Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1800 Hillside Drive - Staff Report. � BURLINGAME To: Date: From STAFF REPORT Honorable Mayor and City Council January 22, 2019 AGENDA NO: 9a MEETING DATE: January 22, 2019 Kevin Gardiner, Community Development Director —(650) 558-7253 Ruben Hurin, Planning Manager —(650) 558-7256 Subject: City Council Consideration of an Appeal of the Planning Commission's June 11, 2018 Action Denying Without Prejudice an Application for a Conditional Use Permit to Install a New Wireless Facility (Antenna and Equipment) on an Existing Wood Utility Pole Located Within the Right-of- Way Adjacent to 1800 Hillside Drive (Continued from September 4, 2018 City Council Meeting) RECOMMENDATION The City Council should conduct a public hearing, consider all oral and written testimony received during the hearing and, following closure of the hearing and deliberations, take one of the following actions: • Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's denial of the application without prejudice; • Grant the appeal, overrule the Planning Commission's denial, and approve the application, with or without amended conditions; or • Remand the application to the Planning Commission for reconsideration, with specific direction on aspects of the project to be re-evaluated. Whether the City Council decides to uphold the Planning Commission's denial without prejudice, or approve the application (with or without amended conditions), the City Council should state the finding(s) along with reasons for its decision based on the record. Project Description: The applicant is proposing to install a new wireless communication facility (wireless facility) on an existing wood utility pole jointly owned by public utilities and other entities who are members of the Northern California Joint Pole Association. The project consists of installing a cylindrical antenna and extension on top of the existing utility pole and associated equipment and cabling mounted on the side of the utility pole. The proposed antenna, equipment, and cabling are proposed to be painted to match the utility pole. The PG&E utility pole is located within the right-of-way near the corner of Hillside Drive and Cabrillo Avenue, adjacent to the parcel with an address of 1800 Hillside Drive. The utility pole is located 1 Appeal - 1800 Hillside Drive January 22, 2019 along Hillside Drive, in the planter strip between the sidewalk and street. The proposed site is surrounded by single family residential uses and Our Lady of Angels Catholic Church and School to the east. There are existing street trees on either side of the utility pole, which would not need to be removed to accommodate the proposed wireless facility. An application for a Conditional Use Permit is required because the project consists of installing a new wireless facility (not a co-location) and because it is located in a residential zoning district (Burlingame Municipal Code Section 25.77.050 (c)). Background: For a full description and analysis of the project and background information regarding the wireless communications ordinance, please refer to the attached September 4, 2018 City Council staff report and June 11, 2018 Planning Commission staff report and attachments, as well as the supplemental letter and exhibits submitted by the applicant. September 4, 2018 City Council Meeting: At its regular meeting of September 4, 2018, the City Council voted to continue the public hearing for three months to allow AT&T to work with staff prior to bringing the application back to the Council for a decision (see attached September 4, 2018 City Council Minutes). This application was originally scheduled to be reviewed by the City Council at a public hearing on December 3, 2018, but it was continued to January 22, 2019 at the request of the applicant. In its motion, the Council requested that the City assemble a subcommittee including community members to discuss the application and that the City hire a third party expert to provide an opinion on the information included in the application. The City retained Columbia Telecommunications Corporation (CTC), an independent telecommunications consulting firm, to review the technical aspects and information associated with this application. CTC is represented by Mr. Lee Afflerbach, Principal Engineer/Project Manager. CTC performed a technical review and analysis of the application with respect to AT&T's communications engineering materials, its justification for the site, and the overall functionality of this site in relation to other existing and proposed AT&T transmission facilities. The attached report, Review of 2 AT&T Small Cell Wireless Applications, date stamped January 15, 2019, describes the information received and documents its analysis and conclusions related to the application. From a technical standpoint, CTC recommends this location based on findings listed on page 2 of the report. City staff, Mr. Afflerbach, and several community members met to discuss AT&T's application on November 28, 2018. Mr. Afflerbach discussed and answered questions regarding the field surveys he conducted. Changes to Proposed Project Since September 4, 2018 City Council Meeting: Since the City Council meeting on September 4, 2018, several changes were made to the design of the proposed wireless facility. Please refer to the revised plans and visual simulations, dated November 27, 2018, for additional information. The following changes were made to the project: � Appeal -1800 Hillside Drive _ January 22, 2019 • Size of each radio remote unit (there are two radio remote units) was reduced from 2.2 square feet (12.1 inches wide x 26.7 inches tall) to 1.4 square feet (13.19 inches wide x 14.96 inches tall). There were no changes to the size of all other equipment, including the smart pole meter, electric load center, and twin duplexer. • Shields have been added to conceal the equipment. • Spacing between equipment on the pole has been reduced; the overall length of the combined equipment on the utility pole has been reduced from 11'-0" to 9'-4". AT&T investigated potential alternative sites for the proposed wireless facility, including Our Lady of Angels Parish and School located approximately 200 feet northeast of the proposed subject site. The attached Alternative Sites Analysis, date stamped January 15, 2019, notes the following: "AT&T reached out to Our Lady of Angels to determine interest in leasing space for a wireless communications facility (WCF). Our Lady of Angels showed interest in leasing space, but only if no changes were made to the appearance of the existing building. To conceal the antenna, the site would need to be located in the church steeple, which consists of thick concrete and metal gratings for ventilation. For the WCF to function effectively, a portion of the steeple would have to be replaced with fiberglass reinforced plastic (FRP) to allow the signal to penetrate the walls. AT&T led a site walk at Our Lady of Angels on 11/19 to determine the steeple viability for the macro site. AT&T Radio Frequency engineer, Phil Dale, determined that the church steeple could fit two small cells but not a macro antenna site. AT&T proposed a lease package to Our Lady of Angels on 12/13 consistent with small cell antenna pricing. Our Lady of Angels subsequently denied the lease offer on 12/14. Therefore, this alternative is not viable." Please refer to the Alternative Sites Analysis for other locations considered in the area and an explanation of why co-location opportunities were not feasible. Required Findings for a Conditional Use Permit for a Wireless Communications Facility (Code Sections 25.77.050(c), 25.77.130, and 25.52.020, a-c): In order to grant a Conditional Use Permit for a Wireless Facility, the City must find: (1) The proposed facility complies with all the requirements of Chapter 25.77 and with all applicable requirements of other chapters of the Burlingame Municipal Code. (2) The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience. (3) The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Burlingame general plan and the purposes of the Zoning Code. 3 � ���nsaa � y�ns pione o� ��afoad ay� anoadde �snw }i ;ou �o aay}aynn auiwaa�ap pue 'nne� �eaapa� y;inn ��i��uo� ui „sa�uuas ssa�aainn �euosaad �o uoisinoad ay; 6ui�iqiyad �o ��a}}a ay� aney ao }iqiyo�d„ p�nonn �eivap pasodoad s�i aay�aynn o� se s�uauan6ae pue a�uapina ay; aapisuo� p�noys �i�uno� �(�i� ay� uay� `060'LL'SZ Pu� i�)080'LL'9Z suoi��aS ui y}�o� �as eua�i�� uoi�e�o� pue u6isap sai;i�i�e� ssa�annn ay; 6uiaapisuo� pue pao�aa ay� ui a�uapina ay� uo paseq uoi�e�i�dde ay� 6uinadde pu� ��adde ay; 6ui�uea6 �o� s6uipui� paainba� ay� a�{ew �ouue� }i �ey} sauiwaa}ap �i�uno� �(}i� ay� �i `anssi siy� pasie� sey l�gly asne�a8 'i�ll)i!)�8)�L)��)ZE£ uoi;�aS '�'S'fl L�) „'sa�in�as ssa�a�inn �euosaad �o uoisinad ay� 6ui�iqivad �o ��a}}a ay; aney ao �iqiyoad„ p�nonn �(}i� au� �(q ��afoad ay� �o �eivap asne�aq nne� �eaapa� 6ui�e�oin pione o� ;�afoad s�i anoadde o� paainbaa aq �(eua �(�i� ay� �ey� suaiel� 1'81b' 'g-� sa6ed �e 860Z `ZZ �sn6nd pa}ep aa��a� �eadde s�i u� :wie�� uoi;iqiyoad ani�aa}}3 S�l'81b� •}�oda� }}e�s siy� o� pay�e��e a�e a�uaivanuo� ao� y�iynn `060'LL'SZ pue 080'LL'SZ suoi��ag ui y�ao� �as ei�a�i�� uoi�e�o� pue u6isap sai;i�i�e� ssa�aainn ay� 6uiaapisuo� pue pao�a� ay� ui a�uapina ay} uo paseq s6uipui� paainba� ay� pue �eadde ay� �o uoi�e�apisuo� s�i sn�o� aao�a�ay� p�noys �i�uno� �(}i� ayl �sai�i�i�e� suoi;e�iun�.uwo�a�a} �o uoi}��n6aa ay� 6uivaano6 nne� a�e�s pue �e�apa} }o s�uiea�suo� ay� uiy�inn pue a�ueuip�o ay} ui s;uawaainbaa ay� uo paseq s6uipui� Bui�{eua pue �(�i�i�e� ssa�aainn ay� �o uoi}e�o� pue u6isap pasodad ay} Buissn�sip pue 6uinnainaa o� pa�ivag a�o�aaay� si �i�uno� �(;i� aul •suoi�e�n6aa suoissiwa �� s,��� ay� u�inn sai�duao� �(�i�i�e� ssa�aainn pasodad ay� �ey� pa�e��suouaap sey }ue�i�dde ay; (aaay ase� ay; si se) �i sai�gi�e� ssa�aainn 6ui�e�n6aa ao 6ui�(uap ao� siseq e se suoissivaa („��„) �(�uanba�� oipea 6ui�apisuo� uaa� sai}i�edi�iunua s}iqiyad nne� �eaapa� `anoqe pa�ou sy :�eadd�y ay� uo aapisuo� o; sao}�e� �uoi�eaapisuo� pue nnaina� s,�i�uno� �(�i� ay� �o� �aoda� }}e�s g �pZ `� aaqwa}dag ay� o} pay�e}}e si `l�gly ao� �(auao}}y �eaaua� `aua8 ip uyo� �(q pa�eda�d pue g�OZ 'ZZ }sn6ny pa�ep 'aa}}a� ayl ��eadde ay� 6ui�i� ao� suoseaa s�i uie�dxa �ey� s�iqiyxa �e�anas pue aa}}a� e y�inn �eadd� s�i dn pannoll�� 1'81b' '(860Z `6Z aun� pa�ep �a�;a� pay�e}}e aas) uoi}�e s,uoissivawo� ay��o �eadde �(�awi� � pa�i� `1'81b�o�;ua6� ue `ueuezey6y ugel `uoi��e s,uoissivauao� 6uiuue�d ay� o� �uanbasqns :uoi;��y s,uoissiwwo� 6uiuue�d ;o �eaddb �(sa�nuiva 6ui�aaw uoissiwwo� 6uiuueld 860Z `�6 aun� pay�e��e aas) aniaa apisll!H 008 � o; �ua�efpe �(enn-�o-�y6u ay� uiy�inn pa�e�o� a�od �(;i�i�n poonn 6ui�sixa ue uo �(�i�i�e� ssa�aainn nnau e ��e�sui o� }iwaad as� �euoi�ipuo� e ao� ;sanbaa s,�ue�i�dde ay; a�ipnfaad �noy�inn paivap uoissi�.uwo� 6uiuueld au� `8lOZ `� � aun� }0 6ui�aaw ae�n6aa s�i �y :uoi}�d uoissivawo� Cuiuueld •suoi�e�n6a� pue snne� a�qe�i�dde �ay;o �(ue �o suoisinoad ay} pue `apo� �edi�iunw awe6ui�an8 au��o suoisinad ay�'��•gZ aa�dey� �o suoisinoad ay� y�inn a�uei�dwo� aansua o� iGessa�au pauaaap aae y�iynn `nn�� a��;s pue �eaapa� a�qe�i�dde �(q pa�iqiyoad �ou 'suoi�ipuo� asoduai �(ew �(�i� ay� `LL'SZ �a�dey� o� �uens�nd �iwaad asn e 6uinoadde u� (g) •�(�iui�in �eaaua6 ay} ui sai}�adoad 6uiuiofpe uo sasn �ei�ua�od pue 6w;sixa �o �a��e�ey� pue '�{�nq `sseua `s�i;ay;sae ay; y�inn a�qi�edwo� aauueua e ui asn ay� �o uoi�e�ado a�nsse o� pue apo� 6uiuoZ ay� �o sasodand ay� a�n�as o� �.aessa�au suaaap }i se suoi��ia�saa �o suoi�ipuo� a�qeuoseaa y�ns asoduai �teua �(�i� ayl (�) 660Z `ZZ tienue� an��p ap�sll!H 0084 - leaddd Appeal - 1800 Hillside Drive Exhibits: . . . . . January 22, 2019 September 4, 2018 City Council Minutes Review of AT&T Small Cell Wireless Applications, Prepared by CTC Technology & Energy, dated January 2019 Response Letter Submitted by the Applicant, date stamped January 15, 2019 Alternative Sites Analysis, dated stamped January 15, 2019 September 4, 2018 City Council Staff Report Legal Memorandum Title 25 — Zoning Code - Sections 25.77.080 (c) and 25.77.090 Letter and Exhibits Submitted by John di Bene, General Attorney for AT&T, dated August 22, 2018 Appeal Letter Submitted by Talin Aghazarian (AT&T), dated June 21, 2018 June 11, 2018 PC Minutes June 11, 2018 PC Staff Report (including all attachments) Correspondence Received After Preparation of the June 11, 2018 Planning Commission Staff Report Revised Visual Simulations Previously Proposed and Revised Plans 5 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S JUNE 11, 2018 ACTION DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE AN APPLICATION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO INSTALL A NEW WIRELESS FACILITY (ANTENNA AND EpUIPMENT) ON AN EXISTING WOOD UTILITY POLE LOCATED WITHIN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY ADJACENT TO 1800 ffiLLSIDE DRIVE CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S JUNE 11, 2018 ACTION DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE AN APPLICATION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO INSTALL A NEW WIRELESS FACILITY (ANTENNA AND EQUIPMENT) ON AN EXISTING WOOD UTILITY POLE LOCATED WITHIN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY ADJACENT TO 701 WINCHESTER DRIVE (EXISTING UTILITY POLE IS LOCATED ALONG OAK GROVE AVENUE) Mayor Brownrigg asked his colleagues to begin by disclosing any ex-parte cominunications they had on the topic. Councilmember Ortiz and Councilmember Keighran stated that they visited both sites. Vice Mayor Colson stated that she visited both sites and talked with several residents and interested parties. Councilmember Beach stated that she visited both sites and spoke with Kerbey Altmann. Mayor Brownrigg stated that he visited both sites and spoke with a few citizens. Planning Manager Ruben Hurin stated that the City's Wireless Communications Ordinance was adopted in February 2012. He stated that the purpose of the ordinance is to regulate, as allowed by state and federal law and regulations, the placement of wireless conununications facilities in Burlingame in a manner that recognizes the community benefits of communications technology, which provides clear guidance to the communications industry but also recognizes the strong need to preserve the City's aesthetic traditions. Planning Manager Hurin noted that federal law prohibits cities from considering radio frequency emissions as a basis for denying or reglilating wireless facilities, if as in the case here, the applicant has demonstrated that the proposed facility complies with the SEC's RF emissions regulations. Planning Manager Hurin explained that AT&T is proposing to install new wireless facilities on existing wood utility poles. He stated that the utility poles are located adjacent to 1800 Hillside Drive and 701 Winchester Drive. He noted that there are existing street trees on either side of the utility poles at both locations that would not need to be removed. Planning Manager Hurin stated that the project consists of installing a cylindrical antenna on top of the utility pole and associated equipment on the side of the utility pole. The equipment will be painted to match the utility pole. Planning Manager Hurin stated that at the Planning Commission's June 11, 2018 meeting, the Commission denied without prejudice AT&T's request for a conditional use permit to install the wireless facilities at both locations. He noted that the Commission expressed concern with the aesthetics of the facilities. He stated that since the Planning Commission meeting, AT&T has made a few changes in response to the feedback they received. He explained that AT&T worked with PG&E to install Smart Pole Meters. Additionally, Burlingame City Council September 4, 20 ( 8 Approved Minutes Ms. Vrheas stated that AT&T's existing macro cells that serve Burlingame around the two locations are under duress due to increased traffic on the network. The resulting capacity restraints reduce mobile data speeds to the point that AT&T cannot meet its service objective. The small cells will help to offload the network traffic from those macro cells, which will improve signal quality and data speeds. Ms. Vrheas discussed the communiry's concern about having the small cells by their hoines. She explained that AT&T evaluated many locations in order to ensure that they were proposing the best available and least intrusive means to address the coverage gap. She stated that the proposed locations are chosen based on: AT&T's ability to gain attachment rights; feasibility in terms of constructability; and viability from a radio frequency perspective. She noted that AT&T also considered the location preferences and design standards articulated in the City's Wireless Communication Ordinance. Sfie explained that the proposed facilities are located within the residential zoning districts, which are a third level preference. The primary preference in the code is for sites farther away from residential districts, which is not feasible because AT&T needs to place small cell facilities near the macro that is under duress. She noted that they investigated other sites but didn't find any viable options. Ms. Vrheas stated that at the June 11, 2018 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission asked AT&T to go back and consider other sites. She noted that AT&T reviewed alteniative sites and reached out to Our Lady of Angels as an alternative site for1800 Hillside Drive. She explained that OLA would only allow AT&T to attach the small cell on their property if it wouldn't affect the architectural character of its structure. Therefore this wouldn't work. Ms. Vrheas stated that the Planning Commission also asked if they could place the small cells on street signs. She explained that due to the weight of the boxes and the height of the street signs, this wouldn't work. Ms. Vrheas stated that after AT&T completed its review of potential sites, it was deterniined that 1800 Hillside Drive and 701 Winchester Drive were the least intrusive sites. Councilmember Keighran asked that in the future, applicants bring in samples of the small cell for the Council and public to see. Councilmember Keighran asked if AT&T's definition of coverage gap relates to both capacity and speed. Ms. Vrheas stated that it is mostly capacity. Councilmember Keiglu-an asked if AT&T has set criteria that they look at when they pick locations. Ms. Vrheas replied in the affirmative and stated that it is deiined in the radio frequency statement in the staff report. Councilmember Keighran asked if she was correct that the small cell only has a radius of five hundred feet. Ms. Vrheas replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Keighran asked why AT&T didn't set up more macro cells, which have a great capacity. She stated that she would rather see macro cells placed on the Bayfront, outside the residential district, instead of numerous small cell sites in residential neighborhoods. Ms. Vrheas stated that macro cells cover between 4 to 8 blocks. Therefore, if the residential area is in need of capacity, AT&T has to put something 7 Bur(ingame City Council September 4, 2018 Approved Minutes in that area to address capacity. She explained that previously, AT&T had focused their efforts on business districts, but with changing technology, individuals are currently using more wireless data at home to play video games, watch movies, and communicate. Accordingly, AT&T needs to place small cell sites in neighborhoods. Councilmeinber Keighran asked about boosters that people put in their homes and if this would solve the problem. Ms. Vrheas stated that AT&T's capacity needs are far greater than what a booster could provide. Councilmember Beach stated that at the study session in March 2018, the antennas looked smaller. Ms. Vrheas stated that she believed it was the photo angle. She added that AT&T also places small cells on street lights where they run the conduit thni the inside of the poles and it looks a little sleeker. However, AT&T currently does not have a contract with the City to use the City's street lights. Councilmember Beach stated that in some pictures from other communities, the small cells seem to be two small boxes as opposed to AT&T's current proposal. Ms. Vrheas explained that the more streamlined approach of two boxes is on a street light. Mayor Brownrigg asked if the City had been asked about using its light poles or if there was a reason this wasn't an option. DPW Murtuza stated that the City has 1900 street lights of which half are located on PG&E poles. He noted that there are City owned street lights, but they aren't in residential neighborhoods. Councilmember Beach asked if what AT&T was proposing is the smallest possible technology as far as the boxes on the utility pole go. Ms. Vrheas replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Beach asked if there is any way to streamline these boxes. Ms. Vrheas stated that if they put a cover over all the boxes it would add to the bulk of the pole, which people seem to notice more. Councilmember Beach asked if there is any way to underground the boxes. Ms. Vrheas replied in the negative. Vice Mayor Colson asked how many more applications AT&T would be submitting to the City in the next two years. Ms. Vrheas replied that AT&T has seven applications for wood poles. She noted that if they come to agreement with the City to use the steel poles, they would have seven applications for that. Mayor Brownrigg discussed the fact that AT&T is not the only wireless provider and that the City would be receiving more and more applications from the different providers to install small cells. He stated that this should drive both AT&T and the City to have more of a reliance on macro cells. Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up for public comment. Burlingame resident Nene Argeris spoke against installing these small cell sites because of health concerns. Burlingame resident Brian Chen stated that he believed AT&T should reapply to the Planning Commission because of the Commissioners' expertise. Burlingame City Council September 4, 2018 Approved Minutes Burlingame resident Patricia Fraiser talked about how the small cells could diminish surrounding homes' property value and create an eye sore in the community. Burlingame resident Clydie Rizzo asked that the Council deny the application as the small cells would be viewed from all windows in her home. Burlingame residents David and Raven Sarnoff stated that one of the future sites will be located near their home. They voiced their concern about the number of small cell sites that could pop up in Burlingame and asked that the Council deny the applications. Burlingame residents Doug Luftman and Steve Lamont worked on the City's Wireless Communication Ordinance. They voiced concern that AT&T wasn't following the preference order in the ordinance and asked the Council to deny AT&T's application on this basis. Burlingame resident Mark Haberecht stated that he believed AT&T's application wasn't in compliance with the ordinance and asked that the Council reject the application. Burlingame resident Chris Kelly stated that he supported hiring a third party to review applications and asked that Council deny this application. Burlingame resident Tatyana Shmygol asked about the safety of the poles and if the boxes would fall off during an earthquake. Burlingame resident Leslie McQuaid stated that she knew there were better looking small cells in other towns and wanted to see AT&T put in a more aesthetically appealing cell. Burlingame residents Tia Razon and Tom Payne asked the Council to deny AT&T's application. Burlingame resident Horacio Pleno voiced concern about the number of small cells that could be coming into the City. He asked that the City do a better job of informing the public about these small cell applications. Burlingame resident Jennifer Pfaff asked that the old boxes, vaults, and wires be removed when no longer needed. Burlingame resident Kerbey Altmann asked AT&T to utilize other technology to increase the capacity and voiced concern about AT&T making updates to the small cells if the application was approved. Mayor Brownrigg closed public comment Councilmember Ortiz asked Ms. Vrheas to coinment on the coverage of the macro cells. Ms. Vrheas stated that it varies depending on how many people are on the network and the geography. However, she explained that on average it covers four to six blocks. Ms. Vrheas stated that what she has heard from the community tonight is that AT&T didn't apply the ordinance in the way AT&T should have. She explained that AT&T believes with the assistance of outside 9 Burlingame City Council Septentber 4, 2018 Approved Minutes counsel that they have. However, she stated that if the Council feels that AT&T hasn't followed the ordinance correctly, they are happy to take three months and work with the City Attorney to make sure they have done it to the satisfaction of the City. She stated that AT&T is also willing to work with the City to review alternate sites. Mayor Brownrigg thanked AT&T for the offer. He asked that during the next three months AT&T also explore whether they can put another macro cell on the perimeter of the neighborhood. Councilmember Keighran stated that she appreciated AT&T's offer to extend the decision for three months while they work with staff. She asked if it was possible to bring in a third party during this period to look at the options. Ms. Vrheas replied in the affirmative. Vice Mayor Colson thanked the community for coming out and sharing their opinions on the topic. She explained that this conversation wasn't going away and she didn't want to kick the can down the road. She stated that she wanted to see the City work for the next three months with AT&T and the community to come up with a solution. Councilmember Beach thanked AT&T for their offer to extend. She asked if the small cell sites einit any flashing light or noise. Ms. Vrheas replied in the negative. Councilmember Beach asked Ms. Vrheas if she had any comments on co-location. Ms. Vrheas stated that co-location isn't an option. Councilinember Beach stated that the poles aren't owned by the City. Acting City Attorney Sheryl Schaffner replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Beach asked if the City could mandate that they only want smart poles and ask AT&T to create something different. DPW Murtuza stated that it isn't within the City's rights. Councilmember Beach stated that some residents are concerned that future locations aren't around trees and that maybe this is a way to mitigate the view of the poles. She noted tl�at the ordinance contains language that the small cells must be camouflaged and hidden from view in the residential districts. Councilmember Keighran and Mayor Brownrigg talked about the creation of an ad hoc group to assist staff with reviewing locations over the next three months. Vice Mayor Colson stated that in the future the City should work with developers who are building multifamily dwellings on incorporating spaces for the macro cells that will be more aesthetically pleasing to the community. Councilmember Ortiz asked AT&T to provide the Council with addresses for existing small cell sites. Councilmember Ortiz made a motion to: 1) continue the hearing for three months to allow for AT&T to work with staff prior to bringing this matter back to the Council for a decision, 2) the City can assemble a 10 Burlingame City Council September 4, 2018 Approved Minutes . subcommittee including community members, and 3) the City can hire a third party expert to opine on the work; seconded by Vice Mayor Colson. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. OF PUBIeIC CONVENIENCE AND NE'CESSITY b. RELATED TO A RE ST FOR A TYPE 42 C PREMISESI ALC OLIC BEVERAGE SA S AND PROFESSIONS R ANiI WiNF — � ISSUED THROU ABC AS RE � STED LIC BEVE GES IN A CDD Gardiner sta that the City received a request om Wine Revelry, LLC for inding of Public Convenience a Necessity ("PCN") for a wine b at 310 Lorton Avenue. He e lained that the Plannin Commissio approved a conditional use permi or the wine bar on July 10, 2 8. He noted that the re est for a P has been reviewed by the Police epartment and attached to th taff report is a memora um froi e Police Department with sugges d conditions. Mayor Brownrigg opened the itei p for public comment. N ne spoke. Vice Mayor Colson made otion to adopt Resolutio umber 116-2018; Ortiz. The motion pass unanimously by voice vo , 5-0. y Councilmember c. INTRO CTION OF AN ORDIN CE AMENDING CHAP R 25.58 OF THE BU GAME MUNICIPAL DE TO ADD REGULAT NS REGARDING Ma r Brownrigg opened this it up by stating that there ar ime limits that require e City to act peditiously to have a inarij na ordinance in place. He ded that if colleagues e questions and concerns about the ordina e as written, it can be brou t back for review. Assistant City Atto ey Mazarin Vakharia state at currently the City's ning code doesn't explici address marijua -related establishments. S explained that previous the City adopted interim ordinances, a there is currently an i ' ent deadline to adopt re lations. Assist City Attorney Vakharia s ted that the proposed or nance doesn't allow any c ercial activity rela d to marijuana. She expl � ed that the proposed or � ance allows up to six pla in an enclosed Councilmember Kei an asked if there is a ti rame after the State adop regulations for cities to ado their own regulati s. Assistant City Attorn Vakharia stated that wha ver the City puts on the boo now, stays in place a er the State's regulations re adopted. City Manage oldman stated that if the ' y doesn't have regula ' ns in place at the time t the State's regulations ar adopted, then the State's r lations would c er the City. She added t the League of California ities released a statement at they are unha y with what the Bureau Cannabis Regulations is ming up with related to de � ery of marijuana. S stated that it is important o get something in place w prior to the State's regul ions being adopted. 11 Burlingame City Council Approved Minutes September 4, 2018