HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - CC - 2018.03.05
Burlingame City Council March 5, 2018
Approved Minutes
1
BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL
Approved Minutes
Regular Meeting on March 5, 2018
1. CALL TO ORDER
A duly noticed regular meeting of the Burlingame City Council was held on the above date in the City Hall
Council Chambers.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
The pledge of allegiance was led by Rob Mallick and Mike Heathcoate.
3. ROLL CALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Beach, Brownrigg, Colson, Keighran, Ortiz
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
4. STUDY SESSION
a. DISCUSSION OF FIELD USER ORGANIZATIONS’ STORAGE AND/OR STRUCTURES
ON CITY PARKLAND
Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad stated that in January, staff brought a proposed Burlingame Youth
Baseball Association (BYBA) agreement to Council for their consideration. The agreement with BYBA
consolidated previous agreements and outlined responsibilities. She explained that if Council had approved
the BYBA agreement in January, staff was then going to work with the other field users on establishing
agreements. However, at the meeting, the Council raised several concerns and it was determined that a study
session needed to be held.
Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad explained that staff’s goal was to update and establish agreements
concerning field user organizations’ storage and/or structures on City parkland. She noted that the
agreements aren’t for field use, but rather are to protect the City and organizations in regards to structures
that either party owns and uses.
Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad stated that the staff report included a spreadsheet that outlined the
different user groups, if an agreement is in place, the number of residents and non-residents in each
organization, and the facilities used.
Burlingame City Council March 5, 2018
Approved Minutes
2
Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad stated that staff is asking for direction on seven questions, and
based on the direction, staff will draft agreements with the various user groups.
Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad added that the City doesn’t have an agreement with Burlingame
High School (BHS) baseball and that they aren’t part of the field allocation process. She stated that at some
point, she would like to discuss how BHS baseball gets incorporated into the field allocation process so that
it is fair.
Mayor Brownrigg asked if BHS baseball jumps to the front of the queue for the baseball diamond at
Washington Park. Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad replied in the affirmative.
Mayor Brownrigg asked if this was the only baseball field that BHS baseball uses. Parks and Recreation
Director Glomstad stated that they also use the batting cages.
Councilmember Ortiz asked if the tough sheds are provided by each organization and who decides where the
sheds are placed. Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad stated that in the past, the groups have come to
staff with a proposal for location and type of shed.
Councilmember Ortiz asked if this process was working. Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad replied in
the affirmative.
Councilmember Keighran asked if all the organizations utilize the tough sheds or if it is mainly BYBA.
Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad stated that the tough sheds belong to different organizations as cited
in the staff report.
Councilmember Keighran asked how staff would handle future requests from new organizations to utilize the
facilities and structures listed in the spreadsheet. Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad stated that
currently there is no field space; therefore, she didn’t see this happening.
Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad discussed the difficulties in user groups sharing storage spaces. She
gave examples of misplaced equipment, messes, and other issues that had arisen. She stated that she would
prefer individual tough sheds in order to alleviate these issues.
Councilmember Keighran stated that in reviewing the staff report and spreadsheet, Burlingame Girls Softball
(BGS) received no time at the batting cages. Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad replied that BYBA
has worked with BGS to ensure that they are currently receiving hours at the batting cage. She noted that in
next year’s CIP budget, staff will be requesting funds to build a dual batting cage for baseball and softball.
Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up for public comment.
American Youth Soccer Organization (AYSO) representative Robert Bierman and BGS representative Will
Evans discussed the need to have storage facilities at the fields in order to run their programs.
Burlingame City Council March 5, 2018
Approved Minutes
3
BYBA representative JP LaChance stated that storage facilities are absolutely needed at the fields. He added
that he would like permit fees waived to keep costs low for their members.
Councilmember Keighran asked if BYBA would guarantee hours for BGS at the batting cages until another
batting cage is built. Mr. LaChance replied in the affirmative.
Mayor Brownrigg closed the public comment.
Mayor Brownrigg read the first question:
Does the Council want regular field user organizations to have structures on City parkland? If yes, what type
of structure(s) is permissible?
a. Storage shed/box
Councilmember Beach stated that she believed it was reasonable for user groups to have storage boxes and
sheds on City fields.
Mayor Brownrigg concurred and added that he would leave the design, placement, and other issues to the
discretion of the Parks and Recreation Director.
City Attorney Kane noted that there is generally a distinction between portable structures and those that have
foundations. She explained that very few of the storage facilities are permanent structures. She also noted
that the issue could remain at the Parks and Recreation Director’s discretion.
b. Snack shack
Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad stated that these were a little different because they are City-owned
properties that are used exclusively by two organizations. She stated that the organizations pay for the
upkeep and required health permits to run the snack shacks.
Mayor Brownrigg stated that he was comfortable with the existing agreements, and that any future snack
shacks would need to come to Council for approval.
Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad discussed the need for the organizations to pay a reasonable cost for
the upkeep of the buildings.
Vice Mayor Colson asked about the cost of electricity and water for the snack shacks. Parks and Recreation
Director Glomstad stated that she believed staff billed BYBA $500 to cover these costs.
Councilmember Keighran asked what the proposed term length was for these agreements. City Attorney
Kane stated that different user groups have a different ideal for how long they want the contracts to run.
Burlingame City Council March 5, 2018
Approved Minutes
4
Councilmember Keighran voiced concern about making decisions without an idea of what the proposed term
for these contracts would be and how this could affect their ability to grant access to new user groups.
City Attorney Kane discussed the issue of granting exclusive rights to City building to a non-city group. She
explained that it creates an issue of access if other groups decide they want to use these facilities. Therefore,
if the user group wants to earn its exclusive rights to use a facility by fully maintaining and covering all the
costs, then it could be permitted. However, if the user group isn’t earning that right, the City has a hard time
preventing access to other user groups, particularly if the snack shacks aren’t in use.
Councilmember Keighran stated that she didn’t like the idea of exclusivity when it comes to the snack
shacks.
Councilmember Ortiz asked if other user groups were interested in using the snack shacks. Parks and
Recreation Director Glomstad replied in the negative.
Councilmember Ortiz concurred with Councilmember Keighran that he was concerned about the possibility
of future user groups wanting to use the snack shacks.
Councilmember Beach asked if a clause could be inserted in the agreement whereby a group’s exclusive
rights to the snack shack are revisited every year.
Mayor Brownrigg asked if Phil who runs the snack shack for BYBA has a contract with BYBA. Mr.
LaChance replied in the affirmative.
Mayor Brownrigg asked about the equipment that is within the snack shack and if it belongs to Phil. Parks
and Recreation Director Glomstad replied in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Colson stated that if a user group wants to use the snack shacks, the City should direct them to
talk to the user groups that have access to see if something can be arranged.
Councilmember Keighran asked that a clause could be inserted in the agreement allowing other user groups
the ability to use the snack shacks. City Attorney Kane replied that she would review this request.
c. Batting cage
Councilmember Keighran voiced concern that there was nothing in writing guaranteeing girls softball access
to the batting cages. Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad stated that staff could include language in the
agreements to ensure that this occurs.
d. Porta potty
Vice Mayor Colson stated that her suggestion is that during the field use meeting, the user groups discuss
where the porta potties are needed and that BGS continue handling the billing. She noted that if additional
porta potties are needed for tournaments, then it becomes that user group’s responsibility.
Burlingame City Council March 5, 2018
Approved Minutes
5
Parks and Recreation Director agreed that the system was working and that staff was comfortable with
allowing BGS to handle this matter.
Mayor Brownrigg read the next question:
Does the Council want to allow the organizations to use City buildings to store their equipment?
Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad stated that staff is fine with allowing organizations storage space in
City buildings.
Mayor Brownrigg stated that he was in favor of each user group having their own tough shed.
Mayor Brownrigg read the next question:
Should a fee be charged? If yes, for use of what structure(s)?
Mayor Brownrigg stated that he felt this question was dealt with as there was consensus that operating
expenses for things like electricity at the batting cages or snack shacks should be charged.
Mayor Brownrigg read the next question:
Who is financially responsible for the upkeep of the structure(s)?
Mayor Brownrigg stated that it should be the group that owns the structure or has control over the asset.
Mayor Brownrigg read the next question:
Should any structure become City property after installation on City parkland (either at the outset or
after a certain time period)?
Vice Mayor Colson stated that once the structure is built on City property and the user group abdicates, it
becomes the City’s property. She stated that the question really is should the City have any discretion over
the users of the property, not the property itself. She explained that her proposal is that when the field user
meeting is held, the individual users report out the time allocation at each facility and any remaining time is
made available to other user groups.
City Attorney Kane stated that this needed to be addressed explicitly, if only to know what to include on the
list of properties for insurance. She stated that her suggestion would be that if it is permanently affixed with
a foundation, it belongs to the City.
Mayor Brownrigg read the next question:
Who should get to use the structures, in particular the snack shacks, batting cages, and porta potties?
Burlingame City Council March 5, 2018
Approved Minutes
6
Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad stated that she believed she had received direction on this question.
Vice Mayor Colson stated that she would prefer that the City not use the phrase “exclusive right” for any one
user about any one facility. She asked instead that language be such as to imply that they are the primary
caretaker or user.
Councilmember Beach stated that the City should have a say in who uses permanent structures.
Mayor Brownrigg read the last question:
If permits are required for future structures, should City permit fees be waived?
City Council agreed that these fees should be waived.
Mayor Brownrigg stated that he appreciated the efforts of the user groups to maintain and enhance the
facilities and structures.
5. UPCOMING EVENTS
Mayor Brownrigg reviewed the upcoming events taking place in the City.
6. PRESENTATIONS
a. PRESENTATION OF GREEN BUSINESS AWARDS
Mayor Brownrigg explained that San Mateo County issued two certificates to Burlingame organizations to
commend them for their contribution to sustainable businesses and operations.
Mayor Brownrigg recognized New England Lobster Company. He stated that the building uses energy
efficient lighting, the roof is painted white to improve cooling, and reclaimed wood is used for the tables.
Mark from New England Lobster Company thanked the Council and stated that the company tries to reduce
and recycle everything that they can.
Mayor Brownrigg recognized the City’s Corp Yard. He stated that they received this award because they are
being re-certified as a green business. The Corp Yard uses only recycled paper, increased its water
efficiency, and composts.
Mayor Brownrigg thanked staff for setting a great example.
Congratulations to both organizations.
7. PUBLIC COMMENT
Burlingame City Council March 5, 2018
Approved Minutes
7
There were no public comments.
8. CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Brownrigg asked the Councilmembers and the public if they wished to remove any item from the
Consent Calendar. Councilmember Keighran pulled item 8f, and Mayor Brownrigg pulled items 8c and 8e.
Vice Mayor Colson made a motion to adopt 8a, 8b, and 8d; seconded by Councilmember Beach. The motion
passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
a. ADOPTION OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 20, 2018
City Clerk Hassel-Shearer requested Council adopt the City Council Meeting Minutes of February 20, 2018.
b. ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 12 OF THE BURLINGAME
MUNICIPAL CODE TO UPDATE CHAPTER 12.12 “SIDEWALK AND PARKWAY
MAINTENANCE”
DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Ordinance Number 1949.
After the meeting had closed, Councilmember Beach recognized that she failed to pull this item so that she
could vote against the adoption of the ordinance. It is noted that at the previous meeting on February 20,
2018, Councilmember Beach outlined her concerns and objections to this ordinance.
c. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO PROCURE
A PREFABRICATED RESTROOM FROM CXT, INC. AND EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT
WITH TIMBERLINE ENGINEERING FOR THE SITE PREPARATION FOR THE
WASHINGTON PARK RESTROOM PROJECT
Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad requested Council adopt Resolution Number 28-2018.
Mayor Brownrigg asked if this project was mindful of the work that was going to be done in Washington
Park related to the future community center. Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad stated that it is a
movable restroom so that staff can relocate it to another site.
Mayor Brownrigg opened the item for public comment. No one spoke.
Mayor Brownrigg made a motion to approve Resolution Number 28-2018; seconded by Councilmember
Ortiz. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
d. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE FY 2016-17 STREET RESURFACING
PROJECT BY O’GRADY PAVING, INC., CITY PROJECT NO. 84160
Burlingame City Council March 5, 2018
Approved Minutes
8
DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 29-2018.
e. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AWARDING A CONTRACT TO DEWEY PEST
CONTROL FOR THE CREEK & SEWER RODENT CONTROL PROGRAM
DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 30-2018.
Mayor Brownrigg stated that this was a contract the City was entering into to help control rodents in the
creeks and sewers. He explained that the contract discusses the fact that the City aspires over time to reduce
the number of traps because the City is worried about runoff. He asked if the City should currently be
worried about runoff entering stream beds. DPW Murtuza stated that there has been a lot of discussion on
this topic. He explained that the chemicals used are approved by the EPA and that the SMC Vector Control
District oversees the entire project. He noted that the chemicals are watered down to such a degree that they
doesn’t impact the water quality and other habitats in the creeks.
Mayor Brownrigg asked if there was a way to ensure that it is rodents that are eating the chemicals and not
squirrels or pets. DPW Murtuza stated that he would check with the County.
Vice Mayor Colson asked if the bait stations also get laid on private property. DPW Murtuza stated they are
placed on City right-of-way, and if necessary, staff coordinates with private landowners.
Mayor Brownrigg stated that he was uncomfortable with pesticides and the application of them around
stream beds. He stated that the City should use the least potent chemical solution possible.
Mayor B rownrigg opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke.
Mayor B rownrigg made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 30-2018; seconded by Councilmember
Keighran. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
f. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION EXPRESSING SUPPORT FOR THE MAYORS FOR
100% CLEAN ENERGY CAMPAIGN AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN
DECLARATIONS AND LETTERS OF SUPPORT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY COUNCIL
THAT ALIGN WITH THE CITY’S CLIMATE ACTION GOALS
Sustainability Coordinator Michael requested that the Council adopt a resolution expressing support for the
“Mayors for 100% Clean Energy Campaign” and authorizing the Mayor to sign declarations and letters of
support on behalf of the City Council that align with the City’s climate action goals.
Councilmember Keighran stated that she would prefer that future letters of support come before the Council
for approval rather than a blanket policy of authorizing the Mayor to sign letters.
Councilmember Ortiz stated he was also in favor of having the Council review future letters.
Mayor Brownrigg stated that this request was made in order to streamline straightforward decisions.
Burlingame City Council March 5, 2018
Approved Minutes
9
Sustainability Coordinator Michael stated that some of the requests for letters have a time crunch, and
therefore bringing them to Council is not always possible.
Vice Mayor Colson asked if the letter could go out in an email to the Council prior to the Mayor’s signature,
and then if someone has a concern, they could collaborate with staff. City Attorney Kane replied in the
negative. She explained that the City needs to be mindful of Brown Act implications but that staff could
notify the Council of the request, and then Council could request it to be agendized.
Councilmember Keighran voiced her concern about the precedent it was setting and the need to ensure that
the whole Council was in support of a matter.
City Attorney Kane stated that her recommendation would be to let staff propose a process to Council for
how to handle letter approval.
City Manager Goldman suggested that Council make a motion on the letter before them and not make a
motion on the proposed resolution as it included authorization for future letters.
Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke.
Mayor Brownrigg made a motion to approve signing the letter in support of 100% clean energy; seconded by
Councilmember Keighran. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
9. PUBLIC HEARINGS
a. ACCEPTANCE OF A BUST OF ANSON BURLINGAME TO BE DISPLAYED IN THE
BURLINGAME LIBRARY
Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad stated that while the City has been working on a public art display
to honor Anson Burlingame, an artist named Zhou Limin offered to donate a bust of Anson Burlingame to
the City. The bust would be exhibited at the Burlingame Library as part of a permanent display including a
collection of books and materials concerning Anson Burlingame and the City’s history. She explained that
staff presented the proposal to the Library Board and received their support.
Mayor Brownrigg stated that the Burlingame Historical Society would also be contributing to this display.
Mayor Brownrigg opened the public hearing. No one spoke.
Councilmember Beach made a motion to accept the bust of Anson Burlingame; seconded by Councilmember
Ortiz. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
b. INTRODUCTION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 13.52 OF THE
BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING REGULATION OF BICYCLES
Burlingame City Council March 5, 2018
Approved Minutes
10
City Attorney Kane stated that the proposed ordinance is an amendment to the bicycle ordinance. She
explained that the proposed ordinance would remove all the licensing requirements and penalties associated
with not having a bicycle license; update the Municipal Code in light of best practices and the California
Vehicle Code; and allow individuals to cycle in the parks. She noted that the proposed ordinance includes
the suggestions of the Parks and Recreation Commission and Traffic, Safety & Parking Commission.
City Attorney Kane explained that subsequent to the publication of the agenda, an error was found in the
proposed ordinance. Therefore, the proposed ordinance would be re-introduced at the next meeting.
Councilmember Keighran asked what happens if the bicycle is a rental like Limebike pursuant to 13.52.150
entitled “Parking in racks - Impounding bicycles lying on sidewalks”. City Attorney Kane stated that this
provision gives the police the right to remove the bicycle. However, it doesn’t mean that the police have to
impound the bicycle; they could instead simply move it to allow better access to the sidewalk.
Councilmember Keighran stated that if the proposed ordinance moves forward, staff should reach out to
Limebike to let them know that this is part of the law. City Attorney Kane replied in the affirmative.
Mayor Brownrigg stated that he appreciated the nuance in the proposed ordinance that cyclists can’t be on
the sidewalk if pedestrians are there. He explained that this implies that it is okay to be on the sidewalk if
pedestrians aren’t on the sidewalk.
Councilmember Ortiz stated that he walks his bicycle on the sidewalk on Broadway for safety.
City Attorney Kane stated that she could insert into the proposed ordinance language that allows individuals
to walk their bicycle on the sidewalk.
Councilmember Beach stated that the ordinance revisions are great and concurred about the changes in
allowing an individual to walk their bicycle on the sidewalk. She discussed the dedicated bike lane on
Carolan Avenue and asked if it would be safe and reasonable to have two people ride their bikes abreast in
those lanes. DPW Murtuza replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Beach requested that the proposed ordinance include language that allows for individuals to
ride two abreast on the City’s dedicated bike lanes.
Vice Mayor Colson stated that under Section 13.52.180 entitled “Riding on park or playground” it states “It
is unlawful for any person to ride, drive or operate a bicycle, motorcycle or motor scooter in or on any public
park or playground within the City.” She explained that she was interested in why the City would keep this
section in the law when it is not about bicycles. City Attorney Kane stated that it was in the original
language and would have precluded riding anything in the park. So the idea was to remove the word bicycle
and still prohibit other methods. She discussed keeping it in the ordinance to assist staff in preventing these
vehicles from entering parks.
Councilmember Keighran asked where skateboards are covered in the City’s code. City Attorney Kane
stated it wasn’t addressed in this ordinance but is part of the parks rules.
Burlingame City Council March 5, 2018
Approved Minutes
11
Mayor Brownrigg asked the City Clerk to read the title of the ordinance. City Clerk Hassel-Shearer read the
title.
Vice Mayor Colson made a motion to waive further reading and introduce the ordinance; seconded by
Councilmember Ortiz. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
Mayor Brownrigg opened the hearing for public comment. No one spoke.
City Attorney Kane stated that she would be re-introducing the proposed ordinance at the next City Council
meeting.
10. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
a. CITY COUNCIL POLICY DIRECTION REGARDING PLACEMENT OF WIRELESS
CELL ANTENNAS ON CITY OWNED UTILITY POLES
DPW Murtuza explained that the staff report was asking the City Council to review information pertaining to
the placement of wireless antennas on City-owned utility poles. He stated that in recent years, the City
received interest from wireless providers to place antennas on City-owned traffic signals, street lights, and
other poles. He stated that wireless providers are making these requests because of the high demand on their
data capacity and broadband speed.
DPW Murtuza showed slides of the different types of cell antenna systems including macro cells, micro cells
or small cells that are usually put on utility/street light poles.
DPW Murtuza discussed why the City might want to consider small wireless antennas. He explained that
they are designed for densely populated areas to fill gaps in data and service coverage that cannot be
effectively served by traditional macro cells. Additionally, the small antennas help the providers prepare for
the next generation of wireless technology.
DPW Murtuza reviewed small antennas. He explained that the small antenna is a new type of wireless radio
network technology that consists of one four-foot tall by 14 inch diameter antenna extended on top of the
pole. He stated that it can include small equipment boxes such as a pedestal on the sidewalk. He showed
examples of small cell wireless antennas in San Francisco and Los Angeles. The Los Angeles poles are
known as smart poles, because they have the capability of detecting weather and can include surveillance
equipment.
DPW Murtuza stated that in 2012, the City Council adopted a comprehensive ordinance on wireless
communication. He explained that the purpose of the ordinance was to provide a process to regulate and
control the placement of wireless communications facilities from the perspective of time, place, and manner
in compliance with State and Federal regulations. He noted that there is little the City can do without reason
to reject an antenna’s installation.
Burlingame City Council March 5, 2018
Approved Minutes
12
Recently, the City received a letter from AT&T requesting that the City approve the installation of eight
wireless antennas on City street lights. DPW Murtuza explained that this was the first formal application the
City has received. However, the City is currently processing seven applications from AT&T and seven from
Verizon for installation of antennas on PG&E poles. He noted that the City received a dozen complaints on
the applications.
DPW Murtuza explained that the City has a total of 1990 street lights. Half of the street lights are owned and
operated by the City, the other half are owned and operated by PG&E. In addition, the City owns and
operates 40 traffic signal poles.
DPW Murtuza stated that if the Council is amenable to allowing the placement of these antennas and related
equipment on City-owned facilities, staff recommends the development of comprehensive and well thought-
out policies and guidelines to properly and consistently review applications. At a minimum, the policies
should address the following:
• Preservation and maintenance of local aesthetics;
• Minimizing cluttering of public right-of-way;
• Compliance with FCC allowable safety limits for radio frequency exposure;
• Minimizing obstruction and limiting of City’s use of poles, such as signage for street name, parking,
traffic, and banners;
• Avoiding conflicts with existing and planned City-owned utilities;
• Limiting placement on City-owned street poles to acceptable districts;
• Limiting number of wireless facilities allowed within specific distance from each other; and
• Provisions for standard Master Lease Agreement
DPW Murtuza explained if the Council allowed the antennas, the City would enter into lease agreements
with the various wireless providers for the installation on City-owned facilities. He explained that the typical
lease rates runs from $1200 to $2000 per pole with built-in escalators.
Councilmember Beach asked for a clarification on “City can within reasonable limits control the time, place,
and manner of installation provided the local restrictions do not impede the provision of service.” City
Attorney Kane replied that the City has discretion over its own poles because the City is the property owner.
She stated that the constraints are making sure that as the City administers its ordinance, it doesn’t interfere,
generally, with the provision of cell service.
Councilmember Keighran asked if the PG&E poles under discussion for wireless antenna installation are in
the same general areas as the eight street lights that AT&T wants to use for wireless antennas. DPW
Murtuza stated a majority of the PG&E poles are in the residential area.
City Attorney Kane noted that the technology that the wireless providers are currently using is a lot smaller
than what the Council previously discussed.
Burlingame City Council March 5, 2018
Approved Minutes
13
Mayor Brownrigg asked why the Council is being asked to opine on this matter. DPW Murtuza stated that it
is because the technology would be installed on City-owned poles. City Attorney Kane added that staff can’t
turn over the rights to City-owned property without Council approving it.
City Manager Goldman stated that the City is getting a lot of interest from wireless providers.
Vice Mayor Colson asked if the Council sets a policy for City-owned poles, would Council have discretion
as to which City poles a wireless provider could lease. City Attorney Kane replied in the affirmative.
City Attorney Kane cautioned the Council that the law on this matter is ever changing as it is both state and
federally regulated. Therefore staff will need to keep an eye on lease terms and whether they get overridden
by future legislation.
Councilmember Ortiz asked if the City didn’t allow antennas on City-owned poles, could the providers
attach the antennas to other structures. DPW Murtuza replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Ortiz stated that the benefits to allowing the antennas on City-owned poles would be the
revenue stream and the City’s ability to assist in the wireless coverage for the business/hotel community.
However, he voiced his concern about allowing antennas in the residential neighborhoods. DPW Murtuza
replied that this is why it is essential to develop a detailed process.
City Attorney Kane noted that the City maintains control if the wireless providers contract through the City
for placement of antennas on City-owned poles. However, if the City doesn’t allow antennas on City-owned
poles, the providers will contact private property owners, and the City will lose its control.
Councilmember Keighran asked if the antennas would prevent the City from putting up lighting and banners.
DPW Murtuza explained that guidelines can be established so that they don’t impact those interests.
Vice Mayor Colson stated that the staff report discusses the staff’s full plate of work. She asked if Council
approves antennas on City-owned poles, how many projects would need to come off of the staff’s plate. She
explained that she wanted to ensure that housing projects aren’t removed. City Manager Goldman replied
that this matter would be handled by the Public Works Department and the City Attorney. City Attorney
Kane stated that if this is something that the Council is interested in pursuing, staff can look into it with the
understanding that other things might take precedence.
Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up for public comment.
AT&T representative Angela Kung stated that AT&T is meeting with all cities in the Bay Area in order to
provide better service. She explained that they are trying to work with the cities in identifying poles that
could be used and what types of antennas the cities would prefer.
Mayor Brownrigg stated that when he looks at the examples of different types of antennas, he found the Los
Angeles smart pole to be far less intrusive than the others that have pedestals attached or on the sidewalks.
He explained that having been on the Council when this matter was previously discussed, the antenna was
Burlingame City Council March 5, 2018
Approved Minutes
14
never the main issue; it was the size of the pedestals. He stated that if the way AT&T was now going to
deploy the antennas was like Los Angeles, he would have a lot less concern.
Ms. Kung stated that the type of antenna was at the City’s discretion because the City is the landlord. She
explained that some cities require the antennas to be placed on existing poles for aesthetic reasons. She
noted that the need for the pedestal depends on how power is fed to the antenna. If AT&T can tap directly
into the pole’s electricity, than they don’t need a pedestal.
Ms. Kung discussed the smart poles in Los Angeles. She stated that the Los Angeles poles include the
capacity for attaching surveillance cameras and tracking weather. However, most cities have not wanted the
Los Angeles pole and instead request that the antenna be attached to the existing pole.
Modus representative Jimmy Stillman introduced himself and explained that his company provides the
equipment that holds the AT&T antenna.
Mayor Brownrigg stated that he preferred the cabinetry being on the base instead of on the sidewalk. He
stated that his concern was that this wouldn’t just be seven AT&T poles but that it would be hundreds of
poles as other providers request leases.
Mr. Stillman stated that the ground-mounted pedestal is only required if they can’t get an agreement to tap
into the City’s power circuit.
Mayor Brownrigg asked if the sidewalk pedestal was only necessary if the provider can’t tap directly into the
City’s power. Mr. Stillman replied in the affirmative.
DPW Murtuza stated that the process for allowing a provider to tap into the City’s power is not simple. He
explained that the way the City pays PG&E is based on tiered rates from CPUC. Therefore, every pole in the
City is not metered. If the City allows the provider to tap into the City’s power, it is not easy to determine
what amount of power is used by the streetlight versus the antenna. Accordingly, PG&E would recommend
that a meter be added to the pole.
Councilmember Ortiz stated that the Los Angeles pole seemed more expensive than adding an antenna onto
an existing pole. He asked who pays for that cost. Mr. Stillman stated that the Los Angeles poles are more
expensive than others. Ms. Kung added that who pays depends on the situation. She explained that in many
cases, the installation of the Los Angeles poles is done because the City requests that pole in order to install
surveillance equipment.
Councilmember Ortiz voiced concern that if the City went with the Los Angeles poles, there would be a lack
of consistency in the City’s streetlights.
Councilmember Keighran asked if the Los Angeles pole is the same height as the existing poles in
Burlingame. Ms. Kung stated that she would get back to Council with that information.
Burlingame City Council March 5, 2018
Approved Minutes
15
Mayor Brownrigg asked about San Francisco’s poles. Mr. Stillman explained that San Francisco required
providers to attach antennas to their existing poles. He stated that San Francisco and the provider have
agreed to a flat rate for electricity costs per year.
Mayor Brownrigg asked if there can only be one provider per pole. Mr. Stillman replied in the affirmative.
Mayor Brownrigg asked what the size of the radio box on poles is for the antennas. Mr. Stillman stated that
it is approximately the size of a piece of paper (8 ½ x 11) and 6 inches deep.
Councilmember Beach asked if she was correct that if the provider can tap directly into the City’s power, a
pedestal isn’t needed. She added that in some cities where the provider is able to tap into the City’s power,
the provider pays a flat rate. Mr. Stillman replied in the affirmative.
Mr. Stillman stated that there are few PG&E poles on the bayside. He added that they would prefer to place
antennas on street lights rather than on rooftops because the various heights of rooftops don’t create a clean
network. He noted that the question concerning banners and signs isn’t an issue and that they have handled
this matter with San Francisco.
Mayor Brownrigg stated if the City moves forward, he would want to include in the contract an absolute
commitment by AT&T that if the City needs the pole back or decides to underground the utility that AT&T
gives up that real estate. Ms. Kung stated that this is at the discretion of staff.
DPW Murtuza stated that it is a lot easier for providers to tap into San Francisco’s power because San
Francisco has their own utility company.
DPW Murtuza explained that from a consistency standpoint using the Los Angeles poles would be difficult
as there wouldn’t be a uniform look to the street lights. Therefore, many cities have chosen to attach the
antennas to existing street lights.
Councilmember Beach asked for a clarification on working with PG&E to allow providers to tap into the
City’s power. DPW Murtuza stated that it is a little complicated because the City has two sets of poles, those
with meters and those without meters. If the City puts an antenna on the poles that don’t have meters, and
the provider is allowed to tap into the City’s power, PG&E would require a meter.
Mayor Brownrigg asked if PG&E requires meters on their own utility poles where antennas are attached.
DPW Murtuza replied in the negative.
City Manager Goldman explained that the question that staff is looking for direction on is whether the
Council is interested in leasing City-owned poles to providers. If this is the case, staff would recommend
creating a process to review antenna applications. She added that the City would also like for AT&T to
provide more information on the Los Angeles smart poles.
Councilmember Ortiz explained that he was leaning towards allowing antennas on City-owned poles. This is
because of the small size of the antennas and because they are already being placed on PG&E poles. He
Burlingame City Council March 5, 2018
Approved Minutes
16
added that he believed it was important for the City to get ahead of this matter and determine the style,
location, and the application process. Lastly, he noted that this could be a good revenue stream for the City.
Vice Mayor Colson stated that San Francisco is charging $4,000 per pole per year for 1,000 poles, creating
an annual profit of $4 million. She discussed the importance of Exhibit D of the staff report, which includes
a survey of 20-25 cities and where they are in the process. She noted that residents’ main concern relating to
the installation of antennas is about radio frequency emissions. However, the FAQs included in the staff
report explain that the radio frequencies have been developed to ensure that they are safe.
Mayor Brownrigg stated that when the City Council discussed antennas years ago, they learned that the City
is statutorily barred from considering radio frequency emissions as a health issue.
Mayor Brownrigg stated that he is comfortable with allowing providers to lease streetlight poles. He stated
that when Council previously discussed this matter, their main concern was to avoid boxes on the sidewalk
and disguise antennas. He asked if his colleagues had a preference for the style of the antenna.
Councilmember Keighran asked if Council could delay this discussion until they see examples of the
antennas and pedestals. She stated that she didn’t want antennas attached to the streetlights in the downtown
areas because of the City’s hard work in renovating these areas.
Councilmember Beach stated that she is open to leasing City-owned poles. She explained that this way the
City would be able to control location and aesthetics. She stated that she’d prefer to not have boxes on the
street. She stated that she liked the simplicity of the current light poles with minimal antennas. She thought
the Los Angeles poles would be more random as they would be one offs. Lastly, she added that she wanted
to make sure that the City got an appropriate fee for the leasing of City-owned poles.
Councilmember Ortiz stated he agreed with using existing poles.
Vice Mayor Colson asked if cities can tell providers which vendor to use and what style of antenna to use.
Ms. Kung replied in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Colson stated that this was critical and that Council would work with staff to set the City’s
standards. She also asked for more information on the benefits of the smart poles used in Los Angeles.
DPW Murtuza stated that staff will take Council’s feedback and develop guidelines. Additionally, he will
work with AT&T and other providers to obtain examples for the Council.
b. CITY COUNCIL DIRECTION ON REQUEST TO ALLOCATE FUNDS FOR OPERATION
EAGLE VISIT – HOMECOMING 50 YEARS CELEBRATION
City Manager Goldman stated that this staff report was a follow up to the February 5, 2018 meeting about
the festivities for Operation Eagle.
Burlingame City Council March 5, 2018
Approved Minutes
17
City Manager Goldman stated that the City received an indirect request from San Mateo asking for all
participating cities to pitch in on the costs of the festivities as their fundraising hadn’t kept up with the costs
of the planned activities. She noted that at the February 5 meeting, Council approved an allocation of $5,000
to cover the costs associated with the City’s planned events. She added that since San Mateo made its
request, San Carlos agreed to allocating $10,000 to San Mateo and Belmont is allocating up to $10,000.
City Manager Goldman stated that staff is looking for Council direction on whether they want to approve
additional funds.
Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke.
Councilmember Ortiz stated that he agreed to additional funding but wasn’t sure what the amount should be.
Mayor Brownrigg asked what the funds were going towards. City Manager Goldman stated that San Mateo
has scheduled events from the time the soldiers land on March 22 until March 25 including Devils Canyon
Brewery, a banquet, and a parade. However, she explained that she hasn’t seen a budget.
Vice Mayor Colson stated that it is a one-time event and isn’t something that will reoccur every year. She
stated that her inclination is to match whatever the sister cities have done.
City Manager asked if Council approves an allocation of $10,000 should it be $10,000 minus City expenses,
or City expenses plus $10,000.
Councilmember Beach stated that she was disappointed to see that San Mateo was requesting more funds as
the City was initially told that they were only in charge of hosting lunch on Friday. She stated that if the
Council agreed to allocate $10,000, that should be a full stop. She agreed with Vice Mayor Colson that it is
a one-time symbolic event.
Councilmember Keighran asked for the breakdown of how the funds are being used so that Council could
better determine how much is needed from the City.
Council determined that the allocation should be up to $10,000 at the discretion of the City Manager.
11. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
a. VICE MAYOR COLSON’S COMMITTEE REPORT
b. COUNCILMEMBER BEACH’S COMMITTEE REPORT
c. COUNCILMEMBER KEIGHRAN’S COMMITTEE REPORT
12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
There were no future agenda requests.
13. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Burlingame City Council March 5, 2018
Approved Minutes
18
The agendas, packets, and meeting minutes for the Planning Commission, Traffic, Parking & Safety
Commission, Beautification Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission and Library Board of Trustees
are available online at www.burlingame.org.
14. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Brownrigg adjourned the meeting at 9:18 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Meaghan Hassel-Shearer
City Clerk