPE PGTYPE LJTYPE HATYPE GTTYPE SSTYPE TATYPE PCTYPE RRTYPE NDTYPE NX1TYPE GYTYPE NCTYPE PHTYPE GREXOTHERMIC WELD CONNECTION2 BOLT PARALLEL SPLICERCLAMPCROSS RUN CLAMPCAST ``T'' SPLICER1 BOLT PARALLELROD CLAMPBOLT GRND.2 HOLE LUG 50H21 BOLT PARALLEL CLAMP``U'' BOLT PIPE CLAMPUNIVERSAL PIPE CLAMPSUNIVERSAL PIPECLAMPS75/1.25MECHANICAL CONNECTIONNOT USED1.COPPER GROUND BAR, HOLE CENTERS TO MATCH NEMADOUBLE LUG CONFIGURATION. (ACTUAL GROUND BAR SIZEWILL VARY BASED ON NUMBER OF GROUND CONNECTIONS)2.INSULATORS, NEWTON INSTRUMENT CAT. NO. 3061-4 ORAPPROVED EQUAL3.5/8" LOCK WASHERS, NEWTON INSTRUMENT CO., CAT. NO.3015-8 OR APPROVED EQUAL4.WALL MOUNTING BRACKET, NEWTON INSTRUMENT CO., CATNO. A-6056 OR APPROVED EQUAL5.5/8-11 X 1" HHCS BOLTS, NEWTON INSTRUMENT CO., CAT NO.3012-1 OR APPROVED EQUAL6.INSULATORS SHALL BE ELIMINATED WHEN BONDINGDIRECTLY TO TOWER/MONOPINE STRUCTURE. CONNECTIONTO TOWER/MONOPINE STRUCTURE SHALL BE PERMANUFACTURERS RECOMMENDATIONS.7.VALMONT TINMG212U-K (OR EQUIVALENT) 1/4"X2"X12"NOTES:GROUND BAR NOT USED10NOT USEDNOT USEDGROUND ROD INSPECTION WELL.CHRISTY F14 BOX WITH ADAPTERS ANDEXTENSIONS AS REQUIRED AND D210CONCRETE LID. COORDINATEINSTALLATION WITH OWNER. LABEL"GROUND" OR "GROUND ROD".#SIZE PER GROUNDINGSCHEMATIC TO PPC5/8" COPPER CLADSTEEL GROUND RODPATCH, REPLACE ORRECOMPACT TO MATCHEXISTING ADJACENT MATERIALAND SURFACE. (90%COMPACTION AT EARTHBACKFILLS)GROUND TEST WELLNOTE:REFER TO 1/D-2 FOR ENCLOSURE#2 SOLID TO MAIN GROUND BUSBAR (MGB) TRANSITION FROM#2 SOLID (BELOW) AT 6" ABOVEGRADE WITH MECHANICALCONNECTOR (WHERE SHOWN)GROUND WIRE TO BARBACKFILL (SAND ORNATIVE SOIL) PER ASTMSTANDARDSUTILITY WARNING TAPENOTES:1.4" MIN TO SECONDARY ELECTRIC, 12" MIN TO PRIMARY ELECTRIC (SEPARATIONDIMENSION TO BE VERIFIED WITH LOCAL UTILITY COMPANY REQUIREMENTS)2.MINIMUM COVERAGE OF DUCT ON PRIVATE PROPERTY 18" OR AS SPECIFIED BYPERMITTING AGENT.3.MINIMUM COVERAGE OF DUCT IN PUBLIC R/W 24" OR AS SPECIFIED BY PERMITTINGAGENT.4.MINIMUM 12" SEPARATION IN JOINT TRENCH BETWEEN POWER AND TELCO, OR ASSPECIFIED BY PERMITTING AGENT. (VERTICAL SEPARATION UNLESS PREVIOUSLYAPPROVED DUE TO SPECIFIC SITE CONDITIONS.)POWER CONDUITWHERE APPLICABLECOORDINATE SIZEAND TYPE WITH LOCALUTILITYUNDISTURBED SOILCOMPACTEDBACKFILL W/SATISFACTORY NATIVEOR IMPORTED SOILFINISHED GRADE, ACPAVING MATCH SLOPEAND THICKNESS OFEXISTING CONDITIONSUTILITY TRENCHTELEPHONE CONDUITWHERE APPLICABLECOORDINATE SIZEAND TYPE WITH LOCALUTILITY6"MIN.6"MIN.6"MIN. 8'-0"24'-0"42'-0"100'-0"N.T.S.TCP-1DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:JBMBIT IS A VIOLATION OF THE LAW FOR ANY PERSON,UNLESS THEY ARE ACTING UNDER THE DIRECTION OFA LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER, TO ALTERTHIS DOCUMENT012/31/18100% CD2930 DOMINGO AVE, SUITE 150BERKELEY, CA 94705REVDATEDESCRIPTION240 STOCKTON ST., 3RD FLOORSAN FRANCISCO, CA 941085001 EXECUTIVE PARKWAYSAN RAMON, CA 94583CRAN_RSFR_SFOK2_019(AF) 704 WINCHESTER DRBURLINGAME, CA 94010TRAFFIC CONTROL PLANTRAFFIC CONE (10' MAX SPACING)TRAFFIC SIGNLANE DIRECTION1. ALL DELINEATORS SHALL BE EQUIPPED WITH REFLECTORS AT NIGHT TIME.2. ALL TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES, STRIPES, MARKINGS, LEGENDS AND RAISEDPAVEMENT MARKERS SHALL CONFORM TO THE LATEST EDITIONS OF THEFOLLOWING: A) CA MUTCD, B) STATE OF CALIFORNIA STANDARDSPECIFICATIONS, C) SPECIAL PROVISIONS, AND D) STANDARD PLANS.3. THE CONTRACTOR PERFORMING THE WORK ON A PUBLIC STREET SHALLASSUME RESPONSIBILITY AS FOLLOWS: A) INSTALL AND MAINTAIN THE TRAFFICCONTROL DEVICES AS SHOWN HEREIN, B) ANY ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC CONTROLDEVICES THAT MAY BE REQUIRED TO INSURE THE SAFE MOVEMENT OF TRAFFICAND PEDESTRIANS THROUGH OR AROUND THE WORK AREA, AND C) PROVIDEMAXIMUM PROTECTION AND SAFETY TO CONSTRUCTION WORKERS.4. THE CITY OR COUNTY OF RECORD AS WELL AS CALTRANS RESERVE THERIGHT TO OBSERVE THESE TRAFFIC CONTROL PLANS IN USE. THEY HAVE THEAUTHORITY TO MAKE ANY NECESSARY CHANGES AS FIELD CONDITIONSWARRANT. ANY CHANGES SHALL SUPERSEDE THESE PLANS. THE EXACTLOCATION OF ALL EQUIPMENT AND TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES SHALL BEDETERMINED BY THE ENGINEER. 5. ALL SIGNS, DELINEATORS, BARRICADES, ETC. AND THEIR INSTALLATION SHALLCONFORM TO THE LATEST EDITIONS OF THE: A) CA. MANUAL OF UNIFORMTRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES, B) THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA STANDARDSPECIFICATIONS, C) SPECIAL PROVISIONS, AND D) STANDARD PLANS.6. IN ORDER TO PRESERVE THEIR APPEARANCE AND CONTINUITY, ALL TRAFFICCONTROL DEVICES SHALL BE KEPT IN THEIR PROPER POSITION AT ALL TIMESAND SHALL BE REPAIRED, REPLACED OR CLEANED AS NECESSARY, AND ASDIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER7. ALL TRAFFIC LANES SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM OF 5 FEET CLEARANCE FROMOPEN EXCAVATIONS AND MINIMUM OF 2 FEET FROM VERTICAL OBSTRUCTIONS.8. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE FLAGGERS AS DEEMED NECESSARY BYTHE ENGINEER, COUNTY INSPECTOR, OR CALTRANS PERMIT INSPECTOR.9. ALL ADVANCED WARNING SIGNS SHALL BE EQUIPPED WITH FLAGS.10. NOT USED.11. PLACE ADDITIONAL SIGNS AS FOLLOWS: A) "LANE CLOSED", (C30) ON THETYPE II BARRICADES AT 100 FOOT INTERVALS THROUGHOUT EXTENDED WORKAREAS IN EACH LANE THAT IS CLOSED AND B) "OPEN TRENCH" (C27) WHENEVERAN OPEN EXCAVATION AREA EXISTS ADJACENT TO THE TRAVELED WAY.12. ALL TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES SHALL BE REMOVEDFOLLOWING COMPLETION OF EACH CONSTRUCTION STAGE AND THE PERMANENTTRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES SHALL BE RESTORED BY THE CONTRACTOR UPONCOMPLETION OF WORK.13. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPLACE AND/OR REPAIR ALL DAMAGED STRIPINGAT THE END OF EACH WORKING DAY.14. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THEAMERICAN DISABILITY ACT AS RELATED TO PEDESTRIAN ACCESS AND SHALLMAINTAIN PEDESTRIAN ACCESS AT ALL TIMES PER ADA REQUIREMENTS. ANYSIDEWALK CLOSURE AND/OR DETOUR SHALL COMPLY WITH THE WATCHSTANDARDS AND MUST OBTAIN APPROVAL FROM THE CITY OR COUNTY OFRECORD.15. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COVER OR REMOVE ALL CONFLICTING SIGNS.16. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL POST "SYMBOLS" UNEVEN LANES, "STEEL PLATESAHEAD" OR "BUMP" SIGNS FOR PAVEMENT SURFACE DISRUPTIONS OF 12" ORGREATER. PAVEMENT DISRUPTIONS FOR 1" OR GREATER SHALL HAVE A BEVELEDEDGE OF FOUR (4) HORIZONTAL TO ONE (1) VERTICAL.17. BEFORE PLATE BRIDGING, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL "CAUTIONSTEEL PLATES ADHEAD" AND/OR "ROUGH ROAD SIGNS.18. THE RESIDENTS AND BUSINESSES SHALL BE NOTIFIED OF THE DATES & TIMESOF CONSTRUCTION TWO (2) WEEKS PRIOR TO THE WORK START DATE.19. WHEN ON- STREET PARKING IS TO BE AFFECTED (CLOSED FOR USE),CONTRACTOR SHALL PLACE NOTIFICATIONS OF RESTRICTIONS A MINIMUM OFONE-WEEK IN ADVANCE OF CLOSURE, AND PROVIDE WRITTEN NOTIFICATIONS TOADJACENT BUSINESSES.STAGING AREAFLAGGERTRAFFIC CONTROL NOTESTRAFFIC SYMBOL LEGENDNTRAFFIC CONTROL PLANWINCHESTER DR1SCALE2TA-6FOR REFERENCE ONLYTRAFFIC CONTROL TABLEPEDESTRIANS SHALL BE ESCORTEDTHROUGH OR AROUND THE WORK AREATHROUGHOUT THE COURSE OF WORK.NOTES:A. DISTANCE IN FEET UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.B. CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY EXISTING SPEED LIMIT.C. DISTANCE SHOWN ARE NOT VALID FOR LIMITEDACCESS HIGHWAYS. CONSULT STATE DOT MANUAL FORDISTANCES.D. ADJUST DISTANCES TO COMPLY WITHREQUIREMENT OF THE STATE OR LOCAL HIGHWAYAUTHORITY HAVING JURISDICTION.E. TAPER LENGTHS SHOWN ON 12' LANE WIDTH.POSTEDSPEED(MPH)DISTANCEBETWEENSIGNSTAPERBUFFERA100'100'100'200'200'350'350'500'500'500'500'B100'100'100'200'200'350'350'500'500'500'500'C100'100'100'200'200'350'350'500'500'500'500'L (SEE NOTE)45'80'125'180'245'320'540'600'660'720'780'1520253035404550556065100'115'155'200'250'305'360'425'495'570'645'CAMUTCD TABLE(N) W20-1"ROAD WORK AHEAD" SIGNPER CAMUTCD TA-6 TABLE 6H-3ROADWORKAHEAD1"=10'-0"(N) CONSTRUCTIONSTAGING AREA, TYP(N) TRAFFIC CONE, TYPNOTE: PROVIDE OPENINGSFOR DRIVEWAYSMAINTAIN 10'-0" MIN.VEHICLE TRAVEL LANE& PROVIDED AT ALL TIMES(N) W21-1CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE 72HOURS NOTICE OF PARKINGRESTRICTION DURING WORK.CLOSE ON-STREET PARKING .OAK GROVE AVECONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE 72HOURS NOTICE OF PARKINGRESTRICTION DURING WORK.CLOSE ON-STREET PARKING . 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 9b MEETING DATE: January 22, 2019 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: January 22, 2019 From: Carol Augustine, Finance Director – (650) 558-7222 Subject: Proposition 218 Public Hearing and Adoption of a Resolution Increasing Solid Waste Rates by 6% for all Accounts for each of Calendar Years 2019, 2020, and 2021 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council take the following actions to establish the solid waste rates within Burlingame: 1. Hold a public hearing regarding the proposed solid waste rate increases, and determine if there is a majority protest; and 2. If there is no majority protest, adopt the attached resolution establishing solid waste rates for calendar years 2019, 2020, and 2021. BACKGROUND The City of Burlingame is a member of the South Bayside Waste Management Authority Joint Powers Agreement (SBWMA). Under the SBWMA Joint Use of Powers Agreement, each member agency sets its own solid waste rates for residential and commercial customers. Each of the 12 SBWMA member jurisdictions has a franchise agreement with Recology of San Mateo County for residential and commercial solid waste, residential recycling, and residential green waste collections. The franchise agreements began January 1, 2011, and expire December 31, 2020. In addition, a contract with South Bay Recycling provides for operations at the Shoreway Environmental Center, which is owed by the SBWMA. The Shoreway facility serves as a regional solid waste and recycling facility for the receipt, handling, and transfer of refuse, recyclables, and organic materials. Again, each member of the SBWMA is responsible for establishing the rates in their respective jurisdictions. Each year, staff reviews the various cost components attributable to its solid waste services, which in turn determine the revenue required from its customers for the subsequent rate year. The rates are then applied based on the garbage cart/bin size of the customer and frequency of collection services. Within Burlingame, Recology is responsible for the billing of solid waste services at the rates prescribed by the City Council. Rate increases for solid waste services were last raised in 2012. Significant increases were necessary to correct the deficit position that the City had accrued with the contractor prior to the Solid Waste Rates for 2019 January 22, 2019 2 new franchise agreement in 2011. The rate increases were adequate to pay for the shortages and generate surpluses within the Solid Waste Fund for several years. The surpluses provided a rate stabilization reserve, allowing Burlingame customers to avoid the incremental rate increases that would otherwise be needed to offset the rising costs of solid waste services. In recent years, revenues of the fund have fallen short of the service costs, but the deficits generated have been small enough to be covered by other revenues in the fund (mainly construction/demolition permit revenue and interest earnings). However, a deficit of approximately $288,000 from Solid Waste operations is estimated for Burlingame for calendar year 2018. The City Council reviewed solid waste services and rates at a study session held in January last year, and again at its September 17, 2018 meeting. The various cost components attributable to the provision of these services were further reviewed at a November 19, 2018 City Council meeting. Because revenues collected from rates are no longer sufficient to meet the current costs of solid waste services in the city, and annual operating deficits are increasing, it was determined that solid waste rates for Burlingame customers should be increased 6% in each of the next three calendar years, beginning in January 2019. DISCUSSION When considering solid waste rate increases, the City uses a public hearing and protest procedure consistent with Proposition 218. Although the applicability of Proposition 218 to garbage rate adjustments has not been legally established, the process is followed in order to assure broad- based information to property owners as well as solid waste customers. Prop 218 requires that all property owners be given a 45-day written notice of the City’s intent to adjust rates. Following approval of the Council resolution establishing the public hearing for this purpose, staff prepared and mailed notices to each property owner and customer, informing them of the rate increases, the reason for the increases, and the public hearing schedule to discuss the proposed increases. Noting a misstatement in the original notice mailed on November 21st, a second notice (attached to this staff report) was mailed on December 6th, communicating a public hearing date of January 22, 2019. The recommended rate increase is a maximum 6% effective each of the next three calendar years beginning in January, 2019. The table below provides the increase for the most common residential and commercial base rates for each of the rate years. Please note that the rates include an 8% franchise fee imposed by the City. The increase amounts to a $1.43 monthly increase ($17.16 for the first calendar year) for customers with the 32 gallon (black cart) service, the most common residential solid waste service level in Burlingame. All other residential and commercial rates will be increased 6% uniformly for the next three calendar years as well. Rate Year 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Adjustment 3%5%5%8%6%17%25%0%0%0%0%0%0% Historical Solid Waste Rate Adjustments - City of Burlingame Solid Waste Rates for 2019 January 22, 2019 3 FISCAL IMPACT Current rates that have been in place since 2012 are no longer adequate to fully cover the costs of providing solid waste services in calendar year 2019, without requiring significant draws on the City’s Solid Waste Fund reserves. In order to prevent depletion of the fund’s rate stabilization reserves and double digit increases in each of the following two years, a six percent rate increase is needed for each of the three calendar years beginning January 2019 for all solid waste customers. The proposed 6% rate increase in 2019 will significantly reduce the shortfall projected for the calendar year. A 6% increase in 2020 is projected to be adequate to meet the projected costs of services for that calendar year, with no draw down of the rate stabilization reserve. A third rate increase for calendar year 2021 is again projected to be adequate to pay for the increased costs of the service, including the higher contractor compensation that accompanies the extended franchise agreement for collection services with Recology effective January 1, 2021. Increased solid waste rates will also increase revenues from franchise fees to the General Fund. Franchise fees of 8 percent are charged for the maintenance of the rights-of-way (streets) used in the delivery of the utility’s services. In addition, revenues to the City’s Landfill Fund will also increase in step with the solid waste rates, allowing the fund’s deficit position (created by post- closure liabilities) to be funded more rapidly. Exhibits: • Resolution • Proposition 218 Notice • September 17, 2018 Staff Report • November 19, 2018 Staff Report Customer Current Effective Effective Effective Service Level Monthly Rates January 1, 2019 January 1, 2020 January 1, 2021 Residential 20 Gallon Cart*$12.90 $13.67 $14.49 $15.36 32 Gallon Cart $23.85 $25.28 $26.80 $28.41 64 Gallon Cart $47.71 $50.57 $53.60 $56.82 96 Gallon Cart $70.80 $75.05 $79.55 $84.32 Commercial 32 Gallon Cart $23.85 $25.28 $26.80 $28.41 64 Gallon Cart $47.71 $50.57 $53.60 $56.82 96 Gallon Cart $70.80 $75.05 $79.55 $84.32 1 Yard Bin $150.52 $159.55 $169.12 $179.27 2 Yard Bin $301.05 $319.11 $338.26 $358.56 3 Yard Bin $451.53 $478.62 $507.34 $537.78 Proposed Monthly Rates City of Burlingame, CA Monthly Solid Waste Rates - Proposition 218 Notice * 20 Gallon residential cart service is no longer available to new customers. Rates shown are for those services grandfathered-in as of January 1, 2012. RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME ESTABLISHING RATE INCREASES FOR SOLID WASTE SERVICES FOR CALENDAR YEARS 2019, 2020, AND 2021 WHEREAS, the City of Burlingame is a member of the South Bayside Waste Management Authority Joint Powers Agreement (SBWMA), the purpose of which is to provide cost effective waste reduction, recycling, and solid waste collection and disposal programs to member agencies; and WHEREAS, under the SBWMA Joint Powers Agreement, each member agency sets its own solid waste rates for residential and commercial customers; and WHEREAS, each year, City staff reviews the various cost components attributable to its solid waste services, which determine the revenue required from customers in Burlingame for the subsequent rate year; and WHEREAS, despite the increased costs incurred in the delivery of solid waste services over the years, solid waste rates have not been increased since calendar year 2012; and WHEREAS, the newly Restated and Amended Franchise Agreement with Recology for Recycle, Compost, and Garbage collection services through 2035, which will increase the cost of these services by approximately 8.3% over the 2020 estimates, becomes effective January 1, 2021; and WHEREAS, solid waste disposal and organics processing contracts will expire in the next two years; costs of disposal and organics processing is estimated to increase dramatically based on current markets; and WHEREAS, the 2018 disruption in the commodity markets has greatly diminished the revenue offset that these commodity revenues previously provided to the rate payers, and is driving the need for major capital investments to the South Bay Recycling Center in order to improve the quality of the system’s recycled materials and retain a marketable commodity; and WHEREAS, legislative requirements to meet environmental targets require the enhancement of programs to increase diversion from landfills and prevent pollution of storm water systems; and WHEREAS, Chapter 8.16.040 of the Burlingame Municipal Code provides that the City Council shall establish fees and charges for the administration of solid waste services; and WHEREAS, the City seeks to set rates for solid waste collection and processing services at rates that will fund the on-going costs of these services; and WHEREAS, to cover the costs of all solid waste services, rates charged to Burlingame customers need to be increased in each of the next three calendar years by 6% each year; and WHEREAS, notices were sent in compliance with the requirements of Proposition 218 at least 45 days prior to the public hearing, and a public hearing was held at which no majority protest was made. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME RESOLVES, DETERMINES, AND FINDS AS FOLLOWS: All charges for solid waste services in the City of Burlingame are hereby increased for 6% in each of the next three calendar years, beginning in January 2019. Rates are proposed to be set as follows for each of the calendar years 2019, 2020, and 2021: The proposed rates shown above and in the notice to customers and property owners reflect a 6% rate increase in calendar years 2019,2020 and 2021 for the most commonly used collection services. All other residential and commercial rates will be increased 6% uniformly as well. This resolution shall be effective immediately. ______________________________ Donna Colson, Mayor I, Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 22nd day of January, 2019, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers: NOES: Councilmembers: ABSENT: Councilmembers: ______________________________ Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk Customer Current Effective Effective Effective Service Level Monthly Rates January 1, 2019 January 1, 2020 January 1, 2021 Residential 20 Gallon Cart*$12.90 $13.67 $14.49 $15.36 32 Gallon Cart $23.85 $25.28 $26.80 $28.41 64 Gallon Cart $47.71 $50.57 $53.60 $56.82 96 Gallon Cart $70.80 $75.05 $79.55 $84.32 Commercial 32 Gallon Cart $23.85 $25.28 $26.80 $28.41 64 Gallon Cart $47.71 $50.57 $53.60 $56.82 96 Gallon Cart $70.80 $75.05 $79.55 $84.32 1 Yard Bin $150.52 $159.55 $169.12 $179.27 2 Yard Bin $301.05 $319.11 $338.26 $358.56 3 Yard Bin $451.53 $478.62 $507.34 $537.78 Proposed Monthly Rates City of Burlingame, CA Monthly Solid Waste Proposed Rates * 20 Gallon residential cart service is no longer available to new customers. Rates shown are for those services grandfathered-in as of January 1, 2012. 1 The City of Burlingame City Hall – 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010-3997 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN INCREASE IN SOLID WASTE AND RECYCLING RATES FOR 2019, 2020 AND 2021, AND TO CONSIDER ANY PROTESTS TO THE INCREASED RATES The City Council of the City of Burlingame hereby gives notice of its intent to review and consider approval of increases to the existing residential and commercial rates charged by the city’s solid waste franchisee, Recology, for the collection of solid waste and recyclable materials within the City of Burlingame. The City Council plans to review and consider the rate increases and any changes to the rate structure at a public hearing scheduled for Monday, January 7, 2019 at 7:00 p.m. at the Burlingame City Hall. The need for this increase has been comprehensively discussed by the City Council on September 17, 2018. The City of Burlingame is a member of the SBWMA and along with the other 11 public agencies in San Mateo County has a uniform franchise agreement with Recology. A copy of the reports that provide the basis for the rate increase are available for public inspection at the Office of the City Clerk, City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, during regular business hours, 8:00 am to 5:00 pm, Monday through Friday. NEW RATES Customer Current Effective Effective Effective Service Level Monthly Rates January 1, 2019 January 1, 2020 January 1, 2021 Residential 20 Gallon Cart*$12.90 $13.67 $14.49 $15.36 32 Gallon Cart $23.85 $25.28 $26.80 $28.41 64 Gallon Cart $47.71 $50.57 $53.60 $56.82 96 Gallon Cart $70.80 $75.05 $79.55 $84.32 Commercial 32 Gallon Cart $23.85 $25.28 $26.80 $28.41 64 Gallon Cart $47.71 $50.57 $53.60 $56.82 96 Gallon Cart $70.80 $75.05 $79.55 $84.32 1 Yard Bin $150.52 $159.55 $169.12 $179.27 2 Yard Bin $301.05 $319.11 $338.26 $358.56 3 Yard Bin $451.53 $478.62 $507.34 $537.78 Proposed Monthly Rates City of Burlingame, CA Monthly Solid Waste Rates - Proposition 218 Notice * 20 Gallon residential cart service is no longer available to new customers. Rates shown are for those services grandfathered-in as of January 1, 2012. This chart reflects a 6% rate increase in calendar years 2019, 2020 and 2021 for the most commonly used collection services. All other residential and commercial rates will also be increased 6% uniformly. 1 The City of Burlingame City Hall – 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010-3997 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN INCREASE IN SOLID WASTE AND RECYCLING RATES FOR 2019, 2020 AND 2021, AND TO CONSIDER ANY PROTESTS TO THE INCREASED RATES The City Council of the City of Burlingame hereby gives notice of its intent to review and consider approval of increases to the existing residential and commercial rates charged by the city’s solid waste franchisee, Recology, for the collection of solid waste and recyclable materials within the City of Burlingame. The City Council plans to review and consider the rate increases and any changes to the rate structure at a public hearing scheduled for Monday, January 7, 2019 at 7:00 p.m. at the Burlingame City Hall. The need for this increase has been comprehensively discussed by the City Council on September 17, 2018. The City of Burlingame is a member of the SBWMA and along with the other 11 public agencies in San Mateo County has a uniform franchise agreement with Recology. A copy of the reports that provide the basis for the rate increase are available for public inspection at the Office of the City Clerk, City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, during regular business hours, 8:00 am to 5:00 pm, Monday through Friday. NEW RATES Customer Current Effective Effective Effective Service Level Monthly Rates January 1, 2019 January 1, 2020 January 1, 2021 Residential 20 Gallon Cart*$12.90 $13.67 $14.49 $15.36 32 Gallon Cart $23.85 $25.28 $26.80 $28.41 64 Gallon Cart $47.71 $50.57 $53.60 $56.82 96 Gallon Cart $70.80 $75.05 $79.55 $84.32 Commercial 32 Gallon Cart $23.85 $25.28 $26.80 $28.41 64 Gallon Cart $47.71 $50.57 $53.60 $56.82 96 Gallon Cart $70.80 $75.05 $79.55 $84.32 1 Yard Bin $150.52 $159.55 $169.12 $179.27 2 Yard Bin $301.05 $319.11 $338.26 $358.56 3 Yard Bin $451.53 $478.62 $507.34 $537.78 Proposed Monthly Rates City of Burlingame, CA Monthly Solid Waste Rates - Proposition 218 Notice * 20 Gallon residential cart service is no longer available to new customers. Rates shown are for those services grandfathered-in as of January 1, 2012. This chart reflects a 6% rate increase in calendar years 2019, 2020 and 2021 for the most commonly used collection services. All other residential and commercial rates will also be increased 6% uniformly. REVISED NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN INCREASE IN SOLID WASTE AND RECYCLING RATES FOR 2019, 2020, AND 2021, AND TO CONSIDER ANY PROTESTS TO THE INCREASED RATES REVISIONS TO PRIOR NOTICE UNDERLINED. The City Council of the City of Burlingame hereby gives notice of its intent to review and consider approval of increases to the existing residential and commercial rates charged by the City’s solid waste franchisee, Recology, for the collection of solid waste and recyclable materials within Burlingame. The City Council plans to review and consider the rate increases and any changes to the rate structure at a public hearing scheduled for Tuesday, January 22, 2019 at 7:00 p.m. The need for this increase has been comprehensively discussed by the City Council on September 17, 2018. The City of Burlingame is a member of the SBWMA and along with the other 11 public agencies in San Mateo County, has a uniform franchise agreement with Recology. A copy of the reports that provide the basis for the rate increase are available for public inspection at the Office of the City Clerk, City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA during regular business hours, 8:00 am to 5:00 pm, Monday through Friday. This chart reflects a 6% rate increase in calendar years 2019, 2020, and 2021 for the most commonly used collection services. All other residential and commercial rates will also be increased 6% uniformly. NECESSITY FOR THE NEW RATES The proposed rates were calculated by projecting future annual revenue requirements and setting rates to recover the cost of providing solid waste services to properties in Burlingame. The proposed 6% rate adjustment results in a $1.43 per month increase, or $17.16 in calendar year 2019, for residential rate Continued on back payers who utilize the 32 gallon cart. The 6% increase is needed for each of the next three years for the following reasons: • Rates have not been increased since calendar year 2012. Since that time, the cost of solid waste collection and disposal have increased each year such that the City’s Solid Waste Fund Rate NEW RATES 1 The City of Burlingame City Hall – 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010-3997 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN INCREASE IN SOLID WASTE AND RECYCLING RATES FOR 2019, 2020 AND 2021, AND TO CONSIDER ANY PROTESTS TO THE INCREASED RATES The City Council of the City of Burlingame hereby gives notice of its intent to review and consider approval of increases to the existing residential and commercial rates charged by the city’s solid waste franchisee, Recology, for the collection of solid waste and recyclable materials within the City of Burlingame. The City Council plans to review and consider the rate increases and any changes to the rate structure at a public hearing scheduled for Monday, January 7, 2019 at 7:00 p.m. at the Burlingame City Hall. The need for this increase has been comprehensively discussed by the City Council on September 17, 2018. The City of Burlingame is a member of the SBWMA and along with the other 11 public agencies in San Mateo County has a uniform franchise agreement with Recology. A copy of the reports that provide the basis for the rate increase are available for public inspection at the Office of the City Clerk, City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, during regular business hours, 8:00 am to 5:00 pm, Monday through Friday. NEW RATES Customer Current Effective Effective Effective Service Level Monthly Rates January 1, 2019 January 1, 2020 January 1, 2021 Residential 20 Gallon Cart*$12.90 $13.67 $14.49 $15.36 32 Gallon Cart $23.85 $25.28 $26.80 $28.41 64 Gallon Cart $47.71 $50.57 $53.60 $56.82 96 Gallon Cart $70.80 $75.05 $79.55 $84.32 Commercial 32 Gallon Cart $23.85 $25.28 $26.80 $28.41 64 Gallon Cart $47.71 $50.57 $53.60 $56.82 96 Gallon Cart $70.80 $75.05 $79.55 $84.32 1 Yard Bin $150.52 $159.55 $169.12 $179.27 2 Yard Bin $301.05 $319.11 $338.26 $358.56 3 Yard Bin $451.53 $478.62 $507.34 $537.78 Proposed Monthly Rates City of Burlingame, CA Monthly Solid Waste Rates - Proposition 218 Notice * 20 Gallon residential cart service is no longer available to new customers. Rates shown are for those services grandfathered-in as of January 1, 2012. This chart reflects a 6% rate increase in calendar years 2019, 2020 and 2021 for the most commonly used collection services. All other residential and commercial rates will also be increased 6% uniformly. Stabilization Reserve has been drawn on for each of the last three calendar years. A 7.2% increase in the revenue requirements is needed to cover the cost of solid waste collection and disposal in 2019. These are the all-inclusive costs associated with the pickup and disposal of rubbish and recyclables for both residential and commercial customers. • The Restated and Amended Franchise Agreement with Recology for Recycle, Compost and Garbage Collection services, effective January 1, 2021, will increase the cost of these services by approximately 8.3% over the 2020 estimates. • The franchise agreement effective January 1, 2021 also includes a 1.7% adjustment/increase to the allowance for fuel costs. • The SBWMA’s solid waste disposal (landfill) contract expires 12/31/19, and its organics processing contract expires 12/31/20. Renewal/ renegotiations of these contract services are expected to result in significant cost implications as a result of market conditions in the industry. • The SBWMA anticipates several large capital investments to (1) improve the quality of recycled materials necessary to retain a marketable commodity, and (2) achieve compliance with new organics diversion regulations from the State. PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE The City Council of the City of Burlingame hereby gives notice of a public hearing to be held at its meeting of Tuesday, January 22, 2019 at 7:00 p.m. at the Burlingame City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA. At this hearing, the City Council will consider public comments as well as written protests by ratepayers against the proposed increase in solid waste/recycling fees. If written protests are presented by a majority of the affected ratepayers prior to the close of the public hearing, the City Council will not increase the rates as a matter of State law. FILING A PROTEST To file a written protest, send a letter in a sealed envelope addressed to 2019 Solid Waste Rates, City Clerk, City of Burlingame, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010. Your letter must identify the real property you own or rent by street address and assessor’s parcel number. Your letter must be legibly signed by any one of the current property owners or ratepayers of record. The City must receive your letter at City Hall by 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, January 22, 2019, or it must be presented at the City Council meeting of Tuesday, January 22, 2019 prior to the close of the public hearing on the matter. Any person interested, including all solid waste/recycling collection customers of the City of Burlingame, may appear at the public hearing and be heard on any matter related to the proposed increase in rates. For more information regarding this notice, call Carol Augustine, Finance Director/Treasurer at 650-558-7222. Information regarding the SBWMA can be found on its website: www.rethinkwaste.org. This Notice of Public Hearing is required under Proposition 218 and is for mailing distribution no later than December 7, 2018 by Recology San Mateo County on behalf of the City of Burlingame. 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: MEETING DATE: September 17, 2018 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: September 17, 2018 From: Carol Augustine, Finance Director – (650) 558-7222 Subject: Review of Solid Waste Rate Options for Calendar Year 2019 RECOMMENDATION This item is for information purposes only. Staff requests that the City Council review the various options presented in this report and give direction as to the recommended rate increases for solid waste services for the three calendar years beginning January 1, 2019. BACKGROUND The City of Burlingame is a member of the South Bayside Waste Management Authority Joint Powers Agreement (SBWMA). Under the SBWMA Joint Use of Powers Agreement, each member agency sets its own solid waste rates for residential and commercial customers. Each of the 12 SBWMA member jurisdictions has a franchise agreement with Recology of San Mateo County for residential and commercial solid waste, residential recycling, and residential green waste collections. The franchise agreements began January 1, 2011 and expire December 31, 2020. In addition, a contract with South Bay Recycling provides for operations at the Shoreway Environmental Center, which is owed by the SBWMA. The Shoreway facility serves as a regional solid waste and recycling facility for the receipt, handling, and transfer of refuse, recyclable, and organic materials. Each year, staff reviews the various cost components attributable to its solid waste services, which in turn determine the revenue required from its customers for the subsequent rate year. Each member of the SBWMA is responsible for establishing the rates in their respective jurisdictions. The rates are then applied based on the garbage cart/bin size of the customer and frequency of collection services. Within Burlingame, Recology is responsible for the billing of solid waste services at the rates prescribed by the City Council. Prior to the new franchise agreement in 2011, Allied Waste held the franchise agreements with SBWMA member agencies based on a “cost plus profit” compensation model. After stabilizing in 2005, moderate rate increases (shown in the table below) were sufficient to cover annual increases in solid waste expenses. However, in 2009, commercial revenue began to diminish as the area’s business activity slowed with the economy. Because approximately 70% of solid waste revenue is derived from commercial accounts, the decrease in commercial activity created a deficit that had to be financed by rate increases each subsequent year. Despite these increases, the City held a deficit position of over $700,000 at the end of the franchise agreement with Allied in 2010. Solid Waste Rates for 2019 September 17, 2018 2 Due to this deficit position, the rising costs of solid waste collection and disposal, and variations in customer service subscriptions (migration to smaller bin sizes based on higher recycling rates), rates were greatly increased in 2011 and again in 2012. In addition, transfers from the General Fund, a decrease in reimbursements for City costs (agency fees), and use of the Solid Waste Fund reserves, enabled the City to pay off the deficit position with Allied. Through calendar/rate year 2014, revenues from rates alone were adequate to generate surpluses within the Solid Waste Fund account, and in 2015 through 2017, the deficits were small enough to be covered by other revenues in the fund (mainly construction/demolition permit revenue and interest earnings). An approximate $1.2 million surplus had been accumulated from the City’s solid waste operations by the end of 2017. However, a deficit of approximately $288,000 from Solid Waste operations is expected in 2018, as shown in the chart below. DISCUSSION At a study session on City Solid Waste Services held in January of this year, the Council reviewed the various cost components attributable to these services, which in turn determine the revenue required from solid waste customers. In essence, solid waste rates are determined by three major factors. First and foremost is the annual cost of collecting and disposing of garbage and recyclables. Residential and commercial solid waste recyclable and organic materials are collected by Recology and taken to the Shoreway facility for processing, staging, and shipment. The franchise agreement with Recology is a “fixed cost” contract where future costs are adjusted based Rate Year 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Adjustment 3%5%5%8%6%17%25%0%0%0%0%0%0% Historical Solid Waste Rate Adjustments - City of Burlingame -$1,000,000 $1,000,000 $3,000,000 $5,000,000 $7,000,000 $9,000,000 $11,000,000 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 (proj) Annual Cost Analysis Revenue Expenses Surplus/Shortfall Solid Waste Rates for 2019 September 17, 2018 3 on contractually approved indices. The second largest factor in the costs of Solid Waste services is in the form of disposal fees (tipping fees at the Shoreway facility and the landfill). Tipping fees are approved by the SBWMA Board and then passed through to the SBWMA agencies to be added to rates. Finally, City fees and eligible solid-waste related costs, which the City finances through solid waste rates, must be considered in establishing rates. These are referred to as “agency fees”, collected by Recology with the customer billings and remitted to the City monthly. These costs include an 8% franchise fee charged to Recology for their use of City right-of-ways to conduct private business. Franchise fees are General Fund revenues. Rates also include the costs of monitoring and testing the City’s former landfill and reducing the post-closure liability associated with the landfill; the cost of City-sponsored waste reduction programs; street sweeping; and the periodic steam cleaning of public trash receptacles. Since the deficit due to Allied Waste was paid in 2012, rates have adequately covered all these costs. The higher rates ended the need for General Fund transfers to support activities of the Solid Waste Fund, and provided surplus funding of a Solid Waste Rate Stabilization Reserve. Reserve levels have allowed the City to stave off further rate increases for many years. But as costs have increased, the rate stabilization reserve has levelled off. Revenues collected from rates are no longer sufficient to meet the current costs of solid waste services in the City, and annual operating deficits are increasing. To insure that the City’s Solid Waste Fund is in good fiscal position when the current franchise agreement with Recology terminates at the end of 2020, rates should be increased to cover current operating costs. At current rates, 2019 revenues for solid waste services are estimated to be $11.1 million, with a shortfall of $788,000 after all costs (including agency franchise and other fees) are accounted for. This would indicate a 7.1 percent increase in rates just to break even (requiring no draw on the rate stabilization reserve). The new contract negotiated with Recology to begin in 2021 $5,727,000$3,737,000 $738,000 $460,000 $609,000 Solid Waste Program Charges (est. 2018) Contractor Compensation Disposal & Processing Franchise Fees Landfill Postclosure Other City Expenses Solid Waste Rates for 2019 September 17, 2018 4 will require the costs of collection, increasing only 2.4% in 2020, to increase approximately 10.2% in 2021. Due to disruptions in the global commodity markets for recycled materials and an increase in the costs of landfill contracts, disposal and processing fees are expected to increase over 12% in 2019. As the industry faces further challenges in the coming years, these costs are assumed to increase 5% in both 2020 and 2021. As shown below, foregoing a solid waste rate increase for 2019 would basically wipe out the current rate stabilization reserve, and require double-digit rate increases for two subsequent years. Various rate scenarios are attached as an Exhibit to this staff report. Balancing the need for a rate stabilization reserve to buffer rate-payers against volatile rate hikes in the future, the preference to cover current operating costs largely with current rate revenues, and to provide for the on-going sustainability of the Solid Waste Fund, staff recommends that solid waste rates for Burlingame customers be increased 6% in each of the next three years, beginning January 1, 2019. Although annual increases in service rates are never well received, it should be noted again that solid waste rates have not changed in Burlingame for seven years. As a result, 2018 residential rates for solid waste services in Burlingame are significantly below the average for SBWMA agencies ($34.23 average monthly fee for a 32 gallon cart; Burlingame’s fee is $28.40), and commercial rates are in line with rates charged in other jurisdictions. Rates are set by each agency in accordance with Proposition 218, which requires that all property owners be given a 45-day written notice of the City’s intent to adjust rates. After receiving Council direction on the proposed rate increases, staff will prepare and mail notices to each property owner, informing them of the rate increases, the reason for the increases, and the public hearing schedule to discuss the proposed increases. Estimated 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Contractor Compensation 5,729,318 5,780,604 5,504,141 5,727,000 5,746,000 5,884,000 6,484,000 Disposal & Processing 2,939,412 3,147,616 3,624,973 3,737,000 4,215,000 4,425,750 4,647,000 698,684 712,045 729,997 738,000 738,000 738,000 738,000 436,678 445,028 456,248 460,000 460,000 460,000 460,000 829,858 869,246 791,749 609,000 609,000 627,000 645,000 10,633,950 10,954,539 11,107,108 11,271,000 11,768,000 12,134,750 12,974,000 10,690,190 10,887,975 11,096,592 11,100,000 11,100,000 11,100,000 11,100,000 Unscheduled Services Billed 102,721 110,666 117,404 117,000 120,000 122,000 125,000 Shortfall (46,481)(177,230)(127,920)(288,000)(788,000)(1,156,750)(1,999,000) Rate Stabilization Reserve 1,512,000 1,334,770 1,206,850 918,850 130,850 -1,025,900 -3,024,900 *Includes increases to City's Rate Stabilization Reserve Notes: 2019 deficit severly diminishes rate stabilization reserve. Necessitates a +10% increase in both 2020 and 2021 Actual Projected Franchise Fees Landfill Postclosure Other City Expenses* Total Expenses Revenues from Rates ASSUMES NO RATE INCREASES Solid Waste Rates for 2019 September 17, 2018 5 FISCAL IMPACT Current rates that have been in place since 2012 are no longer adequate to fully cover the costs of providing solid waste services in calendar year 2019, without requiring significant draws on the City’s Solid Waste Fund reserves. In order to prevent depletion of the fund’s rate stabilization reserves and double digit increases in each of the following two years, rates will need to be increased to all solid waste customers for the year beginning January 1, 2019. Rate increases are also indicated in the following two years to cover increased operating and capital costs of providing solid waste services. To the extent that the rate stabilization reserve is drawn down, rate-payers may be subject to significant increases in future rates. Exhibit: Solid Waste Rate Scenarios 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: MEETING DATE: November 19, 2018 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: November 19, 2018 From: Carol Augustine, Finance Director – (650) 558-7222 Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Establishing a Public Hearing Date Regarding Solid Waste Rate Increases for Calendar Years 2019, 2020 and 2021 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution establishing a public hearing date of January 7th regarding rate increases for solid waste services for the three calendar years beginning January 1, 2019. BACKGROUND The City of Burlingame is a member of the South Bayside Waste Management Authority Joint Powers Agreement (SBWMA). Under the SBWMA Joint Use of Powers Agreement, each member agency sets its own solid waste rates for residential and commercial customers. Each of the 12 SBWMA member jurisdictions has a franchise agreement with Recology of San Mateo County for residential and commercial solid waste, residential recycling, and residential green waste collections. In addition, a contract with South Bay Recycling provides for operations at the Shoreway Environmental Center, which is owed by the SBWMA. The Shoreway facility serves as a regional solid waste and recycling facility for the receipt, handling, and transfer of refuse, recyclable, and organic materials. Each year, staff reviews the various cost components attributable to its solid waste services which determine the revenue required from its customers for the subsequent rate year. Using current rates and considering the impact on the rate stabilization reserve, a recommendation is made to the City Council as to rates for these services in the City of Burlingame. Once approved, the rates are then applied based on the garbage cart/bin size of the customer and frequency of collection services. Within Burlingame, Recology is responsible for the billing of solid waste services at the rates prescribed by the City Council. Rate for solid waste services were last increased in 2012, as shown in the table below: Rate Year 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Adjustment 3%5%5%8%6%17%25%0%0%0%0%0%0% Historical Solid Waste Rate Adjustments - City of Burlingame Solid Waste Rates for 2019 November 19, 2018 2 Since the significant rate increases in 2011 and 2012, revenues to the City’s Solid Waste Fund has been able to cover all the costs of solid waste operations, plus provide for a rate stabilization reserve to guard against volatile rate increases for its solid waste customers. In fact, a surplus of approximately $1.5 million had been accumulated from the City’s solid waste operations by the end of 2015. However, as the costs associated with the provision of solid waste services have increased, the rate stabilization reserve has levelled off. Revenues collected from rates are no longer sufficient to meet the current costs of solid waste services in the City, and annual operating deficits are increasing. A deficit of approximately $288,000 from Solid Waste operations is expected in 2018, and there are a number of challenges in the solid waste industry that will push costs higher in the next few years. DISCUSSION The City Council reviewed solid waste services and rates at a study session in January of this year, and again at its September 17th meeting. The various cost components attributable to these services determine the revenue required from solid waste customers. The largest component of solid waste program charges is contractor compensation. Residential and commercial solid waste recyclable and organic materials are collected by Recology. The franchise agreement with Recology is a “fixed cost” contract where future costs are adjusted based on contractually approved indices. Although these costs have increased since the original 10-year contract began in 2011, the new contract negotiated with Recology to begin in 2021 will require the costs of collection, increasing only 2.4% in 2020, to increase approximately 10.2% in 2021. Possible amendments to the 2021 contract will address current issues of bulky item pickup, abandoned waste collection, and anti-litter programs (to help meet stricter Stormwater regulations); these amendments and their associated costs will be considered early in 2019. To insure that the City’s Solid Waste Fund is in good fiscal position when the current franchise agreement with Recology terminates at the end of 2020, rates should be increased to at least cover current operating costs in 2019, and then provide for the increased contractual costs in calendar year 2021. The second largest factor in the costs of Solid Waste services is in the form of processing and disposal costs, largely reflected in the tipping fees at the Shoreway facility and the landfills utilized. Tipping fees are approved by the SBWMA Board each year to cover the processing costs of the Shoreway facility, along with transport costs and disposal contracts with nearby landfill facilities. Options for landfill disposal are becoming increasingly limited; and cost increases are anticipated when current contracts expire at the end of 2019. Processing costs are offset by commodity revenues, which have plummeted over the past year due to an abrupt change in China’s quality standards for recycled materials in the Spring of 2018. The resulting disruptions in the global commodity markets for these materials will require a heavy capital investment in the Shoreway facility in the near future in order to improve the quality of the plant’s recycled materials in order to remain a marketable commodity. In total, processing and disposal fees are expected to increase over 12% in 2019. As the industry faces further challenges in the coming years, these costs are assumed to increase 5% in both 2020 and 2021. As discussed at the September 17th meeting (staff report and presentation attached to this report), 2019 revenues for solid waste services are estimated to be $11.1 million at current rates, with a Solid Waste Rates for 2019 November 19, 2018 3 shortfall of $788,000 after all costs are accounted for. This would indicate a 7.1 percent increase in rates just to break even (requiring no draw on the rate stabilization reserve). Foregoing a solid waste rate increase for 2019 would basically wipe out the current rate stabilization reserve, and require double-digit rate increases for two subsequent years. The Council reviewed various rate scenarios pertaining to the City of Burlingame’s specific Solid Waste services. In order to balance the need for a rate stabilization reserve (to buffer rate-payers against volatile rate hikes in the future), the preference to cover current operating costs largely with current rate revenues, and to provide for the on-going sustainability of the Solid Waste Fund, it was determined that solid waste rates for Burlingame customers should be increased 6% in each of the next three years, beginning January 1, 2019. It should be noted again that 2018 residential rates for solid waste services in Burlingame are significantly below the average for SBWMA agencies ($34.23 average monthly fee for a 32 gallon cart; Burlingame’s fee is $28.40), and commercial rates are in line with rates charged in other jurisdictions. Rates are set by each agency in accordance with Proposition 218, which requires that all property owners be given a 45-day written notice of the City’s intent to adjust rates. Once the City Council approves the attached resolution establishing the public hearing for this purpose, staff will prepare and mail notices to each property owner and customer, informing them of the rate increases, the reason for the increases, and the public hearing schedule to discuss the proposed increases. FISCAL IMPACT Current rates that have been in place since 2012 are no longer adequate to fully cover the costs of providing solid waste services in calendar year 2019, without requiring significant draws on the City’s Solid Waste Fund reserves. In order to prevent depletion of the fund’s rate stabilization reserves and double digit increases in future years, rates will need to be increased to all solid waste customers in each of the next three years beginning on January 1, 2019. Exhibits: • Resolution • Prop 218 Notice (draft) • September 17, 2018 Staff Report and Presentation 1 Memorandum AGENDA NO: 11a MEETING DATE: January 22, 2019 To: City Council Date: January 22, 2019 From: Mayor Colson Subject: Committee Report January 8, 2019 Renaissance Entrepreneurship - Non-profit agency Tim Russell and Sharon Miller (Brownrigg and Relihan) • Meeting to discuss the unique work that RE is doing to incubate small local businesses. • Offer training and other counseling services that cities can use to help small business get a footing - tends to often work for smaller family owned business type structure and it turns out that many of the beneficiaries are women and lower-income families • Orientation is generally free to people • Cost is about $1,500 for City for per session and small amount to the participate - $25 • Next step is for Cleese to work with group and determine January 11, 2019 • Chamber Lunch Featuring Facebook ARVR January 15, 2019 • BYBA Board meeting to thank them for the cooperation around the fields and general check-in. January 16, 2019 • Meeting with the Community Center group to determine exterior finishes, playground colors and general site plan approval. Great news on the parking garage with possibly more spots with smaller footprint. • BCE Circle Donor Reception - Great update on their fundraising to date. Nearly 775 families participating and raised about $1.3 million first half of the year. January 17, 2019 Home For All Steering Committee 1. Update on Housing -Burlingame General Plan Work, Currently the ration of jobs to housing is decreasing, started at 24-1 in 2014, and now (2017) has reduced to about 12:1 Colson Committee Report January 22, 2019 2 on the order of. 82,900 jobs to 7,087 new units of housing. Last five years ratio is down to 7:1 (if you take the cumulative number out) 2. CASA Compact - MTC Representative Ken Kirby, bringing people together to discuss the chronic problems on housing in the region. CASA worked on process to develop the planned Bay Area Community for 2040. Formed to address the region’s affordability crisis by identifying game-changing ideas. Concern is displacement and where people opt to live due to cost. 3. Element 1 - Just Cause Eviction - Region wide requirement that landlord’s cite specific “just causes” - fault and no fault. There would be payment for no fault . 4. Element 2 - Rent Cap for 15 years that limits rent increase to CPI plus 5% per year - banking element. 5. Element #3 - Rent Assistance and Access to Legal Counsel, for Lowe Income tenants facing eviction with an urgent and temporary financial gap. 6. Element #4 - Extend current Bay Area best practices on ADU and Junior ADU to all justifications 7. Element #5 - Minimum Zoning Near Transit - Modification of SB 827 Within 1/2 mile of of bus top can go up to 36 feet, near major transit - within 1/4 mile allow up to 55 feet. Bus - looks like it would not apply to any location in San Mateo County. 8. Element #6 - Government Reforms to Housing Approval Process - Rules fees and designations are set at application completeness and other. 9. Element #7 - Accelerate approvals of financial incentives for “missing middle” housing. 10. Element #8 - Unlock public land for housing - What if land is not zoned of Housing? 11. Element #9 - Funding to Finance Gap Estimate for CASA $50 million a year in rental assistance would be the estimated need. Example - CASA target is to build 14,000 units of low income housing year and requires $2.1 billion a year gap for building low-income. This is complex - best to refer to the document. Regional framework is that 75% of funds are returned to source of county and 25% for a revenue sharing source. Potential new sources of Revenue include property owners $100 mm, Developers $200 mm, Employers $200 million, local government $200 million and taxpayers $400 million. Target of $1.5 million per year. Assessment of vacant home - you pay a fee that goes into a regional fund that goes into affordable housing. Question - how do you determine what is a used and what is not? 1/4 cent regional sales tax for region that would move toward housing. 12. Element #10 - Regional Housing Enterprise to manage this work. Would require state legislation to implement and that would likely be in parts rather than as a “whole” body of legislation. Invited MTC to stay and hear information about what we are doing at County - they declined and left the meeting. 1. We have built almost 7,000 housing units in SMC and we have 1,700 units on low income housing so we will make progress in these areas. Building permits 6,743 and are catching up. Goal for new housing permits was 6,128 and we hit 6,820 at all income levels. ADU - website has had 36K hits, workbook has given out 2,000 copies of this. Number of 2nd units permitted - were doing 50 units a year county-wide and in 2017 - went to 200 total permits, but looks like 2018 is heading the same or more. Important is this is affordable housing without public investment - total of over 700 housing units in San Mateo County. 2. 19 new housing friendly ordinances have been approved in last 4 years. 3. Community engagement - First year pilot programs and cities are working very hard, now we continue to engage cities. Developing a special section on Burlingame website to address housing concerns and needs. Colson Committee Report January 22, 2019 3 Future Community Convening Sessions Learning Network Meetings Jan 24 - How to Speak About Housing With Your Community Mar 28 - May 23 - Parking and Traffic Issues on Housing Community Engagement Learning Network February 28, 2019 RHNA numbers - 21 Elements team reviewed and would need to be revised to share RHNA numbers - mechanism is not in place right now. Concept for a bill that is a pilot project for a bill - if one city gives another city funding, the units on the giving city (of funding) gets based on a percentage - if giving jurisdiction gives percentage, then they can get credit for the RHNA numbers. Must affirm fair housing - cannot make segregation worse. Cannot buy out your entire RHNA numbers. Bill would have a sunset date and we think this is a good opportunity to help funding. Limits to how much they can transfer by income category. Steering Committees - April 18 - Forward for HFA and June 20 - Finalize the work plan Jan 24 - Convening Jan 3 1- Planning Commissioner Network Feb 7 - Superintendents Meeting Feb 28 0 Learning Network Meeting 1 Memorandum AGENDA NO: 11b MEETING DATE: January 22, 2019 To: City Council Date: January 22, 2019 From: Vice Mayor Emily Beach Subject: Committee Report Wednesday, 1/2/19, Transportation Authority 101 Managed Lane Subcommittee • 3 members of SMCTA Board (Beach, Freschet, Horsley) and 3 members of C/CAG (Aguirre, Kim, Papan) working to resolve differences about future governance model for US 101 Managed Lanes. Productive 3.5 hour meeting, will continue the conversation on Friday, 1/25. Owner/operator decision must be resolved by February board meetings, otherwise $514M project will incur likely construction cost increases. Thursday, 1/3, 101 Managed Lane Meeting & San Mateo County Transportation Authority Board Meeting • Allocated additional $200,000 from Measure A grade separation category funds to Broadway Grade Sep Project to fund relocation of the paralleling station. • Considered new proposal for BAIFA/MTC to operate the US 101 Managed Lane with San Mateo County retaining ownership. First time this governance option was offered by MTC. Still many details to sort out within subcommittee. • Received report on Measure A Local Shuttle Program Update • Elected Vice Chair of SMCTA Friday, 1/4/19, 101 Managed Lane Meeting with MTC and C/CAG Members/Staff Monday, 1/7/19, City Council Meeting Tuesday, 1/8/19, Managed Lane phone conference meetings & constituent meeting Wednesday, 1/9/19, Economic Development Subcommittee Meeting, Constituent Meeting • Set priorities for 2019 Economic Development Subcommittee • Unofficial list from my notes (staff will publish official minutes) o Shop Local Campaign o Completion of Façade Improvement Program proposal o Vetting zoning strategies post-general plan update to encourage active, vibrant downtown areas, other important uses like daycare/childcare, possible dormitory/workforce housing concepts o Retail summit preparation/outreach with Downtown and Broadway BIDs o Engagement meetings with both BID’s and Burlingame Plaza/North Burlingame owners, Hoteliers, Auto dealerships Beach Committee Report January 22, 2019 2 o Downtown streetscape/public spaces enhancement o Entertainment opportunities Thursday, 1/10/19, Kevin Mullin/Phil Ting Town Hall Meeting, Daly City • Questions from constituents regarding Casa Compact; two Assemblymembers shared different perspectives on this issue as it enters the legislative process. Mullin is mindful of local land use authority concerns among Peninsula cities he represents. He expressed the importance of the state providing tools and incentives to increase housing supply vs. punitive measures. • Housing will be #1 issue for this legislative session; also early childhood education, healthcare, and modernizing our tax structure. Very ambitious agenda with Democratic supermajority. All within context of current budget surplus (about 10%) and inevitable cooling of the economy on the horizon. • Concerns/questions from residents included: o Housing affordability – not just production of market rate units o Housing policy from state (carrots vs. sticks) in context of Casa Compact o Teacher housing o Healthcare – Covered California sign-ups o Quality of life threatened by population growth o Too many cars, not enough parking, particularly for residents living in hills or far away from fixed transit; multiple families sharing living spaces, or many roommates sharing homes – each with own automobile. o Pension obligations – particularly for school districts; recognition state needs to take some of burden back from school districts o Early childhood education/daycare o Herbicides/pesticides o PG&E and future bailouts o Election security o Sharing /managing public right of way with cars, scooters, bicycles and the role of local/state wide regulations Friday, 1/11/19: and Chamber of Commerce Annual Luncheon • Chamber of Commerce Annual Luncheon: Excellent remarks by Mayor Colson and Andrew “Boz” Bosworth of Facebook – thank you Burlingame Chamber for hosting a great event! • Constituent meeting key topics included: o SMUHSD Pool – consensus among this group (mostly seniors and parents of school aged students) was desire for community outreach process for re-design of main swimming pool and little pool before committing significant public dollars to this project. This group expressed a wish for a more community-friendly (vs. competitive/club) facility and programming – e.g. need for larger family-friendly and senior-friendly pool (expressed concerns that main lap pool does not offer gradual entry option, mostly used by advanced swimmers, is often too cold for recreational swimming) and cited other recreational shortcomings: lack of sufficient hours for open/recreational swim in summer; and personal experiences Beach Committee Report January 22, 2019 3 with frequently cancelled swim lessons. Expressed desire for these facility and programming issues resolved as condition for significant investment of Burlingame tax dollars in a new pool. Thoughtful discussion. I reminded the group that SMUHSD owns the facility since it is on their land, which adds another layer of complexity. o Roundabout design concerns o Desire for El Camino Real safety/drainage improvements soon o Bay Trail improvements o Future changes on Rollins Road/North Burlingame Monday, 1/14/19: League of California Peninsula Division Board Meeting & Constituent Meetings • Strategic agenda planning for 1/30 Pen Division League Quarterly Luncheon about Casa Compact. All Councilmembers encouraged to sign up for this event. • Planning for annual Bocce Ball Tournament – save the date Thursday, 4/25 in Los Gatos Wednesday, 1/16/19: League of California Cities Conf. and Policy Committee Meeting, Sacramento • Overview of legislative session and key areas that will impact cities • Environmental Quality Policy Committee: among other topics on agenda, will discuss workplan for 2019, upcoming EQ legislation for new session, and receive briefing from Department of Conservation regarding disaster planning resources/mapping tools.