The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1350 Bayshore Highway - Staff Report� . � ,� 4 � � cirr �� BURLINGAME �, �, �,.. STAF� REF'ORT b... TO DATE: FROM HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 1, 1985 CITY PLANNER AGENDA ITEM # MTG. �O/�/pC DATE �'� SUBMITTED �I ,(/�vl/Y �'- �' 1'�'^C. BY APPROVED BY REVIEW OF A SPECIAL PERi"II'I' F'OR A MOBILE RADIO-TELEPHONE SUBJECT: SYSTEM RELAY STATION AND EIGHT ROOFTOP ANTENNAS AT . RECO1�iN1ENDATION : City Council hold a public hearing and take action. Planning Commission approved and staff recommended conditions which should be considered at the public hearing: l. that the conditions of the Fire Marshal's memo of August 13, 1985 and the City Engineer's memo of August 19, 1985 shall be met; 2. that the equipment room in the basement shall not be visited more often than once every 40 days and the employee doinq the service shall not stay at/in the room for more than four hours and no employee shall have a desk or other office anywhere on the premises of the storage basement; 3. that the applicant shall provide to the city a clearance from the FAA showing that the antennas are not a hazard to aviation and do not requirs hazard or other lights; and 4. that a letter from both the FCC and the San Francisco International Airport shall be submitted stating that the frequency being used in this cellular system is approved and not a hazard to the operation of San Francisco International Airport. Action Alternatives: 1. 2. Council uphold the Planning Commission and grant the special permit with conditions. Action should be taken by resolution. Council reverse the Planning Commission and deny the special permit stating the reasons for denial. BACKGROUND• GTE Mobilnet is requesting special permits to install eight antennas at a height of 142'-10" on the roof of the office building at 1350 B�ysnore Highway (Code Sec. 25.41.025-e and Code 3ec. 18.18.050-c) and to locate a radio equipment room (768 SF) in a storage area in the basement of the building (Code Sec. 25.41.025-c). The storaqe area will be visited every 30 to 45 days by technicians who will maintain the equipment. , -2- At their meeting of September 10, 1985 the Planning Commission held a public hearing and reviewed this application. Following discussion a motion to grant both use permits as conditioned by staff was made by resolution and passed 6-0 (Commissioner Giomi absent). Commission discussion focused on the basement storage area and its potential for flooding and the intensity of occupancy in this area; on the visibility of the antennas on the roof; and on potential radio interference with the airport. It should be noted that these proposed antennas are not dish antennas and therefore are not subject to the criteria of Code Section 18.18.060. These antennas will both receive and transmit signals. Details of their operation are included in the Planning Commission September 10, 1985 staff report. EXHIBITS• - Planning Commission Minutes, September 10, 1985 - Planning Commission Staff Report, September 10, 1985 w/attachments - Notice of Public Hearing for a Special Permit mailed September 27, 1985 - Council Resolution Approving Special Permits - Plans date stamped July 31, 1985 N1M/ s cc: GTE Mobilnet, Hayward, California Monica Zorovich, Whisler-Patri, San Francisco The Koll Company (property owner) Page 4 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 10, 1985 cars at present, they have had 45 in the past, all are dispatched and do not come to the site, they go from one shop to another; this busi ess is insurance replacement, customers are met at the body shops. He re onfirmed they could not meet the conditions regarding fleet size and wri ing of lease agrements in the. City of Burlingame. They have national�accounts and bills go out from the corporate offices in Ohio. �� Commission�\comment: think the applicant should investig�>te the possibility�pf writing all contracts in Burlingame; cQticern that a future use coiald be any type of car rental agency; d�ot so concerned about this use'�,as about the long range impact of �.�iis use, a regular car rental agen�,y could generate parking problems'; think Commission should limit the°�,use to this particular use. Staff advised a special permit cannot be �,onditioned to a specific busines/person, consideration this'�,evening is clearly a sp�cial permit determination. ,, Mr. Santos stated he�'°�•�ould not make a decision on the conditions of operation. C. Taylor'�m��oved to contin�e this item to the meeting of September 23, 1985. S ond C. Schwa�m; motion approved on unanimous voice vote. Commission �quested a representative be present at the next meeting who could a for the company. 4. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLO��A 50 SF SATELLITE DISH ANTENNA TO REMAIN ON A RESIDENTIAL LOT AT:�08 EDGEHILL DRIVE �"�. Reference staff report, 9/10/85�"�,, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request,.'"staff re��ew, study meeting questions. Two conditions were suqgested for cons'�,,deration at the public hearing. It was noted complaints had been recei�d about this installation and it was before Commission as a code enfor��ment item. Bruce Kreger, att`�orney representing Serva�atic Inc. and Earl Nichols, their national installation supervisor were.;present. Mr. Kreger stated that those people who would normally be invol,�ed in this application did not lear,;ri about it until today, most of tYi'� contacts have been through the�`branch office or subcontractor; thei'� have been personnel changes recently in the branch office. He reques��d a continuance to the next,�`Commission meeting in order to address the��4questions and issues,�'�ich were raised in staff's Auqust 19, 1985 1'etter. He advised Mr. Nic�hols planned to inspect the site tomorrow; the''%ompany is just starting this business, normally they have procedures fo permits; the pro'�ct manager for this application is no longer with t�company, the�r corporate offices are in San Ramon. ,,, � C. Jacobs moved to continue this item to the meeting of Septemb'�r 23, 1985. Second C. Graham; motion approved unanimously on voice vote. 5. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A MOBILE RADIO-TELEPHONE SYSTEM S'rATION AND ANTENNAE AT 1350 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY, ZONED C-4 Reference staff report, 9/10/85, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's description of the Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 September 10, 1985 Engineer's August 19, 1985 memo and the Chief Building Inspector's August 30, 1985 memo shall be met; and (2) that if the survey shows any portion of the garage or carport overhanging property line, within 60 days it shall be removed. Second C. Graham. ,;;. Comment on the'motion: assume the applicant did not �`now he needed another building permit, he will have to pay a pen�,�ty for this; do not feel the applic�3nt has met the four legal requirem�nts for variance approval; there-�;are alternatives to providing the`garage which will meet code; do no� find this 3' variance a problem, the addition will be an improvement t the property; one hour constr''uction will be required for any walls wit�in 3' of property line. The Fire Marshal advised fire access to th� rear is sufficient. , Motion approved on' 5-1 roll call vote, C`: Taylor dissenting, C. Giomi absent. Appeal pro�e3ures were advised. Recess 8:20 P.M.; re nvene 8:30 P.M. ,�'` 3. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AN INSURANCE REPLACEMENT AUTO RENTAL 'r0 OPERATE FROM AN'OFFICE BUILD�NG AT 851 BURLWAY ROAD, (CONTINUED FROM i AGENCY ZONED M-1 Reference staff reports 9�10/85 �nd 8/26/85 with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details o�4,the �request, staff review, Planning staff comment, fleet size, appli�ant's letter, building manager's letter. Six conditions were suggest�d'for consideration at the public hearing. a. Discussion: it was noted builCling management of 851 Burlway has authorized four parking spaces`to this applicant; staff advised that based on current code th� build�.ng does not meet the city's parking standards. '`•� . ' ��.�, Roy Santos, office ma�ager represe�i�ting Brian Cochran, district manager, Amerex Rent�A-Car addressec'� Commission: they have been operating from this,fsite for a year,`'"��.�ave received no complaints from tenants of the bui,�'ding; most cars are�,delivered to several body shops in the bay area, ,they are left there and are not brought back to the office site; Ame�ex uses three on-site p��rking spaces per day at the most; this off�e is used only as a reser�tAation and dispatch center. %" �, Chm. Garcia�pened the public hearing. The�e were no audience comments and the he� ing was closed. �. Respond�n`ig to Commission question, applicant st�,ted they could not con�,�m to the condition requiring all lease agr�ments be written in the City of Burlingame; regarding limitation of the fleet size to 25, he could see no reason why they should be limited t�25 since even with a 90 car fleet most cars would not be in the parking ot. Staff advised 25 was an arbitrary number, since these permi run with the land it is a control on the volume of this and future b sinesses. In further explanation of the business, Mr. Santos stated t ey have 37 ,� Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 September 10, 1985 system, study meeting questions. Four conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Commission questions: what space is applicant occupying in this building which gives theM the use of the roof; will basement storage area have waterproof doors; how visible are the antennas. Engineering will not allow the basement area to be used as a habitable floor. Monica Zorovich, Whisler-Patri and John Kelly, operations manager, GTE Mobilnet were present. Ms. Zorovich advised GTE Mobilnet is a subsidiary of GTE. Mr. Kelly discussed this proposed installation: the height; support pole and screen will be painted the same color as the structure they will be mounted on, they will blend with the building; they need certain heights to cover the area for this cellular mobile telephone service. They prefer to install on a building since then they do not have to construct a tower themselves; this system is currently in use at the airport, they have not received complaints. Chm. Garcia opened the public hearing. There were no audience comments and the hearing was closed. C. Schwalm moved for approval of this special permit and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Special Permits with the following con3itions: (1) that the conditions of the Fire Marshal's memo of August 13, 1985 and the City Engineer's memo of August 19, 1985 shall be met; (2) that the equipment room in the basement shall not be visited more often than once every 40 days and the employee doing the service shall not stay.at/in the room for more than four hours and no employee shall have a desk or other office anywhere on the premises of the storage basement; (3) that the applicant shall provide to the city a clearance from the FAA showing that the antennae are not a hazard to aviation and do not require hazard or other lights; and (4) that a letter from both the FCC and the San Francisco International Airport shall be submitted stating that the frequency being used in this cellular system is approved and not a hazard to the operation of San Francisco International Airport. Second C. Graham; motion approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Giomi absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 6. SPECIAL PERMIT - COURIER OPERATION - 1722 GILBRETH ROAD App��tion withdrawn. . �,T�� Following the ��,,,�ival of the City Attorne recess toMexecutive session was callec�'b�.._the Chair at 9: .M. The meeting reconvened at 9:40 P.M, to continue Ite�r�.�.�,, V ' nce at 21 Arundel Road. 1. VARIANCE FROM ��IINIMU C. Jacobs found the�e were exceptional circumstan�es.,.,in this lot is only 45' wi��;� that given the placement and floor pTa�_rof the original �e, providing the required off-street covered parking DE YARD 1TE� REMENTS - 21 ARUNDEL ROAD that to h � Page 6 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 10, 1985 code dimensions would result in substantial modification to the interior design of the existing structure if a 5' setback were maintained at ground level; that setting back the second floor 9" would add substantially to the cost of the addition; that the variance would not be detrimental to the neighborhood and it would not adversely affect the zoning plan of the city. ?' f, C. Ja�obs moved for approval of this variance with the#¢.�ollowing condit�ion: (1) that the project as built be consistent,rwith the plans submit d to the Planning Department and date stampe September 3, 1985. econd C. Graham. In comment on the motion second condition was sugg�sted: (2) that there be a door at the rear�, of the new garage to provid� access to the existing garage at the r r. C. Jacobs amended he motion to include condition #2, C. Gr�ham amended his second. M�ion approved on a 6-0 roll call vot , C. Giomi absent. Appeal proc�ures were advised. 7. THREE VAR ANCES TO ALLOW CONVERSION OF EXISTING WAREHOUSE TO AN OFFICE UTO RETAIL CENTER AT 1070 BR AD"WAY, ZONED M-1 8. THREE SPECIA PERMITS TO ALLOW CONVE ION OF AN EXISTING WAREHOUSE TO AN OFFICE/ UTO RETAIL CENTER AT 70 BROADWAY, ZONED M-1 , Reference staff repc��t, 9/10/85, with ttachments. C. Taylor excused himself from review o'�� this item bec se of conflict of interest and left the podium. CP nroe reviewe details of the request, environmental review, �aff review � circulation and access issues, applicant's letter, stud��meeting questions, new alignment of the Broadway/California inters'�ction, new traffic counts of California/ Broadway intersection. Eleven onditions were suggested for consideration at the public h�aring. CE's condition to prohibit traffic crossing Broadway fro�i`��Carolan to the site was noted. Michael R. Harve � y, applicant; Joe'=..Harvey, contractor and Richard Hopper, traffic engineer were pres��at. Chm. Garcia opened the public hearing. Alan Horn, 1325;'Paloma Avenue and John Calwell, 1035 Nlorrell Avenue spoke in favor: no objection to.the height, would like to see this building remodeled�and the neighborhood improved. Nicholas Crisafi, 1241 Whitethorn Way commented he had no objection to the structure but expressed concern about increased traffic at the Broadway intersection which is extremely congested at present. There were no other audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion/comment: think the structure will improve this entrance to the�city, landscaping is a concern, would like to screen the parking g�age as seen from California Drive and along the railroad tracks; regar ing traffic circulation, "no left turn" signs are violated daily, would prefer to place a barrier there; barriers will not stop left hand turns and they often get torn down, would not like to see the left hand turn from Carolan onto Broadway eliminated; from experience have found right hand turns from Broadway to California are no problem, that is the only lane that moves; the existing structure P.C. 9/10/85 Item #5 MEMO TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: CITY PLANNER SUBJECT: SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A MOBILE RADIO-TELEPHONE SYSTEM STATION AND ANTENNA AT 1350 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY, C-4 DISTRICT GTE Mobilnet represented by Monica Zorovich of Whisler-Patri is requesting a special permit to install a group of eight antennae at a height of 142'-10" on the roof of the office building at 1350 Bayshore Highway (Code Sec. 25.41.025-e). She is also requesting a use permit to locate a radio equipment room (768 SF) manned periodically (every 30 to 45 days) in a storage area of the basement of the building (Code Sec. 25. 41.025-c>. City Staff Review City staff have reviewed the request. The Chief Building Inspector (September 3, 1985 memo) had no comment. The Fire Marshal (August 13, 1985 memo) notes that holes made in the roof for installing the antennae must be sealed with Fire Dept. approved material. The City Engineer (August 19, 1985 memo) comments that GTE is proposing to occupy a basement level of this building which may not be used for areas of work, lounging, living, eating, etc. The applicant needs to confirm this use as equipment only and confirm that parking is adequate if the basement is used. Applicant's Submittal The applicant submitted a detailed description of the cellular mobile radio-telephone system, how it works, what they intend to build at 1350 Bayshore Highway and (page 4) how it will be operated. They also submitted a letter (August 29, 1985) addressing concerns expressed by the Commission at study (see below). Studv Questions At study the Planning Commission asked questions regarding parking impact, lights on the antennae, cross section of building with antennae and how antennae are attached. According to their August 29, 1985 letter the area being leased is on the lower basement level an3 has always been used for storage space. Parking is located on the first floor of the basement above the storage area. No GTE Sprint employees will be located permanently on the site. Service visits will be once each 30 to 45 days (no length of service visit was noted). They note FAA will not require lights on top of the antennae. They do not expect that the floor area of the equipment room (24' x 32') will be expanded in the future. The antennae's mountings will be tied to the building's structural system. Because the system is a backup communication system for fire and �olice personnel, the engineering of the mountings exceeds that normally required by the code according to GTE. -2- Planninq Commission Action The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Both use permits can be considered at one hearing. Affirmative action on each use permit should be taken by resolution. The Commission should state clearly the reason for any action they take. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: 1. that the conditions of the Fire Marshal's memo of August 13, 1985 and the City Engineer's memo of August 19, 1985 shall be met; 2. that the equipment room in the basement shall not be visited more often than once every 40 days and the employee d�ing the service shall not stay at/in the room for more than four hours and no employee shall have a desk or other office anywhere on the premises of the storage basement; 3. that the applicant shall provide to the city a clearance from the FAA showing that the antennae are not a hazard to aviation and do not require hazard or other lights; and 4. that a letter from both the FCC and the San Francisco International Airport shall be submitted stating that the frequency being used in this cellular system is approved and not a hazard to the operation of San Francisco International Airport. � U%��"11��,(!� �►`�! Margaret Monroe City Planner MM/s cc: Monica Zorovich, Whisler-Patri G.T.E. Mobilnet, Hayward, CA � � -aas�- ��s ( property owner ) THE �'vti [. !'��,�,'3�tJ� , � ,, . , 0 3 � � a1 a�F-�� •r U +� > • � a� a� a� +� S. i i r� � � N r r L O r � � • 'r � •r � 3 N QJ d' r � • N u-� co a� - N � � u'� � c� M • � � U +� � ��a�� +> > s. a� a� o +-� �� a�o•�Rsa� Q1 U +� U +� = O� X4-•�-p � a�o��•� N I T3 r N � - r r � (CN•r •r •r S. �' � 3r i->�� , PROJECT APPUCATION � CEQA ASSESSMENT Application received ( 7/31/85 Staff review/acceptance ( ��T� °� 1350 BAYSHORE HI�HWAY BURLINGAME project address - � � r,T.E. P10BILNET �b.�p'W��,�•°� project name - if any ) 1. APPLICANT G.T.E. Mobilnet 785-4272 name telephone no. 21150 Cabot Boulevard, Hayward, CA 94545 applicant s address: street, city, zip code �1onica Zorovich, c/o b�hisler-Patri, 957-0200 contact person, if different 59Q 0 50�1 treet, telephone no. 2. TYPE OF APPLICATION San Francisco, CA 94105 Specia.l Perr^it (X ) Vari�nce* () Conc+ominium Pernit () Other *Attach letter which addresses each of the 4 findings required by Code Chapter 25.54. s. PROJECT DESCRIPTION SPECIAL PERMIT to install a mobile radio-telephone system station in an existing 9-story office building at this location. A 768 SF telephone equipment room will be installed in the lower basement a storage area which will not be "manned" by employe�s. On top of the penthouse two 12' hiqh transmitting antennae would be erected and six 12' hiqh receivinq antennae would be erected next to the penthouse exterior walls. A special permit is required since the antennae will extend above the penthouse and (attach letter of explanation if additional space is needed) Ref. code section(s): ( 25.41.025 ) ( L� �� l �'O ►'�' FJ o 4 c� ►,v N C 2 v.v� �B�+!-' P�t A�r3 /' c9�d �, I>. �'� 6 s o,tJ JaP, —(. �'0 l, t. �' (). � /� S� .C�, /�� S T.; � 5�� Jas�� /9 �� / / �. PROPERTY IDEMTIFICATION ( 026-113-430 ) ( - ) ( - ) ( Acrea�e, City of Burlingamd) APN lot no. block no. subdivision name ( C-4 ) ( ) zoning district land area, square -Feet l. u �� r`" Tft4`_../�y?�L. �'p r'�.�`�,�/ ✓ ��7'SU f��Y'Si-l�r?c� ��, s O /` L _ . _ � � land owner's name ,�ddr�ss �_ _� „� � � Reauired Date received city i�"'ur?�.i�a.G.%�r�,-=- zip code (��r-j (no) ( - ) Proof of ownershi� �/t ��`' (yes) (�s� (P1ISSING ) Owner's consent to application 5. EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS The existina site is an existin� 9 story office builciing at 1350 Bayshore Highway (see attached site plan). Required Date received (yes) �csa) (7/31/85 ) Site plan showing: property lines; public sidewall:s and cur5s; all strt;ctures and improvements; paved on-site parkino; landscaping. (yes) ��) ( " ) Floor plans of all buildings showina: gross floor area by type of us�`on each floor plan. (yes) � ��) ( " ) Building elevations> cross sections (if relevant). (yes) #e�l ( �� ) Site cross section(s) (if relevant). (other) ( " ) lettPr�[1_f eXnlanatinn MISSIPJG FCC and FAA approvals *Land use classifications are: residential (show # dwelling units); office use; retail sales; restaurant/cafe; manufacturing/repair shop; warehousing; other (to be described). 6. PROJECT PR�POSAL (NO P�lEW FLOOR AREA IS BEIVG CREATED) Proposed consi:ruction, 3elow orade ( - SF) Second floor ( - SF) gross floor area First floor ( _ SF) Third floor ( - SF) Pro.ject Cndn Pr000sal Requirement Front setback Side setback n 0 Cf1d Side yard Rear yard Pr-oject Code Proposal Requirement Lot coverage n0 Ch nge Fuil��in� hei�ht 142'-10" SP over 5' Landscaoed area 110 C{1 nge Qn••site okg.spaces 110 ch nge � ,' , 6. PROJECT PROPOSAL (continued) EXISTING after 8-5 5 PM Full tir�e employees on site Part tir�e employees on site Visitors/customers (weekday) Visitors/customers (Sat.Sun.) Residents on property Trin ends to/from site* Peak hour trip ends* Trucks/service vehicles *Show calculations on reverse side or attach senarate sheet. 7. ADJACENT BUSINESSES/LA�dD USES Hotel, office and restaurant uses to the north and south; hotel and liaht industrial uses to the west; San Francisco Bay to the east: this use conforms.to the qeneral plan. Required Date received �) (no) ( — ) Location plan of adjacent properties. �) (no) ( — ) Other tenants/firms on property: no. firms ( ) no. employees ( ) floor area occupied ( SF office space) ( SF other) no. employee vehicles regularly on site ( ) no. comoany vehicles at this location ( ) 8. FEES Special Permit, all districts $100 (X ) Other application type, fee $ () Variance/R-1,R-2 districts $ 40 () Project Assessment $ 25 ( X) Variance/other districts $ 75 () Neoative Declaration $ 25 ( X) Condominium Permit $ 50 () EIR/City & consultant fees $ ( TOTAL FEES $ 15� . �� RECEI PT N0. �615 _ Recei ved by H. Towber I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and correct to the best o�.�y knowledge and belief. Signature ' � //l/%Z�i'.�� 'l�/lG%%/�`li Date � l/ STAFF USE OMLY NEGATIUE DECLARATION F;,e "°. The City of Burlingame by on , 19 completed a review of the proposed project and determined that: ( ) It will not have a significant effect on the environment. ( ) No Environmental Impact Report is required. Reasons for a Conclusion: Cateqorically exempt; Reference Code Section 15301, Existing Facilities. 1�/l,6YG� G�'�--� � �-�-� Signa ure of Processino Official Title Daie Signed Unless appealed within 10 days hereof the c��te posted, the deternination shall be final. DECLARATIO'J OF POSTING Dai;e Posted: I declare under penalty of per.jury that I ar� City Cterk of the City of Burlingame and that I posted a true copy of the above Neoa,ti��e Declaration at the City Hall of said City near the doors to th•a Council Chambers. Executed at Durlingame, California on Apoealed: ( )Yes ( )P!o 19 JUDIiH R. �TT ,T CITY CLERK, CITY (!� oURLINGAP�tE IP! 2 YEARS IP! 5 YEARS � after after 8-5 5 PM 8-5 5 PM , � STAFF REUI EW 1. CIRCULATION OF APPLICATION Project proposal/plans have been circulated for review by: date circulated reply receivec City Engineer ( 8/9/85 ) (yes) (no) Building Inspector ( �' ) (yes) (no) Fire Marshal ( " ) (yes) (no) Park Department ( — ) (yes) (no) City Attorney ( _ ) (yes) (no) 2. SUMMARY OF STAFF CONCERNS/POSSIBLE MITIGATIOPJ MEASUP.ES memo attached (yes) (no) (yes) (no) (yes) (no) (yes) (no) (yes) (no) Concerns Mitigation Measures Will the FCC or FAA have any Request comments from both objeciions to this proposal? organizations. Will this proposal comply with Request comments from the Fire and Building Code Fire Marshal and Chief Bldg. requirernents? Inspector. Will the use of antennae at Review applicant's 7/31/85 this location have any adverse letter; discuss with City effects on adjacent sites with Engineer; make determination. respect to emission or reception of telephone transmissions? 3. CEQA REQUIREME^!TS If a Negative Declaration has not been posted for this oroject: Is the project subject to CEQA review? No - categorically exempt IF AN EIR IS REQUIRED: Initial Study comoleted Decision to prepare EIR Notices of preparation mailed RFP to consultants Contract awarded Admin. draft EIR received Draft EIR acce�ted by staff Circulation to other agencies � c � � t � � � ) � ) ) > ) ) ) Study by P.C. Review oeriod ends Public hearing by P.C. Final EIR received by P.C. Certification by Council Decision on project Notice of Determination � i � � i � � 4. APPLICATIOP! STATUS Date first received ( 7/31/85 ) Accepted as complete: no( ) letter to aoplicant advising info. required ( ) Yes( ) date P.C. study ( $�2� $5 ) Is application ready for a�ublic hearing? (yes) no) Recommended date (�jd g� ) Date staff report mailed %t�aoplicant ( ) Date Commission hearing ( i/�S�) Application approved (t/ ) Denied ( ) r�'��a�o�ouncil ,:"(yesJ�/(no) Date Council hearing (� O/7 /� j ) Apolication aporoved ( ) Denied ( ) 1` Y.�"UI �VW�r�C I' `l'� signed date f�I��iE1V�1� PROJECT DESCRIPTION `�� 3 1 ��$5 San Francisco/San Jose Cellular Mobile Radio-Telephone NetwB�Nµ+� o�ME GTE MOBILNET Revised July 1985 GTE Mobilnet proposes to build a new mobile radio-telephone system serving the greater San Francisco Bay Area. Consisting of approximately 36 installations spread between Novato in the north, Livermore to the east, and Morgan Hill in the south, the project is designed to implement a recent advance in technology known as "cellular" mobile telephone service. 1. WHAT IS A"CELLULAR MOBILE RADIO-TELEPHONE" SYSTEM? The proposed project is designed to implement a recent advance in mobile radio-telephone technology known as "cellular" mobile telephone service. Unlike the traditional mobile telephone system which uses a single high- powered transmitter to cover an entire region, the new technology divides the service area into small "cells" each having its own low-powered�trans- mitter. In an extensive investigation lasting more than a decade, the Federal Com- munications Commission has found this new service to be needed and desir- able [Memorandum of Opinion and Order on Reconsideration, Docket No. 79-318 47 Federal Regulation 10018, 10033-34; 89 FCC 2d 58 (1982)]. The FCC cited the following benefits when approving this new technology: - the new technology greatly increases the consumer availability and re- liability of mobile telephones by offering greater system capacity, superior transmission quality, and increased user privacy, - the new technology conserves scarce radio frequency blocks by re-using channels within each system, - by allowing direct dialing and eliminating the need for a mobile oper- ator, the new technology will be easier and generally less expensive for the general public to use; long distance dialing, call forwarding, call waiting, and three-way cal�ing services will also be offered, - by bypassing much of the existang wireline telephone system, the new technology is more likely to survive a major disaster (such as an earthquake) and remain operational for emergency communications. Since October 1983, cellular systems have been built in Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, Washington/Baltimore, Houston, Seattle, Indianapolis, and Milwaukee. Systems are under construction in each of the rest of the nation's 30 largest cities. By 1987, most of the country's 100 largest ur- ban areas will be served by cellular mobile telephone systems. Page 2 2. 3. 4. WHO WILL USE A"CELLULAR" TELEPHONE SYSTEM? Market surveys indicate that a significant demand for expanded mobile tele- phone service presently exists. The current mobile telephone technology is over-subscribed and waiting-lists exist in most service areas. Once "cellu- lar" service becomes available, it is anticipated that the demand will fur- ther increase. GTE Mobilnet estimates that an immediate nationwide demand exists for 1.5 million users and that by the mid-1990s, that number will grow to an estimated 4.5 million users. Reviewing the first year of com- mercial experience with the Chicago prototype system, many industry observ- ers feel that these market projections may be too conservative. In the San Francisco-San Jose metropolitan area, GTE Mobilnet anticipates serving almost 3,500 subscribers during the first year of operation. By the fifth year, the number of Bay Area subscribers is expected to grow to 27,000. In addition to the expected business users (executives, salesmen, consul- tants, and construction contractors to name a few), GTE Mobilnet -has re- ceived many inquiries from local governments and emergency services (such as fire departments, ambulance services, and the Red Cross). HOW DO "CELLULAR" MOBILE TELEPHONES WORK? Conceptually, the cellular mobile radio-telephone system uses a large num- ber of low-powered transmitting/receiving stations located throughout the Bay Area. The proposed project site in your community is just one of the approximately 36 "cell" sites which comprise the regional system. As a mobile unit travels about the region, its signal is electronically switched to an available channel at the nearest cell. This is opposed to the tra- ditional mobile telephone technology which utilizes a single, high-powered transmitter to cover the entire Bay Area. The advantage of the proposed cellular system is that it greatly increases the availability and quality of mobile telephone services without increas- ing the number of radio frequencies required. As a result, the proposed initial system is expected to serve more than 150 times the number of pre- sent subscribers on a network which offers a level of service comparable to the existing residential "landline" telephone system. GTE Mobilnet pro- poses to maintain a 95 percent ratio of successfully completed calls; that is, a user will be able to obtain a dial-tone and immediately obtain an open circuit 95 percent of the time. Presently, only about 50 percent of all mobile telephone connections are successfully completed and it often takes up to 30 minutes to obtain an open circuit. HOW WERE THE "CELL" LOCATIONS CHOSEN? Cellular telephone technology relies upon creating limited geographic area. These cells are the key quencies and increasing consumer accessibility to th "cells" which serve a to reusing radio fre- e system. In order to +� Page 3 avoid gaps in reception to and from each mobile unit, the cells must be located so that there is a significant overlap in the area of radio cover- age f rom each station. Depending upon the terrain, each cell station will serve a territory approximately 8 to 12 miles in diameter. Ideally, the cellular network may be thought of as a uniform grid of cell stations evenly covering the Bay Area. The actual cell locations are, in reality, affected by a variety of real- world factors. The hilly terrain of the Bay Area requires more cells than normal to adequately cover the region. The actual cell location is also affected by proximity to major concentrations of users -- traffic cor- ridors, such as airports and interstate freeways (e.g. Interstate 280 and Highway 17); industrial parks and office developments; and other densely populated business and residential centers. For optimum efficiency, the cell installations should be located as close these concentrations as pos- sible. When the engineers had determined the optimum location for each cell sta- tion, GTE Mobilnet sought to acquire the appropriate property. Not only did each site have to meet the criteria established by the radio engineers, the construction of the cell site had to meet local planning codes and cause minimal environmental impact on the surrounding area. Whenever pos- sible, GTE Mobilnet has sought to utilize existing radio towers or high- rise buildings to mount its antennae. Where existing radio-towers or high- rise buildings were not available, GTE Mobilnet proposes to erect a new freestanding, monopole antenna. Because effective radio transmission for the entire system relies on the geographic relationships between the cell stations, the entire system must be redesigned if an appropriate site cannot be found near the optimum lo- cation. During the early planning phases, the engineers did allow some flexibility of location. However, it has become more difficult to adjust the cell locations as the various sites have been actually acquired or ap- proved. In all, it has taken over three years to plan the Bay Area net- work. 5. WHAT DOES GTE MOBILNET PROPOSE TO BUILD AT THIS SITE? A cell site installation typically�includes the following major components: - electronic switehing and radio transmitting/receiving equipment. - emergency electrical power supply (usually batteries). - antennae assembly consisting of 6 sector-receive elements ("bat wings" with a central rod approximately 3 inches in diameter by 12 feet long with 11 inch wings on each side of the center rod) and up to 3 trans- mitter elements ("whips" approximately 3 inches in diameter by 12 feet long) located approximately 80 to 150 feet above the ground. - connections with utilities electricity and telephone are required, wa- ter is necessary only if landscaping is proposed, sewage connections are not need). Page 4 The operation of the cell site installation is remotely controlled from the regional system's command center in Hayward, California and a national cen- ter in Houston, Texas. No employees will be located permanently at this site and service visits are expected to occur once each 30 to 45 days. The design and siting of the proposal are illustrated in detail on the at- tached drawings. 6. WILL THIS SYSTEM INTERFERE WITH RADIO OR TELEVISION BROADCASTS? Unlike Citizen's Band radio, the cellular mobile telephone system is highly regulated by both the state and federal governments. No interference is anticipated. The proposed system will utilize "cellular frequency block B" consisting of radio frequency channels ranging from 835.020 to 844.980 and 880.020 to 889.980 MHz. This portion of the electro-magnetic spectrum was formerly allocated for use by television channels 71 to 80. These frequencies have been reserved for cellular telephone systems on a national basis by the Federal Communications Commission. The cellular frequencies are distinctly different from those frequencies used by comnercial radio and television stations. Just as television channel 4 never interferes with channel 5, no interference with existing uses caused by the cellular system is expected. Cellular mobile telephone technology utilizes low-power FM transmissions for communication with the mobile units. The proposed installation will broadcast using less than 100 watts of power (up to 5,000 times less power than used by a commercial AM radio station and equivalent to the average light-bulb). The installation will be monitored by qualified personnel at all times. Monitoring facilities for the Bay Area system are located in Hayward, California and Houston, Texas. The following information should help answer any additional questi_ons you might have about this issue: - The design and operation of the system is regulated by the Federal Communications Commission. The FCC is charged, by law, with the establishment of technical and operational standards that will allow the use of the radio spectrum with a minimum of interference between users. The FCC thoroughly reviewed GTE Mobilnet's proposal before granting a broadcast license. The FCC can revoke GTE Mobilnet's li- cense at any time if it is found that the system is not being operated in accordance with the FCC's rules and regulations. - The FCC assigns frequencies to users in a manner that reduces the po- tential for interference. The frequencies which GTE Mobilnet will utilize are reserved on a national basis for cellular mobile telephone use. These frequencies are located above the upper end of the broad- cast service -- AM, FM and TV -- spectrum so as to minimize the poten- tial for interference. Page 5 Three years of testing on the Chicago prototype system resulted in no complaints of interference according to Steve Markendroff, a staff en- gineer with the Mobile Services Division, Common Carrier Bureau of the FCC [(202) 632-6400]. Commercial systems are now "on the air" in Los Angeles, Chicago, New York, Washington/Baltimore, Houston, Milwaukee, Indianapolis, and Seattle. Again, the operation of these systems has resulted in no complaints of interference. The system does not utilize "microwave" transmissions. 7. WHAT GOVERNMENTAL APPROVALS ARE REQUIREO IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT THIS SYSTEM? The applicant, GTE Mobilnet, received FCC approval on July 8, 1983 (FCC File No. 26045-CL-P-82) to construct a cellular mobile radio-telephone net- work in the Bay Area. The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC Docket No. 83-07-04) granted final approval allowing the operation of the system in October of 1984. Because of the project's regional nature and public utility status, the Public Utilities Commission, acting as the Lead Agency as defined by CEQA, has prepared the required environmental review documents for the initial 25 sites. On May 25, 1984, copies of the Initial Study and a draft Negative Declaration were mailed to the various local authorities and public review was invited. The public review period was closed on June 29, 1984. On August 1, 1984, the CPUC formally certified a Negative Declaration for the project's initial 25 sites. On September 13, 1984, the CPUC authorized the actual construction of the system. For sites in addition to the initial 25 sites, CEQA assessment is handled by the appropriate local agency because the cumulative area wide impacts have been addressed. In addition to receiving final approval installation in the system must obtain proval from the appropriate local agency, from the State of California, each planning and building permit ap- 8. WHO IS GTE MOBILNET? GTE Mobilnet of San Francisco/San Jose, Limited Partnership, is a regulated public utility. As a telecommunications utility, GTE Mobilnet's franchise and broadcast operating practices are closely regulated by the Federal Com- munications Commission. As a California public utility (similar to Pacific Gas & Electric, Southern California Edison, or Pacific Bell), GTE Mobilnet is also regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission. The CPUC reviews all aspects of GTE Mobilnet's business, including the rates and tariffs that will be charged to a consumer of the mobile telephone service. �� . . � Page 6 Limited partnerships, such as GTE Mobilnet of San Francisco/San Jose, con- sist of both minority, limited partners and a majority, general partner. A subsidiary of Pacific Telephone is the sole limited partner. GTE Mobilnet, Inc. of Houston, Texas is the majority owner and acts as the managing gen- eral partner. GTE Mobilnet, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the GTE Corporation. With over $12 billion in annual revenues, the GTE Corporation is the nation's single largest telephone company following the breakup of AT&T and its regional operating subsidiaries. The General Telephone Company of California and GTE Sprint, Inc., although also wholly-owned subsidiaries of the GTE Corporation, are not associated with this project. DATE : ��%��a� �tE�E1V�p SEP 3- 1985 �N WNINti��E�T�E MEMO T0: C�Y ENGINEER . vC�HIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR t�a4ss � ��-�s� � t�'�� u� � FIRE MARSHAL FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT• �D��G� %��mi`7� i� 2G`Lw ��`i�n �r.x�'�� G%�-�<��c�J' �7� /�J d �GGr-�.r/r-��-�- �f7 `c„l �r�-� An application has been received for the above project for review by the Planning Commission. The application will be scheduled for J7'�D i ZG at their_�� meeting. We would appreciate having your comments by �� .� c� � �, j, _ / -��— � , �. Thank you. �'`O ; �/h H� K, �L,�' ,% . . � �� , , ��//y'1 � �� t �� f��G' :-� � He 1 en Towb er �� ``/�' �' �` y� �` G'� J�'/� .A �� .S� .�'�� Planner / s/ ��U � /� �'= � �- _ - att. � �� _ � ,,l , �-� . ::;� ` _r+jr r.Y:� _ -i*✓P: �' August 13, 1985 T0: Helen Towber, Planner FROM: Bob Barry, Fire Marshal SUBJEC'I': Antenna - 1350 Bayshore I have reviewed the plans submitted for this permit and havP the following comne.nts : l. Any holes made for the routing of coaxial cable must be in approved metal conduit and sealed with approved fire safing material. �� , \�-� � Bob Barry .� DATE : ��%��.� MEMO T0: 4�Y ENGINEER Cf'/<:�.�s .�� CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR FIRE MARSHAL FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT ��.N �rL� i-�� 7 f � J SUBJECT: ��pc�i� ��-mi`1� i`� �G`Lw ��ddGn GZ>c f`c�� „��rh.�t.l� a,t /�J—d ��ur�l�i��--c, /��.��.�-j An application has been received for the above project for review by the Planning Commission. The application will ZG at tf}eir_ �� meeting. be scheduled for �i7'1D% We would appreciate having your comments by ��.� Thank you. i,.....� � �;ri i �'' �"1 ,� �, n/;� � � �� r� rf '�� .9 1985 Helen Towber Planner ��`"�``� �� m / S� � � ��/.�!'!� att. � �1� ' ' � � � : i:x:' ,:�t, ';;;. . - �?'�� ,:,:. ( e/�3��""`c� � / � �B��l-�i �`" ��.0 � (P �� Z d C�'l�� ' � ✓�'z �` %�/��.'=� -1 �Ld� - L��-v �� G G'a / �� v� �� 7i � ` �'�� j , ;� � � , y� �a� � � � � !� �/ � ��-�' � 1 ` � , " -' " � _ . �,f� �.�',� %ZQ�Il� � %�� °L",�u'�C' ° Q��i�-�.q / ` U � ZrN� � . �,/.� . . �-�-�'��.��,� ,� ��'� � � � �� Page 12 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 26, 1985 bathrooms, final plans will be complete; chemicals will not be discharged into the sewer sytem, this is regulated by the state; he felt individual delivery/pickup time for a dry cleaning service would be no more than five minutes and that there is sufficient public parking in the area; applicants will satisfy all requirements of the city when applying for a building permit following approval of this use; they do not plan to operate delivery vans, will do no wholesale work; may possibly have once a day shirt laundry service trucks. Fred Guerrero, American Pacific Equipment Co., spoke in favor: can see no problem with provision of bathrooms, will use existing ones which were sized for the previous nightclub use; have spoken with the property owners' attorney, they will be doing all the improvements; once the permit is approved complete building plans will be prepared. There were no further audience comments and the hearing was closed. Commission discussion: concern about parking in this impacted area; not a goo3 location for this business with its intensive parking demand; Commission does not know what uses might go into the rest of this building but cannot deny because of that; what use is there which won't generate parking, do not believe this would be any worse than on Broadway or Burlingame Avenue. C. Jacobs moved to deny this special permit. Second C. Graham; motion approved on a 5-2 roll call vote, Cers Leahy and Garcia dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised. Recess 11:50 P.M.; reconvene 12:00 midnight. ITEMS FOR STUDY 15. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW A 50 SF SATELLI'rE ANTENNA DISH TO REMAIN ON A RESIDENTIAL LOT - 808 EDGEHILL DRIVE Requests: statement from applicant regarding alternative locations which would be less visible; statement from staff reqarding undergrounding of utilities on California Drive; height of dish from grade. Item set for hearing September 10, 1985. 16. SPECIAL PERMIT - MOBILE RADIO-TELEPHONE SYSTEM STATION - 1350 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY Requests: will equipment room take required parking? will lights be required on top of the antennae by the FAA? cross section of how this will look on the building; how are the transmitting antennae attached? Item set for hearing September 10, 1985. 17. SPECIAL PERMIT - COURIER OPERATION - 1722 GILBRETH ROAD Requests: will they use the whole site? how will enclosed area of parking be used? how many employees on site at one time? Item set for hearing September 10, 1985. Page 11 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 26, 1985 C. Jacobs moved to amend the 1968 use permit and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Special Permits with the following conditions: (1) that the conditions of the City Engineer's August 7, 1985 memo shall be met; (2) that the parking requirement for the hotel use be revised to 365 parking spaces no more than 20$ of which are compact stalls, laid out as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped July 17, 1985; (3) that all landscaping installed within the parking area be maintained includinq installing and maintaining landscaping on the island between the main parking lot and the parking lot fronting on Burlway Road; and (4) that because its conditions w�re not met the February 11, 1985 use permit is no longer valid. Second C. Graham. Comment on the motion: think the applicant's request is reasonable, why should Amfac provide more spaces than the code requirement; if the parking requirement were lowered to 329 would like to see the hotel meet other requirements in which it is nonconforming; there are parking problems on this site now, would prefer to keep the requirement at 365. Motion approved on a 6-1 roll call vote, C. Taylor dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised. 13. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW AN INSURANCE REPLACEMENT AUTO RENTAL AGENCY TO OPERATE FROM THE OFFICE BUILDING AT 851 BURLWAY ROAD Reference staff report, 8/26/85, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of thz request, staff review, Planning staff comment, applicant's letter, study meeting questions. Six conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Responding to Commission question, staff advised a parking count of floor area in this building had not been made. Chm. Garcia opened the public hearing. Applicants were not present. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission requested more information: fleet size; existing floor area/employees in this building. Chm. Garcia continued the item to the meeting of September 10., 1985; Commissioners agreed on unanimous voice vote. Staff will contact the applicants and request they be present for the September 10 meeting. 14. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW A DRY CLEANING SERVICE IN A PORTION OF THE BUILDING AT 327-329 LORTON AVENUE, ZONED C-2 Reference staff report, 8/26/85, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed the item: details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comment on issues, American Pacific Equipment Co. letter, study meeting questions. Six conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Fire Marshal confirmed ingress/egress as shown on the plans was adequate. Chm. Garcia opened the public hearing. Paul Zieman, representing the applicants, noted the blueprints provided do not show existing T �� Whisler�atri Architecture/Planning/Interior Design 590 Folsom Street San Francisco, California 94105 (415)957-0200 R�V �'� �� August 29, 1985 S�� ' �� ' ` �: :��;� ; ;�::� � Ms. Helen Towber City of Burlingame Dept. of City Planning 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Re: GTE Mobilnet Project Application & CEQA Assessment Study Item #16 00592.20/A.1 Dear Ms. Towber: In response to the five questions raised at the August 26, 1985 Planning Commis- sion hearing with regard to the GTE Mobilnet Project Application, please note the following: 1. Required Parking The proposed equipment room would not replace required parking. GTE Mobilnet would be leasing space on the lower basement level of 1350 Bayshore Highway. This lower basement level is, and always has been, stor- age space. Parking is located one floor above on the garage basement lev- el. 2. Habitable The proposed GTE equipment room will house telephone switching equipment. No employees will be located permanently at this site and service visits are expected to occur once each 30 to 45 days. 3. Hazard Lights No additional air traffic hazard lights will be required for the proposed antennas on the roof of 1350 Bayshore Highway. Per Federal Aviation Regu- lations, Part 77, Subchapter B, Section 77.15(b), an FAA Determination is not required for: "Any antenna structure of 20 feet or less in height, except one that would increase the height of another antenna structure." A Whisler�atri 4. Future Growth Ms. Helen Towber August 29, 1985 Page 2 The 24' x 32' space shown on the drawings will provide for addition of equipment banks as the GTE Mobilnet system grows. As shown in the enclosed typical floor plan, one or two banks of equipment will be installed ini- tially with space allocated for future equipment, up the capacity of the system. No future expansion beyond the area designated is anticipated. 5. Antenna Mounting The proposed transmit antennas will be mounted to the roof of the existing building penthouse by means of mounting brackets which are securely tied into the building's structural system. The GTE Mobilnet system is an im- portant back-up to the emergency communications system and is used by fire and police personnel. As such, the engineering of this mounting exceeds what is normally required by code. Sincerely, ��Q7LGCG�j �� Monica Zorovich MMZ/jgt Enclosure � 0 3�_q� 1^0 � v� I � �� I . I �� I �� NI 4' - q'� � I ��} �, q �i �� R�+�K l�I.I.G.) I � 1 I ll 1 � C1�3�_q�� , - � �� I I �-- � I I � -J I �v I I I � I I �� I � � � �� I I ' � � A'?''f�'� I�AG� ��.l.G.) I I�' • o' 4'' c.I2. � I � � � �� ° x 86 0 �+M �ooR/ ' U Q Whisler�atri Arch�tecture/Plann�ng/Imerior Des�gn 590 Folsom Street � San Franc�sco, Cal�fornia 94105 (415)957-0200 Date G.T.E. MOBILNET � TYPICAL FLOOR PLAN Sheet JOtJ 592.00 � : a . ; ��- ,�,:,,� � � .r � ' u � s� �- �: . , '�" + a+r �.', `�` ��..�r^'%"' a �r � � . . . .. , . . ' . . ° �' `� - r�n dh z ' .. � " ; .s �x v�k> ,ts . ', ' � . . . . � � � � �� re g. �, � ��.�,, ,,,� Y`H, . � �'"` -.U'p ,.��m��# '�'�+�i�Ji � � � �5,� 'Y'� �' "l�.e� :t . y ��".„�1?; , ,E'�•.. ��. �' �..r � � �i'�+ .� �.w�°5�u� �,� . _ �,�,�, n ,y^ , d `�'�� E. �.� `:�"§�'�ns :. . � ; .� ��j��' »a �"3 ,g?�`Ea a;.ws� �.��.�pz�t%tt�. t . .n�'� , ..a��.r�',�,�,a . , r�.L�': �sC,. � • � � _ � �, .y�p �.. �a'�'�' ` ... , . . . . r � �� ,�� .,„,- _ � � � �. �'.' �� "t , s �► ,.''�' ,�. , �`� f �. .� � SaN FRanIG �sGo �Ay � �� r' � � ��. , �. � ��: , � '� �� . � �. : ,. ,.-. �.� ,.�,.�'«a�*-� � �'�` ♦ � � � .. ��_I r „�,;. �, �� - v ":Y� � .,; . .x �� A. �� . r �". " . " a�s. �+. � +l+r'':�� '�A� .�� 1,,rlx. +',,,w. '��''f.,�. �� "�' � . ' � +Y�,`� ,,'� :?�, � :: . ,� �' gs- ' " �, � �> '�-'�'``,M, �'',.s�'� °'" . s� y"�w'� ,r � .�..;t,t .,�.5: � -�� `t, . . . . � r '�`,�.. ,� � ,ffi'�... .', � � � �'. �� ',a.� . :,r „X. ` y+�.aa'� v s ` *�' � + .<� ' � . � . . . ,+ ,n, .-s' -� � .e �. �e`"' S�a.�rk',a�y'�,,;s,t�w�, `�'' ` , '�R,e � � �y , . � ,y,�.� � '�� A� h� �y� �a � � � ,�J• � . . �' ^ �� a. .� •�� aa.k� r �:. ,��"`'�_ �� '�..:.v....�� .� , , �� f � . 4 4•' �"� yays,y � � s:s' '� � . � �� _,- �� . . s�� ' - � " ,'�x+a _�'3i ' ° �" J � _ . �+` .. x�' s �.. �' '� liW, _.r a � �-- .� �"#�- �t � f — - . � .w , � _ _ , � � ; - � _-�.� --, w. ; ° . �" !�� •� . -�ti_.,,� �`�; � ;�; -.�, �. _ _ . . � �... , � � �� i' . . � � ,� : ° � a � f � .�a � � � � r F �ti� ; _ . � �� '> .. � "i"�^ � . � .. /� _ � � . �,g . . , f . � � . � � � °� "�� <�. � ,� � ..� i `tr � ' ' "T. , �`''� , , `"�. � � � � � � � � . , ./ rT' � ?� � � � �� , r . � �� ' � �,., � � � � � � �. � � �rti �'r�. �7 ° �, � � � , 1 ,,s� � � � ` �� ' ' � L ��",. ,� , > r ` ��..,f • . �S � ,�: � l�,� f , '� . . �. C . f �.. �or � a�. .;�'� � �� •'►A � F :, - �?� � � °�� . � •=r_ �, . �� •� _�^� - .?..� � , `:tr� . 1 r ° f- - k:.: 'x. �, ; . ; ��/ •..r '�� _ -�. ° � . � ,. � r _ `� . , � , � � a �. : �,, �.� � � r- � �r a�, ,t�, � � II � � l %If � fY � r ±� • P: . . . e • ^ " .ms � �° . . ',.. �,�',' P . � . . �,.a. ' . ., � . '�� . � � , � . �..f f' . � . . : . _^ ^ ..», � . %�. / .. � � . . �»/� � "`' �' �` �'a` �q , � �e aR. � ,;'k� , - � � � � � � �' ; "' o. �— � � "� , q � C ' s � 6 � • .i t . r . _. � 5 . • � , � G-. ' / A.. f. � r G ai '� � � ' s � � - f� i ..� � r � f . �� : . 3�� ., �� r� � ` � �° � , , � .�, �� , � � "� � = : � �..� , , �'� � ��+ � - .., L ' � �: " ^. � . � - - � , "'" ,' '�_ � �� ' �� , % �. �� - "`: � a ' . . � { �a' �� t •,�y� � "£`�. � ' ,� . �' � l`� � �ai� � � ,,,. "`�t.a' �U.� r`. : �g� �*, , �� /� '",ti* �� r, '""`�� j� �,�� r � 1'�'' J � , � _ � & , ,f �a �� ,� �,, � : a. , . 8,� .� ' �, � r �_ � , . , �. � . �� _ �� , 1'�, '� °� .�,� "' �; � _�,,,�,, `�a_ ,: : U� y ��. � . � �� ,� �� - �� , ;'`�. �� 3SQ t � � r o`` F 4� � ,' `` �' �;'� � i �r . a : � � iG, � �s. , � ; `� �' �'�y,� � ,��, �. . � � , y � � ti e � �,r �-�. , �. � ,�. � .. .� �, � ��. �"y � �.� � ��' `' ,�1 � �;: �� , ' �� . y � ,� � ;; �R' _ �'�� ' � �' — ,. � /\ r � � �, � • . , �� , �3 ��' ; f.I� A-- f . � ' `.x: , ;: _ j - . 3 , ,c � � '`j � ,� fi i. !, �'— ' � � � ' : ` �i � ' ,�, � j � r ' � � . �`S� : . ' � . �, � �r '� � � �.�- �.-- , �f�. � � �/ � _ � � .. �. � h y,9� '�`�' . . r ��' ' , ,,,,' � } �;,�.► � r �,� :: � . � , � � e .� O �� ._.; . � � .�� 4 � � � � � � � ` <A��w #�. � �° .. ,,� ,� �:� , ��;�' � ; �` ��.. ��'y�,. *�:r� �� "'", . ;, � � ,r, � � r� ,�- , ��tP C�it� af �urlirt��xnt.� SAN MATEO COUNTY CITY HAI..L- 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME,CALIFORNIA 94010 TEL:(415) 342-8931 NOTICE OF HEARING SPECIAL PERMIT NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Tuesday, the lOth day of September, 1985 , at the hour of 7:30 P.M., in the City Hall Council Chambers , 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame will conduct a public hearing on the application to allow installation of a mobile radio-telephone system station in an existing 9-story office building at 1350 Bayshore Hiqhway, bv GTE P�obilnet (applicant) with Charles Kinq & Associates (property owner) At the time of the hearing all persons interested will be heard., • For further particulars reference is made to the Planning Department. MARGARET P�10NROE CITY PLANPdER August 30, 1985 �l. �iP �t�� II� �lZ�.�t1��YYYtP SAN MATEO COUNTY CITY HALL- 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010 TEL: (415) 342-8931 P�OTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING SPECIAL PER��1IT NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Monday, the 7th dav of October, 1935 , at the hour of 7:30 P.M., in the City Hall Council Chambers , 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California the City Council of the City of Burlingame will conduct a public hearing on the a�plication to allow installation of a mobile radio- telephone s.ystem station in an existinc� 9-story office buildinq at 1350 Bayshore Highway, bv GTE P1obilnet (applicant) with The Koll Company (property owner) At the time of the hearing all persons interested will be heard. For further particulars reference is made to the Planning Department. MARGARET MONROE CITY PLANNER September 27, 1935 , ' -.- ' , RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING SPECIAL PERf4IT RESOLVED by the CITY COUNCIL of the City of Burlingame �that; i WHEREAS, application has been made for a special permit for installation of a mobile radio-telephone system relay station and rooftop antennas �at 1350 Bayshore Hiqhway (APN 026-113-430 and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing ra said application on September 10 ,1985 , at which :ime said application was approved; WHEREAS, this matter was Cd��2d Un by �OUIICI� and . hearing thereon held on October 7 ,1985 NO�V, THEREFORE, it is hereby RESOLVED and DETER2�IINED by his Council that said special permit is aPproved, subject to the onditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. It is further directed that a certifed copy of this esolution be recorded in the official records of the County of an Mateo. yor �� I, JUDITH A. MALFATT2, City Clerk of the City of t �Burlingame do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was i �introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the i: f�day of October ,198 5, and adooted thereafter by the following vote: ''AYES: COUNCILt1EN: NOES: COUNCILIIEN: ;ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: ty Cler