4207650 4207660 4207670 4207680 4207690 4207700 4207710 4207720 4207730 4207650 4207660 4207670 4207680 4207690 4207700 4207710 4207720 4207730 599770 599780 599790 599800 599810 599820 599830 599840 599850 599860 599870 599880 599890 599900 599770 599780 599790 599800 599810 599820 599830 599840 599850 599860 599870 599880 599890 599900 38° 0' 42'' N
121° 51' 48'' W
38° 0' 42'' N
121° 51' 42'' W
38° 0' 39'' N
121° 51' 48'' W
38° 0' 39'' N
121° 51' 42'' WN
Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 10N WGS84 0 30 60 120 180
Feet
0 5 10 20 30
Meters
Map Scale: 1:629 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet.
Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
321
MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION
Area of Interest (AOI)
Area of Interest (AOI)
Soils
Soil Rating Polygons
A
A/D
B
B/D
C
C/D
D
Not rated or not available
Soil Rating Lines
A
A/D
B
B/D
C
C/D
D
Not rated or not available
Soil Rating Points
A
A/D
B
B/D
C
C/D
D
Not rated or not available
Water Features
Streams and Canals
Transportation
Rails
Interstate Highways
US Routes
Major Roads
Local Roads
Background
Aerial Photography
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at
1:24,000.
Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale.
Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
measurements.
Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey URL:
Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required.
This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below.
Soil Survey Area: Contra Costa County, California
Survey Area Data: Version 20, Sep 12, 2023
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger.
Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Apr 23, 2022—Apr 24, 2022
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident.
Hydrologic Soil Group—Contra Costa County, California
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
10/11/2023
Hydrologic Soil Group
Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI CaA Capay clay, 0 to 3
percent slopes, MLRA
17 C 0.4 28.4%
RbC Rincon clay loam, 2 to 9
percent slopes, MLRA
14 C 1.1 71.6%
Totals for Area of Interest 1.5 100.0%
Description
Hydrologic soil groups are based on estimates of runoff potential. Soils are assigned to one of four groups according to the rate of water infiltration when the soils are not protected by vegetation, are thoroughly wet, and receive precipitation from long-duration storms.
The soils in the United States are assigned to four groups (A, B, C, and D) and three dual classes (A/D, B/D, and C/D). The groups are defined as follows:
Group A. Soils having a high infiltration rate (low runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist mainly of deep, well drained to excessively drained sands or gravelly sands. These soils have a high rate of water transmission.
Group B. Soils having a moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of moderately deep or deep, moderately well drained or well drained soils that have moderately fine texture to moderately coarse texture.
These soils have a moderate rate of water transmission.
Group C. Soils having a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of soils having a layer that impedes the downward movement of water or soils of moderately fine texture or fine texture. These soils have a slow rate of water transmission.
Group D. Soils having a very slow infiltration rate (high runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of clays that have a high shrink-swell potential, soils that have a high water table, soils that have a claypan or clay layer at or near the surface, and soils that are shallow over nearly impervious material. These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission.
If a soil is assigned to a dual hydrologic group (A/D, B/D, or C/D), the first letter is for drained areas and the second is for undrained areas. Only the soils that in their natural condition are in group D are assigned to dual classes.
Hydrologic Soil Group—Contra Costa County, California
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
10/11/2023
323
Rating Options
Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition
Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified
Tie-break Rule: Higher
Hydrologic Soil Group—Contra Costa County, California
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
10/11/2023
324
121°32'30"W
121°32'30"W
121°35'0"W
121°35'0"W
121°37'30"W
121°37'30"W
121°40'0"W
121°40'0"W
121°42'30"W
121°42'30"W
121°45'0"W
121°45'0"W
121°47'30"W
121°47'30"W
121°50'0"W
121°50'0"W
121°52'30"W
121°52'30"W
121°55'0"W
121°55'0"W
121°57'30"W
121°57'30"W
122°0'0"W
122°0'0"W
122°2'30"W
122°2'30"W
122°5'0"W
122°5'0"W
122°7'30"W
122°7'30"W
122°10'0"W
122°10'0"W
122°12'30"W
122°12'30"W
122°15'0"W
122°15'0"W
122°17'30"W
122°17'30"W
122°20'0"W
122°20'0"W
122°22'30"W
122°22'30"W
122°25'0"W
122°25'0"W
38°7'30"N
38°5'27"N
38°5'27"N
38°3'24"N
38°3'24"N
38°1'21"N
38°1'21"N
37°59'18"N
37°59'18"N
37°57'15"N
37°57'15"N
37°55'12"N
37°55'12"N
37°53'9"N
37°53'9"N
37°51'6"N
37°51'6"N
37°49'3"N
37°49'3"N
37°47'0"N
37°47'0"N
37°44'57"N
37°44'57"N
37°42'54"N
37°42'54"N
37°40'51"N
37°40'51"N
Path: \\pw-data\grpdata\fldctl\GIS\Map of DAs and Zones\FC Zones and DA 2015-08-25.mxd By: M. Boucher Date: 8/25/2015 Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, TomTom, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Disclaimer:This map was created by the Contra Costa County Public Works Department with data from the Contra Costa County GIS Program.
This map may be reproduced in its current state if the source is cited.
Users of this map agree to read and accept the County of Contra Costa disclaimer of liability for geographic information.
http://www.ccmap.us/legal.asp/
Basins/Reservoirs
0 5 10 152.5
Miles
0 5 10 15 202.5
Kilometers 1 in = 1.58 miles1:100,0001 cm = 1 kmScale:
Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Zones and Drainage Areas
Formed Drainage Areas
Drainage Areas
Flood Control Zones
Creeks
City Limits
Basins/Reservoirs
District
CCCo
City
Private
DA 130
PROJECT SITE
ZONE 13/DA 70
325
Attachment 8 - Property Development Regulations Table
Quick Quack Car Wash, AP-24-0004 (RZ, UP, DR
, SR-SE)
Development
Regulations:
CC (Community
Commercial) District
Required: Proposed Project:
Minimum lot area (SF): 5,000 square feet Approx. 39,200 square feet Minimum lot width (ft): 50 feet Approx. 370 feet
Minimum Yards:
Front: 15 feet Approx. 49 feet
Side: - Approx. 20 feet on the east and
western side boundaries
Side (adjacent to an
R or any Residential
PD District):
10 feet 28’ from Residential District
Boundary to payment lanes; Approx.
150’ from Residential District
Boundary to vehicle wash tunnel.
Rear:
- 28’ from Residential District
Boundary to payment lanes; Approx.
150’ from Residential District
Boundary to vehicle wash tunnel.
Maximum front yard: - Approx. 49 feet
Maximum height of
structures (ft):
60 feet 18’ 4” – vehicle wash tunnel
31’ – tower on western end of
vehicle wash tunnel
25’ 4” – tower on eastern end of
vehicle wash tunnel
Minimum height of
structures (ft):
- 1 story
Maximum lot coverage: 50% Approx. 6.3%
Minimum site
landscaping:
10% 26%
Parking Required:
PMC Section 18.78.040
Schedule A – Automobile
Washing – Four parking
spaces required plus one for
every 500 square feet (18
spaces)
22 parking spaces provided within
vehicle vacuum area, two of which
are ADA accessible, plus four
additional spaces outside of vacuum
area – total of 26 parking spaces
provided.
326
Attachment 9
Development
Review Design Guidelines (DRDG) Table
Quick Quack Car Wash, AP-24-0004 (RZ, UP, DR, SE)
DRDG No. Meets Guideline?
IV.a: Parking areas should be screened from
view from any public right -of-way. Parking
areas should be broken up to eliminate vast
areas of parking especially along street
frontages.
Yes. The proposed project would include
landscaping along the North Park Blvd .
frontage, screening parking spaces from the
public view. Parking for the project is located
in the center of the project site. It is screened
from view along North Park Blvd . by the
proposed vehicle wash tunnel and is not
located along the street frontage.
IV.b: Provisions should be made for
permanent shopping cart corrals in retail
shopping centers.
Not applicable. The project is not intended as
a shopping center. No shopping carts would
be used.
IV.c: Existing trees on site should be
incorporated into the project site design,
unless waived by the City Planner or Planning
Commission.
No. There are no existing trees within the
project site.
IV.d: Developer should elect, at least, one of
the schemes provided in Appendix #1 for
screening all utility box transformers, backflow
preventers, meters, and junction boxes.
Conditionally. A proposed C ondition of
Approval states that all air conditioning units,
utility boxes, transformers, backflow
preventers, meters, and junction boxes shall
be substantially screened from public view
using a block or retaining wall screen,
wood/architectural screen, or dense
landscaping screen. Final utility screening
methods shall be included on the construction
drawings and shall be subject to review and
approval by the Planning Division prior to
issuance of a Building Permit.
IV.e: Projects with many buildings (greater
than three) should have a variety of building
sizes and masses.
Not applicable. This guideline does not apply
because the project would only include one
building.
IV.f: Continuous horizontal roof lines should
be broken up whenever possible. An expanse
should not exceed 50 feet in length unless
architecture or size dictate a greater expanse.
Yes. The project would include one
rectangular, 122-foot-long, one-story building
with a footprint of 3,588 square feet . The
proposed roofline is broken up along the
eastern and western elevations to provide
structural relief.
IV.g: Building entries should be designed as
a focal point. They should be designed to set
the theme or be the primary feature of the
building or commercial center.
Yes. The project’s building has an enhanced
entry and exit located at both ends of the
vehicle wash tunnel. This is accomplished by
the proposed towers and their associated
accent colors, as well as proposed
landscaping and business signage.
IV.h: Building elevations visible from public
right-of-ways should be addressed in Design
Review and treated appropriately.
Yes. The proposed building has been
designed with c onsistent design elements,
materials, colors, along with all elevations
visible from the public right-of-way.
327
IV.i: A free -standing structure within an
existing commercial or industrial center
should be architecturally compatible with the
center, including but not limited to materials,
colors, and architectural elements.
Not applicable. This guideline does not apply
because the project would not be proposed as
part of a commercial or industrial center.
IV.j: All roof mounted equipment should be
screened completely from view from all public
rights-of-way. A site line study may be
necessary to determine appropriate screening
method.
Conditionally. A proposed Condition of
Approval would require the developer to
ensure all roof -mounted equipment on the
new building is adequately screened from
view.
IV.k: All structures including, but not limited to,
‘tilt-up’ type structures, should have structural
reliefs and articulated entries.
Yes. The building design includes a variety of
contrasting materials with different textures to
create architectural interest on each side of
the building. The design also breaks up the
122-foot-long structure’s roof line to create
additional structural relief.
IV.l: Exterior fire escapes, stairs and other
appurtenances should be designed or treated
as integral parts of the building façade.
Not applicable . There are no fire escapes,
stairs, or other appurtenances proposed
within the development.
IV.m: Downspouts should be designed into
the façade of the building unless
architecturally treated.
Conditionally. A proposed C ondition of
Approval states, all gutters and downspouts
shall be placed behind exterior walls. Final
gutter and/or downspout placement shall be
identified on the construction drawings and
shall be subject to review and approval by the
Planning Division prior to issuanc e of a
Building Permit.
IV.n: Add murals, lattice or some other space-
frame type treatment to blank walls visible
from public view.
Yes. There are no bla nk walls visible from
public view. Windows and architectural
treatments break up all sides o f p roposed
structure.
IV.o: Prototype or ‘theme’ architecture is
discouraged.
Yes. The project would not include any
‘theme’ architecture.
IV.p: New or remodeled buildings should be
designed to be compatible in design, color
and materials with adjacent development.
Yes. The building design consists of a
rectangular footprint with staggered walls. The
building materials include a cementitious
siding, aluminum accents, and a neutral color
pallet. The building design, materials, and
color scheme would be compatible with the
surrounding developments in that surrounding
buildings also have rectangular footprints with
staggered walls, flat roofs, and neutral color
schemes.
IV.q: The street-oriented elevations shall be
designed so as not to present the appearance
of a rear elevation.
Yes. The proposed building has been
designed with consistent design elements,
materials, colors, along all elevations visible
from the public right-of-way.
328
IV.r: Trash enclosures should include area for
collection of recyclables ( i.e., space for two
90-gallon containers minimum).
Conditionally. A proposed Condition of
Approval requires the proposed project
construct of a trash enclosure on site,
consistent with the City of Pittsburg Trash
Enclosure Design Standards.
DRDG No. Meets Guideline?
VI.D.1: Roofs should be designed to integrate
renewable energy systems and provide a cool
urban environment.
Yes. The proposed project satis fies this
DRDG.
VI.D.2: Urban heat island impacts should be
minimized through shading or paving material
design choices.
Conditionally. The landscape plan is
required as a Condition of Approval to provide
at a minimum 10 % site coverage. This
proposal would help to reduce the urban heat
island effect.
VI.D.3: Hardscapes shou ld be constructed
with permeable surfaces. Impermeable
surfaces may be used if they direct all runoff
toward an appropriate permanent infiltration
feature.
Yes. The proposed project is designed with
concrete and asphalt surfaces that drain to
landscape areas.
VI.D.4: Design choices should incorporate or
prepare for electric vehicle charging or used
vegetable oil fueling infrastructure.
No. Provided the scope of the development, it
is not recommended by City staff to condition
this project to install electric vehicle charging
stations. The proposed business would
operate on a quick-service manner. Providing
charging stations may prolong the amount of
time that the public will use the space, which
is not the intent of the convenience- oriented
business and use classification. Electrical
Vehicle Charging Stations are recommended
by this Guidelines and not required.
VI.D.5: Fuel cell technology should be
considered where other renewables are
infeasible.
Not applicable. See comment under DRDG
VI.D.1.
VI.D.6: Reclaimed water should be used for
as much non- potable water uses as feasible
and practical.
Not applicable . Reclaimed water
infrastructure is not present near the project
site.
VI.D.7: Large commercial and institutional
facilities that are anticipated to employ more
than 50 employees should consider providing
on-site shops and services for those
employees.
Not applicable. The proposed project does
not include a commercial or institutional use
anticipated to employ more than 50 people.
VI.D.8: Street side building faces should
encourage walking.
Conditionally. The project ’s main entrance
would be oriented towards North Park Blvd.
and a pedestrian sidewalk of 5’ in width has
been a Condition of Approval required by the
City’s Engineering Division.
329
VI.D.9: Secure bicycle parking facilities
should be provided for at least 10 percent of
expected peak hour trips.
Conditionally. The Condition of Approval
would require the project to provide bicycle
racks to accommodate at least 4 bicycles in
compliance with PMC section 18.78.045.
330
STANDARD CONDITIONS OF DEVELOPMENT
(Planning Commission Resolution No. 8931)
All projects approved by the Planning Commission must meet the following standard conditions unless specifically exempted by the Commission or Council.
A. Project Site.
1. The applicant shall comply with all
regulations and code requirements of the
Building Division, Engineering Division,
Contra Costa Fire Protection District, the
Police Department and any other agencies
requiring review of the project. If required,
these agencies shall be supplied copies of
the final building and site plans.
2. Developer shall provide written
notification to adjacent property owners for
any drainage work required to collect or
convey storm water runoff, which may or
will affect their properties.
3. During construction water trucks or
sprinkler systems are to be used in sufficient
quantities to prevent dust from leaving the
site during any earthmoving and/or
construction activities. Nonpotable water
shall be used from a source approved by the
City Engineer. (Title 15 of PMC)
4. Continuous 6” high Portland Concrete
Cement curbing shall be provided between
all driveways and landscaped areas as
indicated in the City of Pittsburg Standard
Details. In addition to above, curbing
between length of parking space and
landscaped area shall include a 12” wide
“Courtesy Curb.”
5. CC&R’s (Covenants, Conditions and
Restrictions) for the project shall contain
appropriate provisions for joint maintenance
of any infrastructure, roadways, utilities,
landscaping and irrigation as determined
necessary by the City Engineer.
6. Developer shall submit a study
addressing on and off-site storm water and
sewer system capabilities. If the study
indicates that the present system is
inadequate, the developer must provide
plans and install any additional storm water
and sanitary and sanitary sewer facilities
including off-site improvements to correct
storm water runoff and sanitary sewer
demands anticipated for upstream buildout
in accordance with the Pittsburg General
Plan.
7. Environmental and engineering studies,
as directed by the Planning and Building
Director, must be complete and on file prior
to commencement to plan checking.
Developer shall install off-street
improvements determined necessary by the
City Engineer to provide safe traffic
conditions.
8. Developer shall underground existing
and required on and off-site utilities as
specified in Chapter 17 of the Municipal
Code or as deemed necessary by the City
Engineer.
9. All site development shall comply with
title 12 (Streets, Sidewalks and Utilities),
Title 13 (Water and Sewers) and Chapter
15.88 (Grading, Erosion and Sediment
Control) of the Pittsburg Municipal Code as
determined by the City Engineer. Issuance
of a site development permit will be
required whereby specific engineering
requirements will be made as conditions of
approval of that permit.
10. The CC&R’s shall restrict the storage of
recreational vehicles on this site or parcels
unless they are the principle source of
transportation for the owner and prohibit
parking on the public street for long than 72
hours.
331
11. All retaining wall adjacent to public
right-of-ways shall be provided with
decorative treatment, subject to approval by
the Planning Division.
12. The design of any masonry soundwall
shall be approved by the Planning and
Building Department. It shall match or
harmonize with existing soundwalls of
neighboring projects along that street.
B. Architecture.
1. All mechanical, irrigation, ground
and/or roof mounted equipment shall be
architecturally screened from view from all
public right-of-ways prior to issuance of
certificate of occupancy.
2. All trash enclosures shall be
constructed of masonry material with self-
enclosing doors and have a second access.
The enclosure shall have materials and
colors consistent with the primary building.
3. All vents, gutters, downspouts, flashing
electrical conduits, etc., shall be painted or
finished to match the color of the adjacent
surface unless otherwise directed by the
Planning Commission.
4. Soffits and other architectural elements
visible from view but not detailed on the
plans shall be finished in a material in
harmony with the exterior of the building.
5. Finish quality of exterior design
elements including, but not limited to,
building façade landscaping shall be subject
to approval of the Planning Division prior to
issuance of Certificate of Occupancy.
C. Landscaping.
1. Specific landscaping for screening shall
have an appearance of mature growth
subject to a field check and approval by the
Planning Division prior to Certificate of
Occupancy.
2. The area under the drip line of all
existing trees, which are to be saved, shall
be fenced during construction. Grading
shall be restricted under them to prevent soil
compaction around the trees and to protect
them from damage.
3. An existing tree inventory shall be
created and included on the site plan for all
new projects prior to approval of grading
plan.
4. All slope banks in excess of five (5) feet
in vertical height and 2:1 or greater slope
shall be landscaped and irrigated for erosion
control and to soften their appearance as
follows: one 15-gallon or larger size tree
per each 150 sq. ft. of slope area, one 1-
gallon or larger size shrub per each 100 sq.
ft. of slope area, and appropriate ground
cover 12-24 inches on-center. In addition,
slope banks in excess of eight (8) feet in
vertical eight and 2:1 or greater slope also
include one 5-gallon or larger size tree per
each 250 sq. ft. of slope area. Trees and
shrubs shall be planted in staggered clusters
to soften and vary slope plane. Slope
planting required by this condition shall
include a permanent irrigation system to be
installed by the developer prior to
occupancy.
6. All planting shall be maintained in good
growing condition. Such maintenance shall
include, where appropriate, pruning,
mowing, weeding, cleaning of debris and
trash, fertilizing and regular watering.
Whenever necessary, planting shall be
replaced with other plant materials to insure
continued compliance with applicable
landscaping requirements. Required
irrigation systems shall be fully maintained
in sound operating condition with heads
periodically cleaned and replaced when
missing to insure continued regular watering
of landscape areas, and health and vitality of
landscape materials.
332
D. General Requirements
1. Final inspection for occupancy permits
will not be granted until all construction and
landscaping is complete in accordance with
approved plans.
2. The applicant shall defend, indemnify
and hold harmless the City of Pittsburg, its
agents, officers, and employees from any
claim, action, or proceeding against the City
or its agents, officers, or employees to
attack, set aside, void or annul this approval,
or any aspect of the City’s consideration of
applicant’s project. The applicant
recognizes and agrees that applicant’s
voluntary commitment to meet the
obligations described in this condition is an
integral factor in the City’s approval of this
project. The intent of this condition is to
require the applicant to bear the cost of any
and all litigation instituted to overturn or in
any way modify the City’s approval of this
project. Such costs include without
limitation, any award of attorney’s fees and
costs to a prevailing plaintiff or petitioner.
In the event the city becomes aware of any
such claim, action, or proceeding, the City
shall promptly notify the applicant and shall
cooperate fully in the defense. If the City
fails to promptly notify the applicant, or if
the City fails to cooperate fully in the
defense, the applicant shall not thereafter be
responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold
harmless the City. Nothing contained in this
condition prohibits the City from
participating in the defense of any claim,
action, or proceeding, it both the following
occur: (a) the City bears its own attorneys’
fees and costs; and (b) the City defends the
action in good faith. The applicant shall not
be required to pay or perform any settlement
unless the applicant approves the settlement.
3. It is required by State Law (Business and
Professional Code Section No. 5537 & 5538
and Section 302(b) of the Uniform Building
Code) that all commercial buildings, new or
existing must have a licensed professional
designer (Architect, Civil or Structural
Engineer) to design all changes of use or
occupancy as well as new construction.
4. The Applicant shall submit a complete
area water pressure availability study for all
phases of the Project prior to issuance of any
development permits. If the study indicates
that the present system is inadequate, the
Applicant must provide plans, which will
demonstrate any remedial action necessary
to abate the deficiency and shall take all
necessary actions at the applicant’s expense.
5. This use permit may be recalled to the
Planning Commission for review at any time
due to complaints regarding lack of
compliance with conditions of approval,
traffic congestion, noise generation, or other
adverse operating characteristics. At such
time, the Commission may revoke the use
permit or add/modify conditions approval.
6. It is the responsibility of the applicant or
developer to check with each agency for
requirements that may pertain to their
project.
7. All signs shall be submitted to the
Planning Division for design review per
Title 19 of the Pittsburg Municipal Code.
8. All landscape areas shall be maintained
in a healthy, thriving and weed free
condition.
9. The site shall be maintained in a neat
and clean manner free of trash and debris.
10. All outdoor mechanical equipment,
satellite dishes, fire main and all rooftop
equipment shall be fully visually screened
upon installation subject to the approval of
the Planning Division. Screening devices
shall be shown on construction and/or
landscape plans.
11. All exterior light fixtures shall be shown
on plans subject to staff review and
approval. All lights attached to buildings
shall provide a soft “wash” of light against
333
the wall. All building and parking or yard
lights shall conform to City Parking
Standards 18.78.050 (F) and Performance
Standards 18.82.030 (B) and shall
compliment the site and building
architecture.
12. Prior to occupancy, the developer shall
supply the City with an ACAD computer
disk file showing plans that reflect the
project as it was build (As-Builts) at the
discretion of the Planning and Building
Director.
E. Standard Conditions of Approval
Requiring Minimum Construction Site
Management Practices
1. (Projects involving land disturbances
of less than five (5) acres) – During
construction activities, the project sponsor
shall reduce or prevent to the maximum
extent practicable the direct or indirect
discharge of any pollutant into the storm
drain system utilizing best management
practices contained in the California Storm
Water Best Management Practices
Handbook for Construction Activities.
Construction activities include, but are not
limited to: watering operations; roadwork
and paving operations; concrete and
painting; structure construction and painting;
construction material storage and handling;
construction waste/debris storage and
disposal; and, construction
equipment/vehicle cleaning, maintenance
and fueling operations. The project sponsor
is also responsible for training all
contractors and subcontractors on the best
management practices which are identified
in the California Storm Water Best
Management Practices Handbook for
Construction Activities which will be
available at the pre-construct meeting of the
project.
or
2. (Projects involving land disturbances
of five (5) acres or more) – Prior to
commencement of any site work that will
result in a land disturbance of five acres or
more, the project sponsor shall submit to the
City a copy of the Notice of Intent (NOI)
sent the State Water Resources Control
Board and the Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prepared for the
project, as required by the State’s General
Construction Activity Permit.
3. All storm drains, which serve the site,
shall be protected from spills and soil runoff
(from unpaved parking areas). The
applicant may use “Any Source Control”
BMP (Best Management Practice) as listed
in the California Storm Water Best
Management Practice Handbook for storm
water run-ff for commercial and industrial
sites. Storm drains will be inspected
periodically. Questions may be referred to
City NPDES Coordinator, at 252-4920.
334
65 Civic Avenue
Pittsburg, CA 94565
P: (925) 252-6900
F: (925) 252-4814
pittsburgca.gov
Community and Economic Development Department – Planning Division
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the CITY COUNCIL of the City of Pittsburg will conduct a public hearing on:
DATE: February 18, 2025
TIME: 7 :00 p.m.
PLACE: C ity Council Chamber at City Hall
65 Civic Avenue, Pittsburg, California
Concerning the following matter:
Quick Quack Car Wash Facility, AP-24-0004 (RZ, UP, DR, SE) This is a public hearing on a request for City Council to: 1) Adopt a Resolution Adopting an Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS /MND) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), 2) Introduce and w aive first reading of an Ordinance a mending the Zoning Map, and 3) Adopt a Resolution approving use permit, design review, and sign exception Applications for the Quick Quack Car Wash project located approximately 700’ east of the intersection of Loveridge Road and North Park Boulevard. Proposed along the southern portion of Assessor’s Parcel No. 088- 151-047. The project site is bound to the north by a dialysis center, to the east by North Park Plaza shopping center, to the south by North Park Boulevard, and to the west by a dentist office use.
Environmental Determination
Pursuant to the provisions of the CEQA Guidelines, an Initial Study (IS) was prepared for the Project.
Based on the analysis in the IS, it was determined that potentially significant effects of the project could be lessened through specified mitigations, and subsequently, a draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) were prepared. The Draft IS/MND is available for download on the City’s Public Environmental Reviews website at:
https://www.pittsburgca.gov/services/community -development/planning/public -reviews
PROJECT PLANNER: Ariana Ruiz, (925) 252-4029 or [email protected]
Why am I receiving this notice?
You are receiving this notice because you have either previously requested notifications from the Planning Division, or a project has been proposed in your neighborhood and all property owners within a minimum 300- foot radius of the project site are required to be notified under the Pittsburg Municipal Code.
Where can I get more information about this project?
The project file is available for public inspection; please contact the project planner listed above.
What can I do if I have comments on the project?
Comments or objections to the project can be made by writing or through e-mailed testimony prior to the meeting or provided orally during the meeting. Written comments citing the project name may be emailed to the project planner listed above or may be mailed or delivered to Pittsburg Planning Division, 65 Civic Avenue, Pittsburg, CA 94565.
Pursuant to Section 65009 of the California Government Code, if you challenge this matter in court, you may be limited to those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence on the matter delivered to this agency at, or prior to the public hearing. Any written correspondence delivered to the Planning Division before the hearing body’s action on the matter will become a part of the administrative record.
_________________________________
JOHN FUNDERBURG, SECRETARY
PITTSBURG PLANNING COMMISSION
335
Project Title: Quick Quack Car Wash Facility, AP-24-0004 (RZ, UP, DR, SE) Location: Approximately 700’ east of the intersection of Loveridge Road and North Park Boulevard.
Proposed along the southern portion of Assessor’s Parcel No. 088- 151-047.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Community and Economic Development Department -
Planning Division
65 Civic Avenue
Pittsburg, CA 94565
336
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
65 Civic Avenue
Pittsburg, CA 94565
TO: Mayor and Council Members
FROM: Garrett Evans, City Manager
SUBJECT: Public Hearing on an Appeal of the Planning Commission's Approval of Design Review and Variance Application to Construct a 40-foot-tall 'Mono-Eucalyptus' Telecommunications Facility at Assessor's Parcel No. 094-030-004 for "AT&T Wireless Facility," AP-24-0026 (DR, VA) MEETING DATE: February 18, 2025
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On September 24, 2024, the Planning Commission approved Planning Application No. AP- 24-0026, filed by Jared Kearsley of 51 Wireless, LLC, requesting approval of Design Review and Variance applications to 1) construct a new, 40-foot-tall faux ‘Mono-Eucalyptus’ Telecommunications Facility, and 2) a Variance from the required maximum height standards in the Single Family Residential, 6,000 Square Foot Lot Minimum (RS-6) Zoning District.
On October 4, 2024, Gregory Osorio, pursuant to Pittsburg Municipal Code (PMC) Section
18.18.060, filed an appeal of the Planning Commission’s determination to approve the proposed project.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with the recommended action. All on-site project improvements and upgrades to the existing parcel will be borne by the project applicant.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council open the de novo appeal hearing, take comment from the appellant (project applicant) and the public, close the appeal hearing, and then move to adopt the attached resolution denying the appeal and granting Design Review and Variance Approval of Plans to Construct a 40-foot-tall 'Mono-Eucalyptus' Telecommunications Facility at Assessor's Parcel No. 094-030-004 for "AT&T Wireless Facility," AP-24-0026 (DR, VA). 337
BACKGROUND
On December 12, 2000, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 9182 approving Design Review application no. DR-00-27 to install and establish a telecommunications facility at the proposed project site. The Design Review application approval included the installation of ground-mounted and water tank-mounted telecommunications equipment.
The equipment installed exceeded the height of the water tank by four feet to allow for proper radio operation. The antennas that exceeded the water tank height were architecturally treated and painted to blend into the existing water tank and open space in the project area. The telecommunications facility has been in operation since its initial construction and has been maintained and upgraded over the last 20 years through various Minor Modification and Administrative Design Review applications, facilitated by the Zoning Administrator. Minor Modification and Administrative Design Review applications primarily focused on equipment modification with no expansion of the existing telecommunications facility.
On March 21, 2024, Jared Kearsley with 51 Wireless, LLC, on behalf of AT&T filed a Design Review and Variance application to install a new, 40-foot mono-eucalyptus telecommunications facility, in replacement of the existing ground and building-mounted telecommunications facility originally approved in 2000.
Planning Commission
On June 25, 2024, Planning Application No. AP-24-0026 (DR, VA) was included on the Planning Commission agenda. At the Planning Commission hearing, staff requested a continuance of the matter to a date to be determined. Staff completed additional analysis of the proposed development project and re-noticed the proposed development project consistent with Government Code Section 65091 for the September 24, 2024, Planning Commission hearing.
On September 24, 2024, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed, regularly scheduled Public Hearing, and Planning Application No. AP-24-0026 (DR, VA) was included on the Planning Commission agenda. At the Planning Commission Hearing, staff gave a presentation and recommended approval of the proposed project due to the ability to make all required findings listed within Pittsburg Municipal Code (PMC) Sections 18.84.930(A) and
18.16.050. Public comment was provided by two Pittsburg residents, Gregory Osorio and Henry Bermudez. After hearing all oral testimony the Planning Commission by unanimous vote adopt Resolution 10264, approving the proposed project Design Review and Variance Application (AP-24-0026 [DR, VA]) as presented.
Planning Commission Resolution 10264 and associated staff report are included as Attachment 2 to this Staff Report.
Appeal
On October 4, 2024, Gregory Osorio filed an appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of the Design Review and Variance project (AP-24-0026 [DR, VA]). 338
Appeal Points Raised
Mr. Osorio’s appeal is included as Attachment 3 to this staff report and asserts that the project is not consistent with specified sections of the PMC, and that an increased height of the telecommunications facilities will negatively impact health. In response, the applicant stated that the proposed telecommunications facility would provide a highly-demanded service to the surrounding developments, which are otherwise deprived of such service.
Additionally, the applicant has demonstrated a significant gap in cellular coverage in the vicinity of the project site and the proposed project’s location and increase in height request is the least intrusive means to close that gap. See supporting documentation in Attachment 8, Wireless Telecommunications Facility Coverage Maps and Attachment 9, Wireless Telecommunications Facility Collocation Map Analysis to support the project applicant’s request. Without approval of the Variance from the required height requirements, the required centerline for the proposed facility could not be achieved and the demands of the area would not be met, not by just the applicant but future carriers for co-location at this location, as well. See supporting documentation in Attachment 10, Wireless Telecommunications Facility Photo Simulations and Attachment 11, Wireless Telecommunications Facility EME Report to support the project applicant’s request.
Regarding health, the proposed cell tower will not exceed the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) Radiofrequency (RF) Electromagnetic Energy (“EME”) limits.
Staff has prepared a specific response table to respond to the comments raised by Mr.
Osorio in his appeal. See Attachment 5 for this table.
SUBCOMMITTEE FINDINGS
This item was not presented to a subcommittee.
STAFF ANALYSIS
Project Location and Design
The project site is located within the RS-6, Single Family Residential, (5,000 Square Foot Lot Minimum) Zoning District; where Wireless Telecommunication Facilities (as defined by PMC section 18.08.050[Y]) are a permitted use. Pursuant to PMC 18.06.565, permitted means allowed without requirement for approval of a use permit. However, the review of the plans and construction of a new telecommunications tower are subject to Design Review (PMC Section 18.84.920[A]).
Further, a Variance is required for any development that does not meet property development regulations for the Zoning District in which the project is located. As proposed, the development of a 40-foot-tall telecommunications tower exceeds the height regulations permitted by the RS-6 Zoning District of 28-feet.
339
Design Review
Based on the analysis above, staff believes that the City Council can make all of the findings necessary to approve the project as it was presented to the Planning Commission.
In order to approve the Design Review application for this project, the Council must determine the plans comply with the design review standards contained in PMC Chapter
18.84.930(A)(1), including specific standards that the project will conform with good taste, good design and in general contribute to the character and image of the city as a place of beauty, spaciousness, balance, taste, fitness, broad vistas, and high quality; the exterior design and appearance of the wireless telecommunications facility is not of inferior quality as to cause the nature of the neighborhood to materially depreciate in appearance and value; the wireless telecommunications facility is in harmony with proposed developments on land in the general area; the application conforms with the criteria set forth in any applicable city-adopted design guidelines; and the applicant demonstrated that it proposed the least intrusive means to achieve its technical objectives (PMC 18.84.930[a][1]).
The proposed telecommunications facility would be disguised as a faux ‘eucalyptus tree’ and would stand similar in height to existing mature trees in the project vicinity. This would improve the scenic appearance of the telecommunication facility.
The exterior design and appearance of the wireless telecommunications facility is sufficient as to quality as to not cause the nature of the neighborhood to materially depreciate in appearance and value given that the proposed antennas and radios would be screened from public view within the faux eucalyptus limbs and leaves, attached to the monopole structure, resembling a ‘faux’ eucalyptus tree. The proposed project would be required, as a condition of approval, to always maintain the facility in a good state, subject to inspection by the City on an ongoing basis. The ground-mounted equipment would be screened by fencing. Additionally, to ensure stability and safety, all structures would be required to comply with all applicable City, Regional, State, and Federal Communications Commission (FCC) codes and regulations.
Further, the proposed project will be in harmony with proposed developments on land in the general area, in that the proposed faux ‘mono-eucalyptus’ telecommunications facility would be located on a parcel with an existing quasipublic use of a water tank. The proposed architectural features of a ‘mono-eucalyptus’ design would blend into the surrounding environment so that observers would not recognize the structure as a wireless telecommunications facility
The applicant has demonstrated that it proposes the least intrusive means to achieve its technical objectives, in that staff has worked with the applicant to achieve the least intrusive appearance for a stealth designed camouflaged, 40-foot-tall ‘mono-eucalyptus’ design, while still achieving the applicant’s technical objectives, thus also complying with federal regulations that disallow a jurisdiction from actually or effectively prohibiting wireless telecommunications facilities. As such, staff believes all the findings for design review can be made in the affirmative.
340
Variance
Based on the analysis above and as presented in the staff report attachments, staff believes that the City Council can make all of the findings necessary to approve the project as it was presented to the Planning Commission. As such, after hearing all oral testimony at the September 24, 2024, the Planning Commission moved to unanimously adopt Resolution 10264, approving the proposed project Design Review and Variance Application (AP-24- 0026 [DR, VA]) as presented.
In order to approve the Variance application for this project, the City Council must determine the project complies with specific standards that because of special circumstances concerning the subject property including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the zoning regulations deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and in the same land use district; the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege which is not generally available to other property in the vicinity and in the same land use district; and the variance substantially complies with the intent and purpose of the land use district to which the property is classified (PMC
18.16.050).
The applicant requires a Variance from the height regulations in the RS-6 District because the location and surroundings of the subject property are such that existing trees and buildings in the immediate vicinity would block the telecommunications signal for the carrier.
Increasing the maximum height of structures in the RS-6 Zoning District from 28 feet to 40 feet for the proposed project would allow the applicant the centerline required (at 35 feet) to meet the needed demand for the area and ensure compliance with federal law.
The applicant has demonstrated that a 28-foot-tall telecommunications facility would not provide adequate coverage to improve the coverage gap in the proposed project’s vicinity.
The variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege which is not generally available to other property in the vicinity and in the same land use district, in that other wireless telecommunications facilities exceeding height regulations have been permitted in similar zoning districts. The use of a telecommunications facility is a use that is permitted in all zoning districts. The single-family zoning district has the lowest height maximum of all zoning districts at 28-feet, but similar zoning districts, such as Medium Density Residential and High Density Residential allow for structures up to 35, 40, and 45-feet tall.
The variance substantially complies with the intent and purpose of the land use district to which the property is classified, in that the purpose of the RS-6 Zoning District is primarily intended for residential development, residents of which receive service from telecommunication companies. The requested Variance from height regulations substantially complies with the intent and purpose to provide enhanced communication services to the community in the RS-6 Zoning District and surrounding Zoning Districts and it is consistent with the applicant’s federally protected rights to provide wireless telecommunication services in the area surrounding the project site. 341
Environmental Determination
The proposed project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Class 32, “In-Fill Development Projects,” of the state CEQA Guidelines, section 15332. This Section exempts certain infill development projects within urbanized areas if the development meets certain criteria. The Environmental Determination was not included as part of the Appellant’s appeal filing AP-24-0109. A Notice of Exemption was filed with the Recorder-County Clerk on September 26, 2024.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Proposed City Council Resolution Approving AP-24-0026
2. Appeal File, AP-24-0109
3. Appellant-Provided Petitions Against Cell Phone Tower
4. Appellant-Provided Photos of Homes Near Proposed Tower
5. Staff Responses to Appeal AP-24-0109
6. Planning Commission Staff Report and Resolution for AP-24-0026, Dated September 24, 2024
7. Project Plan Set, AP-24-0026
8. Wireless Telecommunications Facility Coverage Maps, AP-24-0026
9. Wireless Telecommunications Facility Collocation Map Analysis, AP-24-0026
10.Wireless Telecommunications Facility Photo Simulations, AP-24-0026
11.Wireless Telecommunications Facility EME Report, AP-24-0026
12.Variance Findings from Applicant, AP-24-0026
13.Property Owner’s Authorization, AP-24-0026
14.Notice of Public Hearing for February 18, 2025
Report Prepared By: Kelsey Gunter, Associate Planner
342
Resolution 25- Page 1 of 11 February 18, 2025
BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PITTSBURG
In the Matter of:
Denying an Appeal Approving Design Review and )
Variance Application to Construct a 40-Foot-Tall ) RESOLUTION NO. 25- Mono-Eucalyptus Telecommunications Facility at )
Assessor’s Parcel No. 094-030-004 for “AT&T )
Wireless Facility,” AP-24-0026 (DR, VA) )
WHEREAS, in December 2000, the City of Pittsburg Planning Commission adopted Resolution 9182 approving Design Review Application No. DR-00-27 to install and establish a telecommunications facility located on APN: 094-030-004. Design Review Application No.
DR-00-27 included the installation of ground-mounted and water tank-mounted telecommunications equipment. The equipment installed exceeded the height of the water tank by four feet to allow for proper radio operation. The antennas that exceeded the water tank height were architecturally treated and painted to blend into the existing water tank and open space in the project area. The telecommunications facility has been in operation since its initial construction and has been maintained and upgraded over the last 20 years through various Minor Modification and Administrative Design Review applications, facilitated by the Zoning Administrator. Minor Modification and Administrative Design Review applications primarily focused on equipment modification with no expansion of the use of the telecommunications facility; and
WHEREAS, on March 21, 2024, Jared Kearsley with 51 Wireless, LLC, on behalf of AT&T filed a Design Review and Variance application to install a new, 40-foot mono- eucalyptus telecommunications facility, in replacement of the existing ground and building- mounted telecommunications facility, on APN: 094-030-004.which is a 0.41-acre parcel located along the eastern boundary of Delta Vista Lane; and WHEREAS, the proposed project is governed by the applicable goals and policies of the Pittsburg General Plan, the Pittsburg Municipal Code (PMC), and the City’s Design Review and Development Guidelines adopted by Planning Commission through Resolution No. 9864; and
WHEREAS, the proposed project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Class 32, “In-Fill Development Projects,” of the state CEQA Guidelines, section 15332; and WHEREAS, on June 25, 2024, Planning Application No. AP-24-0026 (DR, VA) was included on the Planning Commission agenda.. At the Planning Commission hearing, staff requested a continuance of the matter to a date to be determined. Staff completed additional analysis of the proposed development project and re-noticed the proposed development project consistent with state law for the September 24, 2024 Planning Commission hearing; and
343
Resolution No. 25- Page 2 of 11 February 18, 2025
WHEREAS, on September 24, 2024, the City of Pittsburg Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing, and adopted Resolution No. 10264, approving the proposed project AP-24-0026 (DR, VA) as presented; and
WHEREAS, on October 4, 2024, Gregory Osorio, filed Planning Application No. AP- 24-0109 appealing Planning Commission’s approval of the proposed project; and WHEREAS, on or prior to February 7, 2025, in accordance with Government Code section 65091 and PMC Section 18.14.020, a “Notice of Public Hearing” for the February 18, 2025, public hearing on this item was posted at City Hall, in the “Public Notices” section of the City website; was delivered to the Pittsburg Library; was mailed via first class mail to the applicant and property owner, to the appellants, to owners of property located within 300 feet of the project site, and to local service agencies anticipated to provide services to the business; and was mailed via first class mail or email to individuals and organizations who had previously filed written request for such notice; and WHEREAS, on February 18, 2025, the City Council held a public hearing on the appeal the Planning Commission’s Determination to Approve Design Review and Variance Applications of Plans to Construct a 40-foot-tall 'Mono-Eucalyptus' Telecommunications Facility at Assessor's Parcel No. 094-030-004 for "AT&T Wireless Facility," AP-24-0026 (DR, VA), at which time evidence from prior Planning Commission public hearings was reviewed and additional oral and/or written testimony was considered.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council finds and determines as follows:
Section 1. Findings
Based on the City Council staff report entitled, “Public Hearing on an Appeal of the Planning Commission's Approval of Design Review and Variance Application to Construct a 40-foot-tall 'Mono-Eucalyptus' Telecommunications Facility at Assessor's Parcel No. 094- 030-004 for "AT&T Wireless Facility," AP-24-0026 (DR, VA)”, dated February 18, 2025, and based on all the information presented, and based on all written and oral testimony presented at the public hearing, the City Council finds that:
1. All recitals above are true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference.
Design Review:
2. Design Review Finding A: The proposed project conforms with good taste, good design and in general contributes to the character and image of the City as a place of beauty, spaciousness, balance, taste, fitness, broad vistas, and high quality, in that the proposed telecommunications facility would be disguised as a faux ‘eucalyptus tree’ and would stand similar in height to existing mature trees in the project vicinity. This would improve the scenic appearance of the compared with the existing telecommunication facility. Additionally, the associated ground- mounted equipment would be screened behind a 6-foot fence at the project site. 344
Resolution No. 25- Page 3 of 11 February 18, 2025
3. Design Review Finding B: The exterior design and appearance of the wireless telecommunications facility is sufficient as to quality as to not cause the nature of the neighborhood to materially depreciate in appearance and value given that the proposed antennas and radios would be screened from public view within the faux eucalyptus limbs and leaves, attached to the monopole structure, resembling a ‘faux’ eucalyptus tree. The proposed project would be required, as a condition of approval, to always maintain the facility in a good state, subject to inspection by the City on an ongoing basis. The ground-mounted equipment would be screened by fencing. Additionally, to ensure stability and safety, all structures would be required to comply with all applicable building and fire codes.
4. Design Review Finding C: The proposed project will be in harmony with proposed developments on land in the general area, in that the proposed faux ‘mono- eucalyptus’ telecommunications facility would be located on a parcel with an existing quasipublic use of a water tank. The proposed architectural features of a ‘mono-eucalyptus’ design would blend into the surrounding environment so that observers would not recognize the structure as a wireless telecommunications facility.
5. Design Review Finding D: The currently proposed project conforms to the criteria set forth in any applicable City-adopted design guidelines, in that the proposed wireless facility would be constructed in compliance with requirements in Chapter
18.84 PMC.
6. Design Review Finding E: The applicant has demonstrated that it proposes the least intrusive means to achieve its technical objectives, in that staff has worked with the applicant to achieve the least intrusive appearance for a stealth designed camouflaged 40-foot-tall ‘mono-eucalyptus’ design, while still achieving the applicant’s technical objectives, ensuring compliance with federal law that disallows a jurisdiction from actually or effectively prohibiting wireless telecommunications facilities.
Variance:
7. Variance Finding A: The applicant requires a Variance from the height regulations in the RS-6 District because the location and surroundings of the subject property are such that existing trees and buildings in the immediate vicinity would block the telecommunications signal for the carrier. Increasing the maximum height of structures in the RS-6 Zoning District from 28 feet to 40 feet for the proposed project would allow the applicant the centerline required (at 35 feet) to meet the needed demand for the area and ensure City compliance with federal law.
8. Variance Finding B: The variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege which is not generally available to other property in the vicinity and in the same land use district, in that other wireless telecommunications facilities exceeding 345
Resolution No. 25- Page 4 of 11 February 18, 2025
height regulations have been permitted in similar zoning districts. The use of a telecommunications facility is a use that is permitted in all zoning districts. The single-family zoning district has the lowest height maximum of all zoning districts at 28 feet, but similar zoning districts, such as Medium Density Residential and High Density Residential allow for structures up to 35, 40, and 45-feet tall.
9. Variance Finding C: The variance substantially complies with the intent and purpose of the land use district to which the property is classified, in that the purpose of the RS-6 Zoning District is primarily intended for residential development, residents of which receive service from telecommunication companies. The requested Variance from height regulations substantially complies with the intent and purpose to provide enhanced communication services to the community in the RS-6 Zoning District and surrounding Zoning Districts and it is consistent with the applicant’s federally protected rights to provide wireless telecommunication services in the area surrounding the project site.
The City Council staff report entitled, “Public Hearing on an Appeal of the Planning Commission's Approval of Design Review and Variance Application to Construct a 40-foot- tall 'Mono-Eucalyptus' Telecommunications Facility at Assessor's Parcel No. 094-030-004 for "AT&T Wireless Facility," AP-24-0026 (DR, VA),” dated February 18, 2025, is referenced hereto as additional support for the findings.
Section 2. Determination
A. Based on the findings set forth above, this City Council hereby approves Planning Application No. 24-0026 (DR, VA), subject to the following conditions:
1. Conformity with Project Plans. The project shall be constructed in substantial conformity with the project plans dated March 14, 2024, except as hereinafter may be modified. Any major changes to the approved project plans as determined by the City’s Planner shall be subject to re-review and re-approval by the Planning Commission.
2. Wireless Facility Materials and Design. The facility shall be constructed as a faux ‘eucalyptus tree,’ with the final design subject to Planning Division review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit. All related equipment associated with the project shall have a nonreflective surface.
3. Structure Maintenance. The wireless facility and accessory equipment shall at all times be maintained in a good state, and the exterior finish must be clean and well maintained at all times. The City reserves the right to inspect the facility on an as-needed basis and require proper maintenance and upkeep by the applicant consistent with these conditions of approval.
4. Site Maintenance. The entire parcel shall always be kept clean and free of all 346
Resolution No. 25- Page 5 of 11 February 18, 2025
litter, debris, and refuse.
5. Fence Screening Slats. The applicant shall install neutral-colored privacy slats in the chain link fencing surrounding the compound. Slats shall be replaced within 72 hours if damaged or vandalized.
6. Vandalism. Within 10 days of receiving notice of the vandalism from any party, the applicant shall be responsible for causing the removal of all vandalism, including graffiti, that is applied to the structure by repairing the structure or painting over the graffiti with a paint color that matches the existing paint color impacted structure.
7. New Equipment Installation. All new equipment shall be coated with an anti- graffiti coating to deter and prevent unsightly premises due to vandalism from graffiti.
8. Future Carriers. All future carriers at the project site are subject to the requirements in Pittsburg Municipal Code (PMC) Chapter 18.84, Article XX Wireless Telecommunications Facilities. Future carriers may be required to submit a Minor Modification Application to the City prior to installation or use of the telecommunications facility.
Building Conditions:
9. On the cover sheet, indicate the building Design Codes applicable to this project. The City of Pittsburg has adopted and enforces the following building Design Codes: 2022 California Administrative Code (CAC), 2022 California Building (CBC), 2022 California Historical Building Code (CHBC), 2022 California Existing Building Code (CEBC), 2022 California Green Building Standards Code (CGBSC), 2022 California Mechanical Code (CMC), 2022 California Plumbing Code (CPC), 2022 California Electrical Code (CEC), 2022 California Energy Code (CEC Part 6), 2022 California Fire Code and the Pittsburg Municipal Code (RMC). Reference CBC Sec. 107.
10. On the cover sheet, verify the Drawing Index includes all plan sheets.
Reference CBC Sec. 107.
11. On the cover sheet, provide or verify the Code Analysis includes the proposed tenant’s Use, Occupancy Group, Type of Construction, Separated or Nonseparated Mixed Occupancies, whether or not the building is Fire Sprinkled, Floor Area (S.F.), Number of Stories and Occupant Load.
Reference CBC Sec. 111, 302.1, 401, 503, 508, 601, 903 and 1004.1.
12. The preparation of plans or specifications for commercial buildings and tenant improvements shall be performed by a licensed architect or engineer (Exception: Interior alterations that involve only non-bearing partitions). The licensed architect or engineer shall affix a stamp to the plans as evidence of 347
Resolution No. 25- Page 6 of 11 February 18, 2025
the person’s responsibility for the documents. Licensed Mechanical, Plumbing and Electrical Contractors may design the systems that they are to install.
Contra Costa County Fire Protection District Conditions:
13. A land development permit is required for access and water supply review and approval prior to submitting building construction plans. The developer shall submit scaled site improvement plans indicating:
- All existing or proposed hydrant locations,
- Fire apparatus access to include slope and road surface - Size of building and type of construction, (Existing KNOX box) - Gates, fences, retaining walls, bio-retention basins, any obstructions to access.
This is a separate submittal from the building construction plans. These plans shall be approved prior to submitting building plans for review. (501.3) CFC
14. The developer shall submit new construction plans and specifications for the subject project to the through the Fire District public portal (https://confire.vision33cloud.com/citizenportal/app/landinq). After the new construction/ tenant improvement plans are approved, plans and specifications for all deferred submittals shall be submitted, including, but not limited to the following.
- Emergency generator if proposed
- Batteries if required
All plan submittals shall be submitted to the through the Fire District public portal (https://confire.vision33cloud.com/citizenportal/app/landinq) for review and approval prior to construction of the building or installation of the systems to ensure compliance with minimum requirements related to fire and life safety. Plan review and inspection fees shall be submitted at the time of plan review submittal. (105.4.1) CFC, (901.2) CFC, (107) CBC
15. The Contra Costa County Fire Protection District’s preliminary review comments shall not be construed to encompass the complete project.
Additional plans and specifications may be required after further review. If there are questions regarding this matter, please contact the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District Office at (925) 941-3300.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company Conditions:
16. The review indicates the proposed improvements do not appear to directly interfere with existing PG&E facilities or impact our easement rights. Please note this is their preliminary review and PG&E reserves the right for additional future review as needed. This letter shall not in any way alter, modify, or 348
Resolution No. 25- Page 7 of 11 February 18, 2025
terminate any provision of any existing easement rights. If there are subsequent modifications made to the design, we ask that you resubmit the plans to the email address listed below.
17. If the project requires PG&E gas or electrical service in the future, please continue to work with PG&E’s Service Planning department:
https://www.pge.com/cco/.
18. As a reminder, before any digging or excavation occurs, please contact Underground Service Alert (USA) by dialing 811 a minimum of 2 working days prior to commencing any work. This free and independent service will ensure that all existing underground utilities are identified and marked on-site.
19. If you have any questions regarding our response, please contact the PG&E Plan Review Team at [email protected].
Standard Conditions:
20. This permit shall automatically expire 10 years and one day from the date of its issuance. The permit holder may apply to renew this permit no less than six (6) months prior to the expiration of this permit. Such application shall be subject to the federal, state, and local laws and regulations then in effect. Any other permits or approvals issued in connection with any collocation, modification or other change to this facility, which includes without limitation any permits or other approvals deemed granted or deemed approved under federal or state law, shall not extend this term limit unless expressly provided otherwise in such permit or approval or required under federal or state law.
21. Before the permittee submits any applications to the building division, the permittee must incorporate all conditions associated with this permit and the approved photo simulations into the project plans (the “approved plans”). The permittee must construct, install and operate the facility in strict compliance with the approved plans. Any alterations, modifications or other changes to the approved plans, whether requested by the permittee or required by other departments or public agencies with jurisdiction over the facility, must be submitted in a written request subject to the city planner’s prior review and approval, who may refer the request to the planning commission if the city planner finds that the requested alteration, modification or other change implicates a significant or substantial land use concern.
22. The permittee expressly acknowledges and agrees that the city or its designee may enter onto the site and inspect the improvements and equipment upon reasonable prior notice to the permittee; provided, however, that the city or its designee may, but will not be obligated to, enter onto the site area without prior notice to support, repair, disable or remove any improvements or equipment in emergencies or when such improvements or equipment threatens actual, 349
Resolution No. 25- Page 8 of 11 February 18, 2025
imminent harm to property or persons. The permittee shall be permitted to supervise the city or its designee while such inspection or emergency access occurs.
23. The permittee and, if applicable, the nongovernment private property owner, agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the city, its officials, officers, employees, agents and consultants from any and all administrative, legal or equitable actions or other proceedings instituted by any person challenging the validity of this project approval, subsequent project approval, or other action arising out of, or in connection with, this project approval or the activities or performance of the applicant or the private property owner, if applicable, or any of each one’s agents, employees, licensees, contractors, subcontractors or independent contractors. The parties shall cooperate in defending such action or proceeding.
The parties shall use reasonable efforts to select mutually agreeable defense counsel but, if the parties cannot reach agreement, city may select its own legal counsel at permittee’s sole cost and expense. Permittee may select its own legal counsel to represent permittee’s interests at permittee’s sole cost and expense.
Permittee shall pay for city’s costs of defense, whether directly or by timely reimbursement to city on a monthly basis. Such costs shall include, but not be limited to, all court costs and attorneys’ fees expended by city in defense of any such action or other proceeding, plus staff and city attorney time spent responding to and defending the claim, action or proceeding.
24. The permittee shall maintain compliance at all times with all federal, state and local statutes, regulations, orders or other rules that carry the force of law (“laws”) applicable to the permittee, the subject property, the facility or any use or activities in connection with the use authorized in this permit. The permittee expressly acknowledges and agrees that this obligation is intended to be broadly construed and that no other specific requirements in these conditions are intended to reduce, relieve or otherwise lessen the permittee’s obligations to maintain compliance with all laws.
25. This permit will automatically expire in six months from the date of approval, or deemed approval by operation of law, unless a building permit or grading permit has been issued or a written request for extension is filed with the planning division prior to the expiration date and is subsequently approved by the planning commission. The approval shall be valid for no more than six months from the date of building permit issuance, unless work is commenced and diligently pursued prior to the expiration of the building permit.
26. Within 30 days after a permittee transfers any interest in the facility or permit(s) in connection with the facility, the permittee shall deliver written notice to the city. The written notice required in this section must include: (a) the transferee’s legal name; (b) the transferee’s full contact information, including a primary contact person, mailing address, telephone number and email address; and (c) a statement signed 350
Resolution No. 25- Page 9 of 11 February 18, 2025
by the transferee that the transferee shall accept all permit terms and conditions.
Failure to submit the notice required herein shall be a cause for the city to revoke the applicable permits pursuant to and following the procedure set out in PMC
18.84.960.
27. The permittee shall retain full and complete copies of all permits and other regulatory approvals issued in connection with the facility, which includes without limitation all conditions of approval, approved plans, resolutions and other documentation associated with the permit or regulatory approval. In the event that the city cannot locate any such full and complete permits or other regulatory approvals in its official records, and the permittee fails to retain full and complete permits or other regulatory approvals in the permittee’s files, any ambiguities or uncertainties that would be resolved through an examination of the missing documents shall be conclusively resolved against the permittee.
28. Each owner or service provider of a wireless telecommunications facility shall provide signage identifying the name and phone number of a party to contact in event of an emergency. Contact information shall be kept current. The design, materials, colors, and location of signs larger than four square feet shall be subject to design review.
29. The permittee shall keep the site, which includes without limitation any and all improvements, equipment, structures, access routes, fences and landscaped areas, in a neat, clean and safe condition in accordance with the approved plans and all conditions in this permit. The permittee shall keep the site area free from trash, debris, and litter at all times. The permittee, at no cost to the city, shall remove and remediate any graffiti or other forms of vandalism at the site within 48 hours after the permittee receives notice or otherwise becomes aware that such graffiti or other vandalism occurred.
30. The permittee shall be responsible for maintaining landscaping in accordance with the approved landscape plan and for replacing any damaged or dead trees, foliage, or other landscaping elements shown on the approved plan. Amendments or modifications to the approved landscape plan shall be submitted to the city planner for approval.
31. The permittee shall use all reasonable efforts to avoid any and all undue or unnecessary adverse impacts on nearby properties that may arise from the permittee’s construction, installation, operation, modification, maintenance, repair, removal and/or other activities at the site. The permittee shall not perform or cause others to perform any construction, installation, operation, modification, maintenance, repair, removal or other work that involves heavy equipment or machines on (a) any weekday between 7:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. or (b) any Saturday, Sunday or holiday. The restricted work hours in this condition will not prohibit any work required to prevent an actual, immediate harm to property or 351
Resolution No. 25- Page 10 of 11 February 18, 2025
persons, or any work during an emergency declared by the city. The community development director or the community development director’s designee may issue a stop work order for any work that violates this condition. In addition, the planning commission may revoke this permit if the permittee habitually or routinely violates this condition, whether the community development director or the community development director’s designee issued any stop work orders or not.
32. Each wireless telecommunications facility shall be operated in a manner that will minimize noise impacts to surrounding residents and persons using nearby parks, trails, and similar recreation areas. All air conditioning units, generators and any other equipment that might emit noise that would be audible from beyond the property line shall be enclosed or equipped with noise attenuation devices to the extent necessary to ensure compliance with applicable noise limitations under Chapter 9.44 PMC. Backup generators shall only be operated during periods of power outages or for testing. At no time shall equipment noise from any source exceed the standards specified in Chapter 9.44 PMC.
33. Other Agency Requirements. The applicant shall comply with all the requirements of the Community Development Department, Contra Costa County Fire Protection District, Delta Diablo Sanitation District, and all other applicable local, state and federal agencies. It is the responsibility of the applicant to contact each local, state, or federal agency for requirements that may pertain to this project.
34. Standard Conditions of Development. The Standard Conditions of Development as adopted by the Pittsburg Planning Commission by Resolution No. 8931 shall apply as conditions of approval for this project as applicable. Where there is conflict between the Standard Conditions of Development and the specific conditions of approval specified in this resolution, the specific conditions of this Resolution shall govern.
Section 3. Adoption
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Pittsburg hereby denies the appeal and grants Design Review and Variance Approval of Plans to Construct a 40-foot-tall 'Mono-Eucalyptus' Telecommunications Facility at Assessor's Parcel No. 094-030-004 for "AT&T Wireless Facility," AP-24-0026 (DR, VA).
Section 4: Effective Date
This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. 352
Resolution No. 25- Page 11 of 11 February 18, 2025
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Pittsburg at a regular meeting on the 18th day of February 2025, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAINED:
ABSENT:
_____________________________
Jelani Killings, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
Alice E. Evenson, City Clerk
353
Gregory Osorio
PO Box 430
Pittsburg, CA 94565
Re: Appeal of Planning Commission decision on AT&T Mono- Eucalyptus Wireless Facility / AP-24-0026 (DR, VA)
Basis for Appeal
Below please find municipal code sections cited and specific findings which we believe are contrary to conclusions drawn and for which a basis was formed for Planning Commission approval.
It is believed that the project is not in compliance with sections referenced and in fact violates those sections of municipal code.
NOTE –
In this document the words “we” or “our” are sometimes used, the reason for this is that while I am filing this appeal as an individual there are many other members in the immediate vicinity of proposed cell phone tower who also strongly oppose the project and share the same views. I personally accept the responsibility for the filing of appeal, however the view stated are shared by others, hence use of words “we” and “our”.
18.16.050 Specific findings necessary for variance.
A variance may only be granted when:
A. Because of special circumstances concerning the subject property including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the zoning regulations deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and in the same land use district;
B. The variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege which is not generally available to other property in the vicinity and in the same land use district;
C. The variance substantially complies with the intent and purpose of the land use district to which the property is classified; and
Docusign Envelope ID: 67289488-212B-440D-9550-8BA8E253E127 354
Comment & Argument against compliance with provision -
Per section 18.16.0050
A variance may only be granted when:
This above opening line of section 18.16.0050 contains very specific language which severely limits when a variance may be granted. It is our contention that fails to meet the conditions below –
18.16.050 Subsection “A” states –
A. Because of special circumstances concerning the subject property including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the zoning regulations deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and in the same land use district;
Comment & Argument against compliance with provision -
The property in question:
1. Does not deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and in the same land use district
2. There is no other property in the same geographic area which “enjoys” a major cell phone transmitting station. We would dispute this portion of zoning regulation as not being applicable, and in fact establishes an argument against the proposed cell phone tower project.
3. The applicant is leasing property and as a result does not have the same inherent rights as an actual property owner, just the opposite, the applicant’s intention of operating and increasing the height substantially shall impair and infringe on the rights of actual property owners, some of which have owned homes in direct vicinity for almost forty years, and others who have more recently purchased their homes
without knowing the possibility that they would be
immediately adjacent to a 40 foot cell phone tower.
Again, citing initial sentence –
A variance may only be granted when:
Docusign Envelope ID: 67289488-212B-440D-9550-8BA8E253E127 355
Comment & Argument against compliance with provision -
Project must meet all (not “some”) of the following four conditions (A – D), and it is our contention that it substantially fails to meet three of those conditions (A – C).
18.16.050 Subsection B –
B. The variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege which is not generally available to other property in the vicinity and in the same land use district;
Comment & Argument against compliance with provision -
We would suggest that this project does grant a special privilege which is not enjoyed by any land (homeowners) in the vicinity and same land use district.
18.16.050 Subsection C –
C. The variance substantially complies with the intent and purpose of the land use district to which the property is classified; and
Comment & Argument against compliance with provision -
This project is surrounded by single family homes, and it is a big stretch to even suggest that the variance substantially complies With the intent and purpose of land use to which property is classified.
Nonconforming Use
18.76.010 Purpose.
This chapter is intended to limit the number and extent of nonconforming uses by limiting their enlargement…..
18.76.030 Alterations and enlargements of nonconforming uses and structures.
Docusign Envelope ID: 67289488-212B-440D-9550-8BA8E253E127 356
A. No structure, the use of which is nonconforming, may be moved or enlarged in violation of this chapter, unless the moving or enlargement is required by law or will result in the elimination of the nonconformity.
Comment & Argument Against Project –
I do not know if the proposed project is a nonconforming use, although it may very well be, if so, then it would be our contention that it would be in violation of this section as the proposed project would definitely be an “enlargement”.
Article XX. Wireless Telecommunications Facilities
18.84.905 Applicability.
A. Applicable Facilities. The regulations contained in this article shall be applied to all applications for new wireless
telecommunications facilities and all applications for collocations or modifications to existing wireless telecommunications facilities, whether proposed on private property or in the public right-of-way.
B. Nonconforming Facilities. Any existing wireless
telecommunications facilities within the city’s jurisdictional boundaries that do not conform to the requirements in this article are deemed to be “nonconforming structures” subject to the provisions in Chapter 18.76 PMC to the extent permitted under federal and California State law.
Division V. General Land Use Regulations
Chapter 18.76
NONCONFORMING USES AND STRUCTURES
Sections:
18.76.010 Purpose.
18.76.020 Continuation and maintenance.
18.76.030 Alterations and enlargements of nonconforming uses and structures.
18.76.040 Cessation and abandonment of nonconforming use.
Docusign Envelope ID: 67289488-212B-440D-9550-8BA8E253E127 357
18.76.050 Restoration of a damaged structure.
18.76.060 New occupancy on a site having certain
nonconforming site features.
18.76.070 Zoning permits on sites having nonconforming features in the CP district.
18.76.010 Purpose.
This chapter is intended to limit the number and extent of nonconforming uses by limiting their enlargement, their reestablishment after abandonment, and the alteration or restoration after destruction of the structures they occupy. While permitting the use and maintenance of nonconforming structures, this chapter is intended to limit the number and extent of nonconforming structures by limiting their being moved, altered or enlarged in a manner that would increase the discrepancy between existing conditions and the standards prescribed in this title and by prohibiting their restoration after destruction. [Ord. 07- 1284 § 3 (Exh. F), 2007; Ord. 06-1273 § 4, 2006; Ord. 979 § 2 (Exh. A), 1990.]
Comment -
Please excuse this section as it does not follow the natural order of zoning regulations because it referenced “nonconforming use” and so I had to cross reference applicable section.
Sections underlined above are potential areas of concern.
Article XX. Wireless Telecommunications Facilities
18.84.925 Application requirements – Subsection A
2. Visual impact demonstrations using photographic simulations of the proposed facility in context of the site as it would be seen from reasonable line-of-sight locations from residential areas, public rights-of-way, public parks, and/or other sites as deemed appropriate by the city planner, together with a map that shows the photo location of each view angle.
Docusign Envelope ID: 67289488-212B-440D-9550-8BA8E253E127 358
Comment & Argument Against Project –
Photos taken were at a substantial distance and failed to accurately illustrate the visual impact of proposed facility (new 40’ cell tower) immediately adjacent to homes at various angles, some of which were right across the street from proposed cell tower, and would have to be magnified substantially to correctly demonstrate the true visual impact.
18.84.925 Application requirements – Subsection A
4. The applicant must provide a list of all existing structures considered as alternatives to the proposed location, together with a general description of the site design considered at each location. The applicant must also provide a written explanation as to why the alternatives considered were
unacceptable or infeasible, unavailable or not as consistent with the development standards in this article as the
proposed location. This explanation must include a
meaningful comparative analysis and such technical
information and other factual justification as are necessary to document the reasons why each alternative is unacceptable, infeasible, unavailable or not as consistent with the
development standards in this article as the proposed
location. If an existing facility is listed among the alternatives, the applicant must specifically address why the modification of such wireless communication facility is not a viable option.
When an applicant proposes a site in the public right-of-way, the initial alternative sites analysis required for a complete application may evaluate other potential locations and
designs in the right-of-way.
Comment & Argument Against Project –
We have not seen a study, although it may exist, which is in compliance with above subsection “4”. While AT&T may suggest that there is no one site that would provide same coverage, it is our contention that a combination of two towers in areas not immediately adjacent to homes, could provide even superior coverage.
Docusign Envelope ID: 67289488-212B-440D-9550-8BA8E253E127 359
18.84.930 Standards of review for design review applications.
A. Required Findings. Prior to the approval of a design review or minor modification request, the applicable reviewing
authority shall review the application in accordance with the following:
1. Design Review. The planning commission review shall be conducted in accordance with the requirements of this article and in accordance with the following standards:
a. The wireless telecommunications facility conforms with good taste, good design and in general contributes to the
character and image of the city as a place of beauty,
spaciousness, balance, taste, fitness, broad vistas, and high quality;
b. The exterior design and appearance of the wireless
telecommunications facility is not of inferior quality as to cause the nature of the neighborhood to materially
depreciate in appearance and value;
c. The wireless telecommunications facility is in harmony with proposed developments on land in the general area;
Comment & Argument Against Project –
a. We would suggest that project does NOT conform with any of the above and does NOT contribute to character and
image of the city as a place of beauty, spaciousness,
balance, taste, fitness, broad vistas.
b. The proposed tower does substantially impact the
appearance of long established single family homes
neighborhood.
c. Proposed 40’ cell tower is definitely not in harmony, by any stretch of the imagination, with proposed developments…
Docusign Envelope ID: 67289488-212B-440D-9550-8BA8E253E127 360
18.84.930 Subsection B
B. Location Criteria. The following location criteria should be considered when locating new wireless telecommunications facilities:
3. Wireless telecommunications facilities shall be preferred in industrial and commercial districts and shall not be located in residential districts to the greatest extent feasible.
Comment & Argument Against Project –
Based upon the city’s own regulation this project should have never been allowed to begin with, and certainly should not be allowed to be expanded upon thereby increasing the height (and offensive visual impact) from approximately 12’ to 40’
18.84.945 Standard conditions of approval.
A. Standard Conditions of Approval. Any validly issued design review or minor modification approval, or any permit or approval deemed granted or deemed approved by the operation of law, shall contain the following conditions of approval, as may be modified with additional conditions on a project-by-project basis:
1. This permit will automatically expire 10 years and one day from its issuance, except when California Government Code
Section 65964(b), as may be amended or superseded in the future, authorizes the city to establish a shorter term for public safety or substantial land use reasons. Any other permits or approvals issued in connection with any collocation, modification or other change to this facility, which includes without limitation any permits or other approvals deemed granted or deemed approved under federal or state law, shall not extend this term limit unless expressly provided otherwise in such permit or approval or required under federal or state law.
Docusign Envelope ID: 67289488-212B-440D-9550-8BA8E253E127 361
Comment & Argument Against Project –
The applicant has suggested that the proposed 40’ cell tower would be safer than the existing lower existing towers, and thereby they contend that the 40’ tower should be allowed.
However, we contend that not only should the permit be denied for all reasons cited in the appeal, but also that based upon applicant’s description the current situation is “less safe”, as soon as the city can do so that they deny any further extensions and in fact as soon as legally enforceable shut down the current cell tower facility (allowing applicant a brief but reasonable amount of time to relocate another cell tower(s)).
Article XXI. Objective Design Standards
18.84.980 Purpose.
The purpose of this article is to establish objective design standards, in compliance with state law, that protect and promote public health, safety, welfare and community aesthetics consistent with the goals, objectives and policies in the general plan. This article establishes an application and review process for residential or mixed-use projects qualifying for ministerial approval under state law that further housing production.
[Ord. 24-1517 § 2, 2024.]
Comment & Argument Against Project –
The design and placement of this facility fails to meet city’s stated objectives “that protect and promote
public health, safety, welfare and community aesthetics…”
Conclusion -
There has been cited multiple sections of municipal code which proposed cell tower is believed to be in violation of, any one of which would be grounds for denying applicant’s application for project ---- However, the cumulative effect of all sections cited make it an overwhelming opposition to project. While the applicant may be able to dispute some sections, it is believed that Docusign Envelope ID: 67289488-212B-440D-9550-8BA8E253E127 362
there are enough grounds to deny the application. Also attached are copies petitions signed of neighbors who live in immediate area of proposed cell tower, and who strongly oppose this project.
Should an appeal be granted, I am requesting equal time at any hearing scheduled because no one party should have an
advantage over another party at this juncture. The applicant is free to submit any written objections to findings submitted, and I would also request that a copy of same be presented to me to allow for proper review prior to hearing. I will not waive time.
Thank you for your review….
Gregory Osorio
Docusign Envelope ID: 67289488-212B-440D-9550-8BA8E253E127 October 4, 2024
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
The Table below includes three columns: 1) Column that lists the Pittsburg Municipal Code Section applicable to the Appellant’s Argument/Comment; 2) Column that lists the Appellant’s Argument/Comment as written, underlined, and bolded in the Planning Commission Appeal Application No. AP-24-0109; and 3) Column of Staff’s Analysis to the Appellant’s Argument/Comment.
1 Pittsburg
Municipal
Code
Section
Appellant’s Argument/Comment Staff Analysis
18.16.050
(A)
A Variance may only be granted when:
Comment & Argument against compliance
with provision - This above opening line of
section 18.16.0050 contains very specific
language which severely limits when a variance
may be granted. It is our contention that fails to
meet the conditions below –
Because of special circumstances concerning
the subject property including size, shape,
topography, location or surroundings, the strict
application of the zoning regulations deprives
the property of privileges enjoyed by other
properties in the vicinity and in the same land
use district.
Comment & Argument against compliance
with provision - The property in question:
1. Does not deprive the property of privileges
enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity
and in the same land use district
2. There is no other property in the same
geographic area which “enjoys” a major cell
phone transmitting station. We would
dispute this portion of zoning regulation as
not being applicable, and in fact establishes
an argument against the proposed cell
phone tower project.
3. The applicant is leasing property and as a
result does not have the same inherent
rights as an actual property owner, just the
opposite, the applicant’s intention of
operating and increasing the height
substantially shall impair and infringe on the
rights of actual property owners , some of
which have owned homes in direct vicinity
for almost forty years, and others who have
more recently purchased their homes
without knowing the possibility that they
would be immediately adjacent to a 40 foot
cell phone tower.
The Variance request in Planning Application No. AP -24- 0026 is specific to the requested height increase. The
comments from the Appellant’s Argument for PMC Section
18.16.050(A) do not reference the requested height increase, proposed by Planning Application No. AP -24-0026. Rather, the comments from the Appellant are specific to the use of the property as a telecommunications facility. The use of the property (i.e. “land use”) of a Wireless Telecommunications Facility, as defined by PMC Section 18.08.060 (Y ), is a permitted use in the RS-6 Zoning District, of which this project is located. This land use regulation is cited within PMC Section 18.50.010.
Further, the applicant requires a Variance from the height regulations in the RS -6 District because the location and surroundings of the subject property are such that existing trees and buildings in the immediate vicinity would block the telecommunications signal for the carrier. Increasing the maximum height of structures in the RS-6 Zoning District from 28 feet to 40 feet for the proposed project would allow the applicant the centerline required (at 35 feet) to meet the needed demand for the area. Approving the variance ensures City c ompliance with federal la w. “The regulation of the placement, construction, and modification of personal
wireless service facilities by any State or local government or instrumentality thereof -- (I) shall not unreasonably
discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services; and (II) shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal w ireless services. 47 U.S. Code Sec. 332(c)(7)(B)(i).
380
The Table below includes three columns: 1) Column that lists the Pittsburg Municipal Code Section applicable to the Appellant’s Argument/Comment; 2) Column that lists the Appellant’s Argument/Comment as written, underlined, and bolded in the Planning Commission Appeal Application No. AP-24-0109; and 3) Column of Staff’s Analysis to the Appellant’s Argument/Comment.
2 Pittsburg
Municipal
Code
Section
Appellant’s Argument/Comment Staff Analysis
Again, citing initial sentence –
A variance may only be granted when:
Comment & Argument against compliance
with provision -
Project must meet all (not “some”) of the
following four conditions (A – D), and it is our
contention that it substantially fails to meet three
of those conditions (A – C).
18.16.050
(B)
The variance will not constitute a grant of
special privilege which is not generally available
to other property in the vicinity and in the same
land use district.
Comment & Argument against compliance
with provision – We would suggest that this
project does grant a special privilege which is
not enjoyed by any land (homeowners) in the
vicinity and same land use district.
This comment states that there is a granting of special privilege which is not enjoyed by any land in the vicinity and same land use district, but does not identify what special privilege is being given.
Therefore, this comment made by the Appellant but has been noted for the record.
18.16.050
(C)
The variance substantially complies with the
intent and purpose of the land use district to
which the property is classified.
Comment & Argument against compliance
with provision – This project is surrounded by
single family homes, and it is a big stretch to
even suggest that the variance substantially
complies. With the intent and purpose of land
use to which property is classified.
The Variance request in Planning Application No. AP -24- 0026 is specific to the requested height increase. PMC Section 18.84.930(C)(2) states that all freestanding wireless telecommunications facilities shall be designed at the
minimum functional height required for the coverage area and allows the Planning Commission to determine if additional height is needed . The Planning Commission approved the proposed variance to increase the height of the
telecommunications facility from 28’ to 40’. Documentation provided for Planning Application No. AP- 24-0026
determined that the radios and cellular tower equipment must be located at the prescribed height on the tower in order for the facility to function properly. Without approval of the Variance from the RS- 6 height requirements, the required centerline for the proposed facility could not be achieved and the demands of the area would not be met, not by just this project, but future carriers for co- location at this location, as well.
Further, the applicant requires a Variance from the height regulations in the RS -6 District because the location and surroundings of the subject property are such that existing trees and buildings in the immediate vicinity would block the telecommunications signal for the carrier. Increasing the maximum height of structures in the RS-6 Zoning District from 28 feet to 40 feet for the proposed project would allow the applicant the centerline required (at 35 feet) to meet the 381
The Table below includes three columns: 1) Column that lists the Pittsburg Municipal Code Section applicable to the Appellant’s Argument/Comment; 2) Column that lists the Appellant’s Argument/Comment as written, underlined, and bolded in the Planning Commission Appeal Application No. AP-24-0109; and 3) Column of Staff’s Analysis to the Appellant’s Argument/Comment.
3 Pittsburg
Municipal
Code
Section
Appellant’s Argument/Comment Staff Analysis
needed demand for the area thus the applicant’s federally protected rights to provide wireless services in the area surrounding the project site. Approving the variance ensures City compliance with federal law.
“The regulation of the placement, construction, and
modification of personal wireless service facilities by any State or local government or instrumentality thereof -- (I) shall not unreasonably discriminate among providers of
functionally equivalent services; and (II) shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services. 47 U.S. Code Sec. 332(c)(7)(B)(i).
18.76.010 This chapter is intended to limit the number and extent of nonconforming uses by limiting their
enlargement, their reestablishment after
abandonment, and the alteration or restoration
after destruction of the structures they occupy.
While permitting the use and maintenance of
nonconforming structures, this chapter is
intended to limit the number and extent of
nonconforming structures by limiting their being
moved, altered or enlarged in a manner that
would increase the discrepancy between
existing condition s and the standards
prescribed in this title and by prohibiting their
restoration after destruction.
Comment –
Please excuse this section as it does not follow
the natural order of zoning regulations because
it referenced “nonconforming use” and so I had
to cross reference applicable section. Sections
underlined above are potential areas of
concern.
The lot, structure, building, and use of the parcel identified by Assessor’s Parcel No. 094-030-004 are not nonconforming, as defined by PMC Section 18.06.500 “Nonconforming”.
18.76.030
(A)
No structure, the use of which is nonconforming,
may be moved or enlarged in violation of this
chapter, unless the moving or enlargement is
required by law or will result in the elimination of
the nonconformity.
Comment & Argument Against Project –
I do not know if the proposed project is a
nonconforming use, although it may very well
be, if so, then it would be our contention that it
would be in violation of this section as the
proposed project would definitely be an
The lot, structure, building, and use of the parcel identified by Assessor’s Parcel No. 094-030-004 are not nonconforming, as defined by PMC Section 18.06.500 “Nonconforming”.
This argument made by the Appellant has been noted for the record.
382
The Table below includes three columns: 1) Column that lists the Pittsburg Municipal Code Section applicable to the Appellant’s Argument/Comment; 2) Column that lists the Appellant’s Argument/Comment as written, underlined, and bolded in the Planning Commission Appeal Application No. AP-24-0109; and 3) Column of Staff’s Analysis to the Appellant’s Argument/Comment.
4 Pittsburg
Municipal
Code
Section
Appellant’s Argument/Comment Staff Analysis
“enlargement”.
18.84.925
(A)(2)
Visual impact demonstrations using
photographic simulations of the proposed
facility in context of the site as it would be seen
from reasonable line- of-sight locations from
residential areas, public rights -of-way, public
parks, and/or other sites as deemed appropriate
by the city planner, together with a map that
shows the photo location of each view angle.
Comment & Argument Against Project –
Photos taken were at a substantial distance and
failed to accurately illustrate the visual impact of
proposed facility (new 40’ cell tower)
immediately adjacent to homes at various
angles, some of which were right across the
street from proposed cell tower, and would have
to be magnified substantially to correctly
demonstrate the true visual impact.
Additional project -specific photo simulations have been provided by the applicant for Planning Application AP -24- 0026 (DR, VA). These photo simulations are included within Attachment 4 of this Staff Report and provide more
viewpoints of the proposed teleco mmunications facility, including from the immediate adjacent homes as requested in the Appellant’s Argument/Comment.
This comment has been noted for the record and has been addressed.
18.84.925
(A)(4)
The applicant must provide a list of all existing
structures considered as alternatives to the
proposed location, together with a general
description of the site design considered at each
location. The applicant must also provide a
written explanation as t o why the alternatives
considered were unacceptable or infeasible,
unavailable or not as consistent with the
development standards in this article as the
proposed location. This explanation must
include a meaningful comparative analysis and
such technical information and other factual
justification as are necessary to document the
reasons why each alternative is unacceptable,
infeasible, unavailable or not as consistent with
the development standards in this article as the
proposed location. If an existing facility is listed
among the alternatives, the applicant must
specifically address why the modification of
such wireless communication facility is not a
viable option. When an applicant proposes a
site in the public right -of-way, the initial
alternative si tes analysis required for a
complete application may evaluate other
potential locations and designs in the right -of-
way.
Comment & Argument Against Project –
Applicant provided an aerial view of existing AT&T Coverage within the Project’s Vicinity. This map shows that alternative site’s are not compatible for colocation, as they do not meet the coverage needed to fill the gaps. Alternative carrier sites are too close in proximity to existing AT&T facilities, and they would not achieve the proposed project’s Objectives, as detailed within Attachment 4 of this Staff Report. The
collocation sites studied are included within Attachment 5 of this Staff Report.
This comment has been noted for the record and has been addressed.
383
The Table below includes three columns: 1) Column that lists the Pittsburg Municipal Code Section applicable to the Appellant’s Argument/Comment; 2) Column that lists the Appellant’s Argument/Comment as written, underlined, and bolded in the Planning Commission Appeal Application No. AP-24-0109; and 3) Column of Staff’s Analysis to the Appellant’s Argument/Comment.
5 Pittsburg
Municipal
Code
Section
Appellant’s Argument/Comment Staff Analysis
We have not seen a study, although it may exist,
which is in compliance with above subsection
“4”. While AT&T may suggest that there is no
one site that would provide same coverage, it is
our contention that a combination of two towers
in areas not immediately adjacent to homes,
could provide even superior coverage.
18.84.930
(A)(1)(a)
18.84.930 Standards of review for design
review applications.
A. Required Findings. Prior to the approval of a
design review or minor modification request, the
applicable reviewing authority shall review the
application in accordance with the following:
1. Design Review. The planning
commission review shall be conducted
in accordance with the requirements of
this article and in accordance with the
following standards:
a. The wireless telecommunications
facility conforms with good taste,
good design and in general
contributes to the character and
image of the city as a place of
beauty, spaciousness, balance,
taste, fitness, broad vistas , and
high quality;
Comment & Argument Against Project –
a. We would suggest that project does NOT
conform with any of the above and does NOT
contribute to character and image of the city as
a place of beauty, spaciousness, balance, taste,
fitness, broad vistas.
The argument described in this Appellant’s claim is
subjective, is an opinion of the Appellant, and does not provide any findings of fact as to how the proposed project AP-24-0026 (DR, VA) is inconsistent with PMC Section
18.84.930(A)(1)(a).
However, the argument can be made that the proposed
project does conform with good taste, good design and in general contributes to the character and image of the City as a place of beauty, spaciousness, balance, taste, fitness, broad vistas, and high qual ity, in that the proposed
telecommunications facility would be disguised as a faux ‘eucalyptus tree’ and would stand similar in height to existing mature trees in the project vicinity. This would improve the scenic appearance of the existing telecommunication facility.
Additionally, the associated ground- mounted equipment
would be screened behind a 6’ fence at the project site, further screening the proposed development.
This comment has been addressed and noted for the record.
18.84.930
(A)(1)(b)
18.84.930 Standards of review for design
review applications.
A. Required Findings. Prior to the approval of a
design review or minor modification request, the
applicable reviewing authority shall review the
application in accordance with the following:
1. Design Review. The planning
commission review shall be conducted
in accordance with the requirements of
this article and in accordance with the
following standards:
b. The exterior design and
The argument described in this Appellant’s claim is
subjective, is an opinion of the Appellant, and does not provide any findings of fact as to how the proposed project AP-24-0026 (DR, VA) is inconsistent with PMC Section
18.84.930(A)(1)(b).
The argument has been made, and was not specifically
challenged, that the exterior design and appearance of the wireless telecommunications facility is sufficient as to quality as to not cause the nature of the neighborhood to materially depreciate in appearance and value given that the proposed antennas and radios would be screened from public view
384
The Table below includes three columns: 1) Column that lists the Pittsburg Municipal Code Section applicable to the Appellant’s Argument/Comment; 2) Column that lists the Appellant’s Argument/Comment as written, underlined, and bolded in the Planning Commission Appeal Application No. AP-24-0109; and 3) Column of Staff’s Analysis to the Appellant’s Argument/Comment.
6 Pittsburg
Municipal
Code
Section
Appellant’s Argument/Comment Staff Analysis
appearance of the wireless
telecommunications facility is not of
inferior quality as to cause the
nature of the neighborhood to
materially depreciate in
appearance and value;
Comment & Argument Against Project –
The proposed tower does substantially impact
the
appearance of long established single family
homes neighborhood.
within the faux eucalyptus limbs and leaves, attached to the monopole structure, resembling a ‘faux’ eucalyptus tree. The proposed project would be required, as a condition of
approval, to always maintain the facility in a good state, subject to inspection by the City on an ongoing basis. The ground-mounted equipment would be screened by fencing.
Additionally, to ensure stability and safety, all structures would be required to comply with all applicable building and fire codes.
This comment has been addressed and noted for the record.
18.84.930
(A)(1)(c)
18.84.930 Standards of review for design
review applications.
A. Required Findings. Prior to the approval of a
design review or minor modification request, the
applicable reviewing authority shall review the
application in accordance with the following:
1. Design Review. The planning
commission review shall be conducted
in accordance with the requirements of
this article and in accordance with the
following standards:
a. The wireless telecommunications
facility is in harmony with proposed
developments on land in the
general area;
Comment & Argument Against Project –
Proposed 40’ cell tower is definitely not in
harmony, by any stretch of the imagination, with
proposed developments…
The argument described in this Appellant’s claim is
subjective, is an opinion of the Appellant, and does not provide any findings of fact as to how the proposed project AP-24-0026 (DR, VA) is inconsistent with PMC Section
18.84.930(A)(1)(c).
Rather, the argument has been made, and was not
specifically challenged, that the proposed project will be in harmony with proposed developments on land in the general area, in that the proposed faux ‘mono- eucalyptus’
telecommunications facility would be located on a parcel with an existing quasipublic use of a water tank. The proposed architectural features of a ‘mono- eucalyptus’ design would blend into the surrounding environment so that observers would not recognize the structure as a wireless
telecommunications facility.
This comment has been noted for the record and has been addressed.
18.84.930
(B)(3)
18.84.930 Standards of review for design
review applications.
B. Location Criteria. The following location
criteria should be considered when locating new
wireless telecommunications facilities:
3. Wireless telecommunications facilities
shall be preferred in industrial and
commercial districts and shall not be
located in residential districts to the
greatest extent feasible.
Comment & Argument Against Project –
Based upon the city’s own regulation this project
should have never been allowed to begin with,
The argument in this claim refers to a PMC Section that was adopted by City Council Ordinance No. 15-1390, adopted and ordered published on April 6, 2015. As noted within the “Background” Section of this Staff Report, in December 2000, the City of Pittsbur g Planning Commission adopted
Resolution 9182 approving Design Review application no.
DR-00-27 to install and establish a telecommunications
facility at the proposed project site. This was approved and installed prior to the adoption of PMC Section
18.84.930(B)(3).
Despite the installation and operation of a wireless
telecommunications facility at the project site prior to the adoption of an Ordinance that regulates new
385
The Table below includes three columns: 1) Column that lists the Pittsburg Municipal Code Section applicable to the Appellant’s Argument/Comment; 2) Column that lists the Appellant’s Argument/Comment as written, underlined, and bolded in the Planning Commission Appeal Application No. AP-24-0109; and 3) Column of Staff’s Analysis to the Appellant’s Argument/Comment.
7 Pittsburg
Municipal
Code
Section
Appellant’s Argument/Comment Staff Analysis
and certainly should not be allowed to be
expanded upon thereby increasing the height
(and offensive visual impact) from
approximately 12’ to 40’
telecommunication facilities, the use of the project site as a wireless telecommunications facility is not non-conforming.
PMC Section 18.84.930(B)(3) does not describe or discuss wireless telecommunication facilities installed prior to the adoption of the “Location Criteria” regulations in 2015.
Further, PMC Section 18.84.930(B)(3) does not prohibit the installation of teleco mmunication facilities in residential districts but rather specifies that wireless telecommunication facilities are “preferred” in industrial and commercial districts.
This argument has been noted for the record.
18.84.945
(A)(1)
18.84.945 Standard conditions of approval.
A. Standard Conditions of Approval. Any validly
issued design review or minor modification
approval, or any permit or approval deemed
granted or deemed approved by the operation
of law, shall contain the following conditions of
approval, as may be modified with additional
conditions on a project-by-project basis:
1. This permit will automatically expire 10
years and one day from its issuance,
except when California Government
Code Section 65964(b), as may be
amended or superseded in the future,
authorizes the city to establish a shorter
term for public safety or substantial land
use reasons. Any other permits or
approvals issued in connection with any
collocation, modification or other
change to this facility, which includes
without limitation any permits or other
approvals deemed granted or deemed
approved under feder al or state law,
shall not extend this term limit unless
expressly provided otherwise in such
permit or approval or required under
federal or state law.
Comment & Argument Against Project –
The applicant has suggested that the proposed
40’ cell tower would be safer than the existing
lower existing towers, and thereby they contend
that the 40’ tower should be allowed. However,
we contend that not only should the permit be
denied for all reasons cited in the appeal, but
also that based upon applicant’s description the
The argument in this claim refers to the expiration date of the application. This argument made by the Appellant is not applicable but has been noted for the record.
Further comment on this PMC Section 18.84.945(A)(1) refers to the existing wireless telecommunications facility as being “less safe” than the one proposed under Planning Application No. AP-24-0026. The applicant did not provide any findings of fact as to h ow the current wireless telecommunications facility is “less safe”.
In general, the height of the telecommunications facility impacts the level of which the radiofrequency (RF)
electromagnetic energy (EME) is disbursed from the
telecommunications tower. Provided this, the taller the telecommunications tower, the greater di stance between ground level and RF EME.
This argument made by the Appellant has been addressed
and has been noted for the record.
386
The Table below includes three columns: 1) Column that lists the Pittsburg Municipal Code Section applicable to the Appellant’s Argument/Comment; 2) Column that lists the Appellant’s Argument/Comment as written, underlined, and bolded in the Planning Commission Appeal Application No. AP-24-0109; and 3) Column of Staff’s Analysis to the Appellant’s Argument/Comment.
8 Pittsburg
Municipal
Code
Section
Appellant’s Argument/Comment Staff Analysis
current situation is “less safe”, as soon as the
city can do so that they deny any further
extensions and in fact as soon as legally
enforceable shut down the current cell tower
facility (allowing applicant a brief but reasonable
amount of time to relocate another cell
tower(s)).
18.84.980 Article XXI. Objective Design Standards
18.84.980 Purpose.
The purpose of this article is to establish
objective design standards, in compliance with
state law, that protect and promote public
health, safety, welfare and community
aesthetics consistent with the goals, objectives
and policies in the general plan. This article
establishes an application and review process
for residential or mixed- use projects qualifying
for ministerial approval under state law that
further housing production. [Ord. 24- 1517 § 2,
2024.]
Comment & Argument Against Project –
The design and placement of this facility fails to
meet city’s stated objectives “that protect and
promote public health, safety, welfare and
community aesthetics…”
Article XXI of the PMC is specific to residential or mixed -use projects that qualify for ministerial approval under state law.
AP-24-0026 (DR, VA) and the associated appeal filing are not ministerial projects that qualify for ministerial approval under state law.
This argument made by the Appellant has been noted for the record.
Conclusion
of
Appellant’s
Appeal
There has been cited multiple sections of
municipal code which proposed cell tower is
believed to be in violation of, any one of which
would be grounds for denying applicant’s
application for project ---- However, the
cumulative effect of all sections cited make it an
overwhelming opposition to project. While the
applicant may be able to dispute some sections,
it is believed that there are enough grounds to
deny the application. Also attached are copies
petitions signed of neighbors who live in
immediate area of proposed cell tower, and who
strongly oppose this project. Should an appeal
be granted, I am requesting equal time at any
hearing scheduled because no one party should
have an advantage over another party at this
juncture. The applicant is free to submit any
written objections to findings submitted, and I
would also request that a copy of same be
presented to me to allow for proper review prior
This argument made by the Appellant does not cite any
specific PMC Sections, State legislation, or any of the project documents filed under AP- 24-0026 (DR, VA). Further, a
complete copy of the Appeal Filing AP -24-0109 has been included as Attachment 3 of this Staff Report.
This comment does not need to be addressed for the
purposes of the Appeal Filing AP-24-0109 but has been noted for the record.
387
The Table below includes three columns: 1) Column that lists the Pittsburg Municipal Code Section applicable to the Appellant’s Argument/Comment; 2) Column that lists the Appellant’s Argument/Comment as written, underlined, and bolded in the Planning Commission Appeal Application No. AP-24-0109; and 3) Column of Staff’s Analysis to the Appellant’s Argument/Comment.
9 Pittsburg
Municipal
Code
Section
Appellant’s Argument/Comment Staff Analysis
to hearing. I will not waive time . Thank you for
your review….
388
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PITTSBURG
In the Matter of:
Design Review Approval to Construct )
a 40-Foot-Tall ‘Mono-Eucalyptus’ )
Telecommunications Facility and Approval )
of a Variance from Building Height ) Resolution No. 10264 Regulations at Assessor’s Parcel No. )
094-030-004 for “AT&T Mono-Eucalyptus )
Wireless Facility, AP-24-0026 (DR, VA).” )
The Planning Commission DOES RESOLVE as follows:
Section 1. Background
A. In December of 2000, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 9182, approving Design Review Application No. DR -00-27, which established the use of a telecommunications facility at the project site. The 2000 Design Review application included the installation of ground-mounted and water tank-mounted telecommunications equipment. The equipment installed exceeded the height of the water tank by four feet to allow for proper radio operation. The antennas that exceeded the water tank height were architecturally treated and painted to blend into the existing water tank and open space in the project area. The telecommunications facility has been in operation since its initial construction and has been maintained and upgraded over the last 20 years through various Minor Modification and Administrative Design Review applications, facilitated by the Zoning Administrator. Minor Modification and Administrative Design Review applications primarily focused on equipment modification with no expansion of the use of the telecommunications facility.
B. On March 21, 2024, Jared Kearsley with 51 Wireless, LLC, on behalf of AT&T, filed a Design Review and Variance application to install a new, 40 -foot mono- eucalyptus telecommunications facility, in replacement of the existing ground and building- mounted telecommunications facility, on a .41 -acre parcel located along the eastern boundary of Delta Vista Lane. The property is located in the ‘Single Family Residential, 6,000 Square Foot Lot Minimum (RS-6) Zoning District, which has a height limit 28 feet.
C. On June 25, 2024, Planning Application No. AP -24-0026 (DR, VA) was listed on the Planning Commission Agenda as Item Number 1. At the Planning Commission Hearing, Staff requested a continuance of Item Number 1 to a date to be determined. Staff has completed additional analysis of the proposed development project and re-noticed the proposed development project consistent with Government Code regulations for the September 24, 2024, Planning Commission hearing.
D. The applicant describes the proposed project ’s purpose as the means to upgrade the antennae equipment to the latest technology to provide customers with more reliable wireless telecommunications services with technology that is capable of handling more 389
user capacity than the current technology. The proposed scope of work associated with this project includes the installation of a new AT&T 40’-0” tall mono-eucalyptus, relocation of existing 15 RRUS units to new AT&T 40’ -0” tall mono -eucalyptus, installation of new power/battery cabinet with 13 new rectifiers and three new strings of batteries, installation of new DC 12 surge suppressor at equipment, installation of new DC9 surge suppressors at antennas, installation of new Purcell cabinet on existing Purcell cabinet with one new BB6648 baseband unit inside, installation of three new ¢6" underground conduits with three new fiber and nine new DC power cables inside, the removal and replacement of 12 existing antennas with 12 new, the removal and replacement of three existing RRUS – 11 B12 units and three existing RRUS – 12 B5 units with three new RRUS-4449 B5/B12 units at antennas, the removal of all existing AT&T antenna pipes, concrete slabs at existing antenna pipes, underground conduits, and antenna cables, and the removal of existing AT&T power/battery cabinet and associated equipment.
E. The project site is developed with a quasipublic use of a water tank, currently operated by Southern California Water Company and an existing telecommunications facility, operated by AT&T. The project site has a land use designation of “Low Density Residential” and is within the ‘West Leland’ Planning Subarea of the 2040 General Plan. Assessor’s Parcel No. 094-030-004.
F. The current proposed project is governed by the policies, development standards, and guidelines contained in the Pittsburg General Plan, Pittsburg Municipal Code (PMC) Title 18 (Zoning), and the City of Pittsburg Development Review Design Guidelines (DRDG; Planning Commission Resolution No. 9864).
G. Design Review approval can be granted only after the Planning Commission determines the proposed project is consistent with PMC section 18.84.930.A, summarized below:
1. t he wireless telecommunications facility conforms with good taste, good design and in general contributes to the character and image of the City as a place of beauty, spaciousness, balance, taste, fitness, broad vistas, and high quality;
2. t he exterior design and appearance of the wireless telecommunications facility is not of inferior quality as to cause the nature of the neighborhood to materially depreciate in appearance and value;
3. t he wireless telecommunications facility is in harmony with proposed developments on land in the general area;
4. t he application conforms with the criteria set forth in any applicable City -adopted design guidelines; and
5. t he applicant demonstrated that it proposed the least intrusive means to achieve its technical objectives.
H. Variance approval from the height standards set forth in PMC Table 18.50 .105 can be granted if the Planning Commission can make findings that:
390
1. Because of special circumstances concerning the subject property including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the zoning regulations deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and in the same land use district;
2. The variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege which is not generally available to other property in the vicinity and in the same land use district; and
3. The variance substantially complies with the intent and purpose of the land use district to which the property is classified.
I. On or before Friday, September 13, 2024, in accordance with PMC section 18.14.020, a “Notice of Public Hearing,” for the September 24, 2024, public hearing on this item was posted at City Hall, the Pittsburg Library, and on the “Public Notices” section of the City’s website. The City also posted the notice at the project site, mailed the notice via first class or electronic mail to the applicant, to the property owner, to owners of property located within 300 feet of the proposed project site, to local service agencies expected to provide services to the site, and to individuals who had previously filed written request for such notice. The notice was also posted on www.nextdoor.com (Nextdoor) and was sent directly to all subscribed residents in the Nextdoor neighborhoods adjacent to the project site.
J. The project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Class 32, “In- Fill Development Projects” of the state CEQA Guidelines, section 15332.
K. On September 24, 20 24, the Planning Commission held a public meeting on Design Review and Variance Application No. 24-0026 (DR, VA), at which time oral and/or written testimony was considered.
Section 2. Findings
A. Based on the Planning Commission Staff Report , “ AT&T Mono- Eucalyptus Wireless Facility, AP -24-0026 (DR, VA) ” dated September 24, 2024, and based on all the information contained in the Planning Division files on a the project, adopted and incorporated herein by reference and available for review in the Planning Division located at 65 Civic Avenue in Pittsburg, and based on all written and oral testimony presented at the meeting, the Planning Commission finds that:
1. All recitals above are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference.
Design Review Findings:
2. Design Review Finding A: The proposed project conforms with good taste, good design and in general contributes to the character and image of the City as a place of beauty, spaciousness, balance, taste, fitness, broad vistas, and high quality, in 391
that the proposed telecommunications facility would be disguised as a faux ‘eucalyptus tree’ and would stand similar in height to existing mature trees in the project vicinity. This would improve the scenic appearance of the telecommunication facility. Additionally, the associated ground- mounted equipment would be screened behind a 6’ fence at the project site.
3. Design Review Finding B: The exterior design and appearance of the wireless telecommunications facility is sufficient as to quality as to not cause the nature of the neighborhood to materially depreciate in appearance and value given that the proposed antennas and radios would be screened from public view within the faux eucalyptus limbs and leaves, attached to the monopole structure, resembling a ‘faux’ eucalyptus tree. The proposed project would be required, as a condition of approval, to always maintain the facility in a good state, subject to inspection by the City on an ongoing basis. The ground-mounted equipment would be screened by fencing. Additionally, to ensure stability and safety, a ll structures w ould be required to comply with all applicable building and fire codes.
4. Design Review Finding C: The proposed project will be in harmony with proposed developments on land in the general area , in that the proposed faux ‘mono- eucalyptus’ telecommunications facility would be located o n a parcel with an existing quasipublic use of a water tank. The proposed architectural features of a ‘mono-eucalyptus’ design would blend into the surrounding environment so that observers would not recognize the structure as a wireless telecommunications facility.
5. Design Review Finding D: The currently proposed project conforms to the criteria set forth in any applicable City -adopted design guidelines , in that the proposed wireless facility would be constructed in compliance with requirements in Chapter
18.84 PMC.
6. Design Review Finding E: The applicant has demonstrated that it proposes the least intrusive means to achieve its technical objectives , in that staff has worked with the applicant to achieve the least intrusive appearance for a stealth designed camouflaged 40- foot-tall ‘mono-eucalyptus’ design, while still achieving the applicant’s technical objectives, thus also complying with federal regulations that disallow a jurisdiction from actually or effectively prohibiting wireless telecommunications facilities.
Variance Findings:
7. Variance Finding A: The applicant requires a Variance from the height regulations in the RS-6 District because the location and surroundings of the subject property are such that existing trees and buildings in the immediate vicinity would block the telecommunications signal for the carrier. Increasing the maximum height of structures in the RS -6 Zoning District from 28 feet to 40 feet for the proposed project would allow the applicant the centerline required (at 35 feet) to meet the 392
needed demand for the area thus the applicant’s federally protected rights to provide wireless services in the area surrounding the project site.
8. Variance Finding B: The variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege which is not generally available to other property in the vicinity and in the same land use district, in that other wireless telecommunications facilities exceeding height regulations have been permitted in similar zoning districts . The use of a telecommunications facility is a use that is permitted in all zoning districts. The single-family zoning district has the lowest height maximum of all zoning districts at 28-feet, but similar zoning districts, such as Medium Density Residential and High Density Residential allow for structures up to 35, 40, and 45-feet tall.
9. Variance Finding C: The variance substantially complies with the intent and purpose of the land use district to which the property is classified, in that the purpose of the RS -6 Zoning District is primarily intended for residential development, residents of which receive service from telecommunication companies. The requested Variance from height regulations substantially complies with the intent and purpose to provide enhanced communication services to the community in the RS-6 Zoning District and surrounding Zoning Districts and it is consistent with the applicant’s federally protected rights to provide wireless telecommunication services in the area surrounding the project site.
B. The Staff Report entitled, “ AT&T Mono-Eucalyptus Wireless Facility, AP -24-0026 (DR, VA)” dated September 24, 2024, is referenced hereto as additional support for the Variance findings.
Section 3. Decision
A. Based on the findings set forth above, this Planning Commission hereby approves Planning Application No. 24-0026 (DR, VA), subject to the following conditions:
1. Conformity with Project Plans . The project shall be constructed in substantial conformity with the project plans dated March 14, 2024, except as hereinafter may be modified. Any major changes to the approved project plans as determined by the City’s Planner shall be subject to re-review and re-approval by the Planning Commission.
2. Wireless Facility Materials and Design. The facility shall be constructed as a faux ‘eucalyptus tree,’ with the final design subject to Planning Division review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit. All related equipment associated with the project shall have a nonreflective surface.
3. Structure Maintenance. The wireless facility and accessory equipment shall at all times be maintained in a good state, and the exterior finish must be clean and well maintained at all times. The City reserves the right to inspect the facility on an as- needed basis and require proper maintenance and upkeep by the applicant consistent with these conditions of approval.
393
4. Site Maintenance. The entire parcel shall always be kept clean and free of all litter, debris, and refuse.
5. Fence Screening Slats. The applicant shall install neutral-colored privacy slats in the chain link fencing surrounding the compound. Slats shall be replaced within 72 hours if damaged or vandalized.
6. Vandalism. Within 10 days of receiving notice of the vandalism from any party, the applicant shall be responsible for causing the removal of all vandalism, including graffiti, that is applied to the structure by repairing the structure or painting over the graffiti with a paint color that matches the existing paint color impacted structure.
7. New Equipment Installation. All new equipment shall be coated with an anti-graffiti coating to deter and prevent unsightly premises due to vandalism from graffiti.
8. Future Carriers. All future carriers at the project site are subject to the requirements in Pittsburg Municipal Code (PMC) Chapter 18.84, Article XX Wireless Telecommunications Facilities. Future carriers may be required to submit a Minor Modification Application to the City prior to installation or use of the telecommunications facility.
Building Conditions:
9. On the cover sheet, indicate the building Design Codes applicable to this project.
The City of Pittsburg has adopted and enforces the following building Design Codes: 2022 California Administrative Code (CAC), 2022 California Building (CBC), 2022 California Historical Building Code (CHBC), 2022 California Existing Building Code (CEBC), 2022 California Green Building Standards Code (CGBSC), 2022 California Mechanical Code (CMC), 2022 California Plumbing Code (CPC), 2022 California Electrical Code (CEC), 2022 California Energy Code (CEC Part 6), 2022 California Fire Code and the Pittsburg Municipal Code (RMC). Reference CBC Sec. 107.
10. On the cover sheet, please verify the Drawing Index includes all plan sheets.
Reference CBC Sec. 107.
11. On the cover sheet, provide or verify the Code Analysis includes the proposed tenant’s Use, Occupancy Group, Type of Construction, Separated or Nonseparated Mixed Occupancies, whether or not the building is Fire Sprinkled, Floor Area (S.F.), Number of Stories and Occupant Load. Reference CBC Sec. 111, 302.1, 401, 503, 508, 601, 903 and 1004.1.
12. The preparation of plans or specifications for commercial buildings and tenant improvements shall be performed by a licensed architect or engineer (Exception:
Interior alterations that involve only non-bearing partitions). The licensed architect or engineer shall affix a stamp to the plans as evidence of the person’s 394
responsibility for the documents. Licensed Mechanical, Plumbing and Electrical Contractors may design the systems that they are to install.
Contra Costa County Fire Protection District Conditions:
13. A land development permit is required for access and water supply review and approval prior to submitting building construction plans. The developer shall submit scaled site improvement plans indicating:
- All existing or proposed hydrant locations,
- Fire apparatus access to include slope and road surface - Size of building and type of construction, (Existing KNOX box) - Gates, fences, retaining walls, bio-retention basins, any obstructions to access.
This is a separate submittal from the building construction plans. These plans shall be approved prior to submitting building plans for review. (501.3) CFC
14. The developer shall submit new construction plans and specifications for the subject project to the through the Fire District public portal (https://confire.vision33cloud.com/citizenportal/app/landinq). After the new construction/ tenant improvement plans are approved, plans and specifications for all deferred submittals shall be submitted, including, but not limited to the following.
- Emergency generator if proposed
- Batteries if required
All plan submittals shall be submitted to the through the Fire District public portal (https://confire.vision33cloud.com/citizenportal/app/landinq) for review and approval prior to construction of the building or installation of the systems to ensure compliance with minimum requirements related to fire and life safety.
Plan review and inspection fees shall be submitted at the time of plan review submittal. (105.4.1) CFC, (901.2) CFC, (107) CBC
15. The Contra Costa County Fire Protection District’s preliminary review comments shall not be construed to encompass the complete project. Additional plans and specifications may be required after further review. If there are questions regarding this matter, please contact the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District Office at (925) 941-3300.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company Conditions:
16. The review indicates the proposed improvements do not appear to directly interfere with existing PG&E facilities or impact our easement rights. Please note this is their preliminary review and PG&E reserves the right for additional future review as needed. This letter shall not in any way alter, modify, or terminate any provision of any existing easement rights. If there are subsequent modifications made to the design, we ask that you resubmit the plans to the email address listed below.
395
17. If the project requires PG&E gas or electrical service in the future, please continue to work with PG&E’s Service Planning department:
https://www.pge.com/cco/.
18. As a reminder, before any digging or excavation occurs, please contact Underground Service Alert (USA) by dialing 811 a minimum of 2 working days prior to commencing any work. This free and independent service will ensure that all existing underground utilities are identified and marked on- site.
19. If you have any questions regarding our response, please contact the PG&E Plan Review Team at [email protected].
Standard Conditions:
20. This permit will automatically expire 10 years and one day from its issuance, except when California Government Code Section 65964(b), as may be amended or superseded in the future, authorizes the city to establish a shorter term for public safety or substantial land use reasons. Any other permits or approvals issued in connection with any collocation, modification or other change to this facility, which includes without limitation any permits or other approvals deemed granted or deemed approved under federal or state law, shall not extend this term limit unless expressly provided otherwise in such permit or approval or required under federal or state law.
21. Before the permittee submits any applications to the building division, the permittee must incorporate all conditions associated with this permit and the approved photo simulations into the project plans (the “approved plans”). The permittee must construct, install and operate the facility in strict compliance with the approved plans. Any alterations, modifications or other changes to the approved plans, whether requested by the permittee or required by other departments or public agencies with jurisdiction over the facility, must be submitted in a written request subject to the city planner’s prior review and approval, who may refer the request to the planning commission if the city planner finds that the requested alteration, modification or other change implicates a significant or substantial land use concern.
22. The permittee expressly acknowledges and agrees that the city or its designee may enter onto the site and inspect the improvements and equipment upon reasonable prior notice to the permittee; provided, however, that the city or its designee may, but will n ot
be obligated to, enter onto the site area without prior notice to support, repair, disable or remove any improvements or equipment in emergencies or when such improvements or equipment threatens actual, imminent harm to property or persons.
The permittee shall be permitted to supervise the city or its designee while such inspection or emergency access occurs.
23. The permittee and, if applicable, the nongovernment private property owner, agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the city, its officials, officers, employees, agents 396
and consultants from any and all administrative, legal or equitable actions or other proceedings instituted by any person challenging the validity of this project approval, subsequent project approval, or other action arising out of, or in connection with, this project approval or the activities or performance of the applicant or the private property owner, if applicable, or any of each one’s agents, employees, licensees, contractors, subcontractors or independent contractors. The parties shall cooperate in defending such action or proceeding. The parties shall use reasonable efforts to select mutually agreeable defense counsel but, if the parties cannot reach agreement, city may select its own legal counsel at permittee’s sole cost and expense. Permittee may select its own legal counsel to represent permittee’s interests at permittee’s sole cost and expense. Permittee shall pay for city’s costs of defense, whether directly or by timely reimbursement to city on a monthly basis. Such costs shall include, but not be limited to, all court costs and attorneys’ fees expended by city in defense of any such action or other proceeding, plus staff and city attorney time spent responding to and defending the claim, action or proceeding.
24. The permittee shall maintain compliance at all times with all federal, state and local statutes, regulations, orders or other rules that carry the force of law (“laws”) applicable to the permittee, the subject property, the facility or any use or activities in connection with the use authorized in this permit. The permittee expressly acknowledges and agrees that this obligation is intended to be broadly construed and that no other specific requirements in these conditions are intended to reduce, relieve or otherwise lessen the permittee’s obligations to maintain compliance with all laws.
25. This permit will automatically expire in six months from the date of approval, or deemed approval by operation of law, unless a building permit or grading permit has been issued or a written request for extension is filed with the planning division prior to the expiration date and is subsequently approved by the planning commission. The approval shall be valid for no more than six months from the date of building permit issuance, unless work is commenced and diligently pursued prior to the expiration of the building permit.
26. Within 30 days after a permittee transfers any interest in the facility or permit(s) in connection with the facility, the permittee shall deliver written notice to the city. The written notice required in this section must include: (a) the transferee’s legal name; (b) the transferee’s full contact information, including a primary contact person, mailing address, telephone number and email address; and (c) a statement signed by the transferee that the transferee shall accept all permit terms and conditions. Failure to submit the notice required herein shall be a cause for the city to revoke the applicable permits pursuant to and following the procedure set out in PMC 18.84.960.
27. The permittee shall retain full and complete copies of all permits and other regulatory approvals issued in connection with the facility, which includes without limitation all conditions of approval, approved plans, resolutions and other documentation associated with the permit or regulatory approval. In the event that the city cannot locate any such full and complete permits or other regulatory approvals in its official records, and the permittee fails to retain full and complete permits or other regulatory 397
approvals in the permittee’s files, any ambiguities or uncertainties that would be resolved through an examination of the missing documents shall be conclusively resolved against the permittee.
28. Each owner or service provider of a wireless telecommunications facility shall provide signage identifying the name and phone number of a party to contact in event of an emergency. Contact information shall be kept current. The design, materials, colors, and location of signs larger than four square feet shall be subject to design review.
29. The permittee shall keep the site, which includes without limitation any and all improvements, equipment, structures, access routes, fences and landscaped areas, in a neat, clean and safe condition in accordance with the approved plans and all conditions in this permit. The permittee shall keep the site area free from trash, debris, and litter at all times. The permittee, at no cost to the city, shall remove and remediate any graffiti or other forms of vandalism at the site within 48 hours after the permittee receives notice or otherwise becomes aware that such graffiti or other vandalism occurred.
30. The permittee shall be responsible for maintaining landscaping in accordance with the approved landscape plan and for replacing any damaged or dead trees, foliage, or other landscaping elements shown on the approved plan. Amendments or modifications to the approved landscape plan shall be submitted to the city planner for approval.
31. The permittee shall use all reasonable efforts to avoid any and all undue or unnecessary adverse impacts on nearby properties that may arise from the permittee’s construction, installation, operation, modification, maintenance, repair, removal and/or other activities at the site. The permittee shall not perform or cause others to perform any construction, installation, operation, modification, maintenance, repair, removal or other work that involves heavy equipment or machines on (a) any weekday between 7:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. or (b) any Saturday, Sunday or holiday. The restricted work hours in this condition will not prohibit any work required to prevent an actual, immediate harm to property or persons, or any work during an emergency declared by the city. The community development director or the community development director’s designee may issue a stop work order for any work that violates this condition. In addition, the planning commission may revoke this permit if the permittee habitually or routinely violates this condition, whether the community development director or the community development director’s designee issued any stop work orders or not.
32. Each wireless telecommunications facility shall be operated in a manner that will minimize noise impacts to surrounding residents and persons using nearby parks, trails, and similar recreation areas. All air conditioning units, generators and any other equipment that might emit noise that would be audible from beyond the property line shall be enclosed or equipped with noise attenuation devices to the extent necessary to ensure compliance with applicable noise limitations under Chapter 9.44 PMC.
Backup generators shall only be operated during periods of power outages or for testing. At no time shall equipment noise from any source exceed the standards 398
specified in Chapter 9.44 PMC.
33. Other Agency Requirements. The applicant shall comply with all the requirements of the Community Development Department, Contra Costa County Fire Protection District, Delta Diablo Sanitation District, and all other applicable local, state and federal agencies. It is the responsibility of the applicant to contact each local, state, or federal agency for requirements that may pertain to this project.
34. Standard Conditions of Development. The Standard Conditions of Development as adopted by the Pittsburg Planning Commission by Resolution No. 8931 shall apply as conditions of approval for this project as applicable. Where there is conflict between the Standard Conditions of Development and the specific conditions of approval specified in this resolution, the specific conditions of this Resolution shall govern.
Section 4. Effective Date
This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. On motion by Commissioner Popova, seconded by Commissioner Gordon, the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted the 24th day of September 2024, by the Planning Commission of the City of Pittsburg, California by the following vote:
AYES: Gordon, Kobata, Popova, Robinson, Stokes
NAYES: Smith
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
I hereby certify that the above Resolution No. 10264 was adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Pittsburg on September 24, 2024.
__________________________________
JOHN FUNDERBURG, M.S., SECRETARY
PITTSBURG PLANNING COMMISSION
399
CITY OF PITTSBURG
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
September 24
, 2024
ITEM: AT&T Mono-Eucalyptus Wireless Facility, AP-24-0026 (DR, VA)
ORIGINATED BY: Jared Kearsley , 51 Wireless , LLC. (209) 968-4315, [email protected]
SUBJECT: This is a public hearing on a request for approval of: 1) Design Review for installation of a new, 40-foot-tall faux ‘Mono-Eucalyptus’ Telecommunications Facility , and 2) a Variance from the required maximum height standards in the RS -6 Zoning District. The project site is a leased portion of the .41 -acre parcel located along the east side of Delta Vista Lane in Pittsburg, CA. The site is located within the ‘ Single Family Residential, 6,000 Square Food Minimum Lot Size’ ( RS-6) Zoning District . Assessor’s Parcel No. 0 94-030-004. The purpose of the proposed project and increase in height request is to upgrade the antennae equipment to the latest 5G technology and provide customers with more reliable wireless telecommunications services that is capable of handling more user capacity than the current technology.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Commission adopt a Resolution (Attachment 1) to approve Design Review and Variance Application No. 24-0026, subject to conditions.
BACKGROUND:
In December 2000, the City of Pittsburg Planning Commission adopted Resolution 9182 approving Design Review application no. DR -00-27 to install establish a telecommunications facility at the proposed project site. The 2000 Design Review application included the installation of ground- mounted and water tank -mounted telecommunications equipment. The equipment installed exceeded the height of the water tank by four feet to allow for proper radio operation. The antennas that exceeded the water tank height were architecturally treated and painted to blend into the existing water tank and open space in the project area. The telecommunications facility has been in operation since its initial construction and has been maintained and upgraded over the last 20 years through various Minor Modification and Administrative Design Review applications, facilitated by the Zoning Administrator. Minor Modification and Administrative Design Review applications primarily focused on equipment modification with no expansion of the use of the telecommunications facility.
On March 21, 2024, Jared Kearsley with 51 Wireless, LLC, on behalf of AT&T filed a Design Review and Variance application to install a new, 40- foot mono-eucalyptus telecommunications facility, in replacement of the existing ground and building-mounted telecommunications facility, on a .41-acre parcel located along the eastern boundary of Delta Vista Lane.
400
Planning Commission Staff Report
AT&T Mono-Eucalyptus Wireless Facility, AP-24-0026 (DR, VA) September 24, 2024
On June 25, 2024, Planning Application No. AP -24-0026 (DR, VA) was listed on the Planning Commission Agenda as Item Number 1. At the Planning Commission Hearing, Staff requested a continuance of Item Number 1 to a date to be determined. Staff has completed additional analysis of the proposed development project, and re-noticed the proposed development project consistent with Government Code regulations for the September 24, 2024 Planning Commission hearing.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Existing Conditions
The project site is located on the approximately 0.41- acre parcel alongside Delta Vista Lane, approximately 360 feet north of West Leland Road, within the Hillsdale Residential Subdivision. The project site is developed with a water tank reservoir that is actively operated by Southern California Water Company and an existing telecommunications facility operated by AT&T. The project site is fenced with 6’ chain link fencing, with three rows of barbed wire to better secure the unmanned telecommunications site.
See Attachment 2 for photos of the project site and photo simulations of the proposed project.
Surrounding Land Uses
North: Residential Development – Hillsdale Subdivision (Subdivided 1978), West Leland Road, Highway 4
West: Residential Development – Lawlor Estates Subdivision (Subdivided 2004) South: Residential Development – Hillsdale Subdivision (Subdivided 1978) , Unincorporated Contra Costa County
East: Residential Development – Hillsdale Subdivision (Subdivided 1978)
See Attachment 3 for a map of surrounding land uses.
Proposed Project
The proposed project is for approval of Design Review) and a Variance to modify an existing Telecommunications Facility by constructing a monopole, disguised as a eucalyptus tree, standing 40-feet tall, on an approximately 0.41-acre parcel. The project location is along the east side of Delta Vista Lane.
The proposed project seeks to fill in gaps of AT&T’s coverage and capacity by removing the existing ground and water tank-mounted antennae equipment and upgrading it to the latest technology to provide their customers with more reliable wireless telecommunications services with technology that is capable of handling more user capacity than the current technology. The upgraded technology would be installed upon a 40-foot-tall mono-eucalyptus and would include the following scope of work:
401
Planning Commission Staff Report
AT&T Mono-Eucalyptus Wireless Facility, AP-24-0026 (DR, VA) September 24, 2024
1. Install new AT&T 40’-0” tall mono-eucalyptus.
2. Relocate 15 RRUS units to new AT&T 40’-0” tall mono-eucalyptus.
3. Install new power/battery cabinet with 13 new rectifiers and three new strings of batteries.
4. Install new DC 12 surge suppressor at equipment.
5. Install three new DC9 surge suppressors at antennas.
6. Install one new Purcell cabinet on existing Purcell cabinet with one new BB6648 baseband unit inside.
7. Install three new ¢6" underground conduits with three new fiber and nine new DC power cables inside.
8. Removal and replacement of 12 existing antennas with 12 new.
9. Removing and replacement of three existing RRUS – 11 B12 units and three existing RRUS – 12 B5 units with three new RRUS-4449 B5/B12 units at antennas.
10. Removal all existing AT&T antenna pipes, concrete slabs at existing antenna pipes, underground conduits, and antenna cables.
11. Remove existing AT&T power/battery cabinet and associated equipment.
Plans for the proposed project also include a request for approval of a Variance application to exceed the base district’s maximum height of 26 feet to 40 feet.
See Attachment 4 for Project Plans, dated March 14, 2024.
GENERAL PLAN/CODE COMPLIANCE:
Pittsburg 2040 General Plan
The project site has a land use designation of “Low Density Residential” and is within the ‘West Leland’ Planning Subarea of the 2040 General Plan. The “Low Density Residential” land use designation is intended to provide sites for primarily single -family residential (detached), attached single-family units permitted with ground-floor living area and private or common outdoor open space, and duplexes were allowed by State law.
The proposed mono-eucalyptus is quasipublic in nature. The proposed project would be constructed on an existing quasipublic-developed property with existing infrastructure and would not generate any additional trips to the area. The proposed project would enhance communications services for Pittsburg residents and business owners , as well as first responders.
The proposed project would be consistent with the 2040 General Plan, specifically, Goal- 2-7, which calls for support of the development and expansion of regionally -oriented commercial activities and the maintenance of industrial activities in appropriate designated areas and would implement Action 6-A-5.a which states:
“Promote citywide expansion of telecommunications and broadband internet services via hardwire and wireless technologies to increase 402
Planning Commission Staff Report
AT&T Mono-Eucalyptus Wireless Facility, AP-24-0026 (DR, VA) September 24, 2024
access for public safety, industrial, commercial and residential customers.”
Zoning
The project site is located within the ‘Single Family Residential, 6,000 Square Foot Lot Minimum’ ( RS-6) Zoning District . The proposed mono- eucalyptus and accessory equipment are designed to support a wireless telecommunications facility, which, subject to Design Review approval, is a permitted use in the RS-6 Zoning District. The schedule set forth in Pittsburg Municipal Code (PMC) Table 18.50.105 prescribes development regulations for the RS -6 District, and as shown in Attachment 5, the proposed project complies with all applicable property development regulations, with one exception related to height.
PMC section 18.84.930(C)(1-2) - Height Requirements - states:
1. All freestanding wireless telecommunications facilities shall be designed at the minimum functional height required for the coverage area unless the planning commission determines that additional height is needed for architectural reasons; and
2. No wireless telecommunications facility shall exceed or project above the height limits specified for the base district in which the facility is located.
Given that the height limit of the RS -6 District is 28’ above ground level, a variance to increase the height to 40’ from the base district (RS-6) height limit is being requested for the proposed project . The applicant has provided justification for exceeding the height limits of the base district stating that the proposed telecommunications facility would provide a highly-demanded service to the surrounding developments, otherwise deprived of such services. The applicant has demonstrated a significant gap in cellular coverage in the vicinity of the project site and the proposed project’s location and increase in height request is the least intrusive means to close that gap. Additionally, the proposed cell tower will not exceed the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) Radiofrequency (RF) Electromagnetic Energy (“ EME”) limits and without approval of the Variance from the required height requirements, the required centerline for the proposed facility could not be achieved and the demands of the area would not be met, not by just the applicant but future carriers for co-location at this location, as well. See Section 2 of Attachment 1 for the Variance Findings.
As shown in Attachment 6, the proposed project is also either consistent or conditionally consistent with all remaining applicable Standards of Review for Design Review Applications for Wireless Telecommunications Facilities in PMC section 18.84.930, specifically those that require or encourage:
1) the exterior design and appearance of the wireless telecommunications facility not to be of inferior quality as to cause the nature of the neighborhood to materially depreciate in appearance and value (A.1.b);
403
Planning Commission Staff Report
AT&T Mono-Eucalyptus Wireless Facility, AP-24-0026 (DR, VA) September 24, 2024
2) the applicant to demonstrate that the least intrusive means were used to achieve its technical objectives (A.1.e); and
3) newly constructed towers or monopoles to be capable of collocation (D.9).
Development Review Design Guidelines
The proposed project is subject to the City’s adopted Development Review Design Guidelines (DRDGs), adopted by Planning Commission pursuant to Resolution No. 9864, and the Standards of Review for Design Review Applications for Wireless Telecommunications Facilities as set forth in PMC section 18.84.930.
As shown in Attachment 7, the proposed project is consistent or conditionally consistent with the applicable DRDG sections.
Required Findings
Design Review: Design review approval for the project can be granted by the Planning Commission only after the Commission makes a finding that the proposed project is consistent with PMC section 18.84.930(A), which is summarized below:
A. the wireless telecommunications facility conforms with good taste, good design and in general contributes to the character and image of the city as a place of beauty, spaciousness, balance, taste, fitness, broad vistas, and high quality;
B. the exterior design and appearance of the wireless telecommunications facility is not of inferior quality as to cause the nature of the neighborhood to materially depreciate in appearance and value;
C. the wireless telecommunications facility is in harmony with proposed developments on land in the general area;
D. the application conforms with the criteria set forth in any applicable city -adopted design guidelines; and
E. the applicant demonstrated that it proposed the least intrusive means to achieve its technical objectives.
Variance: Pursuant to PMC section 18.16.050, the Planning Commission may grant a Variance from the height standards set forth in PMC Table 18.5 0.105, if the Planning Commission can make findings that:
A. Because of special circumstances concerning the subject property including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the zoning regulations deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and in the same land use district;
404
Planning Commission Staff Report
AT&T Mono-Eucalyptus Wireless Facility, AP-24-0026 (DR, VA) September 24, 2024
B. The variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege which is not generally available to other property in the vicinity and in the same land use district; and
C. The variance substantially complies with the intent and purpose of the land use district to which the property is classified.
Environmental: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Class 32, “In- Fill Development Projects,” of the state CEQA Guidelines, section 15332.
Public Notice: On or before Friday, September 13, 2024, in accordance with PMC section
18.14.020, a “Notice of Public Hearing,” for the September 24 , 2024, public hearing on this item was posted at City Hall, the Pittsburg Library, and on the “Public Notices” section of the City’s website. The City also posted the notice at the project site, mailed the notice via first class or electronic mail to the applicant, to the property owner, to owners of property located within 300 feet of the proposed project site, to local service agencies expected to provide services to the site, and to individuals who had previously filed written request for such notice. The notice was also posted on www.nextdoor.com (Nextdoor) and was sent directly to all subscribed residents in the Nextdoor neighborhoods adjacent to the project site.
Public Comment: Staff has received three formal comments on the project from surrounding neighbors. The comments received expres s concerns pertaining to the construction of new telecommunications tower, which is proposed to replace the existing building and ground-mounted telecommunications facility at the project site. Comments received discuss the following:
1. Viewshed impacted by proposed 40 -foot-tall faux ‘eucalyptus tree’ telecommunication facility proposed.
2. Negative impact on property values in the area.
3. Neighboring jurisdictions would not allow for telecommunication facilities near residential development.
4. Health impacts of telecommunication facilities in general, and increased health impacts with increased height of telecommunication facilities.
Staff has reviewed the public comments received and the use of a telecommunications facility is a permitted use, following the enactment of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
Pittsburg Municipal Code Section 18.84.920 prescribes that the review procedure for new telecommunication towers is through filing an application for Design Review, and that the review authority for new telecommunication towers is the Planning Commission.
405
Planning Commission Staff Report
AT&T Mono-Eucalyptus Wireless Facility, AP-24-0026 (DR, VA) September 24, 2024
Pittsburg Municipal Code Section 18.36.200 provides the review authority’s purview on Design Review applications, which is limited to the design of the structure and does not allow for discretion on project location. As such, comments pertaining to location are not subject to review under PMC Section 18.36.200 for this proposed development.
The viewshed impacts with the proposed telecommunications facility refer to the height of the telecommunication tower being 40- feet-tall. The maximum height in the RS -6 Zoning District is 28 feet. The applicant requests a Variance to allow for an additional 12 feet to ensure telecommunication facility complete operational capacity. The applicant has demonstrated that a 28- foot-tall telecommunications facility would not provide adequate coverage to improve the coverage gap in the proposed project’s vicinity.
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulations provide that most actions associated with the construction of communications and broadcast facilities are categorical exemptions – i.e., actions that do not have a significant effect on the environment and in most cases preempt local zoning regulations.
Public comments received on this item are included as Attachment 9 to this Staff Report.
ANALYSIS:
Staff believes that the Planning Commission can make the required findings to approve the Design Review and Variance request s in the application based on the analysis described below.
The proposed facility is intended to improve data throughput and overall service quality for AT&T customers in the area and around the proposed site. Improved service would help customers in the vicinity with outdoor , in-vehicle, and in- building wireless service potentially resulting in fewer dropped calls, faster data speeds, and improved access to additional wireless services. Additionally, the applicant has demonstrated a significant gap in cellular coverage in the vicinity of the project site and the proposed project is the least intrusive means to close that gap.
The proposed facility would be located on an existing quasipublic-developed site with an existing approved cell tower located within the RS-6 Zoning District. The RS-6 Zoning District allows for new telecommunications wireless facilities, subject to Design Review.
Staff has reviewed the faux tree design for the proposed facility , of which photo simulations prepared for the proposed project indicate that the design would have minimal visual impact to the general public. Additionally, the proposed architectural features of a faux tree design blend into the surrounding environment of existing, mature trees, so that observers would not recognize the faux tree as a wireless telecommunications facility.
For these reasons, staff believe s that the proposed project would neither result in a marginal development nor adversely affect the orderly development of property in the area in that, the proposed facility would be located on an already developed quasipublic site.
406
Planning Commission Staff Report
AT&T Mono-Eucalyptus Wireless Facility, AP-24-0026 (DR, VA) September 24, 2024
PMC section 18.84.930(C)(2) states that all freestanding wireless telecommunications facilities shall be designed at the minimum functional height required for the coverage area and allows the Planning Commission to determine if additional height is needed. The applicant has determined that the radios and cellular tower equipment must be located at the prescribed height on the tower in order for the facility to function properly . Without approval of the Variance from the RS-6 height requirements, the required centerline for the proposed facility could not be achieved and the demands of the area would not be met, not by just the applicant but future carriers for co-location at this location, as well.
ACTION REQUIRED:
Move to adopt a Resolution approving Application No. 24-00 26 (DR, VA) , subject to conditions.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Proposed Resolution
2. Photo Simulations
3. Map of Surrounding Land Uses
4. Project Plans, dated March 14, 2024
5. Property Development Regulations – Consistency Table
6. Standards of Review for Design Review Applications for Wireless Telecommunication Facilities – Consistency Table
7. Development Review Design Guidelines – Consistency Table
8. Public Meeting Notice
9. Public Comments Received
Prepared by: Kelsey Gunter, Associate Planner
407
VICINITY MAPCODE COMPLIANCE PROJECT DESCRIPTION
T-1.1
TITLE SHEET
PREPARED FOR
REVDESCRIPTION DATE
SHEET TITLE:
SHEET NUMBER:
CHECKED BY:
DRAWN BY:
PROJECT NO:
IT IS A VIOLATION OF LAW FOR ANY PERSON,
UNLESS THEY ARE ACTING UNDER THE
DIRECTION OF A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL
ENGINEER, TO ALTER THIS DOCUMENT.
Vendor:
Licensee:
ENGINEER:
AT&T SITE NO:
-
CCL00763
03/25/22CD 90%
5001 Executive Parkway
San Ramon, California 94583
Issued For:
CCL00763
HWY 4 - BAILEY
0 APPROVED BY:
ISSUE STATUS
THESE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AS INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE, ARE AND SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF STREAMLINE ENGINEERING AND DESIGN INC. WHETHER THE PROJECTS FOR WHICH THEY ARE MADE ARE EXECUTED OR NOT. THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS SHALL NOT BE
USED BY ANY PERSON OR ENTITY ON OTHER PROJECTS WITH OUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ENGINEER. Copyright 2009, STREAMLINE ENGINEERING AND DESIGN INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.C 8445 Sierra College Blvd, Suite E Granite Bay, CA 95746 Contact: Kevin Sorensen Phone: 916-660-1930
E-Mail: [email protected] Fax: 916-660-1941
C. COLSTON
-
-
C.T.C
CAD
1241 WEST LELAND ROAD
PITTSBURG, CA 94565
04/07/22CD 95% 1T.S.
05/03/22CLIENT REV 2T.S.
07/08/22CLIENT REV 3S.B.D
06/27/23CD 90% 4C.C.
02/27/24CLIENT REV 5D.H.
S.B.D 03/14/24CLIENT REV 6
DRIVING DIRECTIONS
PROJECT INFORMATION
SHEET INDEX
SHEETDESCRIPTIONREVSHEETDESCRIPTIONREV
AT&T SITE NUMBER: CCL00763
AT&T SITE NAME: HWY 4 - BAILEY
1241 WEST LELAND ROAD
PITTSBURG, CA 94565
JURISDICTION: CITY OF PITTSURG
APN:094-030-004
SITE TYPE: OUTDOOR CABINETS /
(N) MONO-EUCALYPTUS
CALL
"CALL BEFORE YOU DIG"
811
At all services & grounding trenches, provide
" WARNING" tape at 12" below grade.
NATIONWIDE UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT
INITIATIVE/PROJECT: C-BAND / DOD BAND / 4449
USID #: 45594
FA LOCATION CODE: 10101396
RFDS ID: 4496064
RFDS VERSION: 4.00
RFDS DATE: 03/08/2023
PACE JOB #: MRSFR086291, MRSFR086434, MRSFR086800, MRSFR085317, MRSFR086806, MRSFR086242, MRSFR085320, MRSFR085325
PTN #: 3701A10XQQ, 3701A10X63, 3701A10WVJ, 3701A10Y5F, 3701A10XMS ·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
SCALE: N/A
TN
SITE LOCATION
408
PREPARED FOR
REVDESCRIPTION DATE
SHEET TITLE:
SHEET NUMBER:
CHECKED BY:
DRAWN BY:
PROJECT NO:
IT IS A VIOLATION OF LAW FOR ANY PERSON,
UNLESS THEY ARE ACTING UNDER THE
DIRECTION OF A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL
ENGINEER, TO ALTER THIS DOCUMENT.
Vendor:
Licensee:
ENGINEER:
AT&T SITE NO:
-
CCL00763
03/25/22CD 90%
5001 Executive Parkway
San Ramon, California 94583
Issued For:
CCL00763
HWY 4 - BAILEY
0 APPROVED BY:
ISSUE STATUS
THESE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AS INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE, ARE AND SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF STREAMLINE ENGINEERING AND DESIGN INC. WHETHER THE PROJECTS FOR WHICH THEY ARE MADE ARE EXECUTED OR NOT. THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS SHALL NOT BE
USED BY ANY PERSON OR ENTITY ON OTHER PROJECTS WITH OUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ENGINEER. Copyright 2009, STREAMLINE ENGINEERING AND DESIGN INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.C 8445 Sierra College Blvd, Suite E Granite Bay, CA 95746 Contact: Kevin Sorensen Phone: 916-660-1930
E-Mail: [email protected] Fax: 916-660-1941
C. COLSTON
-
-
C.T.C
CAD
1241 WEST LELAND ROAD
PITTSBURG, CA 94565
04/07/22CD 95% 1T.S.
05/03/22CLIENT REV 2T.S.
07/08/22CLIENT REV 3S.B.D
06/27/23CD 90% 4C.C.
02/27/24CLIENT REV 5D.H.
S.B.D 03/14/24CLIENT REV 6
T-1.2
GENERAL
NOTES
CALL
"CALL BEFORE YOU DIG"
811
At all services & grounding trenches, provide
" WARNING" tape at 12" below grade.
NATIONWIDE UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT
409
PREPARED FOR
REVDESCRIPTION DATE
SHEET TITLE:
SHEET NUMBER:
CHECKED BY:
DRAWN BY:
PROJECT NO:
IT IS A VIOLATION OF LAW FOR ANY PERSON,
UNLESS THEY ARE ACTING UNDER THE
DIRECTION OF A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL
ENGINEER, TO ALTER THIS DOCUMENT.
Vendor:
Licensee:
ENGINEER:
AT&T SITE NO:
-
CCL00763
03/25/22CD 90%
5001 Executive Parkway
San Ramon, California 94583
Issued For:
CCL00763
HWY 4 - BAILEY
0 APPROVED BY:
ISSUE STATUS
THESE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AS INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE, ARE AND SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF STREAMLINE ENGINEERING AND DESIGN INC. WHETHER THE PROJECTS FOR WHICH THEY ARE MADE ARE EXECUTED OR NOT. THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS SHALL NOT BE
USED BY ANY PERSON OR ENTITY ON OTHER PROJECTS WITH OUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ENGINEER. Copyright 2009, STREAMLINE ENGINEERING AND DESIGN INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.C 8445 Sierra College Blvd, Suite E Granite Bay, CA 95746 Contact: Kevin Sorensen Phone: 916-660-1930
E-Mail: [email protected] Fax: 916-660-1941
C. COLSTON
-
-
C.T.C
CAD
1241 WEST LELAND ROAD
PITTSBURG, CA 94565
04/07/22CD 95% 1T.S.
05/03/22CLIENT REV 2T.S.
07/08/22CLIENT REV 3S.B.D
06/27/23CD 90% 4C.C.
02/27/24CLIENT REV 5D.H.
S.B.D 03/14/24CLIENT REV 6
T-1.3
SIGNAGE
DETAILS
9N.T.S.
GENERAL NOTES
11N.T.S.
NOTICE SIGN 10N.T.S.
CAUTION AND WARNING SIGN
NOTE:
1. CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL ALL INFORMATION SIGNAGE IN ACCORDANCE w/ AT&T WIRELESS DOCUMENT #03-0074, RF
EXPOSURE POLICY AND RF SAFETY COMPLIANCE PROGRAM,
LATEST EDITION.
2. CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT AT&T R-RFSC FOR
INFORMATION ON MPE LEVELS AND INSTRUCTIONS ON LEVEL AND
LOCATION OF SIGNAGE
7N.T.S.
CABINET DOORS SIGNAGE
5N.T.S.
GATE SIGNAGE
3N.T.S.
FCC ASR SIGNAGE
1N.T.S.
FENCED COMPOUND SIGNAGE
2N.T.S.
FENCED COMPOUND SIGNAGE
4N.T.S.
DOOR / EQUIPMENT SIGN
Property of AT&T
Authorized
Personnel Only
In case of emergency, or prior to performing
maintenance on this site, call (800) 638-2822
and reference cell site number CCL00763
Property of AT&T
Authorized
Personnel Only
No Trespassing
Violators will be Prosecuted
In case of emergency, or prior to performing
maintenance on this site, call (800) 638-2822
and reference cell site number CCL00763
Posted in accordance with federal Communications
Commission rules and antenna tower registration
47CFR 17.4(g).
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Federal Communications Communication Tower
Registration Number
TRESPASSING
NO
DANGER
NOTICE
This Site Operated by:
AT&T MOBILITY
5001 EXECUTIVE PARKWAY
SAN RAMON, CA 94583
IN CASE OF FIRE AND THE NEED FOR SHUTDOWN
TO DEACTIVATE ANTENNAS CALL THE
FOLLOWING NUMBER:
For 24 Hour Emergency Contact and Access Please Call:
(800)638-2822
Reference Site#: CCL00763
Site Address: 1241 WEST LELAND ROAD, PITTSBURG, CA 94565 8"
12"
6N.T.S.
NFPA HAZARD SIGN
32 0
ACID
INFORMATION
AUTHORIZED
PERSONNEL
ONLY
SIGNAGE AND STRIPING INFORMATION
8.3N.T.S.
NFPA 704 HAZARD DIAMOND SIGN
10 2
15"
15"
FUEL DIESEL
COMBUSTIBLE
NO SMOKING
NO OPEN FLAMES
FUEL TANK CAPACITY 190 GALS
NOTE: 6" LETTERING
8N.T.S.
YELLOW EH&S SIGN
8.1N.T.S.
FUEL TYPE SIGN
WARNING
CANCER AND REPRODUCTIVE HARM
WWW.P65WARNINGS.CA.GOV
AVERTISSEMENT
CANCER ET EFFET NOCIF SUR IS REPRODUCTION
WWW.P65WARNINGS.CA.GOV
AVERTISSEMENT
PRODUCE CANDER Y DANCS REPRODUCTIVOS
WWW.P65WARNINGS.CA.GOV
8.2N.T.S.
PROP 65
FOR FUEL & OTHER
ENVIRONMENTAL
EMERGENCIES
CALL EH&S
1-800-566-9347
1-800-KNOW-EHS
410
PREPARED FOR
REVDESCRIPTION DATE
SHEET TITLE:
SHEET NUMBER:
CHECKED BY:
DRAWN BY:
PROJECT NO:
IT IS A VIOLATION OF LAW FOR ANY PERSON,
UNLESS THEY ARE ACTING UNDER THE
DIRECTION OF A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL
ENGINEER, TO ALTER THIS DOCUMENT.
Vendor:
Licensee:
ENGINEER:
AT&T SITE NO:
-
CCL00763
03/25/22CD 90%
5001 Executive Parkway
San Ramon, California 94583
Issued For:
CCL00763
HWY 4 - BAILEY
0 APPROVED BY:
ISSUE STATUS
THESE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AS INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE, ARE AND SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF STREAMLINE ENGINEERING AND DESIGN INC. WHETHER THE PROJECTS FOR WHICH THEY ARE MADE ARE EXECUTED OR NOT. THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS SHALL NOT BE
USED BY ANY PERSON OR ENTITY ON OTHER PROJECTS WITH OUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ENGINEER. Copyright 2009, STREAMLINE ENGINEERING AND DESIGN INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.C 8445 Sierra College Blvd, Suite E Granite Bay, CA 95746 Contact: Kevin Sorensen Phone: 916-660-1930
E-Mail: [email protected] Fax: 916-660-1941
C. COLSTON
-
-
C.T.C
CAD
1241 WEST LELAND ROAD
PITTSBURG, CA 94565
04/07/22CD 95% 1T.S.
05/03/22CLIENT REV 2T.S.
07/08/22CLIENT REV 3S.B.D
06/27/23CD 90% 4C.C.
02/27/24CLIENT REV 5D.H.
S.B.D 03/14/24CLIENT REV 6
T-1.4
BATTERY
SPECIFICATIONS
411
PREPARED FOR
REVDESCRIPTION DATE
SHEET TITLE:
SHEET NUMBER:
CHECKED BY:
DRAWN BY:
PROJECT NO:
IT IS A VIOLATION OF LAW FOR ANY PERSON,
UNLESS THEY ARE ACTING UNDER THE
DIRECTION OF A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL
ENGINEER, TO ALTER THIS DOCUMENT.
Vendor:
Licensee:
ENGINEER:
AT&T SITE NO:
-
CCL00763
03/25/22CD 90%
5001 Executive Parkway
San Ramon, California 94583
Issued For:
CCL00763
HWY 4 - BAILEY
0 APPROVED BY:
ISSUE STATUS
THESE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AS INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE, ARE AND SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF STREAMLINE ENGINEERING AND DESIGN INC. WHETHER THE PROJECTS FOR WHICH THEY ARE MADE ARE EXECUTED OR NOT. THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS SHALL NOT BE
USED BY ANY PERSON OR ENTITY ON OTHER PROJECTS WITH OUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ENGINEER. Copyright 2009, STREAMLINE ENGINEERING AND DESIGN INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.C 8445 Sierra College Blvd, Suite E Granite Bay, CA 95746 Contact: Kevin Sorensen Phone: 916-660-1930
E-Mail: [email protected] Fax: 916-660-1941
C. COLSTON
-
-
C.T.C
CAD
1241 WEST LELAND ROAD
PITTSBURG, CA 94565
04/07/22CD 95% 1T.S.
05/03/22CLIENT REV 2T.S.
07/08/22CLIENT REV 3S.B.D
06/27/23CD 90% 4C.C.
02/27/24CLIENT REV 5D.H.
S.B.D 03/14/24CLIENT REV 6
T-1.5
PRIVATE UTILITY
LOCATE
TN
412
PREPARED FOR
REVDESCRIPTION DATE
SHEET TITLE:
SHEET NUMBER:
CHECKED BY:
DRAWN BY:
PROJECT NO:
IT IS A VIOLATION OF LAW FOR ANY PERSON,
UNLESS THEY ARE ACTING UNDER THE
DIRECTION OF A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL
ENGINEER, TO ALTER THIS DOCUMENT.
Vendor:
Licensee:
ENGINEER:
AT&T SITE NO:
-
CCL00763
03/25/22CD 90%
5001 Executive Parkway
San Ramon, California 94583
Issued For:
CCL00763
HWY 4 - BAILEY
0 APPROVED BY:
ISSUE STATUS
THESE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AS INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE, ARE AND SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF STREAMLINE ENGINEERING AND DESIGN INC. WHETHER THE PROJECTS FOR WHICH THEY ARE MADE ARE EXECUTED OR NOT. THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS SHALL NOT BE
USED BY ANY PERSON OR ENTITY ON OTHER PROJECTS WITH OUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ENGINEER. Copyright 2009, STREAMLINE ENGINEERING AND DESIGN INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.C 8445 Sierra College Blvd, Suite E Granite Bay, CA 95746 Contact: Kevin Sorensen Phone: 916-660-1930
E-Mail: [email protected] Fax: 916-660-1941
C. COLSTON
-
-
C.T.C
CAD
1241 WEST LELAND ROAD
PITTSBURG, CA 94565
04/07/22CD 95% 1T.S.
05/03/22CLIENT REV 2T.S.
07/08/22CLIENT REV 3S.B.D
06/27/23CD 90% 4C.C.
02/27/24CLIENT REV 5D.H.
S.B.D 03/14/24CLIENT REV 6
A-1.1
OVERALL SITE
PLAN
TN
413
PREPARED FOR
REVDESCRIPTION DATE
SHEET TITLE:
SHEET NUMBER:
CHECKED BY:
DRAWN BY:
PROJECT NO:
IT IS A VIOLATION OF LAW FOR ANY PERSON,
UNLESS THEY ARE ACTING UNDER THE
DIRECTION OF A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL
ENGINEER, TO ALTER THIS DOCUMENT.
Vendor:
Licensee:
ENGINEER:
AT&T SITE NO:
-
CCL00763
03/25/22CD 90%
5001 Executive Parkway
San Ramon, California 94583
Issued For:
CCL00763
HWY 4 - BAILEY
0 APPROVED BY:
ISSUE STATUS
THESE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AS INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE, ARE AND SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF STREAMLINE ENGINEERING AND DESIGN INC. WHETHER THE PROJECTS FOR WHICH THEY ARE MADE ARE EXECUTED OR NOT. THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS SHALL NOT BE
USED BY ANY PERSON OR ENTITY ON OTHER PROJECTS WITH OUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ENGINEER. Copyright 2009, STREAMLINE ENGINEERING AND DESIGN INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.C 8445 Sierra College Blvd, Suite E Granite Bay, CA 95746 Contact: Kevin Sorensen Phone: 916-660-1930
E-Mail: [email protected] Fax: 916-660-1941
C. COLSTON
-
-
C.T.C
CAD
1241 WEST LELAND ROAD
PITTSBURG, CA 94565
04/07/22CD 95% 1T.S.
05/03/22CLIENT REV 2T.S.
07/08/22CLIENT REV 3S.B.D
06/27/23CD 90% 4C.C.
02/27/24CLIENT REV 5D.H.
S.B.D 03/14/24CLIENT REV 6
A-1.2
EQUIPMENT
PLANS
TNTN
414
PREPARED FOR
REVDESCRIPTION DATE
SHEET TITLE:
SHEET NUMBER:
CHECKED BY:
DRAWN BY:
PROJECT NO:
IT IS A VIOLATION OF LAW FOR ANY PERSON,
UNLESS THEY ARE ACTING UNDER THE
DIRECTION OF A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL
ENGINEER, TO ALTER THIS DOCUMENT.
Vendor:
Licensee:
ENGINEER:
AT&T SITE NO:
-
CCL00763
03/25/22CD 90%
5001 Executive Parkway
San Ramon, California 94583
Issued For:
CCL00763
HWY 4 - BAILEY
0 APPROVED BY:
ISSUE STATUS
THESE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AS INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE, ARE AND SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF STREAMLINE ENGINEERING AND DESIGN INC. WHETHER THE PROJECTS FOR WHICH THEY ARE MADE ARE EXECUTED OR NOT. THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS SHALL NOT BE
USED BY ANY PERSON OR ENTITY ON OTHER PROJECTS WITH OUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ENGINEER. Copyright 2009, STREAMLINE ENGINEERING AND DESIGN INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.C 8445 Sierra College Blvd, Suite E Granite Bay, CA 95746 Contact: Kevin Sorensen Phone: 916-660-1930
E-Mail: [email protected] Fax: 916-660-1941
C. COLSTON
-
-
C.T.C
CAD
1241 WEST LELAND ROAD
PITTSBURG, CA 94565
04/07/22CD 95% 1T.S.
05/03/22CLIENT REV 2T.S.
07/08/22CLIENT REV 3S.B.D
06/27/23CD 90% 4C.C.
02/27/24CLIENT REV 5D.H.
S.B.D 03/14/24CLIENT REV 6
A-2.1
ANTENNA PLANS
(E) RF SCHEDULE
TN
TN
TN
415
PREPARED FOR
REVDESCRIPTION DATE
SHEET TITLE:
SHEET NUMBER:
CHECKED BY:
DRAWN BY:
PROJECT NO:
IT IS A VIOLATION OF LAW FOR ANY PERSON,
UNLESS THEY ARE ACTING UNDER THE
DIRECTION OF A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL
ENGINEER, TO ALTER THIS DOCUMENT.
Vendor:
Licensee:
ENGINEER:
AT&T SITE NO:
-
CCL00763
03/25/22CD 90%
5001 Executive Parkway
San Ramon, California 94583
Issued For:
CCL00763
HWY 4 - BAILEY
0 APPROVED BY:
ISSUE STATUS
THESE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AS INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE, ARE AND SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF STREAMLINE ENGINEERING AND DESIGN INC. WHETHER THE PROJECTS FOR WHICH THEY ARE MADE ARE EXECUTED OR NOT. THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS SHALL NOT BE
USED BY ANY PERSON OR ENTITY ON OTHER PROJECTS WITH OUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ENGINEER. Copyright 2009, STREAMLINE ENGINEERING AND DESIGN INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.C 8445 Sierra College Blvd, Suite E Granite Bay, CA 95746 Contact: Kevin Sorensen Phone: 916-660-1930
E-Mail: [email protected] Fax: 916-660-1941
C. COLSTON
-
-
C.T.C
CAD
1241 WEST LELAND ROAD
PITTSBURG, CA 94565
04/07/22CD 95% 1T.S.
05/03/22CLIENT REV 2T.S.
07/08/22CLIENT REV 3S.B.D
06/27/23CD 90% 4C.C.
02/27/24CLIENT REV 5D.H.
S.B.D 03/14/24CLIENT REV 6
A-2.2
ANTENNA PLAN
(N) ANTENNA RF SCHEDULE (PRELIMINARY & SUBJECT TO CHANGE) TN
416
PREPARED FOR
REVDESCRIPTION DATE
SHEET TITLE:
SHEET NUMBER:
CHECKED BY:
DRAWN BY:
PROJECT NO:
IT IS A VIOLATION OF LAW FOR ANY PERSON,
UNLESS THEY ARE ACTING UNDER THE
DIRECTION OF A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL
ENGINEER, TO ALTER THIS DOCUMENT.
Vendor:
Licensee:
ENGINEER:
AT&T SITE NO:
-
CCL00763
03/25/22CD 90%
5001 Executive Parkway
San Ramon, California 94583
Issued For:
CCL00763
HWY 4 - BAILEY
0 APPROVED BY:
ISSUE STATUS
THESE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AS INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE, ARE AND SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF STREAMLINE ENGINEERING AND DESIGN INC. WHETHER THE PROJECTS FOR WHICH THEY ARE MADE ARE EXECUTED OR NOT. THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS SHALL NOT BE
USED BY ANY PERSON OR ENTITY ON OTHER PROJECTS WITH OUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ENGINEER. Copyright 2009, STREAMLINE ENGINEERING AND DESIGN INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.C 8445 Sierra College Blvd, Suite E Granite Bay, CA 95746 Contact: Kevin Sorensen Phone: 916-660-1930
E-Mail: [email protected] Fax: 916-660-1941
C. COLSTON
-
-
C.T.C
CAD
1241 WEST LELAND ROAD
PITTSBURG, CA 94565
04/07/22CD 95% 1T.S.
05/03/22CLIENT REV 2T.S.
07/08/22CLIENT REV 3S.B.D
06/27/23CD 90% 4C.C.
02/27/24CLIENT REV 5D.H.
S.B.D 03/14/24CLIENT REV 6
A-3.1
ELEVATION
417
PREPARED FOR
REVDESCRIPTION DATE
SHEET TITLE:
SHEET NUMBER:
CHECKED BY:
DRAWN BY:
PROJECT NO:
IT IS A VIOLATION OF LAW FOR ANY PERSON,
UNLESS THEY ARE ACTING UNDER THE
DIRECTION OF A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL
ENGINEER, TO ALTER THIS DOCUMENT.
Vendor:
Licensee:
ENGINEER:
AT&T SITE NO:
-
CCL00763
03/25/22CD 90%
5001 Executive Parkway
San Ramon, California 94583
Issued For:
CCL00763
HWY 4 - BAILEY
0 APPROVED BY:
ISSUE STATUS
THESE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AS INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE, ARE AND SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF STREAMLINE ENGINEERING AND DESIGN INC. WHETHER THE PROJECTS FOR WHICH THEY ARE MADE ARE EXECUTED OR NOT. THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS SHALL NOT BE
USED BY ANY PERSON OR ENTITY ON OTHER PROJECTS WITH OUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ENGINEER. Copyright 2009, STREAMLINE ENGINEERING AND DESIGN INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.C 8445 Sierra College Blvd, Suite E Granite Bay, CA 95746 Contact: Kevin Sorensen Phone: 916-660-1930
E-Mail: [email protected] Fax: 916-660-1941
C. COLSTON
-
-
C.T.C
CAD
1241 WEST LELAND ROAD
PITTSBURG, CA 94565
04/07/22CD 95% 1T.S.
05/03/22CLIENT REV 2T.S.
07/08/22CLIENT REV 3S.B.D
06/27/23CD 90% 4C.C.
02/27/24CLIENT REV 5D.H.
S.B.D 03/14/24CLIENT REV 6
A-3.2
ELEVATION
418
PREPARED FOR
REVDESCRIPTION DATE
SHEET TITLE:
SHEET NUMBER:
CHECKED BY:
DRAWN BY:
PROJECT NO:
IT IS A VIOLATION OF LAW FOR ANY PERSON,
UNLESS THEY ARE ACTING UNDER THE
DIRECTION OF A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL
ENGINEER, TO ALTER THIS DOCUMENT.
Vendor:
Licensee:
ENGINEER:
AT&T SITE NO:
-
CCL00763
03/25/22CD 90%
5001 Executive Parkway
San Ramon, California 94583
Issued For:
CCL00763
HWY 4 - BAILEY
0 APPROVED BY:
ISSUE STATUS
THESE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AS INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE, ARE AND SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF STREAMLINE ENGINEERING AND DESIGN INC. WHETHER THE PROJECTS FOR WHICH THEY ARE MADE ARE EXECUTED OR NOT. THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS SHALL NOT BE
USED BY ANY PERSON OR ENTITY ON OTHER PROJECTS WITH OUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ENGINEER. Copyright 2009, STREAMLINE ENGINEERING AND DESIGN INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.C 8445 Sierra College Blvd, Suite E Granite Bay, CA 95746 Contact: Kevin Sorensen Phone: 916-660-1930
E-Mail: [email protected] Fax: 916-660-1941
C. COLSTON
-
-
C.T.C
CAD
1241 WEST LELAND ROAD
PITTSBURG, CA 94565
04/07/22CD 95% 1T.S.
05/03/22CLIENT REV 2T.S.
07/08/22CLIENT REV 3S.B.D
06/27/23CD 90% 4C.C.
02/27/24CLIENT REV 5D.H.
S.B.D 03/14/24CLIENT REV 6
A-4.1
DETAILS
419
PREPARED FOR
REVDESCRIPTION DATE
SHEET TITLE:
SHEET NUMBER:
CHECKED BY:
DRAWN BY:
PROJECT NO:
IT IS A VIOLATION OF LAW FOR ANY PERSON,
UNLESS THEY ARE ACTING UNDER THE
DIRECTION OF A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL
ENGINEER, TO ALTER THIS DOCUMENT.
Vendor:
Licensee:
ENGINEER:
AT&T SITE NO:
-
CCL00763
03/25/22CD 90%
5001 Executive Parkway
San Ramon, California 94583
Issued For:
CCL00763
HWY 4 - BAILEY
0 APPROVED BY:
ISSUE STATUS
THESE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AS INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE, ARE AND SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF STREAMLINE ENGINEERING AND DESIGN INC. WHETHER THE PROJECTS FOR WHICH THEY ARE MADE ARE EXECUTED OR NOT. THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS SHALL NOT BE
USED BY ANY PERSON OR ENTITY ON OTHER PROJECTS WITH OUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ENGINEER. Copyright 2009, STREAMLINE ENGINEERING AND DESIGN INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.C 8445 Sierra College Blvd, Suite E Granite Bay, CA 95746 Contact: Kevin Sorensen Phone: 916-660-1930
E-Mail: [email protected] Fax: 916-660-1941
C. COLSTON
-
-
C.T.C
CAD
1241 WEST LELAND ROAD
PITTSBURG, CA 94565
04/07/22CD 95% 1T.S.
05/03/22CLIENT REV 2T.S.
07/08/22CLIENT REV 3S.B.D
06/27/23CD 90% 4C.C.
02/27/24CLIENT REV 5D.H.
S.B.D 03/14/24CLIENT REV 6
S-1.1
STRUCTURAL
DETAILS
420
PREPARED FOR
REVDESCRIPTION DATE
SHEET TITLE:
SHEET NUMBER:
CHECKED BY:
DRAWN BY:
PROJECT NO:
IT IS A VIOLATION OF LAW FOR ANY PERSON,
UNLESS THEY ARE ACTING UNDER THE
DIRECTION OF A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL
ENGINEER, TO ALTER THIS DOCUMENT.
Vendor:
Licensee:
ENGINEER:
AT&T SITE NO:
-
CCL00763
03/25/22CD 90%
5001 Executive Parkway
San Ramon, California 94583
Issued For:
CCL00763
HWY 4 - BAILEY
0 APPROVED BY:
ISSUE STATUS
THESE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AS INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE, ARE AND SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF STREAMLINE ENGINEERING AND DESIGN INC. WHETHER THE PROJECTS FOR WHICH THEY ARE MADE ARE EXECUTED OR NOT. THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS SHALL NOT BE
USED BY ANY PERSON OR ENTITY ON OTHER PROJECTS WITH OUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ENGINEER. Copyright 2009, STREAMLINE ENGINEERING AND DESIGN INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.C 8445 Sierra College Blvd, Suite E Granite Bay, CA 95746 Contact: Kevin Sorensen Phone: 916-660-1930
E-Mail: [email protected] Fax: 916-660-1941
C. COLSTON
-
-
C.T.C
CAD
1241 WEST LELAND ROAD
PITTSBURG, CA 94565
04/07/22CD 95% 1T.S.
05/03/22CLIENT REV 2T.S.
07/08/22CLIENT REV 3S.B.D
06/27/23CD 90% 4C.C.
02/27/24CLIENT REV 5D.H.
S.B.D 03/14/24CLIENT REV 6
E-1.0
GENERAL
ELECTRICAL NOTES
421
PREPARED FOR
REVDESCRIPTION DATE
SHEET TITLE:
SHEET NUMBER:
CHECKED BY:
DRAWN BY:
PROJECT NO:
IT IS A VIOLATION OF LAW FOR ANY PERSON,
UNLESS THEY ARE ACTING UNDER THE
DIRECTION OF A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL
ENGINEER, TO ALTER THIS DOCUMENT.
Vendor:
Licensee:
ENGINEER:
AT&T SITE NO:
-
CCL00763
03/25/22CD 90%
5001 Executive Parkway
San Ramon, California 94583
Issued For:
CCL00763
HWY 4 - BAILEY
0 APPROVED BY:
ISSUE STATUS
THESE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AS INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE, ARE AND SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF STREAMLINE ENGINEERING AND DESIGN INC. WHETHER THE PROJECTS FOR WHICH THEY ARE MADE ARE EXECUTED OR NOT. THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS SHALL NOT BE
USED BY ANY PERSON OR ENTITY ON OTHER PROJECTS WITH OUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ENGINEER. Copyright 2009, STREAMLINE ENGINEERING AND DESIGN INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.C 8445 Sierra College Blvd, Suite E Granite Bay, CA 95746 Contact: Kevin Sorensen Phone: 916-660-1930
E-Mail: [email protected] Fax: 916-660-1941
C. COLSTON
-
-
C.T.C
CAD
1241 WEST LELAND ROAD
PITTSBURG, CA 94565
04/07/22CD 95% 1T.S.
05/03/22CLIENT REV 2T.S.
07/08/22CLIENT REV 3S.B.D
06/27/23CD 90% 4C.C.
02/27/24CLIENT REV 5D.H.
S.B.D 03/14/24CLIENT REV 6
E-1.1
ELECTRICAL PLAN
422
TN TN
TN
PREPARED FOR
REVDESCRIPTION DATE
SHEET TITLE:
SHEET NUMBER:
CHECKED BY:
DRAWN BY:
PROJECT NO:
IT IS A VIOLATION OF LAW FOR ANY PERSON,
UNLESS THEY ARE ACTING UNDER THE
DIRECTION OF A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL
ENGINEER, TO ALTER THIS DOCUMENT.
Vendor:
Licensee:
ENGINEER:
AT&T SITE NO:
-
CCL00763
03/25/22CD 90%
5001 Executive Parkway
San Ramon, California 94583
Issued For:
CCL00763
HWY 4 - BAILEY
0 APPROVED BY:
ISSUE STATUS
THESE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AS INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE, ARE AND SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF STREAMLINE ENGINEERING AND DESIGN INC. WHETHER THE PROJECTS FOR WHICH THEY ARE MADE ARE EXECUTED OR NOT. THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS SHALL NOT BE
USED BY ANY PERSON OR ENTITY ON OTHER PROJECTS WITH OUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ENGINEER. Copyright 2009, STREAMLINE ENGINEERING AND DESIGN INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.C 8445 Sierra College Blvd, Suite E Granite Bay, CA 95746 Contact: Kevin Sorensen Phone: 916-660-1930
E-Mail: [email protected] Fax: 916-660-1941
C. COLSTON
-
-
C.T.C
CAD
1241 WEST LELAND ROAD
PITTSBURG, CA 94565
04/07/22CD 95% 1T.S.
05/03/22CLIENT REV 2T.S.
07/08/22CLIENT REV 3S.B.D
06/27/23CD 90% 4C.C.
02/27/24CLIENT REV 5D.H.
S.B.D 03/14/24CLIENT REV 6
G-1.1
GROUNDING PLANS
423
PREPARED FOR
REVDESCRIPTION DATE
SHEET TITLE:
SHEET NUMBER:
CHECKED BY:
DRAWN BY:
PROJECT NO:
IT IS A VIOLATION OF LAW FOR ANY PERSON,
UNLESS THEY ARE ACTING UNDER THE
DIRECTION OF A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL
ENGINEER, TO ALTER THIS DOCUMENT.
Vendor:
Licensee:
ENGINEER:
AT&T SITE NO:
-
CCL00763
03/25/22CD 90%
5001 Executive Parkway
San Ramon, California 94583
Issued For:
CCL00763
HWY 4 - BAILEY
0 APPROVED BY:
ISSUE STATUS
THESE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AS INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE, ARE AND SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF STREAMLINE ENGINEERING AND DESIGN INC. WHETHER THE PROJECTS FOR WHICH THEY ARE MADE ARE EXECUTED OR NOT. THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS SHALL NOT BE
USED BY ANY PERSON OR ENTITY ON OTHER PROJECTS WITH OUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ENGINEER. Copyright 2009, STREAMLINE ENGINEERING AND DESIGN INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.C 8445 Sierra College Blvd, Suite E Granite Bay, CA 95746 Contact: Kevin Sorensen Phone: 916-660-1930
E-Mail: [email protected] Fax: 916-660-1941
C. COLSTON
-
-
C.T.C
CAD
1241 WEST LELAND ROAD
PITTSBURG, CA 94565
04/07/22CD 95% 1T.S.
05/03/22CLIENT REV 2T.S.
07/08/22CLIENT REV 3S.B.D
06/27/23CD 90% 4C.C.
02/27/24CLIENT REV 5D.H.
S.B.D 03/14/24CLIENT REV 6
G-1.2
GROUNDING
DETAILS
424
(c) 2013 AT&T Intellectual Property. All rights reserved. AT&T and the AT&T logo are trademarks of AT&T Intellectual Property.
CCL00763
Sep 24, 2024
425
• Coverage without the site existing
N
426
• Current coverage as-is with current design (10’ RAD Center) N
427
• Predicted coverage at height limit (23’ RAD Center)
N
428
• Predicted coverage at height limit (35’ RAD Center)
N
429
AT&T Site CCL00763 / Permit No.: AP-24-0026 / Alternative Existing Sites
Existing AT&T Site Location 1:
Address: 101 Avila Road, Concord
Coordinates: 38.019736,
-121.980589
Summary:
Three towers are located on the property at which AT&T is already located on one of the three towers.
This site provides coverage along Hwy 4 and the residential communities to the north, east, and south. The towers are 30 feet tall, 45 feet tall, and 49 feet tall and are approximately 2.33 miles from AP-24-0026 proposed facility. This tower does not provide coverage to the area where the proposed wireless facility AP-24-0026 is located.
430
AT&T Site CCL00763 / Permit No.: AP-24-0026 / Alternative Existing Sites
Existing AT&T Site Location 2:
Address: 761 Port Chicago Hwy, Bay Point
Coordinates: 38.035311
, -121.959403
Summary:
Existing Wireless Communications Facility located on rooftop via a stealthed structure design. AT&T is currently on thi s facility and is serving the surrounding residential communities and commercial/industrial surrounding areas. Th is structure is approximately 1.85 miles from the proposed AP-24-0026 wireless facility and is approximately 7 0 feet tall. This wireless facility does not provide coverage to the area where the proposed wireless facility AP-24-0026 is located.
431
AT&T Site CCL00763 / Permit No.: AP-24-0026 / Alternative Existing Sites
Existing AT&T Site Location 3:
Address: Within Public ROW on PG&E Transmission Tower
Coordinates: 38.020397, -121.917340
Summary:
Existing Wireless Communications Facility located on a PG&E transmission tower. AT&T is currently on this tower and is serving the surrounding residential communities in all direction in addition to Hwy 4 . Th is structure is approximately 150 feet tall and is approximately 1.25 miles from the proposed wireless facility AP-24-0026. Lastly, this facility does not provide coverage to the area where the proposed wireless facility AP-24-0026 is located.
432
AT&T Site CCL00763 / Permit No.: AP-24-0026 / Alternative Existing Sites
Existing AT&T Site Location 4:
Address: No physical address; APN 095-160-005 - PG&E Transmission Tower Coordinates: 38.013291, -121.909179
Summary:
Existing Wireless Communications Facility located on a PG&E transmission tower. AT&T is currently on this tower and is serving the surrounding residential communities in all direction in addition to Rancho Medanos Junior High School . This structure is appro ximately 127 feet tall and is approximately 1.60 miles from the proposed wireless facility AP-24-0026. Lastly, this facility does not provide coverage to the area where the proposed wireless facility AP-24-0026 is located.
433
AT&T Site CCL00763 / Permit No.: AP-24-0026 / Alternative Existing Sites
Existing AT&T Site Location 5:
Address: 1100 Bailey Road, Bay Point
Coordinates: 38.003076, -121.947636
Summary:
Three towers are located on the property at which AT&T is already located on one of the three towers.
This site provides coverage along the Bayley Road corridor to the north and south. The towers are all approximately 40 feet tall and are approximately 0.95 miles from AP-24-0026 proposed facility. This tower does not provide coverage to the area where the proposed wireless facility AP -24-0026 is located.
434
AT&T Site CCL00763 / Permit No.: AP-24-0026 / Alternative Existing Sites
Map of Existing Wireless Facilities to reference:
Conclusion:
All surrounding existing Wireless Communications Facilities (WCF) already contain AT&T equipment and are providing coverage to other geographic areas around Contra Costa County and/or Pittsburg, CA. The other five WCF ’s do not replace the current site or the proposed AP -24-0026 Mono- Eucalyptus tree pole even if any of the five sites were modified to a higher height. Instead, they work in parallel with one another to provide the most seamless coverage possible for AT&T customers and first responders. AP -24-0026 currently provides coverage to the surrounding residential communities, the commercial corridor along Hwy 4, and Hwy 4 itself. Since the current WCF, when upgraded, would not be in compliance with FCC EME standards, and, the site is underperforming at the current height, the proposed height increase will not only allow the site to be in compliance with FCC standards, it will also slightly improve the coverage around the coverage areas specified above.
Furthermore, after the site is upgraded to current wireless communications technology, the site will substantially increase its capacity (different than coverage). The increase in capacity allows more users to use the network at once without affecting the network’s capabilities. Lastly, this WCF has First Net spectrum which is a vital service for our first responders. 435
436
SHOT 1
437
SHOT 2
438
SHOT 3
439
SHOT 4
440
SHOT 5
441
SHOT 6
442
SHOT 7
443
SHOT 8
444
SHOT 9
445
SHOT 10
446
SHOT 11
447
Radio Frequency – Electromagnetic Energy
(RF-EME) Compliance Report
Site Number: CCL00763
RFDS ID: 4496064
Pace Number: MRSFR086291/ MRSFR086434/ MRSFR086800/ MRSFR085317/ MRSFR086806/ MRSFR086242/ MRSFR085320/ MRSFR085325
HWY 4 - Bailey
1241 West Leland Road
Pittsburg, California 04565
Contra Costa County
38.01411944; -121.93858611 NAD83
Monotree
The proposed AT&T installation will be in compliance with FCC regulations upon proper installation of recommended signage.
EBI Project No. 007234
February 3, 2025
Prepared for:
AT&T Mobility, LLC
c/o QualTek
1150 First Avenue, Suite 600
King of Prussia, PA 19406
Prepared by:
448
RF-EME Compliance Report USID No. 45594 Site No. CCL00763 EBI Project No. 007234 1241 West Leland Road, Pittsburg, California EBI Consulting 21 B Street Burlington, MA 01803 1.800.786.2346 i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................... 1
1.0 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION (FCC) REQUIREMENTS ................................... 3
2.0 AT&T RF EXPOSURE POLICY REQUIREMENTS .................................................................... 5
3.0 WORST-CASE PREDICTIVE MODELING ................................................................................. 5
4.0 RECOMMENDED SIGNAGE/COMPLIANCE PLAN .................................................................... 7
5.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................. 8
6.0 LIMITATIONS ......................................................................................................................... 8
APPENDICES
Appendix A Personnel Certifications
Appendix B Compliance/Signage Plan and Elevation View 449
RF-EME Compliance Report USID No. 45594 Site No. CCL00763 EBI Project No. 007234 1241 West Leland Road, Pittsburg, California EBI Consulting 21 B Street Burlington, MA 01803 1.800.786.2346 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Purpose of Report
EnviroBusiness Inc. (dba EBI Consulting) has been contracted by AT&T Mobility, LLC to conduct radio frequency electromagnetic (RF -EME) modeling for AT&T Site CCL00763 located at 1241 West Leland
Road in Pittsburg, California to determine RF- EME exposure levels from proposed AT&T wireless communications equipment at this site. As described in greater detail in Section 1 .0 of this report, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has developed Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) Limits for general public exposures and occupational exposures. This report summarizes the results of RF-EME modeling in relation to relevant FCC RF- EME compliance standards for limiting human exposure to RF- EME fields.
This report contains the RF EME analysis for the site, including the following:
Site Plan with antenna locations
Graphical representation of theoretical MPE fields based on modeling Graphical representation of recommended signage and/or barriers
This document addresses the compliance of AT&T’s transmitting facilities independently and in relation to all collocated facilities at the site.
Statement of Compliance
A site is considered out of compliance with FCC regulations if there are areas that exceed the FCC exposure limits and there are no RF hazard mitigation measures in place. Any carrier which has an installation that contributes more than 5% of the applicable MPE must participate in mitigating these RF hazards.
As presented in the sections below, based on worst- case predictive modeling, there are no modeled exposures on any accessible rooftop or ground walking/working surface related to ATT’s proposed antennas that exceed the FCC’s occupational and/or general public exposure limits at this site.
As such, the proposed AT&T installation is in compliance with FCC regulations upon proper installation of recommended signage and/or barriers.
AT&T Recommended Signage/Compliance Plan
AT&T’s RF Exposure: Responsibilities, Procedures & Guidelines document , dated October 28, 2014, requires that:
1. All sites must be analyzed for RF exposure compliance;
2. All sites must have that analysis documented; and
3. All sites must have any necessary signage and barriers installed.
Site compliance recommendations have been developed based upon protocols presented in AT&T’s RF Exposure: Responsibilities, Procedures & Guidelines document, dated October 28, 2014, additional guidance provided by AT&T, EBI’s understanding of FCC and OSHA requirements, and common industry practice. Barrier locations have been identified (when required) based on guidance presented in AT&T’s RF Exposure: Responsibilities, Procedures & Guidelines document, dated October 28, 2014.
450
RF-EME Compliance Report USID No. 45594 Site No. CCL00763 EBI Project No. 007234 1241 West Leland Road, Pittsburg, California EBI Consulting 21 B Street Burlington, MA 01803 1.800.786.2346 2 The following signage is recommended at this site:
Yellow CAUTION 2B sign posted at the base of the monotree near the climbing ladder.
The signage proposed for installation at this site complies with AT&T’s RF Exposure: Responsibilities, Procedures & Guidelines document and therefore complies with FCC and OSHA requirements. Barriers are not recommended on this site. To reduce the risk of exposure and/or injury, EBI recommends that access to the monotree or areas associated with the active antenna installation be restricted and secured where possible. More detailed information concerning site compliance recommendations is presented in Section 4.0 and Appendix B of this report.
451
RF-EME Compliance Report USID No. 45594 Site No. CCL00763 EBI Project No. 007234 1241 West Leland Road, Pittsburg, California EBI Consulting 21 B Street Burlington, MA 01803 1.800.786.2346 3
1.0 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION (FCC) REQUIREMENTS The FCC has established Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) limits for human exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic (RF-EME) energy fields, based on exposure limits recommended by the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) and, over a wide range of
frequencies, the exposure limits developed by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE) and adopted by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) to replace the 1982 ANSI guidelines. Limits for localized absorption are based on recommendations of both ANSI/IEEE and NCRP.
The FCC guidelines incorporate two separate tiers of exposure limits that are based upon occupational/controlled exposure limits (for workers) and general public/uncontrolled exposure limits for members of the general public.
Occupational/controlled exposure limits apply to situations in which persons are exposed as a consequence of their employment and in which those persons who are exposed have been made fully aware of the potential for exposure and can exercise control over their exposure . Occupational/ controlled exposure limits also apply where exposure is of a transient nature as a result of incidental passage through a location where exposure levels may be above general public/uncontrolled limits (see below), as long as t he exposed person has been made fully aware of the potential for exposure and can exercise control over his or her exposure by leaving the area or by some other appropriate means.
General public/uncontrolled exposure limits apply to situations in which the general public may be exposed or in which persons who are exposed as a consequence of their employment may not be made fully aware of the potential for exposure or cannot exercise control over their exposure. Therefore, members of the general public would always be considered under this category when exposure is not employment-related, for example, in the case of a telecommunications tower that exposes persons in a nearby residential area.
Table 1 and Figure 1 (below), which are included within the FCC’s OET Bulletin 65, summarize the MPE limits for RF emissions. These limits are designed to provide a substantial margin of safety . They vary by frequency to take into account the different types of equipment that may be in operation at a particular facility and are “time -averaged” limits to reflect different durations resulting from controlled and uncontrolled exposures.
The FCC’s MPEs are measured in terms of power (mW) over a unit surface area (cm 2). Known as the power density, the FCC has established an occupational MPE of 5 milliwatts per square centimeter (mW/cm2) and an uncontrolled MPE of 1 mW/cm 2 for equipment operating in the 1900 MHz frequency range. For the AT&T equipment operating at 850 MHz, the FCC’s occupational MPE is 2.83 mW/cm2 and an uncontrolled MPE of 0.57 mW/cm 2. For the AT&T equipment operating at 700 MHz, the FCC’s occupational MPE is 2.33 mW/cm2 and an uncontrolled MPE of 0.47 mW/cm2. These limits are considered protective of these populations.
Table 1: Limits for Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE)
(A) Limits for Occupational/Controlled Exposure
Frequency Range
(MHz)
Electric Field
Strength (E)
(V/m)
Magnetic Field
Strength (H)
(A/m)
Power Density (S)
(mW/cm2)
Averaging Time
[E]2, [H]2, or S
(minutes)
0.3-3.0 614 1.63 (100)* 6
3.0-30 1842/f 4.89/f (900/f2)* 6
30-300 61.4 0.163 1.0 6
300-I,500 -- -- f/300 6
1,500-100,000 -- -- 5 6
452
RF-EME Compliance Report USID No. 45594 Site No. CCL00763 EBI Project No. 007234 1241 West Leland Road, Pittsburg, California EBI Consulting 21 B Street Burlington, MA 01803 1.800.786.2346 4 Table 1: Limits for Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE)
(A) Limits for Occupational/Controlled Exposure
Frequency Range
(MHz)
Electric Field
Strength (E)
(V/m)
Magnetic Field
Strength (H)
(A/m)
Power Density (S)
(mW/cm2)
Averaging Time
[E]2, [H]2, or S
(minutes)
(B) Limits for General Public/Uncontrolled Exposure
Frequency Range
(MHz)
Electric Field
Strength (E)
(V/m)
Magnetic Field
Strength (H)
(A/m)
Power Density (S)
(mW/cm2)
Averaging Time
[E]2, [H]2, or S
(minutes)
0.3-1.34 614 1.63 (100)* 30
1.34-30 824/f 2.19/f (180/f2)* 30
30-300 27.5 0.073 0.2 30
300-I,500 -- -- f/1,500 30
1,500-100,000 -- -- 1.0 30
f = Frequency in (MHz)
* Plane-wave equivalent power density
Based on the above, the most restrictive thresholds for exposures of unlimited duration to RF energy for several personal wireless services are summarized below:
Personal Wireless Service Approximate
Frequency
Occupational
MPE Public MPE
Microwave (Point-to-Point) 5,000 - 80,000 MHz 5.00 mW/cm2 1.00 mW/cm2 Broadband Radio (BRS) 2,600 MHz 5.00 mW/cm2 1.00 mW/cm2 Wireless Communication (WCS) 2,300 MHz 5.00 mW/cm2 1.00 mW/cm2 Advanced Wireless (AWS) 2,100 MHz 5.00 mW/cm2 1.00 mW/cm2 Personal Communication (PCS) 1,950 MHz 5.00 mW/cm2 1.00 mW/cm2 Cellular Telephone 870 MHz 2.90 mW/cm2 0.58 mW/cm2
Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) 855 MHz 2.85 mW/cm2 0.57 mW/cm2 Power Density (mW/cm2)
453
RF-EME Compliance Report USID No. 45594 Site No. CCL00763 EBI Project No. 007234 1241 West Leland Road, Pittsburg, California EBI Consulting 21 B Street Burlington, MA 01803 1.800.786.2346 5 Personal Wireless Service Approximate
Frequency
Occupational
MPE Public MPE
Long Term Evolution (LTE) 700 MHz 2.33 mW/cm2 0.47 mW/cm2 Most Restrictive Frequency Range 30-300 MHz 1.00 mW/cm2 0.20 mW/cm2 MPE limits are designed to provide a substantial margin of safety . 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.
Personal Communication (PCS) facilities used by AT&T in this area operate within a frequency range of 700
-1900 MHz. Facilities typically consist of: 1) electronic transceivers (the radios or cabinets) connected to wired telephone lines; and 2) antennas that send the wireless signals created by the transceivers to be received by individual subscriber units (PCS telephones). Transceivers are typically connected to antennas by coaxial cables.
Because of the short wavelength of PCS services, the antennas require line -of-site paths for good propagation, and are typically installed above ground level. Antennas are constructed to concentrate energy towards the horizon, with as little energy as possible scattered towards the ground or the sky.
This design, combined with the low power of PCS facilities, generally results in no possibility for exposure to approach Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) levels, with the exception of areas directly in front of the antennas.
2.0 AT&T RF EXPOSURE POLICY REQUIREMENTS
AT&T’s RF Exposure: Responsibilities, Procedures & Guidelines document , dated October 28, 2014, requires that:
1. All sites must be analyzed for RF exposure compliance;
2. All sites must have that analysis documented; and
3. All sites must have any necessary signage and barriers installed.
Pursuant to this guidance, worst -case predictive modeling was performed for the site. This modeling is described below in Section 3.0. Lastly, based on the modeling and survey data, EBI has prod uced a Compliance Plan for this site that outlines the recommended signage and barriers. The recommended Compliance Plan for this site is described in Section 4.0.
3.0 WORST-CASE PREDICTIVE MODELING
In accordance with AT&T’s RF Exposure policy, EBI performed theoretical modeling using RoofMaster™ software to estimate the worst- case power density at the site rooftop and ground -level and/or nearby rooftops resulting from operation of the antennas. RoofMaster ™ is a widely -used predictive modeling program that has been developed to predict RF power density values for rooftop and tower telecommunications sites produced by vertical collinear antennas that are typically used in the cellular, PCS, paging and other communications services. Using the computational methods set forth in Federal Communications (FCC) Office of Engineering & Technology (OET) Bulletin 65, “Evaluating Compliance with FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields” (OET- 65), RoofMaster™ calculates predicted power density in a scalable grid based on the contributions of all RF sources characterized in the study scenario. At each grid location, the cumulative power density is expressed as a percentage of the FCC limits. Manufacturer antenna pattern data is utilized in these calculations. RoofMaster ™ models consist of the Far Field model as specified in OET -65 and an implementation of the OET-65 Cylindrical Model (Sula9). The models utilize several operational specifications for different types of antennas to produce a plot of spatially -averaged power densities that can be expressed as a percentage of the applicable exposure limit. A statistical power factor may be applied to the antenna system based on guidance from the carrier and system manufacturers. 454
RF-EME Compliance Report USID No. 45594 Site No. CCL00763 EBI Project No. 007234 1241 West Leland Road, Pittsburg, California EBI Consulting 21 B Street Burlington, MA 01803 1.800.786.2346 6 For this report, EBI utilized antenna and power data provided by AT&T and compared the resultant worst- case MPE levels to the FCC’s occupational/controlled exposure limits outlined in OET Bulletin 65.
The assumptions used in the modeling are based upon information provided by AT&T and information gathered from other sources. There are no other wireless carriers with equipment installed at this site.
Based on worst-case predictive modeling, there are no modeled exposures on any accessible rooftop or ground walking/working surface related to ATT’s proposed antennas that exceed the FCC’s occupational and/or general public exposure limits at this site.
At the nearest walking/working surfaces to the AT&T antennas on the lower roof level , the maximum power density generated by the AT&T antennas is approximately 41.82 percent of the FCC’s general public limit (8.36 percent of the FCC’s occupational limit). The composite exposure level from all carriers on this site is approximately 41.82 percent of the FCC’s general public limit ( 8.36 percent of the FCC’s occupational limit) at the nearest walking/working surface to each antenna. Based on worst-case predictive modeling, there are no areas at ground/street level related to the proposed AT&T antennas that exceed the FCC’s occupational or general public exposure limits at this site. At ground/street level, the maximum power density generated by the antennas is approximately 25.44 percent of the FCC’s general public limit (5.088 percent of the FCC’s occupational limit).
A graphical representation of the RoofMaster™ modeling results is presented in Appendix B.
Microwave dish antennas are designed for point -to-point operations at the elevations of the installed equipment rather than ground-level coverage. Based on AT&T’s RF Exposure: Responsibilities, Procedures & Guidelines document, dated October 28, 2014, microwave antennas are considered compliant if they are higher than 20 feet above any accessible walking/working surface. There are no microwaves installed at this site.
455
RF-EME Compliance Report USID No. 45594 Site No. CCL00763 EBI Project No. 007234 1241 West Leland Road, Pittsburg, California EBI Consulting 21 B Street Burlington, MA 01803 1.800.786.2346 7
4.0 RECOMMENDED SIGNAGE/COMPLIANCE PLAN
Signs are the primary means for control of access to areas where RF exposure levels may potentially exceed the MPE. As presented in the AT&T guidance document, the signs must:
Be posted at a conspicuous point;
Be posted at the appropriate locations;
Be readily visible; and
Make the reader aware of the potential risks prior to entering the affected area.
The table below presents the signs that may be used for AT&T installations.
CRAN / HETNET Small Cell Decals / Signs Alerting Signs
NOTICE
DECAL
TRILINGUAL
NOTICE NOTICE 2
NOTICE
SIGN
CAUTION 2 –
ROOFTOP
CAUTION 2A
CAUTION
DECAL
CAUTION 2B -
TOWER
CAUTION 2C -
PARAPETS
CAUTION
SIGN
WARNING 1B
WARNING 2A
456
RF-EME Compliance Report USID No. 45594 Site No. CCL00763 EBI Project No. 007234 1241 West Leland Road, Pittsburg, California EBI Consulting 21 B Street Burlington, MA 01803 1.800.786.2346 8 Based upon protocols presented in AT&T’s RF Exposure: Responsibilities, Procedures & Guidelines document, dated October 28, 2014, and additional guidance provided by AT&T, the following signage is recommended on the site:
Yellow CAUTION 2B sign posted at the base of the monotree near the climbing ladder.
No barriers are required for this site. The signage is graphically represented in the Signage Plan presented in Appendix B.
5.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
EBI has prepared this Radiofrequency Emissions Compliance Report for the proposed AT&T telecommunications equipment at the site located at 1241 West Leland Road in Pittsburg, California.
EBI has conducted theoretical modeling to estimate the worst- case power density from AT&T antennas to document potential MPE levels at this location and ensure that site control measures are adequate to meet FCC and OSHA requirements, as well as AT&T’s corporate RF safety policies. As presented in the preceding sections, based on worst -case predictive modeling, there are no modeled exposures on any accessible rooftop or ground walking/working surface related to ATT’s proposed antennas that exceed the FCC’s occupational and/or general public exposure limits at this site.
To reduce the risk of exposure and/or injury, EBI recommends that access to the monotree or areas associated with the active antenna installation be restricted and secured where possible. Signage is recommended at the site as presented in Section 4.0 and Appendix B . Posting of the signage brings the site into compliance with FCC rules and regulations and AT&T’s corporate RF safety policies.
All workers and individuals accessing the monotree or persons (including arborists), accessing elevated structures or trees within areas exceeding the general public MPE, must be made aware of the presence and locations of antennas and their associated fields, where applicable.
6.0 LIMITATIONS
This report was prepared for the use of AT&T Mobility, LLC to meet requirements outlined in AT&T’s corporate RF safety guidelines. It was performed in accordance with generally accepted practices of other consultants undertaking similar studies at the same time and in the same locale under like circumstances.
The conclusions provided by EBI and its partners are based solely on information supplied by AT&T, including modeling instructions, inputs, parameters and methods. Calculations, data, and modeling methodologies for C Band equipment Include a statistical factor reducing the power to 32% of maximum theoretical power to account for spatial distribution of users, network utilization, time division duplexing, and scheduling time. AT&T recommends the use of this factor based on a combination of guidance from its antenna system manufacturers, supporting international industry standards, industry publications, and its extensive experience. The observations in this report are valid on the date of the investigation. Any additional information that becomes available concerning the site should be provided to EBI so that our conclusions may be revised and modified, if necessary. This report has been prepared in accordance with Standard Conditions for Engagement and authorized proposal, both of which are integral parts of this report. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. 457
RF-EME Compliance Report USID No. 45594 Site No. CCL00763 EBI Project No. 007234 1241 West Leland Road, Pittsburg, California EBI Consulting 21 B Street Burlington, MA 01803 1.800.786.2346 9
Appendix A
Personnel Certifications
458
RF-EME Compliance Report USID No. 45594 Site No. CCL00763 EBI Project No. 007234 1241 West Leland Road, Pittsburg, California EBI Consulting 21 B Street Burlington, MA 01803 1.800.786.2346 10 Preparer Certification
I, Rebecca Sinisgalli, state that:
I am an employee of EnviroBusiness Inc. (d/b/a EBI Consulting), which provides RF-EME safety and compliance services to the wireless communications industry. I have successfully completed RF-EME safety training, and I am aware of the potential hazards from RF-EME and would be classified “occupational” under the FCC regulations. I am fully aware of and familiar with the Rules and Regulations of both the Federal Communications Commissions (FCC) and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) with regard to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Radiation.
I have been trained in on the procedures outlined in AT&T’s RF Exposure: Responsibilities, Procedures & Guidelines document (dated October 28, 2014) and on RF -EME modeling using RoofMaster™ modeling software.
I have reviewed the data provided by the client and incorporated it into this Site Compliance Report such that the information contained in this report is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge.
459
RF-EME Compliance Report USID No. 45594 Site No. CCL00763 EBI Project No. 007234 1241 West Leland Road, Pittsburg, California EBI Consulting 21 B Street Burlington, MA 01803 1.800.786.2346 11
Reviewed and Approved by:
Michael McGuire
Electrical Engineer
[email protected]
Note that EBI’s scope of work is limited to an evaluation of the Radio Frequency – Electromagnetic Energy (RF-EME) field generated by the antennas and broadcast equipment noted in this report. The engineering and design of the building and related structures, as well as the impact of the antennas and broadcast equipment on the structural integrity of the building, are specifically excluded from EBI’s scope of work.
sealed 03feb2025
460
RF-EME Compliance Report USID No. 45594 Site No. CCL00763 EBI Project No. 007234 1241 West Leland Road, Pittsburg, California EBI Consulting 21 B Street Burlington, MA 01803 1.800.786.2346 12
Appendix B
Compliance/Signage Plan and Elevation View
461
RF-EME Compliance Report USID No. 45594 Site No. CCL00763 EBI Project No. 007234 1241 West Leland Road, Pittsburg, California EBI Consulting 21 B Street Burlington, MA 01803 1.800.786.2346 13
Nearest Walking Surface Simulation
Existing Sign
Proposed Sign
Installed Sign
Proposed CAUTION
2B Sign at Base of
Monotree
462
RF-EME Compliance Report USID No. 45594 Site No. CCL00763 EBI Project No. 007234 1241 West Leland Road, Pittsburg, California EBI Consulting 21 B Street Burlington, MA 01803 1.800.786.2346 14 Elevation View
92’
42’
Water Tank = 8’
463
VARIANCE FINDINGS FOR WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITIES - HEIGHT PER SECTION 18.16.050 SPECIFIC FINDINGS NECESSARY FOR VARIANCE AT&T PROJECT ID: CCL00763
AT&T PROJECT NAME: HWY 4 - BAILEY
AUTHORIZED AGENT:
51 WIRELESS GROUP, LLC.
ZONING MANAGER:
Jared Kearsley; 209-968-4315; [email protected] PROPERTY OWNER: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA WATER COMPANY
APN: 094-030-004
ADDRESS: 1241 WEST LELAND ROAD, PITTSBURG, CA 94565
• AT&T’s Modification of a Wireless Telecommunications Facility Objectives • Variance Findings
464
AT&T’s Modification to their Wireless Telecommunications Facility Objectives:
AT&T is proposing to modify their Wireless Telecommunication Facility (WTF) in the City of Pittsburg’s (City) jurisdiction located on APN 094-030-004 (Subject Property). The purpose of the site modification is to upgrade the antennae equipment to the latest technology to provide their customers with more reliable wireless telecommunications services with technology that is capable of handling more user capacity than the current technology.
AT&T
’s WTF at the Subject Property consists of the following equipment:
• Twelve (12) Antennas and associated antennae equipment located in three (3) separate locations (Sectors) on the property around a water tank. The twelve antennas are installed on twelve (12) separate poles standing approximately thirteen (13) feet tall. • Equipment Cabinets and associated ground equipment located on a 6’x12’ concrete slab. • Generator located on a 9’-2”x12’ concrete slab.
AT&T originally proposed to upgrade the antennas on the same 13’ tall poles, however, the EME report exceeded the FCC EME limits at ground level around each Sector. Then, AT&T looked into increasing the twelve poles to 22’-1”, however, the poles failed structurally.
Because of the structural capacity issues and EME exceedance issues of the twelve poles, AT&T is proposing a 40’ tall Mono-Eucalyptus faux tree pole which yields a 35-foot Antennae Centerline for each of the twelve antennas. With a 35-foot Antenna Centerline the EME report passes the FCC EME limits at ground level, water tank level, and at any adjacent structures/dwellings.
The 40’ tall faux tree pole requires a variance to the height ordinance per the City’s Municipal Code.
With that said, p er the City’s Municipal Code, section 18.16.050, specific findings are required for a variance request, as described below:
A. Because of special circumstances concerning the subject property including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the zoning regulations deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and in the same land use district;
B. The variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege which is not generally available to other property in the vicinity and in the same land use district; and
C. The variance substantially complies with the intent and purpose of the land use district to which the property is classified.
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
465
Below are the Findings for each of the above listed requirements:
A. Because of special circumstances concerning the subject property including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the zoning regulations deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and in the same land use district:
The Subject Property is located on a small hill elevated above all surrounding properties. The Subject Property is vacant land and consists of a water tank as the means to supply water to the surrounding properties/community. If AT&T is unable to upgrade their antennae equipment to current technology, the surrounding properties will be deprived of optimal wireless telecommunications services. The Subject Property and the WTF are providing much demanded wireless telecommunications services to other properties in the vicinity and in the same land use district. No other surrounding property is a viable location for a WTF as the terrain slopes downward in all directions, and, all surrounding properties comprise of single family residential units. Lastly, provided that the 40’ faux tree pole will not exceed FCC EME limits, it will not prevent surrounding properties from their privileges or enjoying their properties.
B. The variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege which is not generally available to other property in the vicinity and in the same land use district:
A height variance is available to any surrounding property as long as all three Findings can be found . If a WTF was located on another property in the vicinity and in the same land use district, a height variance would be available to said property.
C. The variance substantially complies with the intent and purpose of the land use district to which the property is classified:
The requested height variance substantially complies with the intent and purpose of the land use district, RS-6, Single Family Residential. Wireless Telecommunications Facilities are an allowed use subject to a Conditional Use Permit. Wireless Telecommunications Facilities provide s vital wireless telecommunications services to the public and first responders. Lastly, the W TF is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Federal Communications Act of 1996. The proposed W TF has been designed in the least intrusive means (camouflaged pole) while continuing to fill a significant gap in AT&T’s coverage area and not exceeding FCC EME limits.
Jared Kearsley
51 Wireless, LLC.
4930 Pacific Street
Rocklin, CA 95677
209-968-4315
[email protected]
466
467
468
469
470
65 Civic Avenue
Pittsburg, CA 94565
P: (925) 252-6900
F: (925) 252-4814
pittsburgca.gov
Community and Economic Development Department – Planning Division
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the CITY COUNCIL of the City of Pittsburg will conduct a public h
earing on:
DATE:
TIME:
PLACE:
February 18, 2025
7:00 p.m.
City Council Chamber at City Hall
65 Civic Avenue, Pittsburg, California
Concerning the following matter:
Project Description: This is a public hearing of an appeal of the Planning Commission's Determination to approve an application filed by Jared Kearsley of 51 Wireless, that request ed Design Review approval for installation of a new, 40-foot-tall ‘Mono-E ucalyptus’ Telecommunications Facility on an existing AT&T Unmanned Telecommunication Facility (facility expansion) located on APN:
094
-030-004 along Delta Vista Lane, Pittsburg, CA 94565. A request for approval a Variance applicati on was included in the proposed project, which requested to exceed the maximum allowable height in the RS-6 Zoning District from 28’ to 40’. The sit e is located within the ‘Single-Family Residential, 6,000 Square-Foot Minimum Lot Size” (RS-6) Zoning District and has a General Plan land use designation of ‘Low Density Residential.’ Assessor’s Parcel No. 094-030 -004.
Environmental Determination
The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15332.
PROJECT
PLANNER: Kelsey Gunter, (925) 252-4824 or [email protected] Why
am I receiving this notice? Where can I get more information about this project? You are receiving this notice because you have either previously requested notifications from the Planning Division, or a project has been proposed in your neighborhood and all property owners within a minimum 300-foot radius of the project site are required to be notified under the Pittsburg Municipal Code. The complete file for this project is available for public inspection; please contact the project planner listed above to make
necessary arrangements.
Where
can I get more information about this project? What can I do if I have comments on the project?
The complete file for this project is available for public inspection; please contact the project planner listed abov
e to make necessary arrangements. Any persons requiring additional accommodation to review this notice, including visually impaired persons, may contact the Planning Main Line at (925) 252-4 920.
Comments or objections to the project can be made by writing or through e-m ailed testimony prior to the meeting or provided orally during the meeting. Written comments citing the project name may be emailed t
o the project planner listed above or may be mailed or delivered to Pittsburg Planning Division, 65 Civic Avenue, Pittsburg, CA 94565. Pursuant to Section 65009 of the California Government Code, if you challenge this
matter in court, you may be limited to those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence on the matter delivered to this agency at, or prior
to the public hearing. Any written correspondence delivered to the Planning Division before the hearing body’s action on the matter will become a part of the administrative record. _______________________________
JOHN FUNDERBURG
Assistant Director of Community and
Economic Development
471
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
City of Pittsburg
Community and Economic
Development Department - Planning
Division
65 Civic Avenue
Pittsburg, CA 94565
472