HomeMy WebLinkAbout1505 Bernal Avenue - Staff ReportCity of Buriingame
Conditional Use Permit
Address: Right-of-Way Adjacent to 1505 Bernal Avenue
Item No. 8d1
Regular Action Item
Meeting Date: April 27, 2020
Request: Application for a Conditional Use Permit to install a new small cell wireless facility (antenna and
equipment) on an existing wood utility pole located within the right-of-way adjacent to 1505 Bernal
Avenue.
Applicant: Talin Aghazarian, Modus LLC
Property Owner: Joint Pole Association
Architect: Borges Architectural Group
General Plan: Low Density Residential
APN: N/A, in right-of-way
Lot Area: N/A
Zoning: R-1
Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303, New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures,
Class 3, consists of construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures; installation
of small new equipment and facilities in small structures; and the conversion of existing small structures from
one use to another where only minor modifications are made in the exterior of the structure.
December 9, 2019 Planning Commission Action Meeting: At the action meeting on December 9, 2019, the
Planning Commission continued the application with the direction for the applicant to provide alternative designs
(see attached December 9, 2019 Planning Commission Minutes). The Commission also requested that the
applicant provide information regarding the necessity to close significant gaps in coverage.
The applicant submitted a response letter dated March 31, 2020 and several attachments to address the
Commission's concerns. Please refer to the applicant's letter for their full response. There were no changes
made to the design of the small cell wireless facilities. The following is summary of the information provided by
the applicant:
AT&T provided an updated Alternative Site Analysis, date stamped January 31, 2020, which includes two
additional design alternatives (found at the end of the attached Alternative Site Analysis). The first
design alternative is a stand-alone steel pole that houses a single antenna in a shroud at the top of the
pole and two equipment radios lower on the pole; the power source (provided by PG&E) would be in a
ground meter pedestal. The second design alternative is also a stand-alone steel pole, but houses the
equipment in an enclosed base of the pole; the power source would also be in a ground meter pedestal.
AT&T notes that "although these are potential design alternatives, utilizing an existing utility pole would
be less intrusive and the preferred design."
AT&T notes that a third design alternative is also feasible, which consists of using two shrouds for the
equipment mounted on the utility pole, rather than one longer shroud to conceal the equipment as is
currently proposed (see attached photo simulations).
■ AT&T provided a Radio Frequency (RF) Statement that "demonstrates how a significant gap in coverage
is identified since a nearby macro facility is experiencing or anticipated to experience unreliability when
steaming video". A SINR (Signal to Interference and Noise to Ratio) map was also provided to show
existing conditions of data service to stream video.
Background: In recent years, wireless telecommunication service providers have indicated they are
experiencing increased customer demand, particularly with respect to data capacity and wireless broadband
speed. In order to address this demand, wireless providers are installing small cell antennas placed in densely
populated areas that have been determined to need additional network capacity, such as downtowns, heavily
used traffic corridors or areas that cannot be effectively served by traditional macro cells. These small cell
wireless antennas are not intended to replace macro cell sites, but to fill in areas that do not have sufficient
capacity and to assist with unloading traffic from macro sites.
z
�sasn �ei}uapisaa �(�ivae� a�6uis /(q
papunoaans si a�is pasodoad ayl ��aaa}s pue ��ennapis ay� uaann}aq di��s �a�ue�d ay} ui pa�e�o� si a�od �(�i�gn ayl
�anuany �euaa8 g05 ��o ssaappe ue y�inn �a�aed ay� o� }ua�efpe �(enn-�o-�y6ia ay� uiy�inn pa�e�o� si a�od �(�i�i�n 3�g�d
ayl •uoi�ei�ossy a�od �uio� ay� �(q paunno a�od �(�i�i�n poonn 6ui�sixa ue uo (�(�i�i�e� ssa�aainn) �(�i�i�e� uoi}e�iunuauao�
ssa�aainn Ila� Il��s nnau e ��e}sui o� �iwaad as� �euoi}ipuo� e�o �enoadde 6ui}sanbaa si l�gly :�euawng;�a(oad
�suoi�ipea� �i�ay�sae s,�(}i� ay} anaasaad o� paau 6uoa�s ay} saziu6o�aa os�e �nq /G�snpui
suoi�e�iunuawo� ay� o� a�uepin6 aea�� sapinoad y�iynn `�(6o�ouy�a� suoi�e�iunuauao� �o s�i�auaq �(�iunwwo�
ay� saziu6o�aa �ey� aauueua e ui auae6ui��n8 �o �(�i� ay� ui sai�yi�e� suoi�e�iunuauao� }o uoge�o� ay� 'suoi�e�n6aa
pue nne� �e�apa� pue a�e�s �(q panno��e se `a�e�n6aa o} si a�ueuipao siy} �o asodand ay} '�(��e�i�i�ads aaow
��(�i� ay� �o seaae �ei}uapisaa-uou ay� ui �(}i�enb �ensin ay� pue iGn;ua� y�pZ �(�aea
ay� o� 6ui�ep suoi�ipea� �ean��a}iy�ae s,�(�i� ay� `spooy�oqy6iau s,�(�i� ay� �o s�i�ay}sae �uesea�d ay} `}uauauoainua
s,�(�i� ay��o �(}i�enb ay� sanoaduai �ey� aauueua e ui aan��na�sea�ui suoi�e�iunuauao� s,awe6ui�an8 �o uoi�ezivaapow
a�e�i�i�e� o� `�(��ue}�oduai aaow pue uie�uiew o� si a�ueuipao siy� �o asodand ayl �(nnainaa ao} pay�e�;e
si saqi�i�e� suoi�e�iunuauao� ssalaa!M — LL�SZ aa�d�u�) Z�OZ '9 /�-��naqa� uo �i�uno� �(}i� ay} �(q pa�dope senn
a�ueuipap suoge�iunuauao� ssa�aaiM ayl �uoi�e��e�sui �o aauue�.0 pue `a�e�d `a�.ui� ay� �oa�uo� `uoi�aa�sip pa�i�.ui�
uiy}inn'ue� �(�i� ayl �966 6�o }�y suoi�e�iunuauao�a�al �eaapa� ay� pue uoissiw�.uo� sai�i�i�� �i�qnd eivao�i�e� ay�
�(q pa�e�n6aa pue pasua�i� aae sai}i�i�e� suoi}e�iunwwo�a�a} ssa�aai/� :a�ueuipap suoi;e�iunwwo� ssa�aaiM
�uoi}e�i�dde �eui6iao
ay� o� paaeduao� se pa�npaa senn �uawdinba ay} �o azis ay� `nnainaa �i�uno� �(�i� 6uiana �uoi�e�i�dde pasodoad
ay} Buinnaina� �o� apin6 e se anaas p�noys pue `�i�qnd ay� �o s�aquaaua pue �i�uno� �(�i� ay� �q passaadxa
suaa�uo� o� asuodsaa s,l�gly uo paseq senn uBisap �eui� ayl �(aa�ua� peo� �ia��a�a pue aa�aua ay}) �uawdinba �o
sa�aid onn� �ea�uo� �ou saop �i asne�aq („�-,g o� pa�eduao� pasodoad „p �-,5) 6uo� se �ou si (�uauadinba ay� 6uipiy)
p�aiys �uaua�ea�uo� ay� �ey} Buiaq a�uaaa}�ip �(�uo ay� `g �pZ IGenue� ui �i�uno� �(�i� ay� �(q panoadde suoi�e�o�
onn� ay� �o u6isap ay� y�inn �ua�sisuo� si uoi�e�o� siy} �o} u6isap pasodoad ay� }ey} a�ou p�nonn }}e�s 6uiuueld
�}�odaa }}e�s siy� o; pay�e}�e aae a�uaivanuo� ao� y�iynn `060�LL�SZ pu� 080'LL'�Z
suoi��ag ui y}�o�;as eua}ia� uoi}e�o� pue u6isap sai}i�i�e� ssa�aainn ay} 6uiaapisuo� pue pao�aa ay} ui a�uapina ay}
uo paseq s6uipui� paainbaa ay� sn�o� a�o�aaay� p�noys uoissiwwo� 6uiuue�d ayl �sai�i�i�e� suoi}e�iunuawo�a�a�
�o uoi�e�n6aa ay� 6uivaano6 nne� a}e�s pue �eaapa��o s�uiea}suo� ay� uiy�inn pue a�ueuipao ay� ui s}uauaaainbaa ay�
uo paseq s6uipui� 6ui�{eua pue �}i�i�e� ssa�aainn ay��o uoi�e�o� pue u6isap pasodo�d ay� 6uissn�sip pue 6uinnainaa
o� pa�ivai� aao�aaay� si uoissivauao� 6uiuue�d ayl �(}aodaa }}e�s ay� �o b a6ed uo uoi��as „�(pn�g ��uanba��
oipe�„ ay� aas) suoi�e�n6aa suoissivaa �� s,uoissiwi.uo� suoi�e�iunuauao� �eaapa� ay� y�inn sai�duao� �(�i�i�e�
ssa�annn pasodad ay} }ey} pa�ea}suouaap sey �ue�ydde ay� (aaay ase� ay� si se) �i sai�i�i�e� ssa�aainn 6ui}e�n6aa
ao Bui�tuap ao� siseq e se suoissiwa („��„) �(�uanbaa� oipea 6uiaapisuo� woa� sai�i�edi�iunua s}iqiyoad nne� �eaapa�
'i��) OSO'LL�SZ uoi}�ag apo�) uoissivauao� 6uiuue�d auae6ui�an8 ay� �(q �enoadde pue
a�o�aq 6uiaeay �i�qnd e aa}}e �(�uo pa�uea6 aq �(eua �(}i�i�e� uoi�e�iunuawo� ssa�aainn e ao� �iwaad asn �euoi�ipuo�
e�ey� sa�e�s a�ueuip�p suoi�e�iun�.uwo� ssa�a�iM ay� `�(enn-�o-�y6ia ay} uiy�inn pasodad s�uau.�anoadi.ui
ao s��afoad nnainaa �ou saop /(��e�aua6 uoissivawo� 6uiuue�d ay� a�iyM :nnaina� uoissivawo� 6uiuue�d
.���a�
ouiwe� 13 LL6 pue �(ennpea8 pg�� `anuany �eu�a8 gpg�) sa�is 6uiuieuaaa aaay� ay� �o �enoadde 6ui}sanbaa
nnou si }ue�i�dde ayl �spaepue�s pasinaa s,3�g�d }aaua aa6uo� ou sa�is asoy� a�uis unneapy�inn uaaq aney 'anuany
anoa� �{e0 0 �Z � pue aniaa ands�ae� L£6 `suoi}e�o� aay�o onnl �(sa�nuiw �i�uno� �(}i� 6 60Z `ZZ ti�nue� pay�e��e
aas) 660Z 'ZZ ti�nue� uo �i�uno� �(}i� ay} �(q �eadde uo ��snouaiueun panoadde a�ann `aniad aa�say�uiM 60L pu�
aniad apisll!H 0086 `suoi�e�o� ay��o onnl ��(enn-�o-�y6u �i�qnd ay� uiy�inn pa�e�o� sa�od �(}i�i�n poonn paunno 3�g�d
6ui�sixa o�uo �uauadinba pa�ei�osse pue euua�ue ue 6uippe �o �sisuo� suoi�e�i�dde asayl �/(�i� ay� �noy6nay�
sauoz �eguapisa� aeau ao ui sai�i�i�e� ssa�aainn Ila� Il��s nnau ao� suoi}e�i�dde uanas pa��ivaqns �(��eui6iao 1'81b'
anuan y �euaa8 909� oa �ua�efpy �fejy� �o-�y6i� ;�u�aad asn /euoi�ipuo�
Conditional Use Permit Right-of-Way Adjacent to 1505 Bernal Avenue
The proposal includes installing a cylindrical antenna and extension on top of an existing utility pole and
associated equipment and cabling mounted on the side of the utility pole. An application for a Conditional Use
Permit is required because the project consists of installing a new wireless facility (not a collocation) and
because it is located in a residential zoning district. The proposed small cell wireless facility application consists
of the following:
1) Installing one (1) new cylindrical antenna and extension on top of an existing wood utility pole. The
antenna measures 9.45" in diameter and 23.63" tall. In order to comply with minimum clearance
requirements, the antenna is installed on a 7'-0" wooden extension and mounting bracket on top of the
utility pole (see existing and proposed elevations on sheet A-3). The top of the existing utility pole
measures 30'-2" in height. The proposed antenna, extension and mounting bracket increases the overall
height of the pole to 39'-6" above grade, or 9'-4" above the top of the existing pole. There are no
cabinets proposed at grade within the right-of-way.
2) Installing equipment associated with the antenna onto the side of the existing utility pole using a
mounting bracket. The equipment includes two finrin duplexers, two radio remote units, one electric load
center, one ground bar and one smartpole meter (refer to the proposed plans for equipment dimensions).
Including the mounting bracket, the equipment extends approximately 1'-6" from the face of the utility
pole. The equipment is proposed to be mounted on the side of the utility pole facing the sidewalk. The
radio remote units, twin duplexers and ground barwill be concealed with a shield measuring 5'-10" long.
A minimum clearance of 7'-0" is provided between the ground and the bottom of the equipment.
3) Installing coaxial cables associated with the antenna and equipment in 1'/2" and 3" conduits mounted on
the utility pole.
The applicant notes that "small cell technology has a maximum effective radius of 300 feet and therefore
requires the sites to be much closer together than the larger macro sites. These small cell facilities are not
meant to increase the coverage area but to assist with unloading traffic from the macro site, which is why each
site was carefully selected by AT&T's radio frequency engineer. Small cell facilities increase data speed and
decrease the number of dropped calls. Because of this they are placed in specific locations of need, in order to
service a targeted community. The target community for these sites are specific residential areas, intersections,
and EI Camino Real, which can only be reached by these proposed node locations."
Visual simulations depicting existing and proposed site conditions are attached to the staff report for review. The
proposed antenna, equipment, concealment shield and cabling are proposed to be painted to match the utility
pole.
Independent Review of 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 Three AT&T Small Cell
Wireless Applications, dated December 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 the findings listed below (also found on page 2 of the report). Mr. Afflerbach will make a brief presentation at
the public hearing and will be available to answer questions.
3
Conditional Use Permit
Right-of-Way Adjacent to 1505 Bernal Avenue
■ Review of the proposed technical equipment finds that the equipment is suitable to meet the purposes
set forth by the applications.
■ Review of the RF emissions studies submitted by the applicant (prepared by the engineering consulting
firm of Hammett & Edison) and the independent analysis of CTC (under the supervision of Lee
Afflerbach, P.E.) confirm that at each site, the total calculated RF emissions would not exceed the FCC's
guidelines at ground level or at the antennas' horizontal planes.
■ On-site testing of AT&T's current network performance in the vicinity of the three sites found that AT&T's
network delivers effective wireless service throughout the area examined, but only in the 700 MHz band -
and even in that band, service and data transfer rates vary. In most cases, CTC's measurements
recorded wireless signal levels of sufficient amplitude to support the high-speed transfer of data - but
user demand had a clear effect on network throughput.
Alternative Sites Analysis: AT&T investigated ten potential alternative sites for the proposed wireless facility.
However, nine of the alternative sites were determined "not feasible" for the reasons listed below. Please refer
to the attached Alternative Sites Analysis for the alternative sites considered in the area and an explanation of
why these sites were not feasible.
■ Pole not California Public Utility Commission (CPUC) General Order (GO) 95 compliant because it has
cut outs connecting it to a primary power, and is also a high voltage pole.
■ Pole does not have enough space on it for equipment and climbing space.
■ Tree canopy surrounding pole would block antenna signal.
■ Pole is at lower height than other utility poles in the area; taller pole is necessary for AT&T to meet its
service objective.
One of the alternatives sites, which includes installing a new stand-alone steel pole that houses a single antenna
in a shroud at the top of the pole and two equipment radios lower on the pole or in an enclosed base of the pole,
was deemed feasible. However, AT&T notes that "although these are potential design alternatives, utilizing an
existing utility pole would be less intrusive and the preferred design."
Radio Frequency Study: Staff would note that cities may not regulate placement, construction or modification
of wireless communications facilities based on radio frequency ("RF") emissions if the proposed wireless facility
complies with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) RF emissions regulations. Federal law prohibits
cities from considering RF emissions as a basis for denying or restricting cellular facilities.
An evaluation of the proposed wireless facility was prepared by Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers,
dated September 26, 2017, for compliance with appropriate guidelines limiting human exposure to radio
frequency ("RF") electromagnetic fields (see attached full report). The report concluded that operation of the
node proposed by AT&T at this location "will comply with the prevailing standards for limiting public exposure to
radio frequency energy and, therefore, need not for this reason cause a significant impact on the environment.
The highest calculated level in publicly accessible areas is much less than the prevailing standards allow for
exposures of unlimited duration. This finding is consistent with measurements of actual exposure conditions
taken at other operating nodes." The evaluation prepared by Hammett & Edison, Inc. concludes that the
proposed wireless facility will be compliant with Radiofrequency Radiation Exposure Limits established by the
FCC. Therefore, the City cannot use RF emissions as a reason for denying the modification request.
Public Outreach: Pursuant to the City's ordinance, the applicant is encouraged to perform an early stage
outreach with residents and property owners near the proposed wireless facility in order to address and, if
possible, resolve any impacts of the proposed facilities on the surrounding neighborhood.
4
Conditional Use Permit
Right-of-Way Adjacent to 1505 Bernal Avenue
The applicant held an informational neighborhood meeting on June 17, 2019 (see attached meeting invitation);
property owners within 300 feet of the project site were invited. The applicant provided an overview of the
proposed applications on the remaining sites and was available to answer questions. The applicant reported
that no residents attended regarding the application at 1505 Bernal Avenue.
Staff Comments: Several letters and emails regarding this application have been submitted by the public and
are attached to the staff report.
Required Findings for a Conditional Use Permit for a Wireless Communications Facility (Code Sections
25.77.050(c), 25.77.130, and 25.52.020, a-c): In order to grant a Conditional Use Permit for a Wireless Facility,
the City must find:
(1) The proposed facility complies with all the requirements of Chapter 25.77 and with all applicable
requirements of other chapters of the Burlingame Municipal Code.
(2) The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or
improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or
convenience.
(3) The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Burlingame general plan
and the purposes of the Zoning Code.
(4) The City may impose such reasonable conditions or restrictions as it deems necessary to secure the
purposes of the Zoning Code and to assure operation of the use in a manner compatible with the
aesthetics, mass, bulk, and character of existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general
vicinity.
(5) In approving a use permit pursuant to Chapter 25.77, the City may impose conditions, not prohibited by
applicable federal and state law, which are deemed necessary to ensure compliance with the provisions
of Chapter 25.77, the provisions of the Burlingame Municipal Code, and the provisions of any other
applicable laws and regulations.
Suggested Findings for Conditional Use Permit for a Wireless Facility:
That proposed wireless facility complies with all the requirements of Chapter 25.77 and with all
applicable requirements of other chapters of the Burlingame Municipal Code;
That proposed wireless facility, 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, because 1) the proposed wireless facility complies with the Federal Communications
Commission's radio frequency (RF) emissions regulations (confirmed by an evaluation of the proposed
wireless facility prepared by Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers, dated September 26, 2017,
and an independent review by CTC Technology & Energy, dated December 2019) and 2) the proposed
wireless facility, consisting of an antenna and associated equipment mounted on an existing PG&E
owned wood utility pole, will be slightly wider than the existing pole and will be concealed with a shield
and painted to match the utility pole.
That proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Burlingame General
Plan and the purposes of the Zoning Code.
�
Conditional Use Permit Right-of-Way Adjacent to 1505 Bernal Avenue
If the Planning Commission determines that it cannot make the required findings to approve the application
based on the evidence in the record and considering the wireless facilities design and location criteria set forth in
Sections 25.77.080(c) and 25.77.090, then the Planning Commission should consider the evidence and
arguments as to whether its proposed denial would "prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of
personal wireless services" in conflict with federal law, and determine whether or not it must approve the project
to avoid such a result. Please also refer to the attached Legal Memorandum, dated September 4, 2018,
prepared for the City Council in their review of the finro applications at 1800 Hillside Drive and 701 Winchester
Drive.
Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the application,
and consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report. Action should include specific
findings supporting the Planning Commission's decision, and should be affirmed by resolution of the Planning
Commission. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record. At the public hearing the
following conditions should be considered:
that the conditional use permit to install a new small cell wireless communication facility on an existing
PG&E wood utility pole, located within the right-of-way adjacent to 1505 Bernal Avenue, consisting of a
cylindrical antenna, extension on top of the utility pole, one smartpole meter, two radio remote units, two
twin diplexers, one ground bar, and one electric load center, shall be valid for ten (10) years from the
date of approval. At least one hundred twenty (120) days prior to the expiration of the initial ten (10) year
term, the applicant shall complete and submit a renewal application to the Community Development
Director;
2. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped
April 18, 2019, sheets T-1, GN-1, A-1 through A-4.2, E-1 and E-2;
3. that prior to commencing any work at the site, the contractor commissioned by the applicant to perform
the work shall obtain all required permits, such as a construction Encroachment Permit and Stormwater
Pollution Prevention Permit from the Department of Public Works — Engineering Division;
4. that all units must be at least seven (7) feet clear and above the highest adjacent finished grade, no
exceptions shall be allowed;
5. that the wireless communication facility shall operate in conformance with all applicable provisions of
Chapter 25.77 of the Burlingame Municipal Code (Wireless Communications); where any conflicts exist
between the applicable provisions of that chapter and this approval, the more restrictive provision shall
apply;
6. that the facility shall meet or exceed current standards and regulations of the FCC, the FAA, and any
other agency of the state or federal government with the authority to regulate wireless communication
facilities. If such standards and regulations are changed and are made applicable to existing facilities,
the owners of the facilities governed by this chapter shall bring such facilities into compliance with such
revised standards and regulations within six (6) months of the effective date of such standards and
regulations, unless a different compliance schedule is mandated by the controlling state or federal
agency. Failure to bring the facility into compliance with such revised standards and regulations shall
constitute grounds for the removal of the facilities at the owner's expense, revocation of any permit or
imposition of any other applicable penalty;
7. that the facility shall be constructed of graffiti-resistant materials and shall be painted with non-reflective
material consistent with the color scheme on the utility pole;
�
Conditional Use Permit Right-of-WayAdjacent�to 1505 Bernal Avenue
8. that signage in, on or near the facility shall be prohibited with the exception of warning and informational
signs, which shall be designed with minimal aesthetic impact;
9. that within forty-five (45) days of commencement of the facility operation, the applicant shall conduct a
post-installation field test to confirm that the radio frequency (RF) exposure levels comply with FCC
Rules and Regulations and with City noise regulations, shall submit the comprehensive report to the City,
and if necessary, agree to promptly correct any noncompliance;
10. that the applicant shall report to the City every five (5) years from the date of commencement of the
facility operation, a review of the condition of the facility, of the facility's compliance with federal and state
regulations and of the facility's compliance with the provisions of this chapter and the conditions of
approval. The applicant shall also provide updated contact information for the owner and the applicant
and verifiable confirmation information as to what carrier(s) are using the facility;
11. that the applicant shall procure and maintain a City business license, contact information for the
applicant, for the agent responsible for maintenance of the facility and for emergency contact;
12. that the applicant shall either secure a bond, letter of credit or other similar financial assurance, in a form
acceptable to the City, for the removal of the facility in the event that its use is abandoned, its operation is
ceased or the approval is terminated;
13. that maintenance and repairs to facility shall be permitted provided that such maintenance and repair
does not enlarge or extend the facility structure or equipment enclosures or change the number, type,
dimensions, of the antenna or related equipment;
14. that if the applicant intends to substitute the equipment installed pursuant to this permit with
subsequently-developed technology, such as "5G" equipment, the applicant or responsible party shall
provide sixty (60) days prior notice to the City and secure any necessary permits before commencing
such work;
15. that current contact information of the person or entity responsible for maintaining and repairing the
facility shall be provided to and maintained by the Community Development Department;
16. that the facility shall be kept clean and free of graffiti, litter and debris. Lighting, walls, fences, shields,
cabinets, and poles, shall be maintained in good repair and free of graffiti and other forms of vandalism,
and any damage from any cause, including degradation from wind and weather, shall be repaired as
soon as reasonably possible to minimize occurrences of dangerous conditions or visual blight. Graffiti
shall be removed from any facility as soon as practicable, and in no instance more than two (2) business
days from the time of notification by any person or entity;
17. that except for emergency repairs, testing and maintenance activities that will be audible beyond the
property line shall only occur between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Monday through Friday,
excluding holidays;
18. that the service provider shall notify the Community Development Director of the intent to vacate a site at
least thirty (30) days prior to the vacation;
19. that if the facility site is not operated for a continuous period of twelve (12) months, the Conditional Use
Permit shall be deemed terminated unless before the end of the twelve (12) month period:
7
Conditional Use Permit Right-of-Way Adjacent to 1505 Bernal Avenue
(1) The Community Development Director has determined that the same operator resumed
operation; or
(2) The City has received an application to transfer the permit to another service provider.
20. that no later than ninety (90) days from the date the facility is determined to have ceased operation or the
Provider has notified the Community Development Director of the intent to vacate the site, the owner of
the wireless communication facilities or the owner of the property on which the facility is sited shall
remove all equipment and improvements associated with the use and shall restore the site to its original
condition as required by the Community Development Director. The provider or owner may use any bond
or other assurances provided by the operator to do so. The owner or his or her agent shall provide
written verification of the removal of the facility within thirty (30) days of the date the removal is
completed.
Ruben Hurin,
Planning Manager
c. Talin Aghazarin, Modus LLC, applicant
Attachments:
Applicant's Response Letter and Attachments, date stamped March 31, 2020
December 9, 2019 Planning Commission Minutes
January 22, 2019 City Council Minutes (for similar applications approved at
Winchester Drive)
Email submitted by Marsha and Brian Lee, dated December 8, 2019
Email submitted by Marsha Lee, dated April 4, 2020
Email submitted by Marsha Lee, dated April 6, 2020
Email submitted by Belinda Mah, dated April 7, 2020
Email submitted by Roane Akchurin, dated April 20, 2020
Email submitted by Samantha French, dated April 20, 2020
Email submitted by Mimi Kloster, dated April 21, 2020
Email submitted by Greg Sheehan, dated April 22, 2020
Email submitted by Monica Ho Ehlers, dated April 22, 2020
Email submitted by Barry Ehlers, dated April 22, 2020
Email submitted by Linda Weil, dated April 22, 2020
Email submitted by The Maldonados, dated April 23, 2020
Email submitted by Thomas Hornblower, dated April 23, 2020
Legal Memorandum, dated September 4, 2018
Title 25 — Zoning Code — Sections 25.77.080 (c) and 25.77.090
Application to the Planning Commission
Conditional Use Permit Application
Proof of Outreach, Information Notice prepared by applicant
Visual Simulations
Propagation Maps
Evaluation of Proposed Wireless Facility, prepared by Hammett & Edison, Inc.,
September 26, 2017
Planning Commission Resolution (proposed)
Notice of Public Hearing — Mailed April 27, 2020
Area Map
1800 Hillside Drive and 701
Consulting Engineers, dated
E:7
Conditional Use Permit
Separate Attachments:
Righf-of-Way Adjacent to 1505 Bernal Avenue
Review of Three AT&T Small Cell Wireless Applications, prepared by CTC Technology & Energy
Alternative Sites Analysis, submitted by AT&T, date stamped January 31, 2020
�
M arch 31, 2020
240 Stockton Street
3�d floor
san francisco, ca 94108
t. 415.989.1102
www. modus-corp.com
City of Burlingame
Attn: Ruben Hurin
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
:.. , � �,_� ,,,.�- r- � , ��= �,
� �
'•,�,�' �..._ �..,,ei `� � � � 9w �
�"'1 � � " ?�i ; �
l/ .S. / ; ;.,'J
.�;�T" ��`= [��.a;� ING.�P�.�E
_ "_ r_" .;'1''�. ; f ; !\l i:; � I'�;.
RE: AT&T Small Cell Applications at 1505 Bernal Avenue, 1480 Broadway, and 977 EI Camino
Real
Dear Mr. Hurin:
Per the Planning Commission hearing on Monday, December 9, 2019, there was a motion of
continuance to a later date with direction to AT&T to provide further information on the above
proposed small cell locations. At the meeting, the Commissioners asked for the following:
1) Provide information regarding the necessity to close a significant gap in coverage.
Please see the enclosed RF statements for all three proposed locations that
demonstrates how a significant gap in coverage is identified since a nearby macro
facility is experiencing or anticipated to experience unreliability when streaming video. A
SINR map or Signal to Interference and Noise to Ratio map is also attached showing
existing conditions of data service to stream video.
2) Provide different design alternatives and options.
Please see the updated Alternative Site Analysis for all three proposed locations. AT&T
conducted a thorough and good-faith analysis of potential sites in the area for the
placement of a small cell facility. Working with the City Code and guidelines set forth by
the Burlingame Planning Department, we investigated several alternative sites and
provided two additional design alternatives. One alternative is new stand alone steel
pole that houses the single antenna in a shroud at the top of the pole and the two
equipment radios lower on the pole. The power source to the pole would need to be
provided by PG&E and would therefore require a ground meter pedestal. The second
design alternative would be a variation of the new steel pole by having the equipment
enclosed at the base of the pole. Although these are potential design alternatives,
utilizing an existing utility pole would be less intrusive and the preferred design.
The third design alternative would be a variation on the wood pole design that was
presented at the December 9th hearing. Photosimulations are provided to show instead
of a single enclosure over most of the equipment, the proposal is for two enclosures
however, one being slightly longer to screen more of the equipment.
Please reach out if there are any additional questions, I can be reached at the number below.
Sincerely,
Talin Aghazarian
Director of Community and Public Affairs
(510) 206-1674
�
AT&T Mobility Radio Frequency Statement
Burlingame, CA Small Cell Node 15
This small celI node is neeessary to help close a significant service coverage gap in AT&T
wireless n�twork. Specificaiiy, an antenna sector on a nearby macro site is experiencing, or is forecas%d
to experience, capacity restraints that reduce mobile data speeds to the extent that fewer users served by
that sector witl be able to reliably stream �ideo. Competition and customer demand require that AT&T
design and maintain its network so that users experience average data service sufficient to reliabiy stream
video. Any areas that do not meet this minimal video streaming standard represent a service coverage gap
that must be closed.
The nearby macro antenna sector's capacity restraints are cause by the extraordinary increase in
mobile data usage. Since introduction of the iPhone in 2007, mobile data usage increased 470,OOd% on
AT&T's network, and AT&T forecasts its cust�tners' growing demand fvr mobile data services to
continue. Updating its mobite network to handle this surge is critical as customers increasingiy use their
mobile phones as their primary communication de�ices {more than 75% of California househo�ds rely
exclusivefy ar primarily on wireless phones} and rely on their rrtobile phones ta do more (E�! 1, video
streaming, GPS, web a�cess, texE, etc.). In fact, the FCC conservatively estimates that 70% of 911 calis
aze placed by people using wireless phones. And with AT&T's selection by the federal First Responder
Network Authority, FirstNet, as the wireless service provider ta build and manage the nationwide first
responder wireless network, each �ew vr modified facility wili enhance its capability to strengthen firsfi
responder cammunications.
Users in poor signal quaIity areas use a disproportionate share of resources from the cellular
network. By ptacin�; the praposed node in a poor slgnal quaIity area where there is a high density of user
traffic, the macro site servin� the area will be offloaded and will provide hetter serviCe to other areas that
it covers. A side benefit is that the node will enable high data speeds, and ultimately SG services, to those
nearby users. To provide the necessary capacity relief and c�ose tt�is service coverage gap, ATBiT plans to
place small cell nudes in poor signal quaiity and/or high usage areas served by the targeted macro antenna
sector. Each small cell node wi�l work with the other smalI cell nodes in the area to offload neiwork
traffic carried by the nearby macro antenna sector and impro�e mobile data service throughoUt the
effective service area.
AT&T e�ses industty standard simuiation tools to identify the areas in its network where capacity
restraints and interference wel! affeot data speeds and service quality. This information is developed from
many sources inciuding terrain and clutter databases that s�muiate ihe environment, traffic maps ti�at
simulate the density of users in the environment, and propagation models that simulate signal relative to
interference in the presence of terrain and clutter variation. AT&T evaluates signal quality based on tf�e
Signal to Interference and Noise Ratio (SINR}, which directly aifects data speeds.
Exhibit 1 depicts data speeds when noise or interference is introduced into the hig�-band signal of
the existing high-band LTE service (without the proposed smail cell node{s)). The green shading shows
areas where users experience excellent clata service that can typicaliy sapport high-defnition video
streaming. The yellow shading portrays areas where users experience acceptable data service to stream
standard-de�nition video. The pink shading, however, depicts areas where users have poor daEa service or
no data service and, as a resu[t, are n4t be able to reliabiy stream �ideo ared are using resources
inefficiently. The red lines on the map roughly show the effective service area for the existing macro
antenna th2�t tite proposed small cel! node is meant to ofEload; and the blue patci�es designate areas of high
usage. Because an AT&T customer cannot reliably stream video when located in a pink shaded area, the
pink shading w�thin the macro antenna sector where the proposed s�nal� cell node is Iocated constitutes
the relevant service coverage ga� area.
This gap area is significant because it encompasses many hundreds of homes in residential
neighborhoods, several schools, numerous commercial districEs, parks, churches and various other points
of interest in this large portion of Burlingame, According to the most recent traffic data estimate available
from the Califomia Department of Transportation, more than 22,000 vehicles travel along El Camina
Real every day in this portion of the city.
To provide the necessary capacity relief and close the service coverage gap, the small cell nodes
need tQ be placed in, or as near as possible, to areas with poor signal quaiity and/or i�igh usage — the blue
patches in �r near pink shaded areas of Exhibit ]. In this case, the proposed small cell will be placed near
an intersection af two busy roads in a commercial area where AT&T experiences very high traffic on its
network. 4nce on air, the proposed smalI cell node, along with other small cells nodes in the same macro
antenna's serrrice area, will o#�load netwark traffic from that macro antenna sector, which will improve
signal quality and data speeds for all users co�ered by the seotor, alfowing more users served by that
sector to reliably stream videa.
My conciusions are based on my knowtedge of the propnsed smal l cell locations and with
AT&T's wireless netwark in the surrounding area. I have a 65C Honors Degree in Microelectronics
Engineering from Uni�ersity of Ulster, and have 34 years-experience in the wireless communications
industry.
�
i �4 k.��
Philip Da1e CEng
AT&T Mobility Services LLC
Network, Planning & Engineering
RAN Design & RF Engineering
January 30, 2020
Exhibit 1
Cu rrent Si N R without Nodes 15 & 16 & 17
_________ . �.�_
_ _ �E_�_
�� . _. .. _ __ �
L.. l . ... _ . � .
- - � � � a � 6 i b 1rr � .. r + !
� . a . s a .� ' � � � � � . - s s .a �
..: ... . .. 'F . ' � f� ,i _.
- _. , . » �^ �l`„ �'� � � � • � a
W~' .a a �. a a a � � ' � i a. f � �. �.-. � � � � �
� a �� �. Y .� s i� �' =� B� r .., _ � � � �
�� � t� . � f a� - .. _ . ..
,. - * 1 ,L• • • - - - . . . . . - � -
� r = ERAAI_R6FRe6FOK2 915• � • - - - 1 � - - ' , � ;
� � � ' ' ' 'CRAN RSFfi SFDKT016 ` ' ' u � °
. . a ■ • i -- � _ . ..
' ` '' ' ' ` � ` Legend : SiNR Simulation
e a � . � �
i �-■ � • � CRAN RSFR SFOK2 017
_ �- ' ` r ` ` ` " : � - _ : Excellent Data Service
` � �_ • �• - : Acceptable Data Service
� � ` : Poor Data Service or NQ Service
� . � s
• ' a '' Legend : Traffic
. . . .
� r ' t • y ' �-w : •
' � �'a:. � - : High wireless traffic area
■- .
�
� ' ' '-'". " ' ` i�� ` Legend : Boundaries
. . . � � .
� �
� � �, � �,�. . �
� ' ` ` ' ' �� " `# ' : Macro antenna service area
. � . ,
�.� � ��� - = - � ., .
�� :� -� �� -- - �
... .�� .� .
� . _ . � ._ :
_ ,
.�.' _ �
_ _ . _ ,,, . .� � �
� . _ __ �, ; . .
-
. .��� , -;_ .
_ �•- ��.�,,�� ._ - � � -
¢: - + . :�_� .,
��'� ��I'�
�� � - �'
``r � ! 04'
�;; ,�i,
�J: >I'{t'��:..
� �� .
�"� "_ - _ �r'"_ _
_ '�a"� ': _
.
� �z w °� - � _. _';�..r
_'-� `�.:_:.:r32r'y �. ��—
�,.�f �� ; � `�,_ ���'c'�w `ri _`_
:,i . '�u'�'�k"_�. •=�'?� ,•r �RY.. _
tt
v t
.., • � '.. .r � . ' yR�.� .��. ,r�
Uk+ K 'i. �` "'�"� = �,r� �. ., , ` .
� , �` � .. .. . �� �
�a�`'- 5 � , � .., - ,
�J�k � ��� �� ����`���
�x�, � � ��
°°°,_� =�a �Ze� Photo simulation as seen looking northwest from the sidewalk
., ,.w,o�����„�.�o�„
��
+\
`.
YO S' O�Q o u m
ount . , . i . e_
■
� _ ��",`...
-�' . ..
�'�'�; . �T .. � .
- .�
or, -�, � �^.,,,
� � �'-,.,, 1
�,�, ,�.' � � �r _ „g -� �..� «k
? �Yt�L ;f �.t ' J � . M1 ._ �wb �, �,3�-,
vfi . . �'f Rd� ."� � . �� ��e _ � �.1
✓. . . _ ..... .'_.. . �.W r y. tR. ' . - _ .
% '�� `��! �� '
� w � �' � at&t CRAN_RSFR_SFOK2_015
�� ROW at 1505 Bernal Avenue, Burlingame, CA
��
.�
�`
\
ti r.
2 �0�''
�� .L,,f...� � ��."
�} ��, �; � �
:;�� Y�� �
A rA� �°' i'-
A:;� ; t . t a
I�, , �''s: .
r � ••
',
�`�.
��•.: � �� �„"n°'. . ;� .:�,: �
t ;�,r ,�;
'x �',;.� , � ..
_ ' 1 •. .; - � �� . y . � � �dc w=
- .�' io ' � � ::
� '` �L, r ?a i' c T.� ' '�.
's"' •� e 'i� � . �... ..
4 ,�, � ,.� u�. � � � ��� , _ . yc'/ .�`�� . � .. ' �
'��'��• y. e,�, tt"' �� +��' � r -'4 �,8'
f f'.. . .� � ^ �. �`' r' � �,� � � � kr 'r�� � ' �t;<'� . „r` / _ -.'�;,
'� � L , � - t� 1 � _ :.� r - �.. � II ��#�i,i � f ��';�a,:
. �_ �
� . � �- _ . .. �x
� ,y � . .. ---'--
� . �v. l`.. i ^ .. /�� _aert/'/'�� '_
. � _ _ . n "+ `- . . -„ j' /pi� ""r� ��'.
' :
�ti . ...�-,r' � . ��� ��u.+!, —_- —
. - . . ��;.�� .. ' `y `� '„ ��r � � ' � -
� � � �
:'��� � �"' _ � r ..,- _ , .. . �-,.-: . . � xY�{�* �'' �"s i 3 � '� �
� �t-.. � 4 �i'f ' - . . �. r' ^� ?U<
. ,^
.T <.. •
+: - �; Ni�� - 1 -^+"' � ... ,!'� , . _ - . . . __ � F _
, .. �... ' -� ,�,p � : ..,..— . � _ _� ,.i
�•- � ��� " s � �. � . ' h�"+ "" - . �: , �.. wx+° + ��`t�1�' v�'i�.s �- �x �' --
T - .�
� 11� �—.�-� - � � � ��' � 'c _ � �'C��� '�"�!". �'� ��� . '
r r� p.o s��a �; �„r . T ,
U..
�� �:�
*;�: „�� ,
� �'
a► 1'
� `.� b 7
e # I. � � +� �=� � : . , .
'•� ,'� a
� � �
� '; � :
4t
�, ; ` �
�.p•>•n:�'x' �7 !1'� .
� 1
�, �'�1 KS .� � �"— , ^�,t
� ..-��. r.�� ' !i• � � �.
�' , . . .. �� 1 � �_ }:
` . .. ��. �} ! �. , P.. � i . • {' � `' � t � ' y3 • �.�. �..
: � � �1'k ) � .I.
��M I a � �n . ��R ... �, � r.:i4 - .� .' �
�:'��� i �� �' ee � �' '� �►� r� . -' y . ..f�: ""�; .�
' �r,: -. . L � ��� .,G� � � ♦'. + .
f � '!r� `�i . q a' ;kC - �x ; .,._ ✓ .�=:
/. �,. . ��f <. t 7 � • r�'
�' t ty ti �� � _ �.
�.
�,:.. ,i' � ` � _ _
. . - ' ; \ �, ti.1� - " f�'� "'��' I _ _ �- -
. u .r�T � � ��� 4 �i ' � �y
� .. . c� �_—��. _ 'I •�, . . t �� ` . ... v:Mq - _ _-
.. . ..� r A . 1', � ��`�� - �� � �� d h..�
• �. . �� � �� ' T� ti
an/ ' •�`��^�f'{ ' ..�� � . � � ��:f'�'• � � ' �.� ':.�.
� T� ,`�^.z�,� � - flw.�e' --•n'S "_�
�`/ �r �.. - - � � "� I "no�"�` � - r'_ < _ T:�_ .�a.c � �� �,, �.� -
�, . ' ' � GroUntlleVel: 00 00 ..A�rp:.y'. a� ��t �� _ .. _ .
istina
- � , � ��,
i ,,y� �� �'� Y � '
t�`� <. ;<��. F ?
A
� � , � �� ,
�.
� r ` '� ,
k.-�'� � <,•
�- .�.# ��
,,,�, :.,
lR�! ,��,,�•.���' -'.�;:. ,
•�a' , \ sx:;
. � �,. „f J '�) . .
' ,,,1�, ' � � Y, �.
. � - �, : i�� w : °�� �� . �� �* ; .
� r � , v . ,� � .
,� � ; ,,; �.,. � :•� � �-�, �. ,,� � � .
r '� ,y � , x rr""' ti•
� ,a :�C,b�. , $'" ,. . � ��� ��. ',1��,� "r .� 'r;a6 �' ^ . .. ..� '�~� � 19.
� ��, . � . '� �� ,,�_F e, �u c .L��. • -ir:• �`'
� � + Gl� � 1 Q � � _ '
� �, . . . � � n �'°�"'' . � ;r . A�� �.r' �. a�-= � - -
. .. r - .. - ,Jt,.� '� � . � .. . r � .+!'' fT . � �
� : ��.� � � 1 <�Lw6 r -r . . ... . a�^'_ ' ' ., ''�1`b.� K' � ' � 5f,, . .
S �'r, " t _ � � . - ^ �' _ '. ., s .
�' � ' ` - —� w ' � : - ` "�� _��-� �- ny•��,��� k� � "+
.. ��' =-.�..--.: �. ._ � a,., � j � � �--a, � a���� �i� �
�
��V,-. �, . .. -rT�dF�. � i�F�., �.
,.� 4 k+,�.� � 'S.
%� ����� , ~~
.. . '�-�! /'�+����
, . . . , "/ W� .
. . "�' � , .
t, �� ,- .
� w � Y�
.,�P �..T��.:��� y.
� ' :� � `4 � � .�
..�y�����"�- d ?
i� -'s%�"& � a
A �t ,!�`'
a � �,.
� ,r � '� '
�,
�3� ���:
�� � �
�.:
.��,:
� ' , t j � N;,a, ,� -, .; �,� ` � - � . �:r� "� ..
W` V. l,t �4 ....`� 1 'M� i .� �� ,i.
�+,1� . ,y�r�_ , , �¢. 4 �, � 1'��� � . r � ' � ��..� �...- +y1 •) " . � �
"�! �� ,� .
�;' "� � i� +�cC .i' O
ix . i'�F _ ' S. � (`.'; ^� .
,� � .f i� , � a ��"� . 1.. .�i���j
� � ,� • . . _�' �, r .r' �_ ' -
+ry � „,;,�_�.,� � ��' `' - . � . ��� -- — I
� . �'"' � ,
� .. . I A �' ' ! B ttom of POWe M e: 07' 00'• w+�L �`'�
r s q.
.�� k.r:._. T �'� t
� - � `Y�i.. r - , • ' '�'. . . y .
. �ni �_ ,! '��`: �,. - ., - . . ;;' ^ . .. ' .
`M � � I � _' - � .. ?< ��' � f �„�'- _ - `y„-- � — `�"'��--r' ��'"` .�s' � . � � _ '� :..�.... •• -
_ �
�� �
� ,�1 ` _ . . �� GroundLevel: 00 00 ,.n4Y..�,.� �� � � :.
Existing
12.27.2019
� � �
x �� � ���� ��
� �,R_
S E ': .� 4- 5 '
nh c �Y; -,r,:j; a � i. . ;�i;. t�J,`' r � "1 c �, �'+,� p: ��'� y �44 'T �y ��' .1 ! rF, � '
- � � ��� �+�� 5��� tt� � � �� ; ,9 � i
; � S Y +'� � � p -
r }.��7 � 3 ;S ,ye7�.
yt.,�',»-: � "' �-�...� ���;_: .. .< ri.. � . � ,.. > .4 .." . : ...
' :;�Gw J; ' ..�i �.
� . , r� ,
!; �t,,� � �I. � . �.�h p,� ��. i�:'
� ,ff ,. ��, TJ � �, �1 � ,.
, r .. �. � . '��" .
. . .. i � W i . �
4 y: • �
} i '. �.: , » , �' ���
, . — r. � ,,, j �:
%t� �'w,T - � � �a�, � . 'r. ,. y:s ,�,� -K. ?
� i:i �' � � ���i C►1 ''� •` .!
-�b. � i ! �� �+ ��`' � � . � � , � � � � � ��� '°'� � � y ` � i �
-", _� - �?:Mr 1 : � � . ' . __y �� '. •r'► . r.` +�
H '
��4i.�:� � .. '. . ■ -.% . .. . , � �' �
b �� t�., k a
� . .
� � _, - _
� . ,
�, �, �.,,. -� � .
.. . , J �
M .. . y ,x. � . .� �, �� �p� ',� � - _ ...� -�+�
9 ,
-- 6 '�' '�.� _ L..- - � �`-.a' / �a _ � .'' :
.. . • �
y� � . _
: ��.
,• :.
` , .. � :
a �" � -:
- — N _i�
4q;f ' .� �. �� : < ��=a.,$tu F
. �rr�...�.�...nl� u.,s'S�e.dr�Jo`._ �� ,.,.:i .,�,aun������:�� �
Proposed
proposed AT&T antenna
��r .. ,..._.,_ �.+..;\ .�,s':.s.�...�.��..,.,a, ���...:. ..,.
�''i' � " "�'
�;�I� . ; : w
� �� �
k+ �
_ � �s-'
�+ L'�
i. F;F,_ °��., v r , �
��
�'�Y ' � � `�� �`f � s-.. ' �
- -- t�.r t� .
~ 1 .. -
�, � �,
�
�r' ` z�.
— ��
�, :
,
�, ��'s��� �
r � �)�' .
;' . ;�' � s,., ,. -�
ry , +j +� l .} �• �I
. .' �,�, .. . �
y �, � ,
.�� � �- , ��' �,�
:�� �. :: ��'��; .�,, ';i i; ' � .;�
f�% , . � �` � � k^� ' . �
�'�r . . . '� �-.' .'��1 ,�,'� "�,
� f:
„n�sil� li:., � ... � �� . � . ; �,'�"
�-+��' ,.3 '' :tYl; . ,b. _ . . . ' rV .'.
.r .::
n ' t
. �.
� ► .:., � � _ � ��� ls' , -; S� � .- ' �"�
��, t�.- �°"'.^ +� ` �, . .
�_ ` . .. . . _ _' �,
l�Ux ...� ���" - - �� �
� c�Tv
�� � X �
�`� i;i�" I';''';:--7
M1O� j -9
4Poanrr
Monday, December 9, 2019
City of Burlingame
Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission
7:00 PM
Council Chambers
f. Application for Conditional Use Permits to install new small cell wireless facilities
(antenna and equipment) on an existing wood utility poles located within the right-of-way
at the locations listed below. The proposals consist of installing one antenna on top of an
existing utility pole and associated equipment attached to the side of the utility pole.
These projects are Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303. (Abby Reed, Modus LLC,
applicant; Joint Pole Association, owner; Borges Architectural Group, architect) Staff
Contact: Ruben Hurin
1. In right-of-way adjacent to 1505 Bernal Avenue, zoned R-1(119 noticed)
2. In right-of-way adjacent to 1480 Broadway, zoned C-1 (165 noticed)
3. In right-of-way adjacent to 977 EI Camino Real, zoned R-3 (158 noticed)
All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
P/anning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report.
Quesfions of staff.�
> Am compelled by the /etter that was written by Jennifer Pfaff regarding the potential future
undergrounding of utilities along E/ Camino Rea/. Is it possible to add a condition of approval that if in the
future utilities related to these po/es are undergrounded, then this installation either has to be removed or
similarly undergrounded? Would hate for the community to be hamstrung in the fufure by having to keep
these poles for no other reason than an approval was granted for these antennas and the antenna were
installed. (Kane: Part of this relates to the various rights that telecommunication carriers assert in building
out these installations. So in this case, AT&T and other companies are talking about affixing these
facilities to existing PG&E franchise po/es so if the pole goes away, then that particular invocation or that
particulariry iteration goes away with it. If iYs an undergrounding effort, which is some years off because of
the number of utilities located underground along EI Camino Real, the pole will go away with it. IYs a
se/f-terminating issue. Am relucfant in real time to draft an ordinance fhat would have to comply wifh
various portions of federal and state /aws. They're active/y being interpreted now. Certainly something
that re/ates to making sure that AT&T is on notice, that this may be undergrounded in the future and that
they will cooperate with undergrounding efforts, is something we can do tonight. Otherwise, think it's
something we would want to review in detail and negotiate with AT&T's counsel.
The City retained Columbia Te/ecommunications Corporation (CTC), an independent te/ecommunications
consulting firm, to review the technica/ aspects and informafion associated with these applications. CTC,
represented by Mr. Lee Aff/erbach, summarized the 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.
Questions of Mr. Lee:
BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
City of Burlingame page 1 Printed on 4/23/2020
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes December 9, 2019
> Am I correct in understanding that these antennas are being installed in areas of high vehicular traffic,
in other words, demand for cellular service in vehicles and perhaps also in neighborhoods where there's
that high demand? Or are they're being installed in areas where the signal is not adequate to provide road
coverage or that there's not in-building coverage? (Afflerbach: It's the signal leve/ required to provide
service fo customers in buildings.)
> If I'm at home or in my car or specifically when my kids are in their car or even in my car, they want to
plug their phone into my car and they want to get service fhrough their cell phone to play music over the
radio on my car, that is part of what this demand is, correcf? (Afflerbach: Correct, this is accommodating
that. It's also for the smartphone application.)
> So iYs nof just for phone use, but because there are many other features like streaming, videos,
social media which require a/ot of data, that's causing some of this need, is that correct? (Afflerbach:
Right, these are all the high data speed applications. One is more data and the other is there for a quick
response, the time if takes to access the nehvork and do that. The older systems that were just voice
only, that wasn't a problem, this is strict/y for high speed devices which are video, the kinds of things you
mentioned, and a/so mapping applications.)
> Am I correct in understanding that part/y whaYs driving this is the desire to get to 5G service?
(Afflerbach: This is to make 4G work as fast as if can unfil we get 5G, current applications are all 4G.
They're trying to supplement them. P/acing more signal or more locations out there is to make 4G the
product it really is.)
> Have experienced losing a signal from one block to the next. Would placing these small cell sites
help with this issue? How many cell sites would it take? (Afflerbach: These small cell sites provide
signals for a 500 foot radius. Typically, you probably need fhese things repeated, somewhere between
700 feet and 1500 feet depending on fhe trees and terrain just to throw a number out. You may need 20 or
so of these per square mile, so there's going to be more of these coming out and there are multip/e
carriers, that's what it takes, that's what the technology is.)
> If we have multiple carriers, each carrier is going to want to put a cell tower on each po/e. (Afflerbach:
Generally not on the same pole. A cell tower to most people means a macro tower, which are affixed to
other poles, everybody calls them that. A better description for fhese applications would be access
points. You need that many access points, so it's going to be a macro tower on a building or these
access points because you've got two things working against you. One is the fact thar the signal
attenuates and you need a stronger signal, otherwise it wou/d inferfere with a site.)
> Did the City Council at one time ask for an understanding of where we needed these access points?
(Hurin: Yes, think it did come up during their conversation of the possibility of looking at a master plan .
However, many of the carriers don't know exactly where they need to go with these access points or
facilities, so it's difficult to come up with a plan that says you need to have them only /ocated in a specific
area.) (Kane: lYs a long term work plan item fo� Public Works staff to look at the City's own facilities to
determine which ones mighf be appropriate, primarily in the commercial areas for light poles. In our
residential areas we don't have light poles that are City poles, so we're looking at City facilities in the
industria/ areas.)
> Each of the applications looked at alternative po/es and nofed why they were not feasib/e. As this
demand increases, and if so many are rejected for the different reasons, how will this service meet
demand? There might be a street that has many poles and then many streets that don't have any. So how
would that be dissipated? (Afflerbach: There are other opfions. These particular applications are using the
PG&E po/es, but they could use other poles install their own poles. Other cities have chosen to permit
self-supporting poles to minimize the wiring, or they're modifying existing street lights. There are a number
of ways that this can be done. We're dealing here with specific applications from the vendor, but think
that one of the things you want to do is look at the policy of whaYs availab/e. Each one of these carriers
have different needs and these coverage areas are small relative to what the macro sites did before .
You've got these applications to deal with right now where the applicant identified prob/em areas and a
solution thaYs consistent with the ofher iwo sites that you approved. Should also consider what will you
allow as an alternative because the federal law is pretty specific that access is available, and the question
is how do you do it from an ascetic point of view. These applications are quite small, they've limited the
number of radios, and the antennas they have are small.) (Kane: Staff will review design standards for
wire/ess facilities in 2020. These particular applications, fall under the rubric that was deemed acceptab/e
Ciiy of Burlingame page 2 Printed on 4/23/2020
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes December 9, 2019
to the City Council at the beginning of the year in terms of the size and sty/e of the implementation, but
the broader question of whether there are other facilities where we can channel some of these other
applications is something being worked on at the staff level. There are various rights that can be
asserted by the carriers of where they claim fhey can install these facilities as of right and one is on
existing utility poles subject to the regulations highlighted in the staff report. So even if we want them to
go somewhere else, such as smart poles or something e/se that the Council may prefer, ultimate/y, we
can't constrain the carriers to making those applications. But the key thing for tonight is to /ook at the
applications before you and see how they relate to their location and aesthetics and whaYs permissib/e
under the precedent we have here.)
> Can the antennas be underground? (Afflerbach: Since coverage area is based on the height of the
antenna, the size of the antenna and the frequency, the antennas cannot be located underground.)
> We don't have to have them on a pole, they can go on a building or permanent structure, right?
(Afflerbach: Generally those were macro sites. They are sifes where there are multiple providers and
contain /arge antennas. These small cells typically have antennas that are somewhere between two and
four foot high and generally b/end into the poles that they're mounted on.)
> That's what we find in a residential area because all we have is the utility pole to work with, right?
(Aff/erbach: Yes, right now the most common approach is to use a standard pole, and the poles are
subject to availability because there may be ofher utilities on the pole, thaYs why some of these are not
accepted by the utility.)
Chair Comaroto opened the public hearing.
Ellen Kamei and Abigail Reed represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
> Fiber optic cab/e will be used to connect these sites. Where is that capab/e going to go? (Reed.� The
cable is existing at all three locations, which was permitted by a separate permit processed through the
City. It's a coil or b/ack box thaf's at the power pole.)
> So is there a fiber optic running from this pole to others? (Reed: Yes, generally the cable is pulled
from a backbone fiber optic cab/e, which has already been completed for these three sites.)
> Can you tell us why property owners of commercial buildings were not interested in allowing you to
install the equipment and antennas on their buildings? (Reed: It can 6e for a multitude of reasons. For
two of the sites, the case was just that they weren't responsive to us, so we called them multiple fimes
and left voicemails and never got a call back. The smog shop told us they weren't interested in
negotiating with us.)
> Do you know what could be their reasons for lack of interest, a concern for radiation, or what typically
would be the reasons? (Reed: Some of them are health concerns, iYs hard to say exactly what their
reasons are. Sometimes people don'f want to enter into negotiations, iYs a lot of time and effort on their
behalf to show us around, and we a/so need to enter into their buildings with notice, so it requires more
effort on their behalf.)
> Shrouds are an improvement over past versions we have seen, but they're big dumb 6oxes. You said
that the side of the shroud will have small holes in it for ventilation. Could the holes be put into a pattern?
Reason I ask this is because there are a lot of decorative perforated boxes and surfaces around these
days, you see it a lot in modern architecture. (Reed: That can be included in our conditions of approval,
we'd be happy to do that. The bottom and top of the shroud are open to provide ventilation.)
Public Comments:
Steve Lamont, Burlingame resident: Have been in the wireless industry since 1985. We have an ordinance
in p/ace. Be/ieve it's vital that we get the master plan from the carrie�s of the number of sifes they plan to
have. Have falked with other industry experts that would say that we are going to end up with upwards of
1,000 small cel/s in Burlingame when this whole thing sett/es out, think there are a couple of good reasons
for us to have that number in mind. Concerned that we'll start fo get applications like this that is looking
City of Burlingame Page 3 Printed on 4/23/2020
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes December 9, 2019
at the first hvo as if they've set a precedent. Multiply that by 500 or 1,000 and we see what the total impact
is going to be. ThaYs why we believe iYs important we have that big picture of how many are going to be in
our neighborhoods. Enjoyed listening to your discussion of the other applications for homes tonight and
the consideration for the /aws and the aesthetics, believe we need to be putting these cell sites through
the same review, there are more aesthetically pleasing solutions that other cities push for. Should look at
small ce//s on Google images and you'll start to see a lot of innovative designs. Every month there are new
technologies coming. There are ways for the equipment, at least, to be undergrounded and there are ways
for the equipment to be put within poles. If we push back and work with the industry to help them find
good designs, and say if you can design within these parameters you're going to get fast approva/ going
forward, we might find a good win-win solution. Think we shou/d push this back for more consideration.
Jennifer Bertetta, 1012 Drake Avenue: Here tonight on behalf of my family and my neighbors to express
strong opposition to the small cell wireless facility applications in addition to the pending application af
1100 Drake Avenue which is /ess than 250 feet from my residence. Small cell wire/ess sites are
unattractive, lower our property values, and most important/y have unknown hea/th effects. Science shows
we're affected by these RF emissions whether we can fee/ it or not, and research is starting to show links
to infertility, DNA damage, leukemia and cancer. These small cell sites do not belong in our
communities. The cumulative effect of these RF emissions and the continued exposure to them can
change one's health, particularly young children whose cells are still dividing. Children deserve a safe
place to s/eep. There are better places for these small cell sites and we need to be smart and sensib/e
on how many we place and where we place them. Fully realize in today's society, customers are
demanding faster service and companies like AT&T and Verizon want to meet the needs of their
customers. This may come at a price to Burlingame residents and wire/ess companies will tell us that
under the Federal Te/ecommunications Act of 1996, that they have the right to install cell towers wherever
they may choose to. However, cities such as Palo Alto and areas of San Francisco have already pushed
back. Jeremy Johnson, an expert in EMF exposure said the following in 2016: "The FCC is not protecfing
the public and the public is not being properly informed on fhis issue. The FCC is supposed to be
regulating this industry, but its regulations are over 20 years old. Our most advanced technology is using
science that is also at leasf 20 years old and is based on a 50-year-old concept that said if microwave
radiation can't heat us, it can't possiblly hurt us. Hundreds of studies have shown this is fa/se. The
industry is influencing the regulatory body. There appears to be a revolving door between the wire/ess
lobby and the FCC Commission, plus the science is heavily influenced by industry funding." Industry
funded studies show these small cell sites are safe whereas independent studies show effects saying
these are not safe. We already saw this play out in the smoking industry. The smoking industry studies
told the public that their product was safe when we all know now that it was not and many of us /osf loved
ones to lung cancer. We urge you to please vote no on these applications. As a long time Burlingame
resident, it is my expectation that our elected representafives' primary concern is to do whatever it takes to
keep their community safe. Burlingame should continue to fight any FCC orders and remain a part of the
coalition with p/aces like Los Altos, Palo Alto, Mill Valley and parts of San Francisco.
Annette Doherty, Burlingame resident: Not going to be immediate/y affected by one of the locations,
however have done a lot of research on this issue. Am not an engineer, but am in the hea/th field. Would
say that as the /ast person who spoke said, much of fhe funding on scientific studies has been done by
telecommunications companies showing that there is no provable data. Other scientist from around the
world found that there is scientific data that RF communication waves are harmful to our health. We know
that you can smoke a cigarette and you re not going to get cancer, but your risk if you smoke 12 packs in
a year gets higher. Each time you do something, each time you're around something, it gets worse. Mill
Valley has not moved forward with micro cell antennas as the other areas such as Pa/o Alto, parts of San
Francisco, Encinitas, Carmel, and Carmel, Indiana. There are 23 other states suing their legis/atures to
find better scientific data to protect themselves. Also think blight is a huge issue. We're talking about
three sma/1 cell sites now. Have read they're looking to put 1,000 because they're not super effective at
this point. Think a thousand poles handling more boxes is going to be a huge blight for our city. We pride
ourselves on trees and beauty. We spent hours on our design review project and it was challenging to get
something passed through because Burlingame cares how something looks and for us to say it's okay,
City of eudingame Page 4 Printed on 4/23/2020
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes December 9, 2019
iYs not. lYs going to be ugly and they're going to keep coming and setting the precedent. The last time
the FCC did studies was in 1996 and they tested from the base of the pole. Gentleman who spoke earlier
said iYs minimal at the base of the pole, there is much /ess radiation at the base of the po/e and thaYs
where the FCC has been testing. Concerned more about second stories, most people have their
bedrooms on the second story, so if you have a cell tower 50 feet, you're going to be s/eeping and getting
RF wave emissions. Our phones are downstairs and theyre in airplane mode at night, so I think iYs the
responsibility of the City Council to protect us and would urge you to oppose this and look for a bigger
review and plan for City.
Danielle (last name not provided): Concerned with application at 1505 Bernal Avenue. Live on Vancouver
Avenue and am within the 300 feet of the planned cell access point. Am a nurse by trade and the FCC
does not allow us to consider health concerns, but think Burlingame is being short-sided in allowing these
to go forward. My child walks to Lincoln schoo/ and will walk to school at BIS, don't know if you want your
kids wa/king under that cell tower every day. Speaker said 100 of those would be exceeding the frequency,
my child will walk under that more than 100 times because we care about fhe environment, we walk to
school, we don't drive. Have many friends who have been to this Commission who asked for modifications
to their house, and you've said no. Seems like Burlingame is scared of the lawsuits, but Hillsborough and
Palo Alto, p/aces that are similar to us and have similar values, who care about the environment, those
cities have taken the necessary steps to protect its inhabitants. When / saw this application, considered
moving to Hillsborough because they don't have these. You're going to /ose community members and a
thousand of these is horrific. Can't imagine these all over the place, and you know AT&T is going to file a
lawsuit when you take down the pole to put utilities underground, you're going to fight a lawsuit now or later.
Am a nurse practitioner and care about this because 1 work with adults and kids wifh cancer. We don't
have all the data and we should consider this. At the very /east they should not impact the beauty of our
City. Concerned abouf how it may affect the wildlife. There was the recent New York Times article about
the /oss of a billion birds. How is this going to affect them?
Danielle Reynolds, 1400 block Bernal Avenue: Concerned with application at 1505 Bernal Avenue. We
walk to school every day. Use AT&T as carrier and have never had an issue with dropping cell coverage .
How do they get their information pertaining to this location? Why did they choose this location on Bernal
Avenue? Can you convey that to us who live in the area? Seems like that wasn't discussed. Would like
to know why this this location was chosen when none of my neighbors have complained about AT&T or
Verizon or any of the carriers for that matter. Specifically to that site, in looking at different options, this
one was chosen because it said it was between iwo houses and not specifically in front of one of the other
houses like the others. Seems like it was affecting two houses instead of one. In terms of blight iYs very
ugly. Concerned with impacfs on health with so many kids walking to school in the area.
Chair Comaroto closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
> They don't seem to be very intrusive.
> Appreciate the input from the consultant.
> For the installation thaYs being proposed that has been designed for these locations, not considering
other alternafives, they're simple and they're as streamed line as possib/e.
> Considering the issues of time place and manner for these particular applications, have a hard time
rejecting them for what they are.
> Need a master plan to see how many of these things are going to be because there are several
carriers. Was surprised by the fact that these small cell sites cover about three to six hundred feet. How
many are we going to have and how many po/es do we have to consider? Don't know exactly how to
commission a master plan. Who does that and how? How do we tell all the various carriers you have to
get together and provide a master plan for our City and anticipate everything?
> Maybe there is some other module or something smaller, something better.
City of Burlingame Page 5 Printed on 4/23/2020
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes December 9, 2019
City Attorney Kane: Carriers assert rights to utility poles that are different than other forms of master
planning that we may do. So they assert state law rights to the utility poles that are independent of the City
saying, for examp/e, we would rather have smart po/es that are both a light po/e and an antenna and have
wifi. So City staff is engaged in trying fo work with our neighboring jurisdictions and on our own Public
Works basis in determining City infrastructure preferences that will be brought to City Council. There's the
question of having streamlined design p�eferences for the things that go on utility poles, saying this model
is the kind that would be acceptable and this model wouldn't. Some cities prefer to have the antennas
lowered down, buf sticking out from the po/es as opposed to be vertically aligned. Those are the kinds of
questions the City can express quesfions for and the carriers are generally responsive to, provided that it
works for the engineering. The City can't impose any standards that have the effective of preventing the
build out of cellular structure. What we're looking at is channeling the requests rather than out right
preventing them. The City is engaged and has been for a number of years in litigation at the federal level
to challenge the FCC's preemption of state and local action on this. We're part of a national coalition thaYs
doing that right now, it's in the court of appeals being litigated. We also have a 5-year history of litigation
here in this City challenging and winning the rights to regulate some of the aesthetics we're talking about
tonight. So iYs not a question that the City isn't protective, the prob/em is where is the fight, the fight right
now is at the federal level on the question of how much preemption is appropriate. l'm sure the applicant is
not happy to hear about our role in the federal litigation, but that is Council's direction and thaf is where
the City and others are pressing their efforts. Some other cities have taken other approaches in the
immediate near term, some of those yie/ded litigation for them. We do try where possible to coordinate,
especially in the border areas, to make sure we don't have unnecessary replication or unnecessary
inconsistency with infrastructure across the border so we don't end up with redundancy or mismatching
with our contiguous agencies. Ultimately, this is a policy call because the way the politics breakdown .
This is a policy call for each City Council on how they want to approach these issues. What we're trying to
work towards here is making sure that we exercise the maximum local control we have today on the
question of the aesthetic appropriateness that we're allowed to talk about and that we push the issue af
the federal level to make sure there's as much local input as possib/e on these issues. The important
thing here is that iYs good feedback for staff and the Council about both the public and the Commission
wanting to get our arms around where this buildout is coming and thaYs something we are working
towards. But in the meantime, we do have the applications before us that are subject to timelines for our
review, and so we have to take an action on the ones that we have now.
> There is a letter in our packet from an attorney providing guidance to the City Council. IYs very clear
we can't consider RF emissions. However, what is very clear in here is that we have significant flexibility
with respect to aesthetics and there's a particular statement in here 1 found really interesting. The letter
suggest to the City Council that we can require the provider during the application process to demonstrate
that a gap exists, and I haven't seen that evidence. We can ask that the solution to fill that significant
gap in service is made by the least intrusive means possible, and I don't see that happening. 1'm hearing
that there are other solutions thaf are less intrusive, but I haven't seen those. Is the solution put in front of
us less intrusive than the last version? Maybe, but it's still a big, dumb box. The question has to be
asked, is there a better solution? If there is, show me what the options are. IYs not unreasonab/e of us to
ask.
> Am concerned that I don't know there will be thousands of them, but iYs not unreasonable to expect
theyre going to come, and we can't prevent them from happening.
> Would like to see a better solution than fhis. lYs in our own best interest and the best interest of the
community to press as hard on every one of them that comes in front of us, not to prevent them, but to
ask if there is a better solution.
> We're not going to get a master plan, so we need to require the providers to show us the absolute
best, prove it to us and show us the best solution. Don't show us one thing, show us why this is the best
solution. If other communities are getting better solutions, why not us?
> Our purview here is design review. Have this inevitable feeling we're getting crushed down from these
horrib/e looking steel boxes. See the need to maintain what this City is known for and its dedication to
aesthetically p/easing designs.
> We should go back to the drawing board to look at options that will provide a uniform approach for the
City of Burlinqame Page B Printed on 4/23/2020
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes December 9, 2019
entire City, not every neighborhood in our City has tall, 30-foot telephone poles.
> There are other options. Know that in San Francisco, there were some specific examp/es where they
were mounted to street signs, and they're much smaller and much more compact. Would be interested to
know if this equipment can be mounted underground. Don't think the entire package needs to be on the
pole, but maybe if that can be explored by the applicant. There have to be some other options.
> We don't have to necessarily accept what is being put before us, think we can ask for other options of
how these can de mounted. We're not saying don't do it, we're saying /eYs see if we can find a better,
more aesthetical/y pleasing way to do it and a more efficient way fo do it in Burlingame.
> Probably a bit much to ask for a uniformed approach, but it seems that we can require a thorough
study. Should be doing our due diligence. Show me that you need it and show me different options. We
should take this very seriously if we're going to see thousands, don't know if that number is right.
> Can we put a cap on the number of cell sites? (Kane: No, we can't do anything that effects the
provision of the cell coverage per the FCC. We can try to channel, as we have ta/ked about in certain
locations or certain kinds of aesthetic packages. We can express a preference for certain kinds of, for
examp/e, like some cities do with smart poles. However, some cities find smart po/es unattractive
because they're bigger than the slim line pole. We are constrained in what we can do, and that's why the
City is invo/ved in moving the needle on that law to allow more local control, but for now, we cannot put a
limit, and nor can our aesthetic regulation have the effective of preventing build out. We can't have
aesthetic standards fhat no one can feasibly meet and still provide the coverage.
Commissioner Kelly made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to deny the application.
Comment on the motion:
> Would there be consideration to continue the application so we can get different or better
information? If we're interested in seeing what other options are available, would like to know if
iYs possible for CTC to assist the City in understanding what other types of installations are
possible. They're familiar with other locations and other types of installations. Find it hard to
say to AT&T or to other carriers, show us the other installations that are possible because I don't
know what the right technology is. They also may not be interested in looking at other options
because they may not be cost effective or not viable for these particular poles that they've
identified. Would be interested in knowing in an objective fashion, what other options are
possible.
City Attorney Kane: CTC and staff have explored what alternative are available. It has to be
engineering first, so you look at what would achieve the objectives and then you look at which
kinds of installations can do that. Don't think it has been analyzed for this, how many different
alternative configurations are possible on these particular installations, but it is something we
can explore with our consultant and the applicant. Denying something on aesthetic grounds
without having explored alternatives that address the aesthetic concerns is not something that
makes a lot of sense from a record perspective.
> Would like to retract my previous motion and motion to continue the application with the
direction to see alternative designs from the applicant. The motion was seconded by
Commissioner Loftis.
Comment on the motion:
> Would like input from the independent consultant on alternative designs. (Kane: One thing to
remember, like an applicanYs design review for a house, we can't ask an applicant to build a
tutor if they want a bungalow. AT&T may decide that they don't want to submit something that
the Commission likes and that is within their purview to amend or not amend their application.
We can at least have the time to explore the question about whether alternatives are possible.)
> My concern is that I don't know what the other options are.
> Would argue that we don't need the independent consultant, we need the applicant to show
City of Burlingame Page 7 Printed on 4/23/2020
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes December 9, 2019
us the other options. (Kane: Not all options are engineering feasible for the location.)
> Would like the applicant to provide a layman's presentation in understanding what the issues
with coverage and gaps, may help us in understanding the needs in the given locations.
> Two of the three applications are on EI Camino Real, which runs north and south through
many cities along the peninsula. Would be good to see what other applications have been
used. (Kane: Understanding that most of EI Camino Real doesn't have the tree cover that
Burlingame has, so that may change the nature of the feasibility analysis.)
The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye: 6- Kelly, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, and Loftis
Absent: 1 - Sargent
City of Burlingame Page 8 Printed on 4/23/2020
8. CONSEN ALENDAR
Mayor Cols asked the Councilinein rs and the public if they
Consent endar.
Cou ilmember Keighran mad a inotion to approve the nser
O iz. The motion passed ui nimously by voice vote, .
a. ADOPTION O CITY CO�
City Clerk Hassel- earer requested
b. ADOP ION OF A RESOL
WI WEIMAN SYNDIC.
B WEEN 1490 BURL
to remove any item from the
Calendar;
the City Council
AND X4
FOR
UTHORIZING THE TY MANAGER TO E ECU'1'� '.
D Murtuza requested C ncil adopt Resolution N ber 010-2019.
c. ADOPTION O A RESOLUTION AP OVING A MEMI
UNDERST DING WITH THE T MSTERS LOCAL 8
MANAG TO EXECUTE THE EMORANDUM OF U
nF THF CiTY. AND APPROV G THE CITY OF BURI�
Councilmember
Minutes for January 7,�419.
VENUE
HR Dire or Morrison requested C uncil adopt Resolution Nu ber 011-2019.
ADOPTION OF AN RDINANCE DELETIN SECTION 9.08.0�
F
�
HE
• MUNICIPAL CO REGARDING BEES
City Attorney Kane re ested Council adopt Ordi nce Number 1958.
9. PUBLIC HEARINGS
a. CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATIO OF AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S
JUNE 11 2018 ACTION DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE AN APPLICATION FOR A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO INSTALL A NEW WIRELESS FACILITY (ANTENNA
AND EQUIPMENT) ON AN EXISTING WOOD UTILITY POLE LOCATED WITHIN THE
RIGHT-OF-WAY ADJACENT TO 1800 HILLSIDE DRIVE (CONTINUED FROM
SEPTEMBER 4, 2018 CITY COUNCIL MEETING)
CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION'S JUNE 11 2018 ACTION DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE AN
5
Burlingame City Council January 22, 2019
Approved Minutes
APPLICATION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO INSTALL A NEW WIRELESS
FACILITY (ANTENNA AND EQUIPMENT) ON AN EXISTING WOOD UTILITY POLE
LOCATED WITHIN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY ADJACENT TO 701 WINCHESTER DRIVE
(EXISTING UTILITY POLE IS LOCATED ALONG OAK GROVE AVENUE) AND
CONSIDERATION OF AN ALTERNATIVE SITE LOCATED WITHIN THE RIGHT-OF-
WAY ACROSS THE STREET FROM 704 WINCHESTER DRIVE (EXISTING UTILITY
POLE IS LOCATED ALONG OAK GROVE AVENUE) (CONTINUED FROM SEPTEMBER
4, 2018 CITY COUNCIL MEETING)
City Attorney Kane introduced two experts that have assisted staff on this matter. The frst was Gail Karish,
who is a nationally recognized attorney in this field and represents a number of agencies. She noted that Ms.
Karish is also co-counsel on the national litigation involving FCC's recent order. The second was Lee
Afflerbach from CTC, who has 50 years of experience working with local government entities on analyzing
infrastructure buildout for telephone and wireless.
Planning Manager Ruben Hurin stated that the public hearing is for two locations
1. Utility pole located within the right-of-way near the corner of Hillside Drive and Cabrillo Avenue,
adjacent to 1800 Hillside Drive.
2. Utility pole located within the right-of-way at the corner of Winchester Drive and Oak Grove
Avenue, adjacent to 701 Winchester Drive.
Mr. Hurin stated that at the September 4, 201 S City Council meeting, the Council voted to continue the
hearing for three months. During that three-month period, AT&T would work with staff to address the
community and the Council's concerns. He noted that since the September 4 meeting, AT&T has made
some changes to their application including:
• The size of the radio remote units was reduced from 11 feet to 9 feet 4 inches;
• AT&T added shields in order to conceal the equipment; and
• AT&T investigated alternative sites including utilizing 704 Winchester Drive instead of the proposed
701 Winchester Drive.
He noted that the alternative site, 704 Winchester, would require replacing an existing utility pole, owned by
AT&T, with a new utility pole. Additionally, PG&E would need to install an above-ground meter. The
above-ground meter would be stored in a cabinet measuring 4 feet 6 inches in height.
Vice Mayor Beach asked staff to discuss why PG&E would need a separate meter for the alternative site at
704 Winchester. DPW Murtuza stated that the AT&T pole doesn't have any electric utility on it. Therefore,
in order to provide power, PG&E would have to run a line from their closest facility to the pole.
Mayor Colson introduced CTC Principal Engineer Lee Afflerbach. She explained that Mr. Afflerbach was
hired because at the September 4, 201 S meeting, Councilmember Keighran asked for an independent
consultant to review the applications.
Mr. Afflerbach began by reviewing the history of cell towers. He stated that early on, telecom companies
utilized towers that, if tall enough, could shoot out a three to four mile long signal. He explained that while
6
Burlingame City Council January 22, 2019
Approved Minutes
this technology covered phone calls, once cell phones were utilized for video and data, the tower's capacity
couldn't keep up. As a result, the macro towers began utilizing additional bands that could expand coverage.
However, these bands don't have the same coverage as macro towers. He explained that this resulted in the
development of small cell facilities. Small cell facilities are put in neighborhoods and cover service areas of
500-1000 feet.
Mr. Afflerbach stated that there is nothing unusual about the system that AT&T has chosen for Burlingame.
He noted that AT&T has made the equipment and antenna smaller than what is allowed under FCC
regulations.
Mr. Afflerbach discussed RF (radio frequency) exposure. He stated that the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969 required the federal government to evaluate and set standards. The FCC was assigned the
responsibility to set the standards for human exposure to RF energy emitted by FCC-regulated equipment.
He noted that the standards were developed with input from expert agencies such as the National Council on
Radiation Protection and Measurement, Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, American National
Standards Institute, Environmental Protection Agency, and Food and Drug Administration.
Mr. Afflerbach stated that practically every device in one's home emits RF energy such as microwaves, Wi-
Fi, cell phones, etc. He stated that he reviews applications to ensure that the cell towers are compliant with
the FCC's RF emission standards. He explained that the standard considers the cumulative effect of RF
emissions in the area. Therefore, nearby towers and other small cell facilities would be taken into
consideration when ensuring an application is compliant. He stated that after review, CTC found AT&T's
applications coinpliant.
Mr. Afflerbach reviewed CTC's findings on the AT&T applications. He explained that the proposed
technical equipment is suitable to meet the purposes set forth by the applications. CTC's onsite testing of
AT&T's current network performance in the vicinity of the two sites found that most of AT&T's network
delivers wireless throughout the area examined, but data transfer rates vary greatly. In most cases, CTC's
measurements recorded wireless signal levels of sufficient ainplitude to support in-vehicle 4G high-speed
transfer of data, but user demand exhibited significant impact on network throughput. He noted that the RF
emissions impact studies submitted by the applicant (prepared by the independent contract engineering
consultant firm of Hammett & Edison) and the independent analysis of CTC confirm that at each site, the
total calculated RF emissions would not exceed the FCC's emission guidelines at ground level or at adjacent
elevated locations in inulti-story locations.
Councilmember Keighran asked how the RF emissions from the small cell facilities compare to other
devices. Mr. Afflerbach stated that it depends where you are. He noted that a typical cell phone has a
radiating power in the range of 100 milliwatts. He stated that the RF emissions from Wi-Fi devices can be
up to one watt in power. He noted that there is quite a bit of exposure around one's home.
Vice Mayor Beach asked if the cumulative effect will need to be measured for each small cell application.
Mr. Afflerbach replied in the affirmative.
Burlingame City Council January 22, 2019
Approved Minutes
Councilmember Keighran asked in Mr. Afflerbach's experience, do cities develop master plans so that they
can see where everything is. Mr. Afflerbach stated that most communities have databases.
Councilmember Brownrigg asked why telecom companies wanted to move from macro towers to micro
sites. He added that the City has an ordinance that states that they would inuch prefer telecom companies to
build macro sites. Mr. Afflerbach stated because there is not enough capacity on the macro tower for the
number of users.
Councilmember Brownrigg stated that one of the questions they all received was whether there is really a
gap in service. He stated that CTC went out and determined that there is a gap in service. He asked if he
was correct that when a cell phone has a poor signal, the way it tries to connect is to pump more power
through the phone. Mr. Afflerbach replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Brownrigg stated that this is a highly dangerous siriiation for the user. He added that if one
of the outcomes of allowing small cell facilities is that it reduces the amount of power that is needed for a
cellphone to connect, this would be good for the community.
Councilmember Keighran asked what the legal parameters are that the City has for deciding on the AT&T
applications. Ms. Karish explained that generally, you start with the assumption that local governments
control development within their jurisdictions. However, in the telecommunications industry there are
several layers of federal and state laws that limit the City's authority. She noted that small wireless facilities
are usually seeking to place their equipment in the public right-of-way, and under State law they have a
franchise right to use the right-of-way. The franchise right is limited by local government's ability to
consider if the installation incommodes the public's use of the public right-of-way. She explained that this
has been interpreted to include safety, the primary use of the right-of-way, and aesthetics.
Ms. Karish discussed the federal parameters concerning the City's decision. She stated that federal law has
preempted a lot of local authority. She gave the example of RF emissions, which are regulated by FCC
standards. She stated that the local government can only ask an applicant to demonstrate that their facility
will meet the FCC standards. She added that federal law has also taken away the ability of local or state
authority to regulate terms of service or entry (service conditions or rates). She noted that local government
has authority on placement of facilities, but if the city denies an application, it must be in writing and based
on substantial evidence. Therefore, the city can't have regulations or decisions that would result in an
effective prohibition of service.
City Attorney Kane added that what is before the Council tonight is the limited question of the two appeals
for the two sites. She noted that there are broader policy questions that the community cares about including
establishing citywide aesthetic standards. She explained that these will have to be discussed in a separate
public process.
Councilmember Ortiz asked the City Attorney to comment on where the City is with the shot clock. City
Attorney Kane stated that the applications have taken a considerable amount of time. However, the City and
AT&T have entered into a tolling agreement through tonight's hearing. This means that AT&T is not raising
the issue of the City acting too slow.
Burlingame City Council January 22, 2019
Approved Minutes
Mayor Colson asked in general what the shot clock is. City Attorney Kane replied that it depends on the
nature of the installation. She added that the trend over time is that the shot clocks are getting shorter and
that local processes have to become increasingly streainlined.
Vice Mayor Beach stated that in the months ahead, the City will need to have public policy discussions on
small cell sites and what they should look like in Burlingame. She asked about the potential preference for
smart poles in the future, where everything is hidden inside. Additionally, she asked if the Council could
require AT&T to utilize smart poles for the two applications in front of the Council. City Attorney Kane
stated that because the application dealt with utility poles, the City Council needed to rule on the applicant's
ability to utilize the utility poles. Ms. Karish added that the smart poles are used to replace street lights and
not utility poles.
Councilmember Keighran asked if the City would have to enter into contracts with the carriers if the City
chose to use smart poles in the future. DPW Murtuza replied in the affirmative. He discussed the expense
and logistics of switching from utility poles to smart poles.
Councilmeinber Keighran stated that San Jose is currently undertaking a pilot program with smart poles and
asked staff to keep tabs on the program.
Mayor Colson opened the public hearing.
AT&T Vice President of External Affairs Tedi Vriheas stated that the two small cell sites are needed to help
AT&T improve wireless service and signal quality in Burlingame. She noted that the cells are needed to
address signiiicant problems caused by constrained macro facilities.
Ms. Vriheas reviewed the timeline of the two applications. She stated that AT&T has worked extensively
with the City in order to address the community's concerns. She noted that AT&T submitted several
applications to the City for small cell sites in September 2018.
Ms. Vriheas stated that during the September 4, 2018 Council meeting, the Council and community asked
questions about alternative sites and the design of the small cells. After that meeting, AT&T worked to find
alternative sites and designs. She stated tl�at AT&T received the okay from the national ofiice to deviate
from set standards of what the small cell should look like. She explained that these standards are in place so
that during an emergency, staff froin other states will understand the equipment and be able to maintain it.
Ms. Vriheas reviewed AT&T's proposed design for the small cells. She noted that AT&T created two
designs where either the small cells are kept in one box or in three boxes. In both options, the boxes are
covered to make it a sleeker design. She reviewed pictures of what the small cell would look like at 1800
Hillside Drive. She explained that the Planning Commission asked if AT&T could work with Our Lady of
Angels as an alternative site. However, she explained that this site couldn't be used because AT&T would
have to make structural changes to the steeple.
9
Burlingame City Council January 22, 2019
Approved Minutes
Ms. Vriheas reviewed other proposed sites near 1800 Hillside Drive. However, each of the other sites had
issues including: 1) located on private property; 2) didn't meet the CPUC General Order 95 requirements;
and 3) pole was not structurally sound to support the proposed equipinent.
Ms. Vriheas next discussed the 741 Winchester Drive site. She showed pictures that depicted what the
equipment would look like at this site.
Councilmember Brownrigg asked why the equipment has to be so far away from the pole. AT&T
representative Mark Garbish explained that it is a CPUC General Order 95 requirement. He stated that
individuals who climb poles with belts need to be able to put the belt around the pole.
Ms. Vriheas reviewed the alternative sites for 701 Winchester Drive. She stated that AT&T found that they
could put the small cell at 704 Winchester Drive, but they would need to put a separate pedestal across the
street. She explained that the other alternatives for 701 Winchester wouldn't work for various reasons
including: 1) didn't meet the CPUC General Order 95 requirements; 2) licensed to another carrier; and 3)
four poles were rejected by the AT&T Radio Frequency engineer. She noted that AT&T would like to put
the sinall cell in Washington Park, but they hadn't heard from the City whether this was possible.
Mayor Colson stated that Washington Park is about to be renovated for the new Community Center, which
would make it more difficult to develop this as a small site. However, she noted that the City is very
amenable to utilizing their own property in these cases. She gave the example of the City working with
Caltrain for their paralleling station.
Councilmember Ortiz asked if he was correct that the wires from the small cells go straight down the pole
and underground. Ms. Vriheas replied that most do, but some go up and attach to existing wires.
Councilmember Brownrigg asked if the proposed small cells are a114G related. Ms. Vriheas replied in the
affirmative. She added that AT&T is not yet deploying SG on small cells.
Councilmember Brownrigg asked if AT&T cared about the orientation of the equipment on the poles. Mr.
Garbish stated that under General Order 95, the boxes inust allow for a climbing quadrant.
Councilmember Brownrigg thanked AT&T that there are no fans with the small cells. He added that the
higher AT&T can place the equipment on the utility pole, the better.
Councilmember Keighran asked if in the future AT&T would be using the existing equipment for SG. Ms.
Vriheas stated that AT&T is currently finalizing their prototypes for SG. She stated that the prototypes are
not at the top of the pole, that it is all enclosed, and is about 23 inches long and 9 inches wide. She added
that this would be deployed later this year.
Councilmember Keighran asked that as soon as equipment isn't used, that it be taken off the poles. Ms.
Vriheas stated that AT&T removes out-of-service equipment on a regular basis.
10
Burlingame City Council January 22, 2019
Approved Minutes
Vice Mayor Beach asked if there are any additional supporting wires that aren't shown in the renderings.
Ms. Vriheas replied in the negative.
Mayor Colson stated that she appreciated that AT&T took the fans out and went the extra mile on these
installations to make them sleeker. She discussed the importance of establishing a standard for the small
cells in Burlingame. Ms. Vriheas stated that the best solution is to convene a working group of the different
carriers to understand what each needs and then what could be implemented throughout the city.
Mayor Colson thanked Ms. Vriheas and opened public comment.
Burlingame resident Tom Santoro stated that he lives in direct view of the requested small cell at 1800
Hillside Drive and doesn't want the small cell approved.
Burlingame resident Peter Jaunich voiced concern that the weight of the equipment on the poles could lead to
a safety hazard.
Burlingame resident Tatyana Shinygol voiced her concern about the small cells being deployed in
Burlingame. She asked if the City plans to conduct thorough reviews of future sites.
Burlingame resident Alexandra Kromelow voiced her support for the deployment of small cells in
Burlingame because of bad cell service in her neighborhood.
Burlingame resident Catherine Huston asked the Council not to approve the small cells and asked about the
legal ramifications if a drone hits one of the sites. She also asked when the FCC developed the standards that
were referenced in the presentation. Ms. Karish stated that the FCC standards were adopted in 1995.
Burlingame Parks and Recreation Commissioner Ian Milne thanked AT&T for addressing the public's
concerns and voiced his support for approving the small cells.
Burlingame resident Debby Burn asked the Council to vote against the small cells as they aren't aesthetically
pleasing.
Burlingame resident Jan Robertson asked if the City would conduct hearings with the other carriers who
submit applications for small cells.
Burlingame resident Erica Drabik asked how many people in the community have AT&T as a carrier and
voiced concern about RF emissions from small cells.
Mayor Colson reviewed the questions that the public asked with AT&T representative Tedi Vriheas.
Mayor Colson asked Ms. Vriheas to comment on the public question about what the coverage gap is in
Burlingame. Ms. Vriheas stated that the coverage gap is set out in the application and that it has been
confirmed that there is a coverage capacity gap.
11
Burlingame City Council January 22, 2019
Approved Minutes
Councilmember Keighran expanded the public's question and asked if studies are done each time an
application is made with the City to determine the coverage gap. Ms. Vriheas replied in the affirmative and
added that it is a legal standard.
Mayor Colson stated that the next public question was about pole liability and viability. Mr. Grabisch stated
that there are CPUC regulations on how often the poles need to be visited and inspected. He added that the
application forces a re-inspection of the pole to make sure it is safe for their facilities.
Councilmember Brownrigg asked how heavy the antemia is. Mr. Grabish stated that the antenna is roughly
20 pounds.
Ms. Vriheas noted that AT&T's equipment is in the public right-of-way, and if individuals are using drones
that damage the equipment, the individuals are liable for that damage.
Mayor Colson stated that the next public question concerned whether cell service is critical to the City's
infrastructure including hospitals and emergency services. Ms. Vriheas replied in the affirmative. She noted
that between 70-80% of all einergency calls are made on cell phones. She explained that under FCC
spectrum regulations, AT&T has an obligation to ensure they provide coverage within their footprint.
Mayor Colson stated that another question concerned the alternative Washington Park location that is quite a
bit away from 701 Winchester Drive. Ms. Vriheas stated that in September 2018, AT&T discussed how they
find their coverage gap. She noted that AT&T's radio access network engineers issue a ring that shows
where the small cell needs to be located. She noted that the park was within the vicinity of the macro.
Mayor Colson asked how many AT&T customers they have in Burlingatne. Ms. Vriheas stated that this was
proprietary information.
Councilmember Keighran asked about the distance of the macro to the Winchester site. Ms. Vriheas stated it
is about a mile.
Mayor Colson closed the public hearing.
Mayor Colson thanked the community for coming out and participating in the discussion.
Councilmember Keighran asked if the City can utilize CTC to review future applications. City Attorney
Kane replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Brownrigg asked if the City approves these applications for 4G deployments, would a SG
upgrade need to come back to the City Council for approval. Ms. Karish explained that a 2012 federal law
states that if there is an existing wireless facility, some changes to the facility have to be approved by the
local government. She stated that the concept of the law was that because the local government had already
approved the wireless facility, if the changes were relatively insignificant, they would also be approved.
12
Burlingame City Council January 22, 2019
Approved Minutes
Councilmember Keighran asked about weight constraints if the equipment is changed out for SG. Ms.
Karish stated that any changes to the utility pole have to go through an approval process with the pole owner.
Mayor Colson asked the Council to discuss the appeal of 1800 Hillside Drive.
Councilmember Brownrigg stated that the two applications before the Council are just the beginning and that
several applications have been submitted to the City for wireless facilities. He discussed that after reading
the rules and talking to the attorneys, the City's hands are practically tied when it comes to allowing telecom
coinpanies into the community. He stated that he doesn't want to have 500 or 1000 poles with antennas but
he doesn't believe he can stop it. He added that he doesn't want to have the City take on a challenge,
spending taxpayers' money, if the City doesn't believe it can win the case. He noted that six years ago the
City did go to court on a telecom matter and won. He added the City joined the national lawsuit to challenge
the FCC's practice of taking away local control.
Councilmember Brownrigg explained that both of the applications have to be approved. He stated that he
didn't believe the Council's decision had to be a precedent for the design of future wireless facilities. He
noted that he appreciated that AT&T got rid of the fan and voiced support for the single sleek box. He added
that he thought the smart poles might be the way to go, but that this would require a working group. He
asked in the future that the carriers bring in physical mock ups of the wireless facilities.
Vice Mayor Beach stated that she hoped the community heard loud and clear that the Council hears their
concerns. She noted that emissions, clutter, and proliferation are all concerns and that the Council
understands. She stated that the Council and community will have to discuss potentially creating a master
plan that establishes the design and placement of small cells in the city. She stated that AT&T's current
design is a better version than the original. She stressed the importance of a constant review of the
cumulative effect of the cells.
Vice Mayor Beach stated that she would prefer the single sleek box.
Councilmember Keighran stated that her comments were similar to Councilmember Brownrigg and Vice
Mayor Beach. She discussed the fact that the Council's hands are tied but appreciated the discourse that has
occurred on this matter. She stated that she was interested in using smart poles and was looking forward to
the San Jose pilot project. She discussed creating a working group to help plan out the design and location of
wireless facilities. She agreed with Councilmember Brownrigg that the carriers should bring physical mock
ups to the Council and Planning Commission meetings. She stated that under the circumstances, she would
vote for going forward and voiced support for the one box design versus 3 boxes.
Councilmember Ortiz stated that he liked the three boxes over one.
Mayor Colson stated that she liked the idea of a working group. She thought it should be comprised of
Council, Planning Commission, and Beautification Commission members. Additionally, she suggested that
the City allow the homeowner to select if they would rather have the three box design or the one box design.
13
Burlingame City Council January 22, 2019
Approved Minutes
City Attorney Kane suggested that the Council make a motion, and then at the next meeting, staff will bring
back a resolution that lists the conditions of approval.
Councilmember Brownrigg made a motion to approve AT&T's application for a small cell facility at 1800
Hillside Drive, thereby overruling the Planning Coinmission's decision. He noted that the Council is
approving the application, in part, because AT&T has made upgrades to their design so that the small cell
facility is sleeker, smaller, the color of the pole, and doesn't have fans. The motion was seconded by
Councilmember Ortiz. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
Mayor Colson directed the Council's attention to 701 Winchester Drive or the alternative site at 704
Winchester Drive.
Councilmember Ortiz stated that the alternative site with the separate pedestal was a nonstarter for him.
Therefore, he recommended the 701 Winchester Drive site.
Vice Mayor Beach agreed with Councilmember Ortiz and stated that she didn't want to see unnecessary
additional clutter in the public's right-of-way.
Councilmember Keighran agreed with her colleagues.
Councilmember Brownrigg stated that he agreed that
he didn't want the separate box. However, the 704 Winchester site was on the non-residential side of the
street. He explained that he believed the community would be happier not having the antenna on the
residential side of the street.
Mayor Colson asked if her colleagues had any additional thoughts given Councilmember Brownrigg's
commentary.
Councilmember Ortiz stated that one thing he liked about the original site at 701 Winchester Drive is that
there are more trees, so it is hidden.
Mayor Colson stated that she concurred with Councilmember Ortiz.
Vice Mayor Beach made a motion to grant the appeal and overrule the Planning Commission's denial. She
stated that she approved the application with the changes suggested and that the small cell would be placed at
701 Winchester Drive. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Keighran. The motion passed
unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
b.
14
Burlingame City Council January 22, 2019
Approved Minutes
12.09.19 Meeting
Item 8f
Cell Wireless Facility
1505 Bernal Ave, 1480 Broadway, 977 EI Camino Real
Page 1 of 2
COMMUNICATION RECEIVED
AFTER PREPARATION
OF STAFF REPORT
RECEIVED
DEC 09 2019
CITY OF BURLINGAME
CDD — PLANNING DIV.
From: marshaleemilCa��mail.com [mailto:marshaleemil �mail.com]
Sent: Sunday, December 8, 2019 11:15 AM
To: CD/PLG-Ruben Hurin <RHurin@burlin�ame.or�>
Cc: Me Lee <marshaleemil@�mail.com>
Subject: Fwd: Planning Commission Hearing, December 9, 2019 -ATT Cell Sites at 1505 Bernal, 1480
Broadway, and 977 EI Camino
Subject: Planning Commission Hearing, December 9, 2019 -ATT Cell Sites at 1505 Bernal,
1480 Broadway, and 977 EI Camino
Dear Rubin, Please forward this email to the Planning Commission members and City Council.
Dear Planning Commissioners and Mayor and City Council,
We are unable to attend the hearing and offer the following comments: ,
1 a) Please do not piecemeal approvals and prepare a masterplan of the network that includes all
elements needed for operation. This will better maintain and enhance the aesthetic quality and
character of Burlingame.
1 b) If ATT has to link all the sites by aerial cable and then to control center, please provide how
and where the cables and base station will be located over the entire network. Allowing the
piecemealing of these sites for approval will not benefit our community. Cables, base station,
and additional guy wires needed to stabilize the poles added weigh are not shown or
even mentioned. A master plan, easement siting analysis, and underground equipment analysis as
required by the ordinance should be provided.
2) The Conditions of Approval do not address how the cell facilities will be dealt with when
utilities are eventually placed underground. Looking at the simulations in these staff reports
highlights the extensive clutter of cables, wires, poles, guy wires, equipment throughout the
city. Please include a Condition of Approval for the cell sites that they must find new location
solutions when the utilities are placed underground and poles are removed.
3) Having Staff Report for Review on Friday with PC Hearing on Monday doesn't give residents
any time to fully understand what is being proposed. Please consider more time between
availability of staff reports and hearings.
Continued on page 2
12.09.19 Meeting
Item 8f
Cell Wireless Facility
1505 Bernal Ave, 1480 Broadway, 977 EI Camino Real
Page 2 of 2
4) The "sample close up visual simulation" for Bernal is really not showing how the equipment
boxes will be viewed. This is a front on view of the panel. Since the equipment boxes are hung
toward the sidewalk and actually hanging over into the sidewalk for 18" at 7 feet, this will be a
definite visual impact to the pedestrian experience. And don't we want Burlingame to be a
wonderful pedestrian/walking community. (see plan A-2) That is why we have continually
asked for a mockup of the proposed facility in real life to show the visual impacts.
5) Regarding the 1480 Broadway proposal: There are several cities that have incorporated small
cell facilities into stop light structures. This reduces additional clutter. If the stop light structure
is not high enough or strong enough to support the facility, the cellular provider could replace
it with an adequate structure per Burlingame city requirements. What have other cities done, like
Davis, Palo Alto, etc.? Furthermore, locating sites on commercial buildings is more desirable.
Perhaps offering increased leasing costs may make it more attractive to the property owners.
6) Please adhere to the wireless ordinance to make your decisions. We request preparation of a
master plan of the entire network instead of piecemealing approvals.
Best wishes,
Mazsha Lee
Brian Lee �
From: marshaleemjl@gmail.com
Sent: Saturday, Apri14, 2020 9:31 AM
To: CD/PLG-Ruben Hurin
Subject: Re: Small Cell Wireless Facility Applications - April 13, 2020 Planning
Commission Meeting via Zoom
Hi Ruben-
Only one word this time.
"Smartpoles" !
Please, that would be best.
Please distribute.
Thanks and sending healthy wishes to your and your family.
All of your work on this issue is, and has been, greatly appreciated.
Sent from my iPhone
file:///C/Users/rhurin/Desktop/Marsha%20Lee%20Email%201.�t[4/14/2020 10:22:05 AM]
From: marshaleemjl@gmail.com
Sent: Monday, April 6, 2020 12:57 PM
To: CD/PLG-Ruben Hurin
Cc: doug.luftman@gmail.com; Steve@lamont.email
Subject: Re: Small Cell Wireless Facility Applications - April 13, 2020 Planning
Commission Meeting via Zoom
Dear Ruben,
Something just came to mind to pass on to City Council, Planning Commission and city attorney.
RE: Hearing Apri16,2020 Small Cells Applications
Please consider a Condition of Approval to install a"smart poll" after the coronavirus pandemic, if the
applicant anticipates installing the small cells to assist in the heavy use of computers during the
pandemic. A timeline needs to be included, for example, within a year, so the change out is
implemented.
Thank you for your consideration.
Best wishes,
Marsha Lee
file:///GUsers/rhurin/Desktop/Marsha%20Lee%20Emai12.bct[4/14/2020 1027:44 AM]
CD/PLG-Ruben Hurin
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Hi there,
Belinda Mah <belmayling@yahoo.com>
Tuesday, April 7, 2020 6:54 PM
Public Comment
Brian Mah
AT&T small cell wireless facility - 1505 Bernal
I am the property owner of 1486 Vancouver Ave, Burlingame. I am writing to you about AT&T's request to
install a new small cell wireless facility near 1505 Bernal Ave. 1505 Bernal is right around the corner from my
home. My property is within 300 feet of 1505 Bernal.
I am strongly opposed to this device since there isn't enough reliable data or research that this device will not
cause cancer. I was diagnosed with breast cancer in 2017 at a relatively young age of 39. Thus, the odds are
against me. I do not want to increase those odds with this small cell wireless facility. I want to increase my
chance of being cancer free for many, many years so that I can see my children become adults. I do not want
this device near my property where I have to worry everyday of what it could possibly do to my health. I do not
want to take the risk.
Having to live with the trauma of being diagnosed and treated is one thing, but to live knowing there is
something literally around the corner from my house that could possibly increase my chances of a recurrence or
a new cancer is another.
Please do not install this device at 1505 Bernal or anywhere near my property. This device should be installed
in a commercial location and not a residential location. At least with commercial locations, people come and
go.
There has to be another way and the solution shouldn't be one where health is compromised.
Thanks,
Belinda Mah
CD/PLG-Ruben Hurin
From: Greg Sheehan <gregjsheehan@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2020 9:46 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: 5G tower
Just wanted to chime in to say we aren't all conspiracy theorists who don't understand what non-ionizing radiation is. Carry on
with your 100% safe tower.
CD/PLG-Ruben Hurin
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
i�!
Monica Ehlers <cuculamehlers@yahoo.com>
Wednesday, April 22, 2020 9:57 PM
Public Comment
Proposed permit to install a cell wireless facility pole at 1505 Bernal Avenue
I live at 1504 Bernal Avenue and am opposed to the installation of a cell wireless facility pole across the street from my
house at 1505 Bernal Avenue.
Thank you,
Monica Ho Ehlers
CD/PLG-Ruben Hurin
From: Yahoo <barryehlers@yahoo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2020 10:04 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Cellphone tower
I live at 1504 Bernal Ave, directly across the street from the proposed cellphone tower and I am opposed to having it
installed.
Barry Ehlers
CD/PLG-Ruben Hurin
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Linda Weil <Iindawei105@gmail.com>
Wednesday, April 22, 2020 11:09 PM
Public Comment
Opposition to 5G Tower on Bernal
Due to public health concerns I am opposed to a SG tower being built on Bernal Drive. Please find another
location away from our families.
Thank you,
Linda Weil
1112 Killarney Lane
CD/PLG-Ruben Hurin
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
To whom it may concern,
Stephanie Stephens-Litke <senoramaldonado@icloud.com>
Thursday, April 23, 2020 8:51 AM
Public Comment
Opposition to the proposed wireless facility pole @ 1505 Bernal
My family and I live just a few blocks away from the proposed wireless facility pole at 1505
Bernal and we are vehemently opposed to its potential installation. We moved here from San
Francisco for the safe quiet neighborhood we found here and fell in love with the Eastern
Addition.
This is a neighborhood comprised of young families and the elderly and we ask you to help
protect us by preventing telecommunications companies to install ugly, noisy,
potentially hazardous and least-expensive-for-them cell tower equipment in
our beautiful, quiet, safe neighborhood.
Thank you for your help and consideration.
The Maldonados
Sent with minimal typos from my iPhone
CD/PLG-Ruben Hurin
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Thomas Hornblower <tjhornblower@gmail.com>
Thursday, April 23, 2020 5:36 AM
Public Comment
1505 Bernal Ave. cell wireless facility pole proposal
We don't need anymore poles in Burlingame, certainly at 1505 Bernal as there is already one there. Million
dollar homes and all we see when we look out out windows are poles and wires and fewer trees. Don't let
AT&T do it.
Regards,
Thomas Hornblower
2100 Easton Dr, Burlingame, CA 94010
Indian Wells
(760) 568-2611
Irvine
(949) 263-2600
Manhattan Beach
(310) 643-8448
Ontario
(909)989-8584
Gail A. Karish
Partner
(213) 617-7491
gail.karish@bbklaw.com
IC�C�
BEST BEST & KRIEGER �
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
300 South Grand Avenue, 25th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: (213) 617-8100 � Fax: (213) 617-7480 � www.bbklaw.com
Memorandum
To:
From:
Meeting Date:
Honorable Mayor and City Council
City of Burlingame, California
Gail A. Karish
September 4, 2018
Riverside
(951)686-1450
Sacramento
(916) 325-4000
San Diego
(619) 525-1300
Walnut Creek
(925)977-3300
Washington, DC
(202) 785-0600
Re: AT&T Wireless Appeals (Adjacent to 701 Winchester Drive and 1800 Hillside
Drive)
This memo provides guidance on select topics concerning the scope of City Council authority
which may be pertinent when considering the above-noted appeals.
1. Consideration of Aesthetics
The City can, within limited discretion, control the time, place, and manner of installation
to ensure that facilities do not "incommode the public use" of the public rights-of-way. Under
California law, telephone companies have state franchise rights to use public rights-of-way
pursuant to Public Utility Code Section 7901 ("Section 7901"). Section 7901 has long been
interpreted as a statutory grant of a franchise to telephone companies to use and place "telephone
lines" in public rights-of-way, and to "erect poles, posts, piers, or abutments for supporting the
insulators, wires, and other necessary fixtures of their lines...". � Public Utility Code Section 233
defines "telephone line" broadly to include "all conduits, ducts, poles, wires, cables, instruments,
and appliances, and all other real estate, fixtures, and personal property owned, controlled,
operated, or managed in connection with or to facilitate communication by telephone, whether
such communication is had with or without the use of transmission wires." (emphasis addec�.
The courts have held that the statutory definition of "telephone line" is sufficiently broad to
include a wide range of technologies including facilities and equipment installed by carriers in
connection with or to facilitate both wireless and landline telecommunications services.2
The right of telephone companies to use public rights-of-way to deploy facilities under
the state franchise is, however, not unfettered. The City's ability to regulate the public right-of-
way is an extension of its police powers under California Constitution, article 11, section 7;
' County of Los Angeles v. General Tel. Co. (1967) 249 Cal.App.2d 903, 904.
2 City of Huntington Beach v. Public Utilities Com. (2013) 214 Ca1.App.4th 566, 587-8 ("City of Huntington
Beach"); GTE Mobilenet of Cal. Ltd. v. City of San Francisco (N.D. Cal. 2006) 440 F.Supp.2d 1097, 1103.
IyC�
BEST BEST & KRIEGER �
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Section 7901 is a"limited grant of rights to telephone corporations, with a reservation of local
police power that is broad enough to allow discretionary aesthetics-based regulation."3
Specifically, Section 7901 provides that such use must be "in such manner and at such
points as not to incommode the public use of the road...". The phrase "incommode the public
use" in Section 7901 means "to unreasonably subject the public use to inconvenience or
discomfort; to unreasonably trouble, annoy, molest, embarrass, inconvenience; to unreasonably
hinder, impede, or obstruct the public use."4 "Incommode" is "broad enough `to be inclusive of
concerns related to the appearance of a facility"', and therefore, Section 7901 does not prohibit
local governments from conditioning the approval of a particular permanent siting permit on
aesthetic concerns.s Thus, there is precedent for not only reyuiring discretionary review and
conditioning approvals, but also even denying applications for facilities in particular locations in
the public rights-of-way under Section 7901, for example due to aesthetic concerns regarding
pole heights or underground districts.b Further, a local government has the right under Section
7901.1 "to exercise reasonable control as to the time, place, and manner in which roads...are
accessed [by telephone companies]."� The "time, place and manner" of temporary access refers
to "when, where, and how telecommunications service providers gain entry to the public rights-
of-way."8
In addition to Sections 7901 and 7901.1, Pub. Util. Code Section 2902 also protects a
local government's right "to supervise and regulate the relationship between a public utility and
the general public in matters affecting the health, convenience, and safety of the general public,
including matters such as the use and repair of public streets by any public utility, the location of
the poles, wires, mains, or conduits of any public utility, on, under, or above any public
streets...within the limits of the municipal corporation." This provision is a further basis for a
local government to restrict the location of proposed facilities due to public safety reasons or
other local concerns or even deny applications in appropriate circumstances.
The Burlingame Municipal Code, including in particular Chapter 25.77 and Sections
25.77.080(c) and 25.77.090, which address location preference order and design criteria,
respectively, provide an expression of the City's aesthetic and locational concerns and
preferences for what types of deployments would and would not "incommode the public use."
3 T-Mobile West LLC v. City and County of San Francisco (2016) 3 Cal.App.Sth 334, 346 [review granted (Dec. 16,
2016) 385 P.3d 411] ("T-Mobile West LLC").
4 Id. at 355, quoting Sprint PCSAssets, L.L.C. v. City of Palos Verdes Estates (9th Cir. 2009) 583 F.3d 716, 723. See
also, NextG Nehvorks of Cal., Inc. v. City of Newport Beach (C.D. Cal. Feb. 18, 2011) 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
17013; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Visalia (1906) 149 Cal. 744.
5 T-Mobile West LLC, 3 Ca1.App.Sth at 344.
6 ra.
' See Ciry of Huntington Beach, 214 Cal.App.4th 566 at 569, fn. omitted.
$ T-Mobile West LLC, 3 Ca1.App.Sth at 358, quoting Sprint PCS Assets LLC v. City of Palos Verdes Estates (9th Cir.
2009) 583 F.3d 716, at 725.
-2-
ly:�
BEST BEST & KRIEGER �
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
2. Substantial Evidence
Federal law provides that any decision to deny a request to build personal wireless
facilities "shall be in writing and supported by substantial evidence contained in a written
record" submitted contemporaneously with the denial.9 To determine whether a local
government's decision is supported by substantial evidence within the meaning of the statute, a
reviewing court "must be able to identify the reason or reasons why the locality denied the
application."10 The rationale behind such a denial need not be "elaborate or even
sophisticated"—rather, a local authority must provide a rationale clear enough to "enable
judicial review."� �
In the Ninth Circuit, courts have construed the "substantial evidence" standard as
requiring that the local government's decision be (1) authorized by local law and (2) supported
by a reasonable amount of evidence.12 There is no precise formula for determining when the
"substantial evidence" requirement is met; rather, a reviewing court will affirm when a denial is
supported by "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support
a conclusion".13
Considerations of aesthetics in a denial are permissible when based on substantial
evidence.14 However, a denial based on aesthetics would not be permissible if such denial would
result in an effective prohibition.�s
A decision to deny a wireless facility application cannot be based on concerns about RF
emissions if the applicant has demonstrated that its facilities will comply with FCC standards.lb
Thus, direct or indirect concerns over the health effects of RF emissions may not serve as
9 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iii); see T-Mobile S, LLC v. Ciry of Roswell, Ga. (2015) 135 S. Ct. 808, 815.
10 Id. at 814.
" Id. at 815.
12 See Sprint PCSAssets, L.L.C. v. City of Palos verdes Estates (9th Cir.2009) 583 F.3d 716, 721 ("Palos Verdes
Estates"); MetroPCS v. City and Counry of San Francisco (9th Cir.2005) 400 F.3d 715, 725("MetroPCS").
13 Palos Verdes Estates, 583 F.3d at 726; see MetroPCS, 400 F.3d at 725, quoting Cellular Telephone Company v.
Town of Oyster Bay (2nd Cir. 1999) 166 F.3d 490 (local government must have "less than a preponderance, but
more than a scintilla of evidence.").
14 Sprint PCS Assets LLC v. City of Palos verdes Estates (9th Cir. 2009) 583 F.3d 716, 722-723; NextG Networks of
Cal., Inc. v. Ciry of Newport Beach (C.D. Cal. Feb. 18, 2011) 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17013, * 18 ("In this case, the
City was entitled to determine that degrading the aesthetic of the Pacific Coast I-iighway area decreases the public's
ability to enjoy this area. This decreased enjoyment, in turn, quite obviously risks damage to property values and
has other `materially detrimental' effects to nearby owners, residents and businesses.").
15 See discussion below.
16 47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(B)(iv); Gov. Code §65850.6( fl.
-3-
IC�C�
BEST BEST & KRIEGER �
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
"substantial evidence" to deny an application if the proposed facilities comply with the FCC's
regulations.l�
Public concerns about property values sometimes are found to serve as a proxy for
impermissible concerns about RF emissions.18 Where the public concerns on property values are
relatively generalized and limited, the courts tend to find there is no substantial evidence, or if
they are contradicted by expert evidence, the expert evidence tends to be favored.19
Case law suggests expert evidence about impacts on property values in other
communities is not adequate to respond to local concerns about local property values.20 When
faced with credible expert evidence on both sides, a reviewing court is likely to defer to the local
jurisdiction's decision.21
3. Effective Prohibition Standard
Under 47 U.S.C. Section 332 ("Section 332"), a local government cannot regulate the
"placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities" where such
regulation has the effect of actually or effectively prohibiting service. In the Ninth Circuit, a
regulation, or application denial, prohibits or has the effect of prohibiting the provision of
" AT&T Wireless Services of California LLC v. City of Carlsbad (S.D. CaL 2003) 308 F. Supp. 2d 1148, 1159;
MetroPCS, Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco (9th Cir. 2005) 400 F.3d 715, 736.
�$ AT&T Wireless Services of California LLC v. City of Carlsbad, at 1161; Cellular Telephone Co. v. Town of Oyster
Bay (2d Cir. 1999) 166 F.3d 490, 496-7 ("Cellular Telephone").
19 Cellular Telephone Co., 166 F.3d at 496 ("the volume and specificity of the comments were not adequate to
satisfy the requirement of the substantial evidence standard.... A few generalized concerns about potential decrease
in property values, especially in light of AT&T's contradictory expert testimony, does not seem `adequate to support
a conclusion' that the permits should be denied." (citations omitted)); see also, T-Mobile Northeast LLC v. City
Council of Newport News (4th Cir. 2012) 674 F.3d 380 (Court upholds lower court holding, stating that "although
citizens need not be `armed with a slew of experts,' where `the only cohesive thread' of opposition was found in
`four citizens' passing comments on property values,' such opposition was not substantial evidence.").
20 Michael Linet, Inc. v. �ill. of Wellington (llth Cir. Fla. 2005) 408 F.3d 757, 762 (Court upheld local decision
based on public concerns stating: "Linet's expert testimony contradicting the adverse property value impact
concerns was provided by a telecommunications executive who placed a tower in a different part of the community
and a realtor who based his knowledge on condominium sales in a different county. This does not change our
conclusion. The residents were worried about the impact of this tower on the golf course within their community,
not a different tower, different location, or different community.")
21 Primeco Personal Communs., L.P. v. Village of Fox Lake (N.D. Ill. 1999) 35 F.Supp.2d 643, 649 ("[S]ubstantial
record evidence supports the Village's decision to deny PrimeCo's application. Pointer's testimony supports both of
the Village's major reasons for denying the permit: negative economic impact based on diminished future residential
and resort development and decreased enjoyment by current owners of their property. Pointer, an expert in urban
planning...relied on his 37 years of experience and various photographs, primarily of the balloon test, which
demonstrate the visual impact of the proposed 150-foot tower at the Hellios site. Although PrimeCo's expert,
George Baker, disagreed with Pointer's assessment of the proposed tower's impact, the standard of review does not
permit us to resolve this conflict anew. The Village chose to believe Pointer's assessment, as it was entitled to do.
A reasonable mind could accept Pointer's testimony as sufficient to support the Village's conclusion that the
proposed monopole could stunt development and injure residents' enjoyment of their property. We see no reason to
disturb the Village's choice.").
-4-
IC�C�
BEST BEST & KRIEGER �
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
personal wireless services within the meaning of federal law if it: (1) bans the provision of
personal wireless services outright or (2) has effectively prohibited the provision of such
services.22 Showing the mere potential for prohibition is not suf�cient to overcome local
discretionary review power.23
A denial can be found to improperly "prohibit" personal wireless services if it prevents a
wireless services provider from closing a"significant gap" in its own service coverage using the
least intrusive means.24 There is no bright-line rule regarding when a gap is "significant," and the
determination is based on a fact-specifc analysis.25 To support the contention that a site is
necessary to close a significant gap, the provider must in the application process demonstrate that
the significant gap exists, and that the manner in which it proposes to f 11 the significant gap in
service is the "least intrusive" means.26 To do so the provider must be able to show that it has
made a good faith effort to identify and evaluate less intrusive alternatives, such as consideration
of less sensitive sites, alternative system designs, alternative tower designs, placement of
antennas on existing structures, etc.27 The burden is on the applicant to submit a"comprehensive
application" which shows "a meaningful comparison of alternatives."28 The least intrusive means
standard requires an analysis in relation to the factors in the locality's code, not generalized
observations.29
Once the applicant has done that, the burden shifts to the locality. That is, a municipality
is not compelled to accept the provider's representations as to the least intrusive means, however,
in order to reject them, it must show that there are some potentially available and technologically
feasible alternatives, and the provider must have an opportunity to dispute the availability and
feasibility of the alternatives favored by the locality.3o
zz Sprint Telephony PCS, L.P. v. Cnty. of San Diego (9th Cir. 2008) 543 F.3d 571, 579 ("Sprint IP'); Metro PCS, 400
F.3d at 730-31.
z3 Sprint II, 543 F3d at 579. Examples of regulations that "effectively prohibit the provision of service" include,
e.g., an ordinance requiring that all facilities be underground when, to operate, wireless facilities must be above
ground, or, an ordinance mandating that no wireless facilities be located within one mile of a road, where, because
of the number and location of roads, the rule constituted an effective prohibition. Id. at 580.
z4 Metro PCS, 400 F.3d at 731.
Zs ld.; City ofPalos Verdes Estates, 583 F.3d at 727.
26 Metro PCS, 400 F.3d at 734.
27 T-Mobile USA Inc. v. Ciry ofAnacortes (9th Cir. 2009) 572 F.3d 987, 996, fn. 10.
28 Am. Tower Corp. v. City of San Diego (9th Cir. 2014) 763 F.3d 1035, 1056-7.
z9 Id. ("To prevail on this claim, therefore, ATC must show that its facilities were the "least intrusive means" in light
of the aesthetic values that motivated the City's decision to deny the CUP applications.")
'o T-Mobile USA Inc. v. City ofAnacortes (9th Cir. 2009) 572 F.3d 987, 999.
-5-
Title 25 — Zoning Code — Chapter 25.77 — Wireless Communications Facilities
Code Sections 25.77.080 (c) and 25.77.090
Code Section 25.77.080 (c) — Location Preference Order
(c) Location Preference Order. In determining the location of proposed wireless
communication facilities, applicants should use best efforts to comply with the location
preference order outlined herein. If applicable, the applicant shall include an explanation
of the reason that the proposed facilities cannot be deployed at a higher-preference
location. Wireless communication facilities must be located where feasible in the
following locations by descending priority:
(1) Locations within Non-Residential Zoning Districts, which are more than five
hundred (500) feet from Residential Zoning Districts or the Burlingame
Downtown Districts and which are not within the Burlingame Downtown Districts:
(A) Completely enclosed within existing, permitted buildings.
(B) Located on electric power transmission towers.
(C) Co-located on existing wireless communications facilities.
(D) The roof of existing structures (buildings, water tanks, etc), designed to
blend in with the building, camouflaged or screened from the public right-
of-way which constitutes a pedestrian travel corridor.
(E) The side of existing structures (buildings, water tanks, etc.), designed to
blend in with the building, camouflaged or screened from the public right-
of-way which constitutes a pedestrian travel corridor.
(F) Camouflaged stealth structure (a false tree, building, artifice, etc).
(G) Existing utility poles, with all ancillary equipment placed underground if
feasible, camouflaged or screened.
(H) Existing utility distribution poles and street lights.
(I) Slim line monopole, with antennas in a canister at the same diameter as
the pole.
(J) Standard monopole with attached flush-mounted (not extending more
than twenty-four (24) inches from the pole) antenna elements.
(2) Non-Residential Zoning Districts within five hundred (500) feet of Residential
Zoning Districts or the Burlingame Downtown Districts, and the Burlingame
Downtown Districts.
(A) Integrated into non-residential uses (libraries, churches, temples, etc.)
designed to blend in with open space (playing fields, parking lots, parks,
etc.); hidden from pedestrian view by means of stealth design, stealth
structures, architectural integration or screening.
(B) Co-located on existing wireless communications facilities which are in
compliance with the provision of this chapter.
(C) In public right-of-way, within new light poles with interior stealth
installations of cabling and antenna, and to the extent feasible, control
equipment.
(D) In public right-of-way, on existing utility or light poles, with all ancillary
equipment either underground, if feasible, camouflaged, screened or
painted to blend into the surrounding structure.
(3) Residential Zoning Districts.
(A) Integrated into non-residential uses (libraries, churches, temples, etc.) or
designed to blend in with open space (playing fields, parking lots, parks,
etc.); hidden from view by means of stealth design, stealth structures,
architectural integration or screening.
(B) Co-located in existing wireless communications facilities which are in
compliance with the provisions of this chapter.
(C) In public right-of-way, within new light poles with interior stealth
installations of cabling and antennae, and to the extent feasible, control
equipment.
(D) In public right-of-way, on existing utility or light poles, with all ancillary
equipment either underground, if feasible, camouflaged, screened or
painted to blend into the surrounding structure. (Ord. 1870 § 2, (2012);
Ord. 1869 § 3, (2012))
Code Section 25.77.090 — Design Criteria for Wireless Communications Facilities
The goal of these regulations is to reduce to the greatest extent possible all visual impacts
resulting from the installation of wireless communications facilities. Stealth design and stealth
structures for these facilities shall be considered the normal standard for all wireless
communications facilities. Non-stealth designs and structures shall not be approved without
evidence, independently verified, that it is not possible (using best efforts by applicant) to stealth
such facilities. Applications shall be reviewed to determine compliance with the following criteria.
If the applicanYs proposed facility cannot comply with the following criteria, the application shall
include a detailed explanation of why it is not reasonably feasible to comply with the criteria.
(a) Wireless communication facilities should be co-located where feasible and where the co-
location does not create an adverse aesthetic impact due to such factors as increasing
the bulk, the height or the amount of noise created by the proposed co-located facilities.
(b) Wireless communication facilities should to the greatest extent feasible, not be located in
Residential Zoning Districts.
(c) Wireless communication facilities should be designed, located and constructed in a
manner that minimizes visual and auditory impacts of the facilities. The wireless
communication facilities shall blend into the surrounding environment and/or shall be
architecturally integrated into a structure, considering the color, design and character of
the surrounding context (e.g., public art, clock towers, flagpoles, trees/vegetation, rocks,
water tank, existing office/industrial buildings, and church steeples). Specifically, the
proposed facilities shall comply, to the greatest extent feasible, with the following:
(1) The facilities should be concealed, screened or camouflaged by the surrounding
topography, vegetation, buildings, or other setting.
(2) The facilities should be proportional in size relative to surrounding and supporting
structures and ability for co-location by other providers.
(3) Roof-mounted facilities should be, out of view and screened; these facilities shall
be set back at least one foot from the edge of the roof for every one foot of
antenna height and shall not exceed ten (10) feet in height above the roof
surface.
(4) Wall-mounted facilities should be compatible in scale and design with the
building, shall be flush mounted, i.e., not extending from the face of the building
more than twenty-four (24) inches and shall be painted and/or textured to match
the wall of the building. All cables and brackets, wires, shall also be hidden.
(5) All facilities should be constructed of graffiti-resistant materials.
(6) All concealing, screening, painting, camouflaging and/or use of stealth designs
and stealth structures should be consistent with Section 25.77.010 (Purpose)
including, but not limited to, promoting wholesome, attractive, harmonious and
economic use of property, building construction, civic service, activities and
operations in conformity with and preserving the overall aesthetics of City
neighborhoods including its character and its century old architectural traditions.
(d) � Where applicable, appropriate landscaping should be installed in and around the
proposed wireless communication facilities.
(e) Any exterior lighting on the facilities should have a manual on/off switch and be
contained on-site.
(fl Ground equipment of the facilities should be concealed, screened, camouflaged or
hidden using stealth design, stealth structures, underground installation or landscaping
and fencing.
(g) Signage in, on or near any facilities should be prohibited with the exception of warning
and informational signs, which shall be designed with minimal aesthetic impact.
(h) Wireless communication facilities should be discouraged in areas subject to the City's
hillside construction permit as designated in Section 25.61.010; if facilities cannot be
avoided in the hillside areas, then visual impacts should be eliminated through stealth
design, stealth structures and landscaping.
(i) Support wires for structures should be discouraged.
(j) The wireless communication facilities should be designed to discourage unauthorized
access. (Ord. 1870 § 2, (2012); Ord. 1869 § 3, (2012))
,_:.��
BURLIHGAME
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT � 501 PRIMROSE ROAD • BURLINGAME, CA 94010
p: 650.558.7250 • f: 650.696.3790 • www.burlingame.org
APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Type of application:
❑ Design Review ❑ Variance ❑ Parcel #:
Cy� Conditional Use Permit ❑ Special Permit ❑ Zoning / Other:
PROJECT ADDRESS:�'' ��d � lJ� hQ,� ��/'ZJy o�� �a a jAc e�-� ��
�, . . �
APPLICANT
Namel Abby Reed
Address: 240 Stor.kton StrPet��r�i Flnnr
City/State/Zip: San Francisco, CA 941��3
Phone: �SCI - 274 - 5�42
E-mail: �-PPrI rkPIP�P„t{„
ARCHITECT/DESIGNER
Name: Mn�ius I I C
Address: 240 Stockton Street. 3rd Floor
City/State/Zip: San Francisco, CA 94108
Phone: 209 - 938 - 7251
PROPERTY OWNER
Name: Inint Pnla Accnriatinn
Address: 1800 Sutter St #830
City/State/Zip: C;on�orci, C;A 94520
Phone: 9�5 - FR1 - �37£�
E-mail:
�������N���
SEP u t7 2���
E-mail: khaynes modus-corn.com
Burlingame Business License #: 3Z30°�
�,�-�-Y pF BURLI�!GAME
c��_p��q�1N!NG DI11.
Authorization to Reproduce Proiect Plans:
I hereby grant the City of Burlingame the authority to reproduce upon request and/or post plans submitted with this
application on the City's website as part of the Planning approval process and waive any claims against the City
arising out of or related to such action. (Initials of Architect/Designer)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install a new telecommunication antenna and equipment boxes on an existing
wood utility pole on G095 compliant standoff bracket. Installation consists of (1) KMW FLT-OM10H2 cylindrical
antenna, (2) RRUs-32, (1) electrical meter (1) load center, (2) disconnect switches.
AFFIDAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and correct to the
best of my knowledge and b i f.
ApplicanYs signature: Date: 9�28�2017
I am aware of the proposed application a hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this application to the Planning
Commission.
Property owner's signature: (see attaChed LOA) Date:
Date submitted: � � Z�' � �
5: �HANDOUTS�PC Application. doc
City of Burlingame • Community Development Department • 501 Primrose Road • P: 650.558.7250 • F: 650.696.3790 • www.burlinctame.orq
�a� ��T. o.�
BURLINGAME
�"e,
�;.�
An applicant for a Conditional Use Permit for a wireless communication facility shall complete nd submit an
application, together with all required information, to the Community Development Departme for review and
processing. The application shall contain and include the following information:
❑ Application to the Planning Commission Form (applicant and property owner sig�+(atures required)
0
C
❑ Plans: 2 full size and 3 half size planp`ets — see required information below
❑
C
n
❑ Visual simulations u ng clear, accurate and readable photo-simulations of all of the proposed wireless
communication facili �es. The simulations should contain dimensions, height measurements and color, size
and shape (proper oloration and blending of the facility with the proposed site) of the proposed facilities in
order to facilitate etermination of potential visual impacts.
Filing Fees: $4,499.00 for Conditional Use Permit Application
A letter containing the following:
A clear written description of the proposed facility that includes the n mber of antennas, the location
and length of fiber/cable, the location and dimensions of all related quipment (cabinets, generators,
batteries, cooling, transmitters, hubs etc.); such written descripti shall provide how this facility relates
to the overall wireless network for the carrier(s) it is servicing a well as how this facility relates to other
wireless facility projects in process of being constructed and/vh planned in or near the City of
Burlingame. The letter shall also contain the name, addres,s'; phone number, email address of:
(a) The owner of the proposed facility;
(b) The applicant if different than owner;
(c) Any proposed service provider tenant.
• A written description of any noise, light and/or he generated by the facility, including, but not limited
to, retractable monopole motors, antenna rotato power generation, cooling equipment and similar
items.
A written explanation of the wireless comm nication facility site selection process including information
about other sites which were considered, e reasons for the rejection of other sites, the reason that
this particular facility is required to cover a gap in service, and the reason why the gap in service
cannot be covered with another Iocatio,rS or another technology.
A site plan with photos, depicting�e location and dimension of the proposed wireless communication
facilities and of the existing surrou ing area features including structures, roads, trees, and similar items.
Floor plans and building elev tions clearly showing the location and dimension of the proposed wireless
communication facilities, inclu ing all associated equipment.
A landscape plan (if appl' able) that shows existing vegetation, indicating any vegetation proposed for
removal, and identifying oposed plantings by type, size and location.
Submittal Requirements
Conditional Use Permit - Wireless Communication Facility
❑ A map identif ing the applicant's existing and planned wireless communications facilities within
city limits. I clude an explanation of how the proposed wireless communication facility fits into the
individual s rvice provider's network of existing and proposed wireless communication facility sites within a
tentative o (2) year plan.
u
com
ition by a qualified third party that the proposed wireless communication facility will
with applicable radio frequency (RF) emission standards as established by the FCC.
❑ If
proposed facility is to be located in the public right-of-way, a copy of the CPUC documentation
ng right of owner to locate utility facilities in right-of-way.
S:\HANDOUTS\Wireless Apps\Conditional Use Pertnit Application Checklist.doc
��
`�/
�
■
� •
November 30, 2017
AT&T Mobility T: 925-549-9671
5001 Executive Parkway, 4W650Y Mg387k@att.com
San Ramon, CA 94598
LETTER OF AUTHORIZATION
TO: City Permitting Authority
RE: A&T Mobility APPLICATIONS FOR ZONING/BUILDING/DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
PERMITS AND APPROVALS
AT&T Mobility (aka New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC) holds a valid Wireless Identification
Registration, U-3060-C, with the California Public Utilities Commission and also has a state law
franchise right to place Wireless Facilities in the Public Right of Way pursuant to Section 7901 of the
California Public Utilities Code.
New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC
d/b/a AT&T Mobility
//
=�r� i`
Name: Marc Grabisch
Title: Sr Technicai Proiect Manaper
Date: 9/28/17
�— /at&t
�
AT&T Mobility T: 925-549-9671
5001 Executive Parkway, 4W650Y Mg387k@att.com
San Ramon, CA 94598
9 G�������
September 27, 2017
LETTER OF AUTHORIZATION
SEP 2 � 2011
TO: City of Burlingame
CITY OF BURL{f�GAME
CDD-PLAf�1N!NG DIV.
RE: APPLICATIONS FOR ZONING/BUILDING/DEPARTMENT PERMITS AND APPROVALS
AT&T Mobility (aka New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC) hereby appoints Modus, Inc. and it's
employees, agents and contractors, authorization for submitting and completing applications/permits
with the City of Burlingame and has authorization to sign all documents connected with the
appl ications/perm its.
New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC
d/b/a AT&T Mobility
/� �•
By:
Name: Marc Grabisch
Title: Sr Technical Proiect Manaqer
Date: 9/25/17
�
240 Stockton Street � �� � � �� �
3�d flOOr
san francisco, ca 94108 S E P 2 8 2017
t. 415.989.1 102
www.modus-corp.com
CITY OF BURLfNGAME
C�1J-�LF,i�lN!NG L�li/,
CITY OF BURLINGAME — COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING
DIVISION
To: CITY OF BURLINGAME
501 Primrose Rd
Burlingame, CA 94010
SCOPE OF WORK/PROJECT DESCRIPTION
• ANTENNA & ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT BOXES - INSTALL A NEW
TELECOMMUNICATION ANTENNA AND EQUIPMENT BOXES ON AN
EXISTING WOOD UTILITY POLE ON G095 COMPLIANT STANDOFF BRACKET.
INSTALLATION CONSISTS OF (1) KMW FLT-OM10H2 CYLINDRICAL
ANTENNA, (2) RRUs-32, (1) ELECTRICAL METER, (1) LOAD CENTER, (2)
DISCONNECT SWITCH. PLEASE SEE DRAWINGS FOR
CABLING - CABLING TO BE INSTALLED IN A TIDY MANNER WITHOUT EXCESS
CABLE LOOPS
• SPACING OF SUPPORT ELEMENTS - SUPPORT EQUIPMENT (E.G. RRUS) TO BE
CLUSTERED (VERTICALLY) AS CLOSE AS TECHNICALLY FEASIBLE ON POLE.
• LOGO REMOVAL - ALL EQUIPMENT LOGOS, OTHER THAN THOSE REQUIRED
BY REGULATION (E.G. NODE IDENTIFICATION) SHALL BE PAINTED OVER OR
REMOVED. RAISED OR DEPRESSED TEXT ON RRUS OR OTHER EQUIPMENT, IF
PRESENT, SHALL BE SANDED OFF OR SIMILARLY REMOVED / FILLED.
• SIGNAGE - FCC MANDATED RF WARNING SIGNAGE SHALL FACE OUT TO
STREET WHEN PLACED IN FRONT OF, OR NEAR A WINDOW. SIGNAGE
SHALL FACE TOWARD A BUILDING IF THERE IS NO WINDOW.
• ALL CABLING, ANTENNAS, AND EQUIPMENT TO BE PAINTED TO MATCH
POLE
(a) The owner of the proposed facility:
Joint Pole Association (JPA)
1800 Sutter Street #830
Concord, CA 94520
925 — 681 — 0378
(b) Applicant:
Abby Reed
Modus Inc.
240 Stockton Street, 3�d Floor
areed(a�modus-corp.com
�.
650 — 274 — 5042
(c) Marc Grabisch
Senior Technical Project Manager
AT&T Mobility
5001 Executive Parkway
San Ramon, CA 94598
The antenna installations would not emit any noise, light, or heat and do not contain any cooling
equipment. Sites were selected based on the highest traffic areas that require increased data
coverage (for example busy streets or intersections). AT&T radio frequency engineers
pinpointed the areas in Burlingame that had the highest wireless traffic rates as ideal
candidates. Small cell antennas in these areas in order would offload the macro sites, and
provide faster data coverage to mass amounts of people. Existing macro sites have limited
capacity, and there has been a 250,000% increase in data traffic in the past 10 years.' The
antennas will allow faster download and streaming speeds, and fewer dropped calls for mass
amounts of people.
Abigail Reed
Modus Inc.
1 http://about.att.com/storv/att details 5� evolution.html
��
�1A�'` � � 20f�
AT&T Mobility Itadio �'requency Statement
Burlingame CA Smalt Cell Nodes 1420 �;��-Y �� BURLINGAME
`:C7�-i��.��1l��N� !�iil.
The proposed nodes are necessary to improve signal qaality in tite area, which wt f mctease data
rates necessary for customers tr� consistently stream viden. The nodes will do so by ot�ioading network
traffic carried by existing macro facilities. Increasin� data s�eed is critical to providin� the mobile
experience customers demand and tA manage the unprocedented increase in mobile data usage on
AT&T's network. AT&T estimates that since introductian ofthe iPhone in 2007, mobile data usage has
incre�ased 25�,000°�0 on its netwvrk. AT�T %recasts its customers' growing demand for mobiie data
services tv continue, The increased volume of daEa travels iv and fram customers' wirel+ess devices and
AT&T'� wireless infra.5tructure over limited sirwaves -- radio freqaency s�ctrum that AT&T licenses
from the Federal Communicatians Comrnission ("FCC").
Spectrum is a finite re,source and there are a limited number of airwavas capable ar�d avaiieble far
eommercial use. Wireless carreers license those aiawaves from the FCC. To ensure service quality, AT&T
must knit together its speatrum assets to address customers' existing usage and forecasted demand for
wireless services, and it must uss its limited spectre�m in an efficient manner.
AT&cT uses high-band (i.e., 2300 MHz, 21�Q MHz, and 1900 MNz) and iow-band (i.e., SS4 MHz
and 700 MFIz) spectrum to provide wireless setvice. Eaeh spectrum band has different propagation
characteristics and signal quatity may vary due to r�oise or interference based on rsetwork characterisiics at
a�iven location. To address this dynamie envimnment, AT&T deploys multiple layers of its iicensed
spectrum and strives to bring its facilities closer to the customer. When faci(ities are closer to the user, the
customer receives a stronger signal relative to the signals fram the surrounding ceEl sites. This stronger
signal produces faster data rates. The fastar data races allow customers to get on and off the networ[c
quiekly, which produces mare efficient use of the lirnited spectrum; this is espscially the case when tbe
user is at the edge of a maero site's reach and the radio frequency resources from that site are being
utitized inefficiently. Thus, to address the existing and forecasted demand and to support SG speeds in the
near future, AT&T plans to depioy smali cell facifities within public rights-of-way.
As noted above, competition and customer demand require that AT&T design and maintain its
network so that cusiarners experience average data rates su�cient to stream video. Any areas that do not
rneet this minimal standard represent a service eoverags gap that must be clased. The small cell facilities
that AT&T proposes in this portion of BurIin�ame are needed to close a service coverage gap. This
service eoverage gap is significant because it includes c3ozens of homes, offices in a commercial district, a
school snd a park. The praposed small cell facilities wili not on3y heip close the existing gap by
improving data speeds, but they will also heip address the increased usage by offloading surrounding
macro sites during current snd future peak demand periods.
it is important to undersiand that service problems can and do occur %r customers even in
locations where the covera�e mags on AT&T's "Coverage Viewet" website appear to indicate that
coverage is available. As the Iegend to she Co�era�e Viewer rnaps indicates, these maps display
approximate coverage. Actual coverage en an area may differ from the website rnap graPhics, and it may
be affected by such things as tcrrain, wcather, network changcs, fotiage, buildings, consEruction, hegh-
usage periods, customer equipment, and other factors.
It is also impartant to nata that the signal lasses, slow data rate�, and other senvice problems can
and do occur for customers e�en at times when certain other customers in the same vicinity may not
experience any problems on AT&T's network. These problems ean and do accur even when certain
customers' wireless phones indicate caverage bars of signal str�n�th vn the handset. The bars of signat
strength that individual customers can see an their wireless phones are an imprecise arid slow-to-ugttate
estimate of service qaality. tn other words, � customer's wireless phone can show caverage bars of signat
sirength, but that custamer wilt still, at times, be unable to initiate voice ca[ls, complete calls, or download
data reliably and without service intenuptio�s clue to service quality issttes.
Td determine whefe rtew equipmeat needs to be lacated for the provisianing of relia6le service in
any area, AT&T's radio frequency engineers re(y on far more complex tools and data sources than just
signal strength from individuaI �hones. AT&T uses industry standard simu{atian tools to identify the
areas in its network where interfereRce wili affect data rates end service quality. 'rhis information is
developed from many sources including terrain and clutter databases that simulste the envirvnment,
traff c maps that sirr�ulate the density of nsers in the environment, and prapagation models that simulate
5ignal relative to interference in the presence of terrain and clutter variation. AT&T evaluates signal
quality based nn the SignaI to Interference and Noise Ratio (SINR), which directty affects data speeds.
AT&T designs and builds its wireless network to ensure customers will receive reEiable in-building
service coverage and data rates sufficient to stream video and campiete calls. �T�IiS IEVCI Of S�I'V10E IS
oritical as cvstomers increasingly use their mobile phones as their primary communication devices (52.5%
of American househatds are now wireless only) and rely on their rnabile phones to do more {E9 ] I, vid�
streaming, GPS, web access, text, et�.). In faci, Ehe FCC estimates that 70% of 911 calls are placed by
people useng wireiess phones.
2
Exhibit 1 is a map that deprots the area near the propased nodes by data rates when naise or
interference is introduc�d into the high-band signal of the existing high-band LTE service (w�thout the ,
proposed small cell nodes). The green shading shows aceas wEtere ct�stomers experience excell�nt dara
speeds that can typicaily support high-definition video streaming, and the yellow shading portrays areas
where customers experience acceptable daca speeds to stream standard-de�nition video_ The pink
shading, however, depicts areas where custorrzers witt nat be able to reliably s�ream video and are using
resources inefficientfy. Exhibit Z dispiays this same area after the proposed srt�atl cell nodes are
constructed and on air. As you can see, the proposed nodes help to effectively close AT&T's significant
service covarage gap in Ehis area.
My conclusians are based on my knowledge of the proposed small cell locations and with
AT&T's wireless network in Ehe surrounding area. I have a Master's degree in Compute.r �ngineering
fram Wayne State iJniversity, Detroit MT, and have worked as an eng'rneering expert in the wireiess
commUnications industry for more than i 0 years.
Ai' ��I����
�i
a.rpreet Singh
AT&T Mobility Services LLC
Network, Pianning & Engineering
RAN Design & RF Engineering
March 2 i, ZO 1$
SIIVR Simu�ation witho�t Propasec� Small Cells — ��:��,�,;o�
� EMce11eM Data Retes
B u rl i nga rne Acceptable Data Rates
�' Poor pata Rates ortlo Service
1� hAacro 5ite
• Proposed Srna! I Ccl l
( --'� - — --- -" s�'_ --- - �__— _-_.__— �,.,�..
� ;, .
. . .- -��
� -, . . . ., . s. _
._ .
., , i .
, , .,, r�, . ,1
.. �
r, � � . •' -
, .. . � � ' � s � � ^ r ��� - - * �_'" �
. . . ,,
�.! ;'s +�x . �„� " _i. - �
. �. _ ' '� y
. . .�-, ' _
, ,.
, ' , . � r' .. �:5 . �� i - � ' . ' t . �'n',-..r . , . � �-.: , , ..
�+ � . .t" f_ fi_ '. _. � � � -' _� 3,��.� .�".o.� � —. �;y�� �,..� � �� f .
. , �
,..
""�' . �, �J" ... y _�' _,�" —��=.
. - ` ( • h � � � �.� �
. , y, '' ''�,. � �}� _ .-.�.� � � . _ � � '�..6'e. �rl � � -� ..
( �..' _- _ . � �t F^ . .. _ ' � I_ �i�� r
.,',� � ' � � _ ^.� y�. ..� `-:;..""'�� �_ �
�- r.:. ` . �- � � - �'�
1 ' • � J , r 4 M ..-i � _ i .. � ` ifiki`�.. . `, . �, � �+'� : '^ ,i ,, �7
. • ' t � ' � , �� :$� . � - �� � • -
`dky
M1. ' '_ .
- � g�; �' �� �, �' ..,,,. ,r� . . a `; } - „ � _
. vF, ``�° .... '�. - �� ^.````'.., j �� '�# b-:.
• . .. •.._ � �� w� . ; ... .
� � �� .� . .� .
'• . '. ' f' f '> 4- '..4 4 ,«. �i 4 � * � y . I �:?r,�..
' t' ' yr , . . �__ y � �• �� �� ` '�.r _
c-. e'
: f ' ;, . '� �zi� , �"
- .�F, . . �. . , .#' ._ ' z.,- �� r
9 �. .�� .`, � a. . �
'` - ,� ,� ` A ti� '.�� i i, �;' .a" ��� ,'���
- : z, .• ,
- � '
�`_�. �. � �'
, ;A �
, ��
•. :
�k. ,:, �, '�-- : • " . . _ =w.r
, �
,,...-.. � ,.l�':�
�, '
, t_ � , d, ..�.y �. ...F��< ___ , � • . � .., , .
March 21, 2018
M l��J�� Y �i�/ �
�- N
�1�Y �' * 2016
i:1Tl' UF sl,�FtLI1�GAM�
'"�1�-PlA�J�114VC �IG'.
SINR Simulation witt� Proposed Sma[1 Cells — ��:�R�,��
Burlingame Node 14-2a � EaceldentDataRates
Acceptahle Data Rates
� Poar Data Rat[s ar NO Sernte
#� MacrpSite
� Proposed Smail Crll
_,_.�,. -----«�— _
,... -__* _._.. --�--
------
"--�'—��� `. • . — - -- �+� .». ,'a4t" � '
♦ w' . , r, � � , s..:`r'�f ���,��. �a�"� :
� �� �� � � I
� r '..
�� ` .. . '`��,.�.k�, ; ^ ��� •`r�y.. — _ —� �
�� �
: _ � {. . .
h � C�,, •
� f � .. f .'±� .� � �'1i1�� i. . Y .. � ;Fe � { d., �,� � " M �� . . �` � � • !
�y ��� f � X. � ir41 -.�' �..r
IIE�-�-' � . ' �,e . � � � t � '� ,s... 4 � �� �t 1
� _ .l1 . R � .. ` �. � + r �� + .
' ... . _ . .�, ' _ �� � ��
- � �» �
/' . .
,i
- 1e
� ±� �.
. . , 1p _
p � . . � • . 'g3 �'" ' :' • , � _ ►' �� -� . . . � y� J�+— ' - ��
. . � r . � . , J � . ' . � - . . .r+, y„� .. n� � � � � �. �.
� � � _ .,..._. i '�1 i . � _ `�� _ . y �� y' �..5. .�� �.'1 ,`l. c��"��
. ,� :( ' ..�flyli. 1 � .- � '
. �El! .� �. �l. r ' ' i � a�.�pasa ..,,- � ',' � �. 'r ' , . __
�t �� '. ~ . �' f� �,
* - 4 - _ , - = i - a
s A ,� ��,' ` _ °� Y �y�� : . � ,��
M`��.' � - � .. "." �� . _ �. . _ a = - � 'a-�� � � � _ � � . . �.
. l . ., . w' ..41 ^ � � ,Y'. � \ t� � ,-� �yh���"•� �
. � F � �1Y � � � F 'F�•
} , ' - 4 q • . ., . _ ��R+��"'r � �f
� . . �
.
� . �
1 . = -" -,� ��+. � .. n, ..�. 1�� �..��, �. ` ,� •� 9� � r� �
_ y • � . ... ... ' �. '� �� .`... ._.. �.� ��
Y� S _ � �..' ' . 4 �-.�,#'Rw'. �.� i ��_ � ���.
�,'` � 1 , ' fi £ ,� •F � , � ry: � " _ �'
,,
. —
-�- �{ .. o ,.
• __ _ � �, �
o • �p'` ' ., . =- J � �, �
_, _ �
, , , _ �.� .• r� .- • ,� -
,
' �— _ _ -� �` '€
.,. . _ *� _ �. .; , , :. .. ..� ., ; .' � a ,:,
March21,2018 �����'�'����
�
,��A�, ., � 2fD18 ��"' N
CITY Ci� BURLING,4ME
'`;l�fi-�� AA�NING DIV.
City of Burlingame • Community Development Department • 501 Primrose Road • P(650) 558-7250 • F(650) 696-3790 • www.burlinqame.orq
� cirr
�� �� �
�' �_�.
CITY OF BURLINGAME
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION
������
SEP 2 8 2017
CITY OF BURL{NGAME
CDD-P► A�JNING DIV.
The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's
Ordinance (Code Section 25.52.020). Your answers to the following questions can assist the
Planning Commission in making the decision as to whether the findings can be made for your
request. Please type or write neatly in ink. Refer to the back of this form for assistance with
these questions.
1. Explain why the proposed use at the proposed /ocation will not be detrimental or
injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or to public health, safety,
general welfare or convenience.
The proposed project is in compliance with all FCC standards (see attached EME report). The
antennas will not be mounted on a building, and the lowest point of the antenna will be more
than 10 meters off the ground. Consequently, normal ground-level exposure is much less than
the exposure that might be encountered if one were very close to the antenna and in its main
transmitted beam. Measurements made near typical cellular and PCS cell sites have shown
that ground-level power densities are well below the exposure limits recommended by RF/
microwave safety standards used by the FCC.
2. How will the proposed use be located and conducted in accordance with the
Burlingame General Plan and Zoning Ordinance?
The project would be in compliance with Chapter 25.77 'Wireless Communications Facilities'
and would paint all equipment installed on the wood pole to match the pole color (see
attached photo-simulation). The project does not include any ground equipment in the
PROW. The project would abide by all City requirements and processes to permit small cell
3. How will the proposed project be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and
character of the existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general
vicinity?
As shown on the drawings, all signage and equipment installed on the existing wood poles will
be painted to match the pole color. The project would not change the landscape of the area or
expand the footprint of the existing wood pole.
Rev 06.2007 Handouts\Conditional Use Permit App.doc
This Space for CDD
Staff Use Only
�
Project Description:
Key:
Abbreviation Term
CUP Conditional Use Permit
DHE Declinin Height Envelc
DSR Design Review
E Existin
N New
SFD Sin le Family Dwellin
SP Special Permit
. . �
� r � t � � _
i I r i � ri �
June X, 2019
Dear Property Owner/Resident:
AT&T Mobility, with support from Modus LLC, proposes to install a state-of-the-art wireless
communication small cell node facility atop an existing PG&E utility pole in the public right-
of-way at the following location: 1505 Bernal Avenue.
This proposed small cell node is part of a greater network that will provide and enhance
current cutting edge and future AT&T wireless voice and data service to the surrounding area,
improving wireless capabilities and public safety connectivity.. Although experiences with
wireless services vary based on specific location and usage times, the wireless service proposed
by this facility will help meet existing, fluctuating and future demands. The design has been
specially streamlined to abide by Burlingame's detailed design requirements. One stealth
shroud will cover all equipment on the pole and will be painted to match the color of the pole.
Should you have questions or comments regarding the proposed projects, AT&T is holding a
community outreach meeting on June 17th at the Burlingame Parks and Recreation, 850
Burlingame Ave, in the Social Hall room. Representatives from AT&T will be available to answer
any questions from 6-7pm. If you have any questions or concerns, or would like to confirm
your attendance, please call or email Modus Project Manager Abby Reed at: AReed@modus-
corp.com or 415-989-1102.
Sincerely,
Abby Reed
Modus Project Manager c/o AT&T
�!�` - � �� r 3S �.. . '
P 4� ,�!' b.:,,�i'�'�.'..*:Av': V ,M1''•. �' .
P c� I.• 3`f .+�?' y
� ' r,• {�-. i � +..'"-
r M ,t
. A �.
� � {!
.° - v. .'y�._ .
�� 9 ��" * '.5
. . �- l� � � J Y ��
� k ��
✓d
/ .�, . 'L � �3'' ' S 3 -J:,
. • �W�
/ ' � _ E.
• � ;
. - � yi � �, i" -<
� . ' . �'�_ �T.�
� � , . ` - ,��' � _ r'.— �r-�`,Vi�
�:- ,� � �iu t _
r, . "• t�'�� -,..�
; ..a
u -`;�.s
."4�h $, ,�, �Xt'� �,�f��.' � �. N ,� � .4
�; �� 7�� �� i K' '�• vF �.s v� � .yg
�n[ �y R
�' �,! ry l.s' � � � �%c ',V�� ?� 1 I y�
�/y'._ r' � e 1 .i & -A • "Y w ���
N 3" L� 3 rc t -.. ... �'
'„ t
: �
, � n� 10�1� 4` +' •�,/��
}. n ,' �n+�.wi 'k''� a �. ..I � �
�, ���� `";,r� r. , ,�e�.m��
� 9��1 a „'�;. `fi . K•` �'4- , *$f � ,�.�- � � .
i �
j� ��, i .�,.I �el r*�-,:. �� �
� . h. "� u . ?�t �1'-.
rr--=— �"�.�:� R " . _ �--- ,.� � �� t �
„Y�- � ., if ��' ^�+� . :..
�
■ � �� ���� ~� � .�i � � �'t'��
� - � �'- � — _ --.
;�
�y�' � � y, ���,L�j`f S .
'7i �
�'��� `�., ; , � - � .
A � �' p,
�. . q:}.` L r J`Ir. r"�'x
� t , -�i, .
f. 3� f t-. t��t
� f �' �� �� *� � �
.F M�y� �{ t
�. . "' ' .i �y A '31 w��: „L�i,�,� r'...
�� r.. � . 8 t . s�, � 2 .� .
r ��, � .(� y. � � r �:, -�_
� � , �y: . i f�'yt,1A r -�� ` � .
� ��� ��t �} � t . '7�
^�i�J tti�K 1 �.��. � f,� � .��`{ �'F �'� .
. 'f" "' . ;� � a �. � � . ,�"� '
. �/ r!• T I.G '� - T r � t � . .y �• . -���,� �Y
�y !�(
' � ^4.,,K � f'{ z ! d� 4 N . , � :- �• �
� ...'+�yi,l �R:. � y �t! �r ' �`�"��
- .. �r . - � "(e �,o �"�y'' at�rt T n �"C'Sy' {�``,, �, � "�� '�� �
A t xY : 43 ;•qYU'i' ''_ AR �. . ,�?��,` � ..
{. �
. \ , i'+. " . -1��i J � `t•`f�'�3' �.� � � �,� :�'. .. .
' ��' , � • � "p y' i� { �` .r� � �� � mofP We M 07'00'
� �: r�; r - t ..CC a+ ' a, , �k �
� . ..- -�-_ -rii��,�„�r-:—'--- �i7�.`.:� � ... . -s—��-��- ��� g;a,. "r s
a, � -� . �iii -^� 4 �t . _ . �-'-`u'��'.- .
. r� ��� '�„ � . � �•i �,�'+-��..� ,s.rav �9t i �� -�
��"`� � • I � c7du�Zevel: ao-oc
, I � _, _.
% _�
�,e �"�� �'`'
�,#�,� . �;
��'e�t:��:�;:r;Z: k :�: ?,���.
_. � �'� r: ;�: " . d
,� �'` t ��� .`. ., c
� .+ `. ~.�'� :
i: '� : . _
« `.
� t .,
4�:.
v. �'. '
y ,, ..4.,.
•r �`t�C S"��'�!
.• . .`� ':.�n"
i��._ ,� o _;''� � + .
� 'uti �, ; ti;
�t' �� ��t:� r:��_.
� z � � � �' �
� f� � •
i� ��1y�,`�3�'# � d ? �,>.
!'. s f' ;.f � �: � ' -t
, � � G- . �.
� k . . _,� . f.
� � �Y.
.S .Y f..' �:� � •;
L i. ��' '
rt i: :
�p���4..
�t .
�� , ; �..: .
�l tig�r;� �.
, v� 1
r�- i� f_..`'�t'�..��.�.
�
�
� ..
_'. ' r = .. _;''_
Existing
. .� _ j , � . �.� � � �
� ;;: : � �
,, ,.
�, ' ' �.�
,. ; :. ,
h.' ;s', `, J, ,
+`. +;�,', .f�i
s :�.�?..�.
t }'
+ : e:
_`` --.
03.19.2019
3, ;� .
z F ; � .,: �,
�r , �, ��: � a�
s.a� ,
� :s
����:, . � , �:�� , ,, << � � ! �� . �
"�;�.� . ��
+ r �// • . ar-t> .r��a'
� + � , � i�..{�*� , �'t 6 �
s
� :� '� .� ry d�k; �r s; � . a�
� 7 '� ., �s-w;�" '•'
' MY � �.^n��
�,;� � � � 4 s� .a
� .��y ,� r
,�3 . . • . �". n.�` ;� 2r n i 6'"'� � ° � .�� i` � . .� � ..,
,.^ � � : • s �` r� $� } ` �' �� s .+ . . � r' a� � "� � :
. F��� .`if'''�, r�a4S�"'Y�11� r` '� y d�"� .�� .J r . Ye �
.;• �', ry�� �'�'/ . �'" `• � � �?,'.�' �' _/C, �
_ x � �� �µ , t - y, �
� � .. � I \. 1 . 1 � �, T ta . � t �� . �14
I } � u �i A° lh A.
�� � ��� K : �. -' S,1 �a� "i ,
� �'�," df*.�� S �� �y �,. t� �� � -_ f: �. , _,
y i` / ` A �t ,� /
■ — ♦ ,�.�+ � 1r_ ����„ kK .�- �1 � +- �. .sf�
. I����� � � _ { 5�. > tY�'r
'� / � � � � � � � v�
���;c jt� � � ~'*'�'�� .1?� �:_ . .
� �. �
, � .,,: ,. .. .
p'*,.i t ..�:w�� , _ ,,. �_;r.c+ei3�.�1��+�.�'?� . . - -
.'^}:`
� —
Proposed
proposed AT&T antenna
� ::
M�' :' .. . • �., . ,., . �,�.c � . :{. . ,a � s :'
.,, ;�: . . : •�:x
�� / y 'tk`
t,'i;� ' J �' i�
_ v , �� J�
� v .F
4�
� • t S
_,� � � �
t � �
:�:� I ��y'" � �
�m ,_�e_-+�`=��.'Fj: , ���. �:^
at.,�,_
��
'.fA:
��
g a��
� �,�,�
�, ..2.��' , r ... � ,.
��} I ��.,i�r� �.� \ S` _( �
�,;� t� �,��4 x ak, i - w.�.
�
Ly�a �L4� g� . � �r�'�
[ x,� � E f,r��� . +`. , y i h; >. ��l f �� '�c � �v r� � '�r° < �� � 'd'�'
�Fl -dt �'�'� y i5' �.�` ,.r � � � 4' �
, g N
��' Q � `6 e.'�-- �' �' r. A�
, i
:: . � 5'��� � i.Af1, il� 'j�: � . � Y t �'n `
. � �' / �' 4 �: �"Se-'��"i. 1 .f `'�^' (� � {, .i �1
-� ai��w .�,�- `, �a��.
A ���, - .��i�- r � a _,�` n ��,�y d.. . � �
` `p �.��5 '� ' �S ' ' I . . k a' l M �'•. 1�•��6.�
I ,,. -• f �;, � �. ; �
� h �t ,t { � l � .=�e ., � r � .
i I. � S . � `�' ] � '� � � � � }���
■ ���' � F+� . / I �r, t . .
� � * 1� : �.s�' t4r ,��..-- ���= -+i
: ' '� � ' _
� � , z " --- __ 'r. ' �' Y��}}„�T
1f� I`J -
Sx x � '-�;
�, tii � —
. - . . . � . .! ea-.�n,:���G,� �..-�
"c"' . _ f — -
_"ry r - -
{ .. �"^ ,-• V '
.y
.: _. �e � �,��.,� � a+.. _4Tv. ..
r� � ���� ��-�4� �y�.��.��'�`", �i ..
ir�i.iF�A � i ... � "�' _�_�"'� r
. ^IIT ; !,. . "
� R �`� L � '�
�-
er r 'iv` ''� � .�+.t�� . . �� . . . �+�-
i Y �"�.b
.`
� � �/1�..�
� ���i[.. ��P1' �41ra+�r ,:.. - � _. .,, t. >. .
�°° F°,E°� ��=°a'����, Photo simulation as seen looking northwest from the sidewalk
,... : �n�«���,� ���,
_�e
\
�
�
�
��
�� �•i
� -q�r
, ���.'R . ' � � ' � � , 1i.
. �o ��A . �..
�*'�` y..- `1re +.�`.��,� i`-. ''c+^ .
�( ��� �� `� � � ., _V�� n k .��" 'W,
�W� � . 4 ,` a `-.aya� -. �� ..�' y.
t%fir't t �� �:'�� r*�
.+x ` st� � z w . . . , a'Y _ ,`�. _. .. ' . � ..`i��, . :.. �..' � .,.. . . _
� � ' � `�
s�';: � 3t&t CRAN_RSFR_SFOK2_015
� ROW at 1505 Bernal Avenue, Burlingame, CA
� _�
,
i\
� �
LTE 1900 Coverage without Small Cell SFOK2_015
�
:�.��''-�
:�t -
t�nr� i'�. a
� _' � .
�.�
^�i ti'
` 5 �� � ' ;
�?
� � T� �'� `,�
, , .�>
�'�, s. .:� F., io% _ ia �
�i T�
` ` f, �
.��,e.-�� -�- .-_�
.�
g�� ��
t.�;� �ar �!
iu� ���'�: ��
��, �� . .
��� Z�f� �
� �
� � —,'+�
�.� ^ �,
, � ��..,� > �'
�-'� � ,� ;:;-
��� .
r.a
� � ��,X+ � �"` ( ..-.� .. �} „� �`�,y+ ~� ]3 "'�.�` x .S' � � .. 1 , . t . s- . � ;` E .. . � �*�;:.
�� k !% � �;,- r1L � .,,/' p � �,elt ` 1`,�i 4 S'`�< � �� .,` 1� .r` f � � 1�_c�"- � * �6
� a 14.:., � � �_�P �.''_� � �`�� � ` .,� >'f� ; t "a /5 � t -'•'�i. ,, � �5",�`) ; f ,� �
L4.. � ji�l �. � ,�� _. � .N`� � �,_,� `5, . d'� f � � . � �.i,� �,;.„} \ ',,,rt � ; fi
�
�� � L! �� , ,t� . � ��. � � ��
� �` � � � . I F ,����,�,1 V�,..i�� ,� , � �h �e � r
„w,r. -� .*�,....-„�,�� `, ;.* � i. r � � ��'., � �� �� i}'�
� �'^-,:y�.K. � �..'1 :
�� +SNrf t 1 �'`•
6 � ti � �.. ,+ �� ' .C_ � e ,
� ' i� � ti. �� l` � � �} � � i
,�� �,,�x� " � ` • rr��i� n�� ^
.. .'��,�,' ��� '�A . �,�' �^*� �,;
��1 � ^� _� F. `, � � .,,.._�
' , : � � } , - . �,� ��> �. ��� .
,,
�' .�� i.� ,.; ..+` � '� � �"�`,�`'
a`y'' � ,+'�.� ' .l ,; '-�,v '.+' .
i �
�.,'` e � ''a�'� �,�� � ��.� � <`��i ,.,..
b� '..&'�.' ,!� � ''k. - a �t�. �
. �. t �. .,; ,
iti� �`-+^n./�. �� C*af./ �� f� �t ', f� �
y�ti� r � ,:;;� ,'��"*�� `�� /'r"<%
� _ :`� ] • .. � ` .t 1 .,
-� �� � ,,, : _
� ±� � ���l�'� � 4 �-_` IC�`
. �Ly . � � r' A' -�.
�
'� ' `�`'� �
� ''�-.�'_ a,
� a `�,'`� + ,�
,
. �,. . �
- � '� • ry ''a.k � a`l r
�
:� � _ �`� �_:
��,w �1�
.. °:���
�?� �
■
� �
OO 2019 AT&T Intellectual Property. All rights reserved. AT&T and the AT&T logo are trademarks of AT&T Intellectual Property.
AT&T Proprietary (Internal Use Only) Not for use or disclosure outside the AT&T companies except under written agreement.
Leqend
Cav�age=RSRP (dBen?
� Indoar Signal
x
!n-Vehide S�gnal �
� Qutdoor Signal
9
� Macro site
{ �' Proposed small cell Nodes
L�
��
�
LTE 1900 Coverage with Small Cell SFOK2_015
- _ � .�t-�.-.n:.:
r
� ��
� r "�
. �, . .'�',_
. fA ��+.' ,�1 '.
Y,� . � �'!�• i �.,:
. i' �*+w,....�.-«.�TM^"r„'�,N�, ^.n ��:
,i j
� y ���+r3�r�;F
f 1�RI.,C ) '. �..
idi � :r +.tit �`i s, � c`` r*f.
� 4 4��J't. ` 'a
h � j � `f �y �
1 +' ��l
r f' y.
� ,. � �..lt.- r� < ..._ { ...
� �
, t" ��� r '�,. fi
��; �, �� �� �_
V t`� . � j '. JY � %
�,��� �����
' ' ::,f _
�'�I`�.l
��.. ;:�
. . � :� �v'i4R
� -.e,� :.,.a
YtCt�- . � �...<. . .. .
''H1cc1% ' �
� 1_
Leqend
Covirage_RSRP (dBm?
� Indoor Signal
In-Vehide Signal
� Outdoor S6gna1
X
i
i
��ii�SCfO Slte
� 1!
{ 0 ) Proposed small cell Nodes
�/
��
OO 2019 AT&T Intellectual Property. All rights reserved. AT&T and the AT&T logo are trademarks of AT&T Intellectual Property.
AT&T Proprietary (Internal Use Only) Not for use or disclosure outside the AT&T companies except under written agreement.
AT&T Mobility • Proposed DAS Node (Site No. SFOK2-0�)�������
1505 Bernal Avenue • Burlingame, California SEP 2 8 Z�J17
Statement of Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineer�,� OF BURLINGAME
The firm of Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers, has been retain Dd- on be�ia�� ����
AT&T Mobility, a personal wireless telecommunications carrier, to evaluate the addition of
Node No. SFOK2-015 to be added to the AT&T distributed antenna system ("DAS") in Burlingame,
California, for compliance with appropriate guidelines limiting human exposure to radio frequency
("RF") electromagnetic fields.
Executive Summary
AT&T proposes to install an omnidirectional antenna on a utility pole sited in the public
right-of-way at 1505 Bernal Avenue in Burlingame. The proposed operation will comply
with the FCC guidelines limiting public exposure to RF energy.
Prevailing Exposure Standards
The U.S. Congress requires that the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") evaluate its
actions for possible significant impact on the environment. A summary of the FCC's exposure limits
is shown in Figure 1. These limits apply for continuous exposures and are intended to provide a
prudent margin of safety for all persons, regardless of age, gender, size, or health. The most restrictive
FCC limit for eYposures of unlimited duration to radio frequency energy for several personal wireless
services are as follows:
Wireless Service Frequencv Band Occupational Limit Public Limit
Micro�vave (Point-to-Point) 5,000-80,000 MHz 5.00 m�V/cm'- 1.00 mW/cm'-
BRS (Broadband Radio) 2,600 5.00 1.00
AWS (Advanced `Vireless) 2,100 5.00 1.00
PCS (Personal Cornmunication) 1,9�0 5.00 1.00
Cellular 870 2.90 0.58
SMR (Specialized Mobile Radio) 855 2.85 0.57
700 MHz 700 2.35 0.47
[most restrictive frequency range] 30-300 1.00 0.20
Po�ver line frequencies (60 Hz) are well below the applicable range of these standards, and there is
considered to be no compoundin� effect from simultaneous exposure to power line and radio
frequency fields.
General Facility Requirements
�Vireless nodes typically consist of t�vo distinct parts: the electronic transceivers (also called "radios"
or "channels") that are connected to a central "hub" (�vhich in turn are connected to the traditional
�vired telephone lines), and the passive antenna(s) that send the wireless si�nals created by the radios
out to be received by individual subscriber units. The radios are often located on the same pole as the
, , ' HAMMETT & EDISON, INC.
����� � CONSULTIVCENGINEERS F3N5
•� n, �] sn� Fx.a�ctsco PaQe 1 of 3
0
� i
r
AT8�T Mobility • Proposed DAS Node (Site No. SFOK2-015)
1505 Bernal Avenue • Burlingame, California
antennas and are connected to the antennas by coaxial cables. Because of the short wavelength of the
frequencies assigned by the FCC for wireless services, the antennas require line-of-sight paths for their
signals to propagate well and so are installed at some height above ground. The antennas are designed
to concentrate their energy toward the horizon, with very little energy wasted toward the sky or the
ground. This means that it is generally not possible for exposure conditions to approach the maximum
permissible exposure limits without being physically very near the antennas.
Computer Modeling Method
The FCC provides direction for determining compliance in its Office of Engineering and Technology
Bulletin No. 65, "Evaluatin� Compliance with FCC-Specified Guidelines for Human Exposure to
Radio Frequency Radiation," dated Au;ust 1997. Figure 2 attached describes the calculation
methodologies, reflectin� the facts that a directional antenna's radiation pattern is not fully formed at
locations very close by (the "near-field" effect) and that at greater distances the power level from an
energy source decreases with the square of the distance from it (the "inverse square law"). The
conservative nature of this method for evaluating exposure conditions has been verified by numerous
feld tests.
Site and Facility Description
Based upon infornlation provided by AT&T, including drawin�s by Borges Architechiral Group, Inc.,
dated September 13, 2017, it is proposed to install one KMW Model FLT-OM10H2, 2-foot tall,
omnidirectional cylindrical antenna, on an extension above the top of the utility pole sited in the public
right-of-way in front of the residence located at 1505 Bemal Avenue in Burlingame. The antenna
would employ 6° downtilt, and would be mounted at an effective height of about 38'/z feet above
ground. The maximum effective radiated power in any direction would be 1,360 watts, representin�
simultaneous operation of 700 watts for AWS and 660 watts for PCS service. There are reported no
other wireless telecommunications base stations at this site or nearby.
Study Results
For a person anywhere at ground, the maYimum RF exposure level due to the proposed AT&T
operation is calculated to be 0.010 m`V/cm'-, �vhich is 1.0% of the applicable public exposure limit.
The maYimum calculated level at the second-floor elevation of any nearby buildin� is 2.4°/o of the
public exposure limit. It should be noted that these results include several "worst-case" assumptions
and therefore are expected to overstate actual po�ver density levels from the proposed operation.
HAMMETT & EDISON, INC. F3N5
3 � �+'-{ CONSUL'I'LVG ENGI�lEERS
' i�' ��: 't swN �u,ucisco Page 2 of 3
AT8�T Mobility • Proposed DAS Node (Site No. SFOK2-015)
1505 Bernal Avenue • Burlingame, California
Recommended Mitigation Measures
Due to its mounting location and height, the AT&T antenna �vould not be accessible to the general
public, and so no mitigation measures are necessary to comply with the FCC public exposure
guidelines. To prevent occupational exposures in excess of the FCC guidelines, it is recommended
that appropriate RF safety training be provided to all authorized personnel who have access to the
antenna. No access within 4 feet at the same height as the AT&T antenna, such as might occur durin�
certain maintenance activities at the top of the pole, should be allo�ved �vhile the node is in operation,
unless other measures can be demonstrated to ensure that occupational protection requirements are
met. It is recommended that an explanatory sign# be posted at the antenna and/or on the pole below
the antenna, readily visible from any angle of approach to persons who might need to �vork within that
distance.
Conclusion
Based on the information and analysis above, it is the undersigned's professional opinion that
operation of the node proposed by AT&T Mobility, at 150� Bernal Avenue in Burlin�ame, California,
will comply with the prevailin� standards for limiting public exposure to radio frequency energy and,
therefore, will not for this reason cause a significant impact on the environment. The highest
calculated level in publicly accessible areas is much less than the prevailin� standards allow for
e�cposures of unlimited duration. This findin� is consistent with measurements of actual eYposure
conditions taken at other operating nodes.
Authorship
The undersi�ned author of this statement is a qualified Professional Engineer, holdina California
Registration No. E-18063, which expires on June 30, 2019. This work has been carried out under his
direction, and all statements are true and correct of his own knowled�e except, where noted, �vhen data
has been supplied by others, which data he believes to be correct.
QROf ESSIONq
����P�P�( MATyG� E` ,
,,�, No. E-18063 � Rajat Nlathur, P.E.
September 26, 2017 � Exp.s-ao-2o1s * 707/996-5200
�
`�T F�ECTR\��'� ��Q'
9TF OF CA��F��
* Signs should comply �vith OET-6� color, symbol, and content recommendations. Contact inforniation should be
provided (e.a., a telzphone number) to arranQe for access to restricted areas. The selection of IanguaQe(s) is not an
engineerin� matter, and euidance from the landlord, local zoning or health authority, or appropriate professionals
may be required. Signage may also need to comply with the requirements of Califomia Public Utilities
Commission General Order No. 9�.
HAMMETT & EDISON, INC.
�';'-��� ` , �� ' CONSULTIVG ENGG�IEERS F3N�
. � . _ .i SAV FR.4NCLSCO a �
Pa_� 3 of 3
FCC Radio Frequency Protection Guide
The U.S. Congress required (1996 Telecom Act) the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC")
to adopt a nationwide human exposure standard to ensure that its licensees do not, cumulatively, have
a significant impact on the environment. The FCC adopted the limits from Report No. 86, "Biological
Effects and Exposure Criteria for Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields," published in 1986 by the
Congressionally chartered National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements ("NCRP").
Separate limits apply for occupational and public exposure conditions, with the latter limits generally
five times more restrictive. The more recent standard, developed by the Institute of Electrical and
Electronics Engineers and approved as American National Standard ANSUIEEE C95.1-2006, "Safety
Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to
300 GHz," includes similar limits. These limits apply for continuous exposures from all sources and
are intended to provide a prudent margin of safety for all persons, regardless of a�e, gender, size, or
health.
As shown in the table and chart below, separate limits apply for occupational and public exposure
conditions, �vith the latter limits (in italics and/or dashed) up to five times more restrictive:
Frec�uenc� Electroma�netic Fields (f is frequencv of emission in MHz)
Applicable Electric Magnetic Equivalent Far-Field
Range Field Strength Field Strength Power Density
(MHz) (V/m) (A/m) (mW/cm'')
0.3 — 1.34
134 — 3.0
3.0 — 30
30 — 300
300 — 1,500
1,500— 100,000
614
614
1842/ f
61.4
3.54�
137
614
8?3. 8/ f
823. 8/ f
27.5
1..59ff
61.4
1.63
1.63
4.89/ f
0. I 63
�f/106
0.364
1.63
2.19/f
2.19/f
0. 0719
�f /238
0.163
100
100
900/ f'
1.0
t%300
5.0
1000 � Occupational Exposure
100 PCS
`' �'r^ 10 � Cell
U = � `
o � 3 � FN1
� Q ~ 1 ` � � � � � i
� � � � �
�.1
Public Exqosa�re
0.1 1 10 100 103 10�` 10'
100
180/J'
180/f
0.?
f/1 � 0�
1.0
Frec�uency (MHz)
Hi�her levels are allo�ved for short periods of time, such that total e�cposure levels averaged over six or
thirty minutes, for occupational or public settin�s, respectively, do not exceed the limits, and hi�her
levels also are allo�ved for exposures to small areas, such that the spatially averaged levels do not
eYceed the limits. Ho�vever, neither of these allowances is incorporated in the conservative calculation
formulas in the FCC Oftice of Engineering and Technology Bulletin No. 65 (Au�ust 1997) for
projecting field levels. Hammett & Edison has built those formulas into a proprietary program that
calculates, at each location on an arbitrary rectan�ular grid, the total expected power density from any
number of individual radio sources. The program allo�vs for the description of buildings and uneven
terrain, if required to obtain more accurate projections.
HAMMETT & EDISON, INC.
co�s��Ti�;c e�ci��eEizs FCC Guide(ines
s,�:� Fa,�vcisco Figure 1
RFR.CFILCTM Calculation Methodology
Assessment by Calculation of Compliance with FCC Exposure Guidelines
The U.S. Congress required (1996 Telecom Act) the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") to
adopt a nationwide human exposure standard to ensure that its licensees do not, cumulatively, have a
si�nificant impact on the environment. The maximum permissible exposure limits adopted by the FCC
(see Figure 1) apply for continuous exposures from all sources and are intended to provide a prudent
margin of safety for all persons, regardless of age, gender, size, or health. Hi�her levels are allowed for
short periods of time, such that total exposure levels avera�ed over six or thirty minutes, for
occupational or public settings, respectively, do not exceed the limits.
Near Field.
Prediction methods have been developed for the near field zone of panel (directional) and �vhip
(omnidirectional) antennas, typical at wireless telecommunications base stations, as well as dish
(aperture) antennas, typically used for microwave links. The antenna patterns are not fully formed in
the near field at these antennas, and the FCC Office of En�ineering and Technolo�y Bulletin No. 65
(August 1997) gives suitable formulas for calculating po�ver density within such zones.
For a panel or whip antenna, po�ver density S= e� x OX D Px �h ' ln mW��2�
s���
O.1x16xr�xPfz1 m�,� �
and for an aperture antenna, maximum power density Smar = , , in /cm-,
�xh-
where 6B�,� = half-power beamwidth of the antenna, in degrees, and
Pnet = net power input to the antenna, in watts,
D= distance from antenna, in meters,
h= aperture height of the antenna, in meters, and
f� = aperhire efticiency (unitless, typically 0.5-0.8).
The factor of 0.1 in the numerators converts to the desired units of po�ver density.
Far Field.
OET-65 gives this formula for calculating power density in the far field of an individual RF source:
2.56x1.64x100xRFF' xERP
power density S= , , in m�'V/cm'-,
4xnxD-
where ERP = total ERP (all polarizations), in kilo�vatts,
RFF = relative field factor at the direction to the actual point of calculation, and
D= distance from the center of radiation to the point of calculation, in meters.
The factor of 2.56 accounts for the increase in power density due to around reflection, assumin� a
reflection coefficient of 1.6 (1.6 x 1.6 = 2.56). The factor of 1.64 is the gain of a half-wave dipole
relative to an isotropic radiator. The factor of 100 in the numerator converts to the desired units of
po�ver density. This fomzula has been built into a proprietary pro�ram that calculates, at each location
on an arbitrary rectangular grid, the total expected po�ver density from any number of individual
radiation sources. The proJram also allo�vs for the description of uneven terrain in the vicinity, to
obtain more accurate projections.
HAMv1ETT & EDISON, INC.
co�s��r��c Evc�:��FRs i�fethodology
sa� Fr..��cisco Fi�ttre 2
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO INSTALL A NEW
SMALL CELL WIRELESS FACILITY (ANTENNA AND EQUIPMENT) ON AN EXISTING
WOOD UTILITY POLE LOCATED WITHIN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY ADJACENT
TO 1505 BERNAL AVENUE
WHEREAS, on September 28, 2017, Abigail Reed, an agent for AT&T, filed an application
with the City of Burlingame Community Development Department — Planning Division requesting
approval of the following request:
■ Conditional Use Permit to install a new small cell wireless facility (antenna and equipment)
on an existing wood utility pole located within the right-of-way adjacent to 1505 Bernal
Avenue.
WHEREAS, on December 19, 2019 the Planning Commission conducted a noticed public
hearing (action meeting) to review and comment upon the proposed project. At that time the
Commission continued the application with the direction for the applicant to provide alternative
designs and information regarding the necessity to close significant gaps in coverage; and
WHEREAS, on April 27, 2020 the Planning Commission conducted a noticed public
hearing (action meeting). Following consideration of all information contained in the April 27,
2020 staff report to the Planning Commission regarding the project, all written correspondence,
and all public comments received at the public hearing, the Planning Commission grants approval
of the application for a Conditional Use Permit based on the following findings:
Conditional Use Permit Findinqs:
■ That the proposed wireless facility complies with all the requirements of Chapter 25.77
and with all applicable requirements of other chapters of the Burlingame Municipal Code;
■ That the proposed wireless facility, 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, because 1) the proposed wireless facility
complies with the Federal Communications Commission's radio frequency (RF) emissions
regulations (confirmed by an evaluation of the proposed wireless facility prepared by
Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers, dated September 26, 2017, and an
independent review by CTC Technology & Energy, dated December 2019) and 2) the
proposed wireless facility, consisting of an antenna and associated equipment mounted
on an existing PG&E owned wood utility pole, will be slightly wider than the existing pole
and will be concealed with a shield and painted to match the utility pole.
■ That the proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the
Burlingame General Plan and the purposes of the Zoning Code.
1
RESOLUTION NO.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame,
that:
A. On the basis of the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and
evaluated, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the
project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment. The Planning
Commission further finds that categorical exemption, per CEQA Section 15303, which
states that construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or
structures; installation of small new equipment and facilities in small structures; and the
conversion of existing small structures from one use to another where only minor
modifications are made in the exterior of the structure, is applicable to this project and is
approved.
B. A Conditional Use Permit is approved for the project subject to the following conditions of
approval. Findings for the Conditional Use Permit are set forth in the staff report, minutes,
and recordings of the said meeting. Conditions of approval:
1. that the conditional use permit to install a new small cell wireless communication facility
on an existing PG&E wood utility pole, located within the right-of-way adjacent to 1505
Bernal Avenue, consisting of a cylindrical antenna, extension on top of the utility pole, one
smartpole meter, two radio remote units, two twin diplexers, one ground bar, and one
electric load center, shall be valid for ten (10) years from the date of approval. At least
one hundred twenty (120) days prior to the expiration of the initial ten (10) year term, the
applicant shall complete and submit a renewal application to the Community Development
Director;
2. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division
date stamped April 18, 2019, sheets T-1, GN-1, A-1 through A-4.2, E-1 and E-2;
3. that prior to commencing any work at the site, the contractor commissioned by the
applicant to perform the work shall obtain all required permits, such as a construction
Encroachment Permit and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Permit from the Department
of Public Works — Engineering Division;
4. that all units must be at least seven (7) feet clear and above the highest adjacent finished
grade, no exceptions shall be allowed;
5. that the wireless communication facility shall operate in conformance with all applicable
provisions of Chapter 25.77 of the Burlingame Municipal Code (Wireless
Communications); where any conflicts exist between the applicable provisions of that
chapter and this approval, the more restrictive provision shall apply;
2
RESOLUTION NO.
6. that the facility shall meet or exceed current standards and regulations of the FCC, the
FAA, and any other agency of the state or federal government with the authority to regulate
wireless communication facilities. If such standards and regulations are changed and are
made applicable to existing facilities, the owners of the facilities governed by this chapter
shall bring such facilities into compliance with such revised standards and regulations
within six (6) months of the effective date of such standards and regulations, unless a
different compliance schedule is mandated by the controlling state or federal agency.
Failure to bring the facility into compliance with such revised standards and regulations
shall constitute grounds for the removal of the facilities at the owner's expense, revocation
of any permit or imposition of any other applicable penalty;
7. that the facility shall be constructed of graffiti-resistant materials and shall be painted with
non-reflective material consistent with the color scheme on the utility pole;
8. that signage in, on or near the facility shall be prohibited with the exception of warning and
informational signs, which shall be designed with minimal aesthetic impact;
9. that within forty-five (45) days of commencement of the facility operation, the applicant
shall conduct a post-installation field test to confirm that the radio frequency (RF) exposure
levels comply with FCC Rules and Regulations and with City noise regulations, shall
submit the comprehensive report to the City, and if necessary, agree to promptly correct
any noncompliance;
10. that the applicant shall report to the City every five (5) years from the date of
commencement of the facility operation, a review of the condition of the facility, of the
facility's compliance with federal and state regulations and of the facility's compliance with
the provisions of this chapter and the conditions of approval. The applicant shall also
provide updated contact information for the owner and the applicant and verifiable
confirmation information as to what carrier(s) are using the facility;
11. that the applicant shall procure and maintain a City business license, contact information
for the applicant, for the agent responsible for maintenance of the facility and for
emergency contact;
12. that the applicant shall either secure a bond, letter of credit or other similar financial
assurance, in a form acceptable to the City, for the removal of the facility in the event that
its use is abandoned, its operation is ceased or the approval is terminated;
13. that maintenance and repairs to facility shall be permitted provided that such maintenance
and repair does not enlarge or extend the facility structure or equipment enclosures or
change the number, type, dimensions, of the antenna or related equipment;
3
RESOLUTION NO.
14. that if the applicant intends to substitute the equipment installed pursuant to this permit
with subsequently-developed technology, such as "5G" equipment, the applicant or
responsible party shall provide si�y (60) days prior notice to the City and secure any
necessary permits before commencing such work;
15. that current contact information of the person or entity responsible for maintaining and
repairing the facility shall be provided to and maintained by the Community Development
Department;
16. that the facility shall be kept clean and free of graffiti, litter and debris. Lighting, walls,
fences, shields, cabinets, and poles, shall be maintained in good repair and free of graffiti
and other forms of vandalism, and any damage from any cause, including degradation
from wind and weather, shall be repaired as soon as reasonably possible to minimize
occurrences of dangerous conditions or visual blight. Graffiti shall be removed from any
facility as soon as practicable, and in no instance more than two (2) business days from
the time of notification by any person or entity;
17. that except for emergency repairs, testing and maintenance activities that will be audible
beyond the property line shall only occur between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on
Monday through Friday, excluding holidays;
18. that the service provider shall notify the Community Development Director of the intent to
vacate a site at least thirty (30) days prior to the vacation;
19. that if the facility site is not operated for a continuous period of twelve (12) months, the
Conditional Use Permit shall be deemed terminated unless before the end of the twelve
(12) month period:
(1) The Community Development Director has determined that the same operator
resumed operation; or
(2) The City has received an application to transfer the permit to another service
provider.
20. that no later than ninety (90) days from the date the facility is determined to have ceased
operation or the Provider has notified the Community Development Director of the intent
to vacate the site, the owner of the wireless communication facilities or the owner of the
property on which the facility is sited shall remove all equipment and improvements
associated with the use and shall restore the site to its original condition as required by
the Community Development Director. The provider or owner may use any bond or other
assurances provided by the operator to do so. The owner or his or her agent shall provide
written verification of the removal of the facility within thirty (30) days of the date the
removal is completed.
4
RESOLUTION NO.
Chairperson
�, , Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City
of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a
regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 27th dav of April, 2020, by the following
vote:
Secretary
5
CITY OF BURLINGAME
' COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
BURLINGAME
Planning Division
City Hall — 501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, California 94010-3997 PH: (650) 558-7250
FAX: (650) 696-3790
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on
Monday, April 27, 2020 at 7:00 P.M.
Location: Right-of-Way Adjacent to 1505 Bernal Avenue, zoned R-1: The subject utility pole is
located within the right-of-way adjacent to the parcel with an address of 1505 Bernal
Avenue, in the planter strip between the sidewalk and street.
Description: Application for a Conditional Use Permit to Install a New Small Cell Wireless
Facility (Antenna and Equipment) on an Existing Wood Utility Pole Located Within
the Right-of-Way Adjacent to 1505 Bernal Avenue, Burlingame, CA.
The proposed application, submitted by AT&T Mobility, includes installing a cylindrical
antenna and extension on top of an existing utility pole and associated equipment and
cabling mounted on the side of the utility pole. The proposed antenna, equipment and
cabling are proposed to be painted to match the utility pole.
A copy of the site plan and photo simulations are enclosed for your review. More detailed information,
including, but not limited to, application materials and associated reports, is also available at
www.burlinqame.orq/wireless.
To adhere to the San Mateo County Health Officer's Shelter-in-Place Order, the Planning Commission
meeting will be held via teleconference (see below for details). However, if you do not have access to
a computer, you may attend the meeting in the City Hall Council Chambers, 501 Primrose Road,
Burlingame, CA.
To access the meeting by computer:
Go to www.zoom.us/loin
Meeting ID: 984 870 639
Password: 380568
To access the meeting by phone:
Dial 1-669-900-6833
Meeting ID: 984 870 639
Password: 380568
Members of the public may provide written comments by email to publiccommentCa�burlinqame.orq.
Comments may be submitted both prior to the meeting, or during the meeting, and will be read
aloud by staff for the record.
Questions/Comments
If you have any questions about the proposed project or would like to schedule an appointment to view
a hard copy of the application and plans, please contact Ruben Hurin, staff planner for the project, at
rhurin(a�burlinqame.orq or (650) 558-7256. Written comments on the project may also be emailed to
the staff planner prior to the public hearing. We encourage you to review the proposed plans for this
project online now at www.burlinqame.orq/planninqcommission/aqenda.
(please refer to other side)
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
Agenda and Staff Reports
The City of Burlingame will publish the meeting agenda at 5 p.m. on Thursday, April 23, 2020. The
agenda will be available online at www.burlinqame.orq/planninacommission/agenda and will contain
the staff report, related documents, and proposed plans for this application. The agenda will also be
posted at City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA. A hardcopy of the staff report and related
documents may be obtained upon request to the staff planner (see contact information above).
Accessibility
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, individuals who require special assistance or a
disability-related modification or accommodation to participate in this meeting, or who have a disability
and wish to request an alternative format for the agenda, meeting notice, agenda packet or other
writings that may be distributed at the meeting, should contact the Planning Division at
planninqdept(c�burlinqame.orq or (650) 558-7250, by 10:00 a.m. on Monday, April 27, 2020. Notification
in advance of the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility
to this meeting, the materials related to it, and your ability to comment.
If you challenge the subject application(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you
or someone else raised at the public hearing, described in the notice or in written correspondence
delivered to the City at or prior to the public hearing.
Property owners who receive this notice are responsible for informing their tenants about the notice.
Kevin Gardiner, AICP
Community Development Director
Mailed: April 17, 2020
Right-of-way adjacent to 1505 BERNAL AVENUE
300' noticing
APN #: 026.034.110
U`��`r c;�4,�u' � � �.� �., `,� ��. �``'� `�
CP � �jG` � r� �`"� �.,� • G+� Q
��� � � ��� � �� ���'� 5 ��- � � �
� � a�
�� � �� :� , Q � �� �
�� �� � � .;� , �� �� � a
� � �
C� r�`' � C�j C.�
�'c� t� �4; .,�� (�'� t: A � , ��' ��
� tJ
� �� � ��j�' �J�` �-- �a� �- : 'l �ly �C` '�
d � �� �� q�``� �� A� � ��� '��
�
a�� � ` � ��`' �,�� �, �`� t.,� �`�`� a� �° �
��`� a�'� � � �`'� ° � �`� �;� �� ��`' ��
� C� �;j� �, � { n ���� y� G a
� � � �
��a „(?� � ��� � �� � L ti,� �� +��� ti�
�43 �C� ,��� {� � �� �. � �t7 �:�
�`� C' �' � � �`� z � _r;`��y
� G� . �i a� `( S,��z? ��v a� [^� 4 � G,�`
G} � � .T �L7 � ('.{? ^' '� � �
ry.� e �3 � ,r� �
�,�' � Q�J >� J,�� �K� Ys' � � �; ` �� , � =i
a� c �� �� � �� � � �� �� �
a�� �� c�`� �`� � 4`�� G� � 'r �� �c�� ;� �t7 � �
a�' �,' r�'° � � �� � S/esS c'' ' �'' ��' �� "`.
� Q4j� � C:,�' C,� �' t':,
� � l� � h ,��'• 9 � S`�-t r:. q �:c
�� ,� nl� � � �'w '''�� �S� c� � j( � r�� Q� l�� ,�
Q a�~ �'�c. � ��.- ;� +�� C; �
� t� `' �� Y C�' yp � �
Q� �� ,� p r.,�� k A� � q'�� rr�� �� . �� ` . � � �� c, �a
L J Gs �:; [ti
c, Q�r1y �� �� ���`, � �-� � �t� �� ' ��('�, �
� s� �•;.4 �, Cl �p . � •�
q �j� � cG� ���� ��' �r. [ V ,�> � �
� Qe�' �_
y �r .
�a p Q�.CZ �" ,s�E'l� � �J �� ta �`'� �� �
� a� : � � �,t � ' ��� � a C>L,'' ,} p� �4'� A�'
�� �� �� � ��
cs� , �_�, �� �
�- C�
w� aaQ �`��v ' �'� �i `�� .p�,' � �, ;�Q � l.,
� `` .F.�.,- a
a
R �j, �'`at,� r �c} �,� , C.�� i`f'Q� {a� ,�j� Q� ��r �� ,
Q� � � � �` � � `�a C'r �' �� � tS '�?
�, s�Cj r� Q
a�' �. �''� � � '�
���� � -� � ��� �' �. �' �e� :-� �� ��a
� � �� � �� � a ,
��?� �� ���� � ��C� �}7 C� , C•`' ���� r7 p t�� � �
�� �� ��� �� �� � �'� wG� O
�3
c� �"',r� .. �c{%_ t'� �r � �J q� ��`
City of Burlingame
Planning Division
(650) 558-7250 • (650) 696-3790 (fax)
Plan Review Comments
Project Address: Adjacent to 1505 Bernal Avenue
Zoning: R-1
Description: Application for AT&T Mobility to install a new wireless communications facility on an existing
wood utility pole located within the right-of-way, adjacent to 1505 Bernal Avenue. The proposal
consists of installing one (1) cylindrical antenna on top of the utility pole and associated
equipment attached to the side of the utility pole, including two (2) radio remote units, one (1)
fiber distribution panel, one (1) electric load center, and one (1) power meter.
Date of Plans: December 20, 2017
Lot Area: Right-of-way, in planter strip between curb and sidewalk.
1. Pre-Application Meeting (Burlingame Municipal Code Section 25.77.055)
a. Applicant sent out notices to property owners in area on January 17, 2018. Notice informs property
owners to contact a representative from AT&T with questions.
No response required.
2. Contents of Permit Application (BMC Section 25.77.060)
a. Description and propagation maps of how this facility relates to the overall wireless network for the
carrier(s) it is servicing as well as how this facility relates to other wireless facility projects in process of
being constructed and/or planned in or near the City of Burlingame were provided by the applicant on
December 20, 2017.
b. Description and propagation maps of how the proposed wireless communication facility fits into the
individual service provider's network of existing and proposed wireless communication facility sites within
a tentative two (2) year plan were provided by the applicant on December 20, 2017.
c. A revised map identifying the applicant's existing and planned wireless communications facilities within
city limit so that it includes an illustration of the estimated coverage area (search area) for all existing and
proposed wireless communication facility sites for the applicant and/or service provider was provided by
the applicant on December 20, 2017.
d. Visual simulation was revised to include the following:
■ Dimension from ground to top of existing utility pole.
• Dimension from top of existing utility pole to top of proposed antenna.
■ Dimension from ground to bottom of power meter.
e. The proposed facility is to be located in the public right-of-way. A copy of the encroachment permit
granting right of owner to locate utility facilities in right-of-way was provided by the applicant.
,- -
City of Burlingame
Planning Division
(650) 558-7250 • (650) 696-3790 (fax)
Plan Review Comments
3. Design Review Criteria for Wireless Communications Facilities (BMC Section 25.77.080)
Location Preference Order. In determining the location of proposed wireless communication facilities,
applicants should use best efforts to comply with the location preference order outlined in BMC Section
25.77.080:
1. Non-Residential Zoning Districts which are more than 500 feet from Residential Zoning Districts or the
Burlingame Downtown Districts.
2. Non-Residential Zoning Districts within 500 feet from Residential Zoning Districts or the Burlingame
Downtown Districts.
3. Residential Zoning Districts.
a. An explanation of the reason that the proposed facilities cannot be deployed at a higher-preference
location was provided by the applicant on December 20, 2017.
4. The design professional who prepared the plans needs to have a City of Burlingame business license.
Business License obtained on December 31, 2017 (#32309).
End of Comments
2